|
Laws are for serfs to obey, not royal government rulers!!!
Oakland City Council members' actions face audit Matthai Kuruvila,Demian Bulwa Thursday, March 29, 2012 Oakland City Auditor Courtney Ruby said Wednesday that she has launched an audit into how often City Council members violate Oakland's Charter by directly ordering around city staffers. Ruby announced her review a week after City Attorney Barbara Parker sent out a citywide memo warning that council members who interfere directly in city affairs by trying to influence or coerce staffers face a potential misdemeanor punishable by removal from office. If the audit turns up suspected criminal conduct, the findings could be forwarded to Alameda County District Attorney Nancy O'Malley, Ruby's office said. The actions by Ruby and Parker come on the heels of a Feb. 24 report by City Administrator Deanna Santana that raised questions about an after-school program for teens in East Oakland that was created and developed by Councilwoman Desley Brooks, who staffed the center with her own office aides. Many Bay Area cities have similar laws prohibiting council interference in administrative affairs. Oakland's law states that council members can only contact administrative staff to make inquiries, with all other communications going through the city administrator or the mayor. Extent of the problem In an interview, Ruby said her audit "is not an investigation of any one incident of council interference. It is, however, a tool to determine the extent of violations ... and offer possible remedies." She said she was compelled to do an audit because city employees have consistently raised concerns about council interference, and her office has received complaints about the issue via its fraud, waste and abuse hotline. Ruby also cited a recent council discussion about the teen center as one of the reasons she decided to do an audit. She said she was troubled by a comment Councilman Ignacio De La Fuente made at the March 6 meeting, during which the council decided not to hire an outside auditor to review the teen center. De La Fuente had said, "All of us council members at one time or another try to tell staff what to do." The comment, Ruby said, "smacks in the face of the Charter." Her probe will look at council actions from July 2009 through this coming June, encompassing three fiscal years. "This has been a long time coming," Ruby said. The issue of noninterference "strikes at the heart of democracy and impacts the level of integrity in government we provide the citizens of Oakland." Potential conflict The strict positions taken by Ruby and Parker, though, set up a potential conflict at the top levels of Oakland government, with officials taking different positions on what is allowable under the Charter. De La Fuente on Wednesday listed an array of projects in which he said he had directed staff, saying council pressure can be important, particularly when the city's administration fails to abide by the council's legislative direction. "City Council staff and City Council members have become troubleshooters by need and necessity to make sure things happen," he said. At a Tuesday meeting of the council's public works committee, Council President Larry Reid asked staff members if they would install signs about illegal dumping on a particular street in his East Oakland district. Reid said he calls city staff on issues like illegal dumping at least 10 times a week. "If that's a violation, nothing gets done," Reid said. "Can you imagine having to go through the city administrator's office for every single illegal dumping call?" Taking care of problems, he said, "is what my constituents expect." Brooks did not return calls on Wednesday. Larry Rosenthal, a professor at UC Berkeley's Goldman School of Public Policy, said the Charter provision seeks to guarantee a separation of powers, which has been a defining principle of U.S. civic governments going back to the nation's founding. Rosenthal said that simple communications, as in Reid reporting illegal dumping, is good and efficient government. But there are limits. Charter restrictions on noninterference "are not a muzzle," he said. "What it doesn't allow is coercion and the imposition of undue influence." Matthai Kuruvila and Demian Bulwa are San Francisco Chronicle staff writers. Twitter: @matthai, @demianbulwa. mkuruvila@sfchronicle.com, dbulwa@sfchronicle.com |