June 23, 2014

Via E-Mail


Oakland City Council
Public Safety Committee
Chair Person Noel Gallo
Council Members Dan Kalb,
Lynette Gibson-McElhaney,
Libby Schaaf


Re: Public Safety Ballot Measure
Draft Resolution Language,
June 24, 2014, Agenda Item 3


Dear Public Safety Committee Members:

Make Oakland Better Now! is a citizens advocacy group focused on improving public safety,
transparency, accountability and budget reform in the City of Oakland. We write today to
propose alternatives to staffs draft resolution language. Together with this letter, we are
providing you with two documents: a red-lined document showing changes we are proposing
to Part 1, Sections 1 through 4 of the staffs document, and a clean version of the same
document. This document, and our proposals, have been discussed extensively with
representatives of the City Administrators office, Department of Human Services and
Oakland Police Department command staff.

Our guiding principles, and key proposed changes, are as follows:

1. Baseline sworn personnel requirement (Part 1
1
, Section 3, subpart (C) (2) (a)-(c)): In
an environment where the Mayor, City Council and more than 75% of likely voters
believe we need more police officers, the sworn staffing component of the ballot
measure must be demonstrably, irrefutably real, and not illusory. Our proposal
assures voters that if they agree to renew their parcel tax obligation, their money will
buy them 50 more sworn police than the City could otherwise provide. And unlike
Measure Y, this measure will provide actual officers, not just budgeted FTEs. With
certain defined exceptions, our proposal prohibits collection of the taxes if the staffing
requirement is not met by July 1, 2016.

2. Limited, well-defined exemptions from the baseline requirement (Part 1, Section 3,
subpart (C) (2)(e)): We are mindful that a significant number of the Citys officers are

1
All of our proposed changes are to Part 1 of staffs proposal.


e-mail: Oaklanders@makeoaklandbetternow.org
web site: www.makeoaklandbetternow.org
blog: www.oaktalk.com

Oakland City Council
Public Safety Committee
June 23, 2014
Re: Public Safety Ballot Measure

Page 2


funded by grant funds outside the general purpose fund, and that there is no guaranty
that grant funding will continue. Furthermore, we well remember the Great
Recessions impact on the Citys budget, and we understand the concept of the
business cycle. However, staffs proposed answer to these issues limits the baseline
to GPF-funded staff, and allows an out from the baseline requirement if staff provides
a public report. This is an easy requirement and places no obligations on the City
Council if it chooses to collect the tax without meeting the police baseline.

Our proposal recognizes that there will always be competing priorities for City funds.
If grant funding vanishes, or the economy collapses, the City Council may choose to
resolve that competition in favor of a spending priority other than meeting the baseline
police staffing requirement. If it makes that choice and still wishes to collect the taxes,
our proposal requires Council to make a specific factual finding that despite the
reduction in staffing, it is still making the choice least harmful to public safety.

Finally in this regard, our proposal recognizes that the City may do everything right in
terms of recruiting, training and attrition reduction but still come up short for
unexpected and unpredictable reasons. Our proposal requires a realistic hiring plan
(Subpart (C)(2)(d)) and allows a limited, one-year only exception for such a
circumstance.

3. Emphasis on Operation Ceasefire: We have been repeatedly told that Operation
Ceasefire is Oaklands key strategy for reducing gun violence. Most persons involved
agree that case management and data analysis for Ceasefire are underfunded.
Program management is being funded by a grant that will soon expire. While we
understand the logic that specific programs and strategies should not be baked into
the ballot measure, we believe it is important that for the present, ballot measure
funds be available to ensure that this key strategy is fully funded. We have
addressed this at Section 3, subparts (C)(1)(e) and (C)(3)(a).

4. Upgrade qualifications and responsibilities of Public Safety and Services Violence
Prevention Commission: Our proposal increases the targeted number of commission
members with law enforcement or criminal justice backgrounds and provides for
members with professional experience in evaluation and research (Section 4,
subparts (A)(1) and (A)(3). It takes more steps to ensure interaction and collaboration
between Council, the Commission, police command staff and other departments and
commissions involved in the violence prevention effort. (Section 4, subparts (A)(4)
and (6)(a), (b),(e), (f) and (g). It beefs up the oversight requirements (Section 4,
subpart (B)(1). And it adds a conflict of interest provision similar to that applied to the
OFCY Oversight committee.

As the members of the Public Safety Committee surely understand, Oakland will need far
more than this ballot measure to address its ongoing public safety crisis. As we have
discussed with you, and with Council in the past, we continue to need a comprehensive
public safety plan, a resource allocation study and a solution to the intractable issue of court
Oakland City Council
Public Safety Committee
June 23, 2014
Re: Public Safety Ballot Measure

Page 3


supervision of the OPD. Budget challenges will likely continue to impact the citys public
safety effort for years to come.

But while this ballot measure cannot come close to solving all public safety problems, placing
our recommended measure on the ballot is one firm, committed step in the right direction. It
provides a baseline number of police officers without punishing the City for unforeseeable
economic hardships beyond the Citys control. It focuses programmatic expenditures on
Ceasefire and on other proven strategies, while requiring an increased emphasis on
accountability and metrics. It increases coordination among all elements in the City involved
in our public safety effort.

While we have had insufficient time to vet our proposal in the community (staffs proposal,
which we modified, was only released to the public on June 12) we are hopeful that this
proposal can obtain the support of neighborhood groups, nonprofit stakeholders, the
business community and police and fire representatives.

We look forward to engaging you on this at Tuesdays meeting.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Bruce Nye
Board Chair
Make Oakland Better Now!






Overview

You have recommended language from staff proposing a renewal of Measure Y. This
language includes a detailed staff report. In addition, since the proposed language
was released you have received at least three sets of proposed changes from three
different groups: OCO, Youth Alive and MOBN. These changes reflect the interests
and concerns of constituencies well beyond these three groups.

The following recommends the course you should chart with respect to these
proposed changes.

Big Picture

The best renewal measure will balance the interests of the many groups across
Oakland who have an interest in the way the City approaches public safety while at
the same time remaining simple, clear and honest for voters. It is in that spirit that
the following recommendations are made.

In addition, you need to FOCUS on this measure and what it means for Oakland
voters. It, not the myriad other distractions, is the single most important public
safety related issue you will face between now and the November, 2014 election.

Proposed Course of Action

Staff will need you to sift through the proposed language and revisions and provide
them with policy recommendations about what to bring back to the full council on
July 15. Put another way, as a committee, you need to make recommendations on
these proposed changes to staff with the request that they revise their proposed
language and bring back the revised language to your full council on its July 15
docket.

Recommended Edits

Make Oakland Better Now (MOBN)

MOBN presented redline edits to the ballot measure language. The following is a
recommendation on each general category. Again the process is to direct staff to
accomplish these edits in consultation with the community groups and present
the complete edited version to full city council in advance of its July 15 meeting.

- Accept strengthening Ceasefire language at 1(e).
- Discuss and accept some version (perhaps altered by dialogue at
the committee hearing) of minimum staffing (2(a)-(e)) and be
sure include the three safe harbor provisions at 2(e)i,ii and iii.

- Strike reference to operation ceasefire in 3(a). Instead
describe a strengthening of the program-side activities that
support ceasefire without naming ceasefire.

- Accept proposed changes to Oversight Commission with the
following exceptions:

o Part 6 (of redline) (b)eliminate the word collaborate. This
is an oversight commission, it should be overseeing, not
collaborating.
o Part 6 (of redline) (f) insert at least before every three
years.

Oakland Community Organizations (OCO)

OCO offered a one-page description of edits to the Oversight Commission. Their
write-up has four paragraphs which will be tracked in the following
recommendation:

- Paragraph 1: Accept and integrate additional language about the
kind of expertise the oversight commissioners must have. Stay at
a minimum of 9 members on the oversight commission (OCO
recommends 5-7). Do not accept proposed changes to the way
that members are appointed.
- Paragraph 2: Accept this language, with one caveat: the
commission shall work with the City through its RFP process to
select the third party evaluator for program only. The financial
audit shall remain the same (an audit is an audit)
- Paragraphs 3 and 4: At least every 36 months, not every 24
months. Otherwise accept this language but reconcile with
MOBN edits and with what is realistic for the City departments.

Youth Alive

Youth Alive offered two edits, but has withdrawn the first edit, so the following is
the recommendation on that sole edit.

- Suggested edit: strike 3(d) Coordination of public systems
(including law enforcement) and community based social service
through sharing of resources, joint training and multi-
disciplinary case reviews.


- Proposed Approach: Direct staff to evaluate the Youth Alive
change and revise the next version in a manner that reflects the
result of discussion with key stakeholders on this issue

Conclusion

Tonight the public safety committee has a chance to move an improved ballot
measure to the full city council on July 15. If navigated properly can allow for the
best edits from each groups while balancing public interests in a wise and
compelling way. This approach, along with a commitment to focusing on this
measure will take you one important step closer to renewal of these important
funds.

Talking Points for Press Encounters

Overview

While we do not yet have final language for a Measure Y renewal, it is important that
you and your colleagues begin to speak with a unified voice on this measure. To that
end, the follow are a few brief talking points to guide any encounters you may have
with press tonight or as this measure moves forward.

Again, these are points for press encounters. Because we ve not struck agreement
for all groups, we are not shopping press on this matter. These are merely points
you can use to stay on message with the rest of your council.

Talking Points

(1) We can win. This will take hard work and a clear and honest measure, but
polling suggests that a renewal of this measure is possible.

(2) This renewed measure will be honest and clear. Though it is not yet final
and we are still incorporating important feedback from many community
organizations, the measure will be more focused on reduction of violence,
particularly gun violence, and support for at risk youth and young adults.

(3) Fire: focused on staffing one or two engine companies to keep high levels of
emergency response

(4) Police: focused on staffing crime reduction teams and fully supporting the
PSO model, including staffing NCPC meetings, working the SERA process and
more. Again, this measure is committed to community policing and to
staffing the Ceasefire model.

(5) Programs: Focused on support for at risk youth and young adults. Current
programs have been able to reduce recidivism by 80% for the population
these programs actually touches. Programs will double down on what is
proven and works.

(6) We are making some changes to the measure in response to great issues
raised by community groups. We expect to review this stronger proposed
ballot resolution at our full council meeting on July 15.

Proposed Oversight Language for the 2014 Measure
Submitted by Oakland Community Organizations
J une 22, 2014


The City Administrator shall submit a slate of five (maybe up to 7, but not more than)
individuals to serve as members of the Measure XYZ Planning and Oversight
Commission to be approved by the City Council. The Commission shall be comprised
of individuals with expertise in criminal justice and public health research, and
evaluation; financial management and audits; and public policy analysis and
development.

The Commission shall shape and review annual and multiyear financial and program
audit reports and projections, measures of internal processes and external outcomes,
and other evaluation reports it shall require from each Department receiving funds. It
shall also select a third-party evaluator.

Every 24 months, The Planning and Oversight Commission shall meet with Department
Heads from departments receiving and/or administering Measure XYZ funds (Oakland
Police Chief, Oakland Fire Chief, Director of the Department of Human Services) to
receive a priority spending plan for funds received from the measure. The plan shall
include proposed expenditures, strategic rationales for those expenditures and
intended, measurable outcomes and metrics expected from those expenditures.
Department heads and the Commission shall have the opportunity to engage in critical
dialogue regarding proposed expenditures, strategies, and outcomes. Following this
dialogue The Commission shall report and make recommendations to the Mayor, City
Council, and Department Heads regarding any new practices, allocations, or regulations
to ensure compliance with the requirements and intent of this Measure. The City
Council must hear The Commissions report and recommendations prior to approving
any funding allocations (by April 1, approximately). Twice yearly, the Department
Heads and Commission will meet to receive and review actualized data from the
departments demonstrating progress towards the intended outcomes.

At the end of the 24 month period, the Department Heads and Commission will review
progress towards outcomes and other evaluation measures from the previous 24
months and detail plans for the expenditure of funds for the next 24 months or other
time period as requested by The Commission.
1
Proposed revisions to draft ballot initiative:

Revision 1 (from Page 4)

current language:
3. Community-focused Violence Prevention and Intervention Services and Strategies:
Invest in data-driven proven strategies such as:

revised language:
3. Community-focused Violence Prevention and Intervention Services and Strategies:
Invest in data-driven proven strategies such as:

Revision 2 (from Page 4)

current language:
(d) Coordination of public systems (including law enforcement) and community-based
social services through sharing of resources, joint trainings and multidisciplinary case
reviews.

revised language:
Either
Option 1) Strike all:
(d) Coordination of public systems (including law enforcement) and community-based
social services through sharing of resources, joint trainings and multidisciplinary case
reviews.

Or
Option 2) Change to:
(d) Shared Ccoordination of public systems (including law enforcement) and community-
based social services through sharing of resources, joint trainings and multidisciplinary
case reviews.
And, add under:
(Page 3)
1. Geographic Policing: hire, deploy and maintain police officers assigned to
specific geographic areas or neighborhoods, performing duties such as:

(e) Shared coordination of public systems (including law enforcement) and community-
based social services through sharing of resources, joint trainings and multidisciplinary
case reviews.