Need Not Apply
[January 8, 2009]

[I wish to apologize for any distraction this essay may present during the very critical times we are facing.  Mr. Wilson Riles, a person I respect with immense admiration, has issued the following email which has understandable concern to him.]

From: Wilson Riles
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 15:56:08 -0800 (PST)
To: Ron Oz<ronoz@ronoz.com>
Subject: Ignorance is not bliss...

My friend, Ron Oz
 
I heard a very disturbing statement about you. It was from a very reliable source. I do not want to accept it as truth without your commenting on it. I would not want it to go any further if it is not true. I hope that you might be willing to respond "publicly."
 
I was told that you had threatened to continue criticizing the management policies of the Police Department if you were not given a paid position with the Department. It is hard for me to believe that your criticisms of the top management is intended to finagle a job!
 
Could you please respond.
 
Wilson Riles

***

“I wanted the job, but I also wanted it to be meaningful, truthful, and transparent.”  Essay, A Visit to the Back Room; [May 20, 2008]; referring to Public Safety Director appointment.

Dearest Mr. Wilson Riles,

Short Version:  It’s not true.  I only want to help.

Long Version:  I appreciate your concern, and I regret the distraction for others of complying with your wish to answer the charge publicly.  I can assure you that my thoughts, motives, and actions in writing these essays are in no way connected with seeking financial or any other sort of gain.  I wish only to help, and there is no way Oakland can enhance its quality of life without grasping and effectualizing public safety.  I happen to be in a very unique set of circumstances that compels speaking out.  I do wish I could be more in the loop to actually help shape Oakland’s progress, and I make no apologies for that.            

            That my essays may seem provocative to some, I hope is balanced by other positive reactions.  My motives in writing them are to encourage the acknowledgement of reality, such that if we can just step out from the dark cave of status quo that only then can we offer solutions to defeat the beasts of violence that have roamed our streets .  The essays written during this past year are a small representation of what I submitted previously, for at least two years, quietly and respectfully within the closed hierarchy of OPD and City Hall.  Going “public” this year is not a pleasant resort, but the inertia of status quo is held fast with inattention.

            Speaking out with optimism and positive construction, while running for office in 2006, I presented thoughts for Oakland in 28 full page ads in four newspapers. There should be no one, including me, who thought for a moment that I would even remotely have a chance before the very honorable Ronald Dellums. Yet, I relished experiencing the democratic process and immersing in the concerns of Oakland citizens. 

            I cite among character witnesses, Mayor Dellums, [then] Chief of Staff Dan Boggan, and Chief of Police Wayne Tucker. 

            Chief Tucker told me many times of his appreciation when I worked as OPD Ombudsman, engaged at the highest levels and throughout OPD, voluntarily without pay or expenses.  Mayor Dellums indicated his appreciation and respect that I accepted his offer to be Public Safety Director, again volunteering to do so without pay or expenses.  Chief of Staff Dan Boggan, in discussions personally and on the telephone, confirmed that I was committed to work full time without compensation of any sort. 

           When I ran for Mayor, it was part of my conversation with many people, including a well known and respected Oakland attorney whose counsel I sought to see if it was possible, that I could serve as Mayor without pay or expenses.  In written correspondence with certain Oakland principals, I indicated I would work in any capacity, specifically discussing several most senior staff positions, without compensation or expenses.

            I have nothing against being paid a good day’s wage for a good day’s work.  It’s just that neither I nor my family need the money, whereas there are many in Oakland who could use the money and the job that might thus be afforded.  To allay perhaps speculation that I will again seek public office, I can assure you I won’t.  I respect very much the work of our elected officials, but my inclination is to offer more direct contributions if possible.

            Further, I had offered to contribute a considerable sum in the establishment of a real community policing plan that would provide modular Mobile Police Stations [MPS] directly in 35 Beats around Oakland. 

            My conscience is satisfied about my private charity to others in need, but I feel I have much to give Oakland directly.  That leaves only my ego to attack, and I am quite comfortable to fit my ego within the space of a thimble. 

            Mr. Riles, I have often wondered what was said behind my back, but you are the first honorable person to give me a glimpse.  It is human nature, if unfair, to attack the messenger of discomfort to status quo.  Indeed, I have been somewhat of a megaphone for those who are dissatisfied with the way things are.  I’ve tried to make my essays credible and relevant, and although critical, I’ve offered solutions and remedies. 

            You mention that you heard the “disturbing” news from a “very reliable source.”  Perhaps that’s one of our problems… our reliable sources aren’t.

            Yes, I have been particularly critical of Chief of Police Wayne Tucker, not the person, but the performance.  I trust my many comments have been deliberate with facts, logic, and reasoning.  I have a long history as a builder, developer, financier, and investor, and these endeavors have been rewarding.  Yet, I miss the times I spent on OPD from 1965 to 1976.  During that time I had attained degrees in Mathematics [AA], Police Science [BS], and Public Administration [MPA].  I worked under the best thinkers and change agents at OPD.  I know the difference.  I have devoted the recent years observing our OPD apparatus, getting to know sworn and civilian personnel, and I know the frustration, dissent, demoralization, and de-motivation.

            I feel that the current Chief of Police has so fragmented the OPD, demoralized the employees, and dysfunctionalized the police mission, that his (lack of) performance in office has been singularly correlative with the greatest acceleration of violent crimes in Oakland’s history.  I’ve said this publicly in considerable detail, and stand ready to debate publicly, but I have no animosity for Wayne Tucker.  I have written to Chief Tucker and spoken to him as recently as the day Chief Davis came to speak at a De La Fuente Breakfast, offering conciliation and to renew my voluntary services to OPD.  Specifically, I outlined my offer to establish an OPD Office of Management and Budget to provide real and transparent information and recommendations, staffed by up to 40 people currently scattered ad hoc throughout OPD.  I promised that it would be set up within the current budget and that the results would save Oakland considerable monies while offering OPD measurable efficiencies.  I offered to do this quietly and behind the scenes.

            In our society it should be appropriate for anyone to make comment on public issues.  To slander the motives of anyone expressing an opinion is to white-wash what is being said.  The arena of debate is best served by honest discussion, and what I’ve said should be more important to debate than why I’ve said it.

            If anyone else should hear, in the silence of shadows, whispers that I have something devious in my background, nefarious in my intent, disreputable in my character, or self-serving in my motivation, please give me the opportunity to respond.  It would be a shame to see the example I wish to make deter others from contributing their time and efforts

ronoz