Action/Advocacy

League of Women Voters^®
of Oakland

Public Ethics Commission (4/17/09). Repeal of Measure OO (3-11-09). Oakland Boards and Commissions (2-19-09). Lobbyist Registration Act (1-5-09). Oak to Ninth EIR Comments (11/14/08). Oakland City Council - Campaign Finance (11-02-08). Finance and Management Records (10-12-08). Central Business District Rezoning (9-2-08). Oakland Records Managment (8-14-08). Kids First 2 alternative (7-15-08).

The League of Women Voters has two separate and distinct roles.

Voters Service/Citizen Education: we present unbiased nonpartisan information about elections, the voting process, and issues.

Action/Advocacy: we are also nonpartisan, but, after study, we use our positions to advocate for or against particular policies in the public interest. We never advocate for candidates.

This page is the Action/Advocacy role

Public Ethics Commission (4/17/09)

April 17, 2009

Oakland City Council Rules Committee
City Hall, 2nd Floor
One Frank Ogawa Plaza
Oakland, CA 94612
Re: Functions, Duties, Authority and Composition of the Public Ethics Commission

The League of Women Voters of Oakland is pleased to support the proposed changes to the Public Ethics Commission enabling ordinance. We have followed this ordinance as it has made its way through the Commission, and commented on it there. We are encouraged to see many of the changes that we suggested have been incorporated in the final ordinance. These points include retention of the three-year term for commissioners with the possibility of reappointment, jurisdiction over the Port and School Board, and restrictions on commissioner activities and financial interests.
The League approves the addition of authority to initiate investigations, audits, and public hearings; authority to determine the merit of complaints and reach a decision that is final and unappealable; and the emphasis on input from the public on governmental laws.
Areas where the League would like to have seen changes are:

The Commission should have authority to place proposed changes in ethics laws on the ballot

If the Commission retains authority to set City Council salaries, its decisions should be final and not reviewed by those affected, namely the City Council. In the long term a separate City Compensation Board or other mechanism should be established to adjust the salaries of all elected officials.

The Commission should have authority over joint powers agreements.

We would like to see the Commission and its Executive Director more clearly separated from the City Administration and City Attorney. It is hard to see how the Public Ethics Commission and its Executive Director can sit in judgment on the very offices to which it owes its power. There is a hint of conflict of interest on the part of legal advisors placed, as they are, between City agencies and the Ethics Commission. The issue of more independence for the Commission has to include an increased budget, especially for investigations. A two person staff cannot possibly implement needed reforms and conduct investigations in a timely way.
These proposed changes to Chapter 2.24 of Oakland Municipal Code are excellent. The League supports the amendments as set forth.
Sincerely,
Helen Hutchison
President, League of Women Voters of Oakland
cc: Dan Purnell
Elinor Buchen
Richard Cowen
Ray Leon
Lupe Schoenberger

Repeal of Measure OO and Potential Special Election

March 11, 2009
To: Oakland City Council
From: League of Women Voters of Oakland
Re: Repeal of Measure OO and potential Special Election

The League of Women Voters of Oakland supports the repeal of Measure OO. We opposed Measure OO, and for the same reasons that we opposed the original measure, we support the repeal of the measure. We believe that the measure is fiscally irresponsible, and that, while the programs are commendable, the City just can't afford to dedicate that much money on one area of need. The measure doubles the percent of city funds for one program, requiring that other city programs, such as, police, fire, parks and libraries be cut. The allocation becomes a permanent earmark in the city budget, with no provision for review or re-authorization.
While we support the repeal of Measure OO, it is not clear to us that this is an emergency that calls for a special election. We understand that there will be expenses incurred as Measure OO goes into effect, but the major expenses start in the third year, not the first year. It is not clear to us that this will be able to win voter approval in a special election this spring. We would suggest that perhaps waiting until the next regular election might be more prudent and more likely to gain voter approval. There is a danger that by calling a special election so quickly after the state special election that the electorate will be both irritated and angered, resulting in an extremely low turnout, with only the special interests bothering to vote. We suggest that rather than calling a special election now, you put your energy into starting now for a very strong campaign for the spring 2010 election.

Oakland Boards and Commissions

Statement to the Rule Committee of the Oakland City Council
Feb. 19, 2009
The League of Women Voters of Oakland has long been concerned about the Oakland Boards and Commissions. We have studied the Boards and Commissions at various times, and followed the City Clerk's reports on vacancies on the Boards and Commissions. We have at times reminded both the Mayor and Council about making timely appointments to these bodies.
Given that you have asked for this report, it seems clear at this point that you are more than likely aware of the critical need for people to serve on the Oakland Boards and Commissions. It seems more a question about why we are having a problem finding people willing to serve. We have some recommendations: People serving on Boards and Commissions need to feel that their time is well spent + that their work will be productive. We recommend that you look at how you treat reports from advisory committees and how you use the advisory committees mandated by various laws. In the past, we have frequently seen high quality reports prepared by advisory committees that did not receive the attention that they deserved. The oversight committees mandated by the various laws must be given the full information that they need to do their work in a timely manner. Their charge from the public is to be oversight committees, and the public expects them to have the time to be able to do real probative questioning before reporting back to us. We suggest you look at the reasons why people are not willing to serve, and perhaps make some necessary improvements to the interaction between Council and Boards and Commissions. The League of Women Voters would then be willing to help with a publicity campaign to help recruit new members for the Boards and Commissions.

Lobbyist Registration Act

January 5, 2009
To: Members of Public Ethics Commission
From: League of Women Voters of Oakland Re: Lobbyist Registration Act
The League of Women Voters of Oakland has been involved with Oakland's Lobbyist Registration Act since its introduction by the Public Ethics Commission, two members of the League having served on the nine member task force charged with drafting it. We consulted with a number of the people who worked on that legislation in preparing our statement, as well as people who have followed the issue over the years since it was adopted.
The original 2000 ordinance submitted to the City Council had the following Findings and Declarations:
3.20.020 The Oakland City Council finds and declares each of the following:
The people of Oakland have the need and right to know the identity of lobbyists who attempt to influence the decisions of City Government and the means employed by them to advance their interests; and
Full disclosure of lobbying activities of such persons, their inducements, and the identity of their employers, will contribute to public confidence in the integrity of local government; and
Full disclosure is also necessary to ensure that City Officials are kept informed about the identity of persons whose interests the lobbyists represent and to ensure that City officials are not improperly influenced by such lobbyists.
3.20.30 Purpose of this Act The purpose of the Act is to maintain a fair and open decision-making process in City government and to ensure that the public and city officials have full knowledge of lobbying activities that have been brought to bear on any legislative on administrative action.
We hope this helps explain the original intent of the ordinance.
The danger comes when lobbying is done in secret + out of the public eye, accompanied by financial contributions or assistance to the person(s) lobbied and presents a request for individual or small group benefit which may harm or hurt the common good.
We believe that the most important issue to be considered in lobbyist registration is financial interest. If there is financial interest of any kind, whether direct or indirect, however slight, then the lobbyist should register and report all contacts with City officials and their staff. This should extend to nonprofit organizations and their employees. It is quite possible for nonprofit organizations to have financial interests in their lobbying efforts. It is also possible for the employee of the nonprofit organization to have financial interest in the lobbying, even if the organization itself might not.
We also suggest that the language of the ordinance be clarified to state clearly that officers and directors of any organization, whether salaried or not, are subject to the ordinance. The original intent of the legislation was to include all of these people.
We feel it is very important to make clear distinctions between the different types of nonprofit organizations. It is possible to use the federal definitions of the organizations. If you look at an organization's Form 990 statement, you can see what its charitable status is. If you look at its board of directors, you can see if it represents a cross section of the community or comes from just one group.
One more factor that might be considered for small community nonprofit groups such as the League of Women Voters, which don't have a financial interest, is the number of meetings that we hold with City officials each year. An example would be a parent group that organizes to lobby for better playground equipment for their local park. They would probably only meet with their Councilmember a few times, whereas established groups meet more regularly and frequently.
Finally, if it proves too difficult to write criteria to exclude some groups, we would be happy to be included. We would be willing to register and report as required.

Oak to Ninth EIR Comments (11/14/08)

I. Transportation, Circulation and Parking
A. General question: We note that the words "significant impact" and "unavoidable" are used repeatedly throughout this section. Would reducing the scale of the project, including reducing the number of units, avoid some or all of the impacts listed as "unavoidable" in this section?

B. In the subsection area, Intersection Impacts, it shows that the project will have a significant impact on area intersections at rush hour, particularly the evening rush hour. The number of intersections going to an `F' level LOS doubles (from 5 to 10) in the evening rush hour.
1. Where is the impact of the commuter and freight train traffic discussed and shown in these studies? Is the expected service increase of the Capitol Corridor trains outlined in the letter of October 24, 2005 accounted for? Where and how?

2. What impact do freight trains have on LOS? On intersections?

C. Choke Points: We see that great stress in given to the fact that the road in front of the project will be widened to 4 lanes, but given that the roads that feed in and out of the project are still two lanes, we have the following question:

How can doubling the lanes in front of the project help traffic flow when all the access routes in and out of the project are still 2 lanes: 5th Avenue, the newly retrofitted bridge over the estuary, all of the freeway access roads?

II. Noise
Where in the noise analysis is the noise from the trains taken into account? This includes both the horns and the noise made as the trains run along the tracks.

III. Police Services and Fire Protection/Emergency Medical Resource Services
1. How will emergency services access this site during peak traffic LOS at F and expected increased train traffic?

2. Will the City or developer provide a fire boat/EMS to access this area?

IV. Libraries
The EIR impact statement is "modified for clarity in response to the Court Order". It states "The proposed project, when combined with other closely related past, present and reasonably foreseeable future project development in the vicinity would result in a significant adverse cumulative public services and recreation impact." (emphasis added) It then goes on to conclude that "no new or physically altered facilities will be required...".

How does the second statement follow logically from the first? If there is a significant adverse impact, how can there be no new services or facilities required?

Oakland City Council - Campaign Finance (11-02-08)

November 2, 2008
Oakland City Council<br One Frank Ogawa Plaza, 2nd Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
Dear City Councilmembers:
The Oakland League of Women Voters is extremely concerned about the outright transfer of money from the Election Campaign Fund to the City General Fund. We understand that the City's current financial situation is critical, and, as such, every source of money must be used to help preserve the core City services.
However, we believe that the transfer of the money from the Election Campaign Fund should be done as a loan to the General Fund and repaid when the City is returned to a better financial standing. The money that is currently in the Election Campaign Fund has been set aside for campaign funding. We anticipate that with Instant Runoff Voting in effect for the next local election cycle, there will be increased interest in running, and, therefore, increased need for the funds provided from the Election Campaign Fund. This very small amount of money is one of the things that helps keep the political system alive in Oakland.
Please make this transfer a loan, and keep the Election Campaign Fund intact.
Sincerely,
Helen Hutchison
President, League of Women Voters of Oakland

City Council - Finance and Management Records (10-12-08)

October 12, 2008

Oakland City Council - Finance and Management Committee
One Frank Ogawa Plaza, 2nd Floor
Oakland, CA 94612

Dear City Councilmembers:
The Oakland League of Women Voters is pleased to support the Public Ethics Commission's proposal to incorporate a City-wide records management ordinance into the Sunshine Ordinance. We commend the Public Ethics Commission, especially their Sunshine Committee for their diligent and thorough work through the summer on this ordinance.

The past several years have proved that Oakland City government lacked the tools to ensure their records would be easy for City staff to use and available for citizen access. We especially applaud the following:
     - Inclusion of a definition of electronic records and adding provisions for their control;
     - Establishment of a Records Management Committee;
     - Recognition that historical records must be archived, including electronic records.

The League wants to draw particular attention to two sections:
     1) the section mandating that elected officials shall transfer all their records to the City Clerk upon the end of their term of office, and
     2) the section giving the Ethics Commission authority to investigate allegations of criminal conduct. Without the power to carry out the intention of the Ordinance, the City is no better off than before. We also feel strongly that this authority should be lodged in the Ethics Commission, independent of any political bias.

The League of Women Voters approves the Public Ethics Commission's efforts to ensure that Oakland citizens will be able to rely on the protection of the simple, but essential records that we generate.
Sincerely,
Helen Hutchison
President, League of Women Voters of Oakland

Central Business District Rezoning (9-2-08)

September 2, 2008
To: Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board
Zoning Update Committee of the Oakland Planning Commission
RE: Central Business District Rezoning

The League of Women Voters commends the Zoning Update Committee on its commitment to study this issue more carefully and in depth. The Central Business District is an area vital to the health and vitality of Oakland. It contains some of the Oakland's favorite amenities, its oldest housing, and its most interesting architecture. The character of the area needs to be preserved and enhanced rather than be seen as an opportunity for unfettered development.
We concur with the recommendations in the attached letter previously sent to you by East Bay Housing Organizations (EBHO). In particular we would emphasize the following:. Inclusionary zoning is critical to maintaining a decent stock of affordable housing which Oakland so badly needs. The CBD is too large for blanket zoning. Each block and neighborhood provides specific opportunities for growth, development or enhancement and should be zoned accordingly. Density is important near transit. Lake Merritt must be available to the maximum number of Oakland's residents, not walled off by high rise apartments surrounding it.
We encourage continued scrutiny of the area including demographics of who exactly lives in that area. What size families? What are their incomes? How large are their apartments? Are they rental or condominium? Are there boarding houses and/or SROs in the area? If a building were torn down rather than redeveloped, where would the people who live there now go? A large population stands to be affected by this rezoning. We urge you to move slowly and with consideration of all community needs and concerns.
Helen Hutchison
President
League of Women Voters of Oakland
cc: Members of the Planning Commission
Encl: copy of letter from East Bay Housing Organizations

Public Ethics Commission - City of Oakland Reconds Management (8-14-08)

August 14, 2008
Public Ethics Commission
One Frank Ogawa Plaza, 4th fl.
Oakland, CA 94612

Dear Commissioners:
The Oakland League of Women Voters is pleased to support your project to resurrect Ordinance No. 11370, City-wide Records Management Program. As soon as it was discovered that this 1991 ordinance had never been codified or indexed into the Municipal Code, it was obvious this should be corrected. Thank you, and thanks to the entire Public Ethics Commission for doing this job thoroughly and quickly.
The past several years have proved that Oakland City government lacked the tools to ensure their records would be easy for City staff to use and available for citizen access. We especially applaud the following:
- Inclusion of a definition of electronic records and adding provisions for their control;
- Appointment of a Records Manager;
- Establishment of a Records Management Committee;
- Recognition that historical records must be archived.
The League wants to draw particular attention to two sections: 1) the section mandating that elected officials shall transfer all their records to the City Clerk upon the end of their term of office, and 2) the section giving the Ethics Commission authority to investigate allegations of criminal conduct. Without the power to carry out the intention of the Ordinance, the City is no better off than before. We also feel strongly that this authority should be lodged in the Ethics Commission, independent of any political bias.
The League of Women Voters is pleased to express our approval of the Public Ethics Commission's efforts which will hopefully ensure that Oakland citizens now will be able to rely more confidently on professional protection of the simple, but essential records that we all generate as we live here.
Sincerely,
Helen Hutchison
President
cc: City Auditor Courtney Ruby, City Attorney John Russo

Kids First 2 alternative (7-15-08)

July 15, 2008
Oakland City Council
1 Frank Ogawa Plaza, 2nd Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
Dear Councilmembers,
The League of Women Voters urges you to support the measure to put an alternative to the Kids First 2 initiative on the November ballot. While we are not endorsing either of the two measures at this point, we feel that the alternative measure being proposed has some significant improvements compared with the original measure, and the voters should have the choice of the better measure.
In particular, the League feels that anytime there are earmarked funds, such as there are in either of these two measures, there should be provisions for mandatory review of the measure on a regular basis. Because circumstances change over time, this is seems like common sense, but was left out of the original measure.
We think that the other changes from the original measure + the use of only the unrestricted General Fund as the basis for the calculation, the longer time period to get to the full funding level, and the collaborative efforts with the existing City programs - are also all prudent changes. We hope that you will support adding this measure to the November ballot.
Sincerely,
Helen Hutchison

Comments, suggestions, questions? Contact our webmaster. Last revised: June 4, 2009 14:30 PDT.