How Jean Quan and CEDA teach (phony) democracy to us
Commentary by Charlie Pine
(Read the emails! Prepare yourselves for a tinpot dictator trying to take over District Four, a CEDA staff member whose writing is this close to incoherent, insane allegations made by a deputy city attorney, and for CHARLES PINE taking all of them on. Charlie, you are an OaklandNews hero. You go Charlie!!)
I am on the mailing list for Community Development Board, District 4. The package that arrived Sept. 13 was different from past ones: it had a cover letter from Councilmember Jean Quan. Her name was all over the papers, too. And a Sept. 22 meeting to elect new officers was set to be held in her district office on MacArthur Blvd.
Among the enclosed papers were Rules and Procedures, written in typical bylaws form. I read them. "Notice of the annual election meeting must be given in writing to all members at least 14 days before the date of the meeting." (Article VI, section 2b)
Whoa! The papers were mailed Sept. 12. That's 10 days, not 14. Call me a stickler, but I sensed that things were not right. On Sept. 12 I wrote email to several people at the Community and Economic Development Agency:
Community & Economic Development Agency: A meeting to elect a new Community Development Board for District 4 has been set for Sept. 22, 2003 at the district office of Ms. Jean Quan. 1) This meeting was not properly noticed. The bylaws require that two weeks notice in writing be given for the annual election meeting (Article VI, Section 2 (b)). However, the notice was filed with the City Clerk at 4:02 p.m., Sept. 11, 2003. My copy of the notice is postmarked Sept. 12 and was received Sept. 13. None of these dates is two weeks before the meeting date.
2) The meeting place is improper. The meetings have traditionally been held at a church hall, a meeting room of Patten College, or a similar public place. However, this election meeting is set for a councilperson's district office. Despite Ms. Quan's generosity, the site is not proper. There is a distinction to be maintained between public venues and the venue associated with a particular officeholder. Our nation's experience with the likes of Tammany Hall supports the need for such a distinction, especially in light of the contested election by which Ms. Quan took office.
Given these violations, the election meeting needs to be rescheduled and properly noticed.
Sincerely, Charles Pine
On Sept. 17 I received a reply from Michele Byrd at CEDA: Mr. Pine Please accept this as a response to your e-mail regarding the election of the Community Development Board for District 4. I spoke with our Deputy City Attorney and was informed the following:
1. There are no formal bylaws regarding the procedures for election of members of the Community Development Boards.
2. Proper notice for the election is 10 calendar days. As stated in your e-mail, the notice was filed with the City Clerk on September 11 and your notice was postmarked September 12. Based upon these dates, the meeting for the election met the parameters of the 10 calendar days and was therefore properly noticed.
3. In the past, meetings have been held at a church, meeting hall or other venue within the district, however if these facilities are not available for the date designated for the meeting, the meeting can be held at City Hall. City Hall is open to the public and fully accessible and is therefore a proper meeting place.
I hope the information above addresses all of your concerns. If you have further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact me.
Michele A. Byrd, Manager Community Development Block Grant Program Community Economic & Development Agency 250 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 5313 (510) 238-3716 (phone) (510) 238-3691
There are no bylaws? What the heck did CEDA and Quan stuff into the mailing?
Ms. Byrd also seemed to have a loose grasp on the details of CEDA activities, since the meeting was not set to be anywhere near City Hall. So I sent another email:
Dear Ms. Byrd:
Thank you for your response defending the scheduled election of the Community Development Board for District 4. I reply in the hope that a challenge after the election rendering it null and void can be avoided.
Your deputy city attorney asserts there are no formal bylaws. However, the very mailing that announced a Sept. 22, 2003 election contained a five-page "Rules and Procedures" for the Central Oakland Community Development Block Grant District, arranged by Articles in bylaw form. As I cited, that document specifies 14 days, not 10, for notice of the annual election meeting, in Article VI, Section 2(b). Either the deputy city attorney used the wrong document to obtain a rule of 10 calendar days (noting that your reply cites no documented rule) -- or the members were sent a false document governing the election. In either case, the notice for the election is clearly improper.
Regarding the meeting place, your argument that City Hall is proper is irrelevant, since the meeting is not at City Hall. It is scheduled to be held at Ms. Quan's district office at 4173 MacArthur Boulevard. This meeting place is improper for the reasons I originally gave.
If the election goes ahead despite improper notice, a challenge will render its results null and void. With all respect, if the legal research done so far by your deputy attorney is of typical quality, the challenge is certain to prevail. I pray that you resolve this matter at once rather than confront a post-meeting challenge.
Sincerely, Charles Pine
On Sept. 19 Ms. Byrd replied:
Mr. Pine, In response to your most recent e-mail regarding the Community Development District Board elections for District 4:
The mailing sent did contain a five-page "Rules and Procedures" for the Central Oakland Community Development Block Grant Board; however, it was sent as information same as the Roles and Responsibilities. The by-laws will become formal once the elected Board has had the opportunity to review and approve and it is approved by the City Manager. Also, even though the "Rules and Procedures" cite a 14-day notice for the election, the City is not mandated to this. The City is mandated to the Sunshine Ordinance, Chapter 2.20, Section C which cites that a 10-day notice be given when a meeting is being held in an alternative location.
I apologize for the mistake in saying that the meeting is being held at City Hall when it actually being held at the Councilmember's District Office. However, as I previously stated, in the past, meetings were held at a church, meeting hall or other venue within the district, however any site can be used hold a meeting for the elections. In this case, the district office of the Councilmember has been designated as the site for the elections this year. As long as the site is open to the public and fully accessible it is a proper meeting place and there is nothing to preclude the elections from taking place there.
If you have further questions, please feel free to contact me.
Michele A. Byrd, Manager Community Development Block Grant Program Community Economic & Development Agency 250 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 5313 (510) 238-3716 (phone) (510) 238-3691
Ms. Byrd, dropping all mention of an alleged deputy city attorney, says, hey, we tossed in those bylaws for fun, they don't mean a thing, though maybe later the city manager will approve this sandbox democracy. She's rather clumsy about it, comparing the bylaws with the sheet in the envelope on the Roles and Responsibilities of CDB members. Are those meaningless, too? Can I run for office but ignore the requirements? Hardly. But the City, rushing the meeting at Quan's insistence, can ignore the bylaws.
On Sept. 19, the Friday before the illegal Monday election meeting, I replied:
Dear Ms. Byrd:
Thank you for your second response.
Please note that the five-page Rules and Procedures were not labeled as not in force now, as only a proposal or whatever. Every recipient could only take the material in the envelope as information about the election. The same dilemma stands: either the Rules and Procedures apply, in which case proper notice of the election was not given -- or the Rules and Procedures were falsely presented to the recipients as the rules for the election, in which case proper notice of the election procedure was not given.
As for the location, the considerations are a matter of judgment, and good judgment would not blur the line between public, impartial venues on one hand and assets under the control of one person (the councilmember) on the other hand.
You appear determined to go ahead on Sept. 22, electing officers illegally and dealing with the consequences later. This is regrettable for the City of Oakland.
Sincerely, Charles Pine
As I report this exchange to you, Sept. 22 has not arrived. I have to work that evening, so I won't be able to observe the farce.
I don't know whether Ms. Byrd is obstinate, lazy and contemptuous of citizens, or whether she simply acted according to the weight of Jean Quan's power on her back.
I am more active on the Allendale Neighborhood Crime Prevention Council than in the Community Development Board group. Jean Quan and her staff have moved into the NCPC, too, trying to dictate when, where and how often to hold meetings, despite our own bylaws. Next month we tangle with her on this subject -- forewarned by the display of her high-handedness in the CDB.
We are sorry abut the confusion regarding the meeting tonight, September 22. Frankly, our Office did what it could to make the meeting more open and inclusive. We expanded the mailing list and decided to use our District Office, since we thought it would be a little more friendly than the large hall that had been used in the past. We certainly did not mean to be controlling. As for the weight of our office affecting any misapplication of the by-laws, we must plead ignorance. We simply supplied information to the CDBG folks, who did the mailing according to their rules and procedures. We now know, according to the City Attorney, that CEDA acted entirely legally, since there is only a ten day notice for special CDBG meetings, "special" since a new venue was being used. In fact, were the meeting held in the same hall as was used last year, the notice requirement would be 72 hours. In addition, the so-called by-laws referred to by Mr. Pine (which call for two week notice)are at best advisory, because, again according to the City Attorney, when CDGB was reorganized a few years ago, the City Manager was given authority to promulagate by-laws, and apparently has not yet done so. Most importantly, I want to emphasize that our office learned all this today, having relied on the CDBG staff to (correctly) follow the rules and regulations. Sincerely, Richard Cowan, Chief of Staff, City Councilmember Jean Quan
Posted by: Richard Cowan on September 22, 2003 11:42 AMMr. Cowan's gracious tone aside, his comment does nothing to resolve the matter.
Mr. Cowan does not address the problem brought out in the original report: either the Rules and Procedures mailed to recipients are real (as to all appearances they are in the mailing), in which case the election meeting is illegal for lack of proper notice -- or the Rules and Procedures, although sent to recipients, do not govern the election, in which case the election is illegal for misinforming recipients as to procedures.
We can set aside Mr. Cowan's shifting of responsibility from Quan's office to CEDA or wherever. This is amusing but irrelevant.
As to location, it is a little late to say that a meeting in Quan's district office is "more friendly." As Ms. Quan's chief of staff, Mr. Cowan should be aware of the bubbling discontent over Ms. Quan's moves, small but incessant, to clamp her vise on all of public life in her district. This CDB flap is one more instance.
The bottom line: The only real solution is to cancel the election set for this evening (Sept. 22) and reschedule it with proper notice.
Charles Pine
P.S.: While I am at it, let me correct an error in the original post: I sent my first email on Sept. 13 not Sept. 12.
Since Nancy Nadel's "election" for CDBG members is to be held on September 27 in room 2 at Frank Ogawa Plaza, I feel inclined to write - and invite anyone who reads this to this public meeting. I was not given notice of this meeting even though I live in council district 3 - Vice Mayor Nadel's. A friend called me and told me about it - a week ago.
District 3 is facing additional abuses of democracy in that our neighborhood - the Central City Redevelopment district - has been allocated with over $50million in funds to be given to high-density, residential development in FY2003. Mayor Brown envisions turning our neighborhood, a comfortable historic community near Lake Merritt into a high-density, high-rise urban district. In order to facilitate this, he authored a few bills at the state level that target Oakland - and specifically our neighborhood. AB436 was written by Mr. Brown and then handed off to Wilma Chan to put forth at the State Legislature. It was passed as an urgency measure in 2002. AB1086 was authored by Jerry Brown and then passed off to Tom Calderon to be presented. Combined, these two laws prevent local opposition to high density development and curtail the argument for environmental clean-up on sites that were former gas stations. There are over 48 of these in the Central District and 34 are listed by the State Water Quality Control board as leaking underground storage sites. No environmental remediation is planned or required prior to building the housing proposed in this neighborhood. Because of the new laws, residents affected by the addition of 700-800 new units within a half-mile area are powerless to prevent the development.
TALK ABOUT UNDEMOCRATIC! We, in District 3, are furious.
If you can, please help pack the hall on the 27th - it seems that only numbers are capable of stopping this steamroller toward dictatorship in Oakland
Posted by: Anne Wellington on September 24, 2003 09:00 AMThanks for writing, Anne. Now I have heard of this type of abuse --council members trying to control the Community Development boards and the Neighborhood Service Coordinators -- in every district in the city.
Friends, this is terribly, terribly wrong. It gives your council member control over the funds that you, the people, are supposed to allocate to projects you think are the most needed in your community.
It also means that Neighborhood Service Coordinators can be used by council members to be
their errand boys, their lap dogs, and to help people who are in favor or to ignore people who are out of favor.
Consider the case of NSC Chuck Johnston. At the end
of the Summer council session in July, Chuck
recieved an award from Danny Wan. Know what it was for? For cleaning. For organizing trash
hauling parties so that Lake Shore and Grand Avenue
could have prettier freeway ramps.
God knows I despise the Symbol of Oakland -- trash --but is that what you really think is the highest and best use of an NSC? When his area contains so
many hot spots?
My equally favorite Chuck story is that Council president Ignacio (I hate democracy)de la Fuente won't meet monthly with his constituents. Instead he sends Libby Schaaf. This month Libby couldn't make "her" monthly meeting, and so got Chuck to hold it.
Apparently people in the district thought this was just fine by them. Friends, you are being hammered, you're being disenfranchised, you're being dissed all around. You shouldn't put up with anyone less than your council rep, and no one has any business
letting OPD staff (Chuck) take over council territory. This is like letting Donald Rumsfeld
say Easter Mass at the Vatican, if Pol Pot couldn't make it.
Oops - I had some of the information for the CDBG meeting wrong. I'm sorry. Here is the correct information:
Monday - September 29 at 6:00pm.
Hearing Room 3 at Frank Ogawa Plaza
Purpose of the meeting is to "elect" 11 community members to the council board of CDBG for Nancy Nadel's district 3 (West Oakland and the West side of Lake Merritt - Gold Coast)
Anne
Posted by: Anne Wellington on September 25, 2003 01:30 AMThe John Russo angle on this outrage:
Two days after the phony election in district four, a deputy city attorney sent me email repeating that "all the CD District By-laws were abolished" by the City Council, and "no new rules and procedures have been issued by the City Manager." Welcome to the sandbox, children.
I replied directly to John Russo, City Attorney: if the mailing contained inoperative (that is, phony) Rules and Procedures, "the recipients were misinformed about the election and much more. The Rules say that board and the various officers have certain powers and duties. The Rules allow for standing committees. The Rules specify election requirements. Voters and prospective candidates weighed all this information before deciding even whether to attend the election meeting. Official misinformation is improper notice, whether given 10, 14, or 20 days in advance. The remedy was to reschedule the election and give proper notice."
Russo replied that "the law is the law." He sees nothing illegal about certifying an election whose voters and prospective candidates were given official misinformation.
Yet Russo seems to realize that Jean Quan and CEDA engage in dirty business. He says, "As for CEDA, my concern about foolish mistakes such as [this] one ... is well known." Concerning manipulator-in-chief Jean Quan, I suggested, "Discontent over Ms. Quan's usurpations, of which this is only one example, is rising. [Your] association with Quan and the CEDA bureaucrats erodes your distinctive and favorable reputation." In reply, Russo pleads that "the City Attorney accepts policy direction from the City Council."
Unlike Quan, Russo seems to have a conscience. Still, he ducked.
Charles Pine
Dear Charlie,
I was searching for Allendale Recreation website, and came across this site.
What can comment do I have scanning the various statements has "I can't breath" and deep disappointment.
I admire your diplomacy, but praise the validity and accountability of this documentation.
Working as independent recording secretary for Fire District Prevention Board, in the Crow Canyon Fairview District, associated with Hayward City, Fire Department is . . .
Challenging
If this is any consolation, my transcription of FFPD Meeting Minutes; thorough recording has been scrutinized on one level only: It is too long.
It is difficult when social political partners are less than forth coming.
The correspondence and it content; A break in the storm so to speak.
Always,
Tina Siamiga
Final Comment: The info I have just scanned is a reality.
Are you a part of the problem or are you a part of the solution.
Turning the other eye, saying nothing
Have the courage to speak up and ask questions.
Posted by: Tina Garcia-Szeto on September 28, 2003 10:16 PM*This discussion has been closed. No more comments may be added.*