Oakland Misc.

[Mayor Dellums?]

Rumors of Dellums run create a stir

Brenda Payton
Inside Bay Area

FOR a topic that's on everyone's lips, there's been a curious
official silence following last week's Tribune story about some
Oakland politicos urging former U.S. Rep. Ron Dellums to run for
mayor.

The man himself has not returned several phone calls. And a source
close to Dellums left a message saying he didn't want to say anything
about the subject.

In the Byzantine world of politics, the story puts participants in an
uncomfortable spot. Some of the supporters of Donald White, Alameda
County treasurer and a mayoral candidate, have strongties to Dellums.
They don't want to appear to be less than committed to White;
however, they would surely back Dellums if he were to run. Until
Dellums makes a public statement, they are in a bit of a trick bag.

As for White, when the topic of a Dellums mayoral candidacy came up
at OCCUR's 50th anniversary dinner June 10, White told the crowd he
would defer if Dellums enters the race. (The crowd of about

1,000 began to chant 'Run Ron Run' after Geoffrey Pete suggested
Dellums run.) Dellums, also in attendance, seemed moved by the
response but said he loves his life and has realized there are many
ways to make a significant impact on the world without necessarily
being elected. The events at that dinner fueled speculation about a
Dellums candidacy.

The possibility presents a paradoxical challenge to City Council
President Ignacio De La Fuente, viewed as the front-runner among the
candidates. De La Fuente has won the endorsements of key political
figures and has raised the most money.

"Ron Dellums and John George (the late Alameda County supervisor)
were the first elected officials to endorse me when I ran the first
time," De La Fuente recalled. "He's (Dellums) one of my role models.
I consider him a friend. The guy was an incredible voice for
California when it came to the equal treatment of people. I respect
him a lot. He's an imposing figure. No question. So hopefully these
are just rumors."

But De La Fuente said he is taking the possibility in stride.

"If he does run, I will continue running. That's the way the cookie
crumbles. I'm in the race to the end, to win. I've been on the City
Council almost 13 years, and I am working hard to be elected the
first Latino mayor in the city. I've paid my dues and have a track
record. I'll just keep running as hard as I can. It's politics, you
never know what is going to happen."

A campaign pitting De La Fuente against Dellums could polarize city
voters along racial lines even though political observers don't think
either of them would exploit that issue. However, depending on how
voters view the match-up, it could be divisive. De La Fuente,
unpopular with many African Americans, would be expected to attract
Latino voters. Dellums enjoys hero status among African Americans.

Greg Hodge, a member of the Oakland school board and a declared
mayoral candidate, said he thinks the discussion has been good for
the race.

"It's a breath of fresh air. When he addressed the City Council about
the Wood Street project, he urged the members to develop a broad
vision about the benefits to the community and how it fits into the
whole of what they wanted for the city and the neighborhood. He was
talking about vision," Hodge said.

He also said he would defer to Dellums if he runs.

"It elevates the conversation beyond who can raise the most money,"
Hodge said.

In house meetings he has organized for his campaign, Hodge said
residents say they are tired of money determining elections.

Hodge said if Dellums does not run for mayor, he hopes the veteran
politician might play a role in building a progressive political
coalition and identifying an agenda for the city.

A couple of people who said they've talked to Dellums said they doubt
he is planning to run. He has expressed satisfaction with life
outside of public service.

"It's more like he is taking it as a gracious compliment from the
people of this community," said one. "He didn't even go as far as
saying he is thinking about it."

Without the word from Dellums, the discussion is purely speculative.
It's dicey to try to read the tea leaves, but it would seem that if
he had decided not to run, Dellums would have called back to put an
end to the rumors and speculation. On the other hand, it is
politics ...

Stay tuned.

***** Back to top

[City employees living high on our dime]

THE OTHER day, I had a chat in a restaurant with a woman who works for
the city of Oakland . She shared some information with me that made me
feel ill.

We taxpayers are basically footing the bill for a whole lot of perks for city employees
that most of us can't afford for ourselves, and all the while this city is in dire need of more money for basic services.

We pay plenty of taxes to this city for the privilege of living here,
and I found out that much of our taxes are being used by folks who are
driving around in expensive cars, have top of the line health and dental insurance,
and basically live a pretty high life -- all of which comes out of our pocketbook.

I have no problem with my taxes going toward anything that would help
the city, but I don't think we would have voted for taxes that are
simply used to upgrade the life of the legislatures.

No, I don't expect them to live in poverty, but I would like to see our
representatives spending more of our tax dollars on the betterment of
this city than on their personal enrichment.

Zoe Romanoff (Citizen Letter)

***** Back to top

[Slave Traders]

***** Back to top

[Dellums For Mayor]

I didnt think they could get a worse choice for mayor than  Moonbeam, but they're right on track w/dellums. U gotta LUV Jokeland politics.
Still no takers on my <60 187s for '05, wonder why ?
jim c

***

OAKLAND - It's the talk of the town. In the gym. Around the lake. Wherever political friends meet up.   A contingent of Oakland politicos has been trying to convince former U.S. Rep. Ron Dellums to throw his hat into the 2006 race for Oakland mayor.   "People are talking about it all over the city," said Lee Halterman, an Oakland attorney and longtime Dellums confidant.   Halterman said he had talked to Dellums about the idea in confidence, declining to give any hint of which way Dellums might be leaning.   Dellums, 69, did not return a call Tuesday afternoon.   Halterman said he has three thoughts about the idea.   "One, I think Ron would be a great mayor. There is no question about that. He would be inspirational and would get people excited," he said. "Two, the man has given his pound of flesh 100 times over for this community. He deserves the right not to have to strap on those responsibilities. If he chooses to do that, it just shows what a great man he is. Three, communities have a responsibility to generate new leadership and find people who they can support, not turn back to the people who have already given."   Halterman said that to attract young people into politics, leaders need to be closer in age to their generation.   Does that mean he advised Dellums against a campaign?   "I wouldn't infer anything about what counsel I gave him," Halterman said.   Declared mayoral candidates include City Council President Ignacio De La Fuente, Councilmember Nancy Nadel (Downtown-West Oakland) and Alameda County Treasurer/Tax Collector Donald White.   If Dellums were to run, it wouldn't be the first time a player on a larger political stage stepped back to run a city. Willie Brown served as mayor of San Francisco after being Assembly speaker in the California Legislature, and Oakland 's current mayor, Jerry Brown, previously served two terms as governor of California .   Since retiring from Congress in 1998, Dellums has led an effort to increase public and private resources in the fight against AIDS in Africa .   http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/localnews/ci_2816786

***** Back to top

Posted on Fri, May. 27, 2005 

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Egotistical politicians

I know that our politicians are adept at espousing how much they provide Oaklanders with service and are terrific people as well.

I hear their platitudinous monologues of ego aggrandizement and the blathering about their great deeds on various boards, commissions and volunteer organizations.

After all, if they did not have the ego-driven ability to exaggerate and embellish and the absence of conscience to do so with impunity how else would they presume so incorrectly that they are ualified to administer the financial affairs of our city?

I hear all this and am always dumbfounded.

If this is all there is, how god-awful bad are the future affairs of Oakland going to be? We already have the worst services imaginable provided by our municipality.

Are there others among us who are as acutely aware as I am that Oakland is run by certifiable incompetents?

And how much worse does it have to get before even the most somnambulant among us pays attention? To my mind, Oakland is delusional in its most elemental representation of itself to the world and bordering on the surreal in it's view of itself and it's place in the civilized world.

Oakland is run by complete charlatans who are running the city into the ground and seemingly no one cares.

Jonathan C. Breault
Oakland

***** Back to top

From: Jim Coleman <mztgringo@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: FW: [openline] Crime in Oakland
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 13:56:00 -0700 (PDT)

Re: closing of the OPD jail.

why would the city fathers want to close the only SAFE place in the city anyway ? jim C

***** Back to top

coppower@comcast.net wrote:

In response to this, things are only getting worse. The city manager is trying to close the city jail because of a budget problem. The city simply does not know how to manage money, plain and simple. Here is a letter from a concerned citizen regarding the possible jail closure:

CLOSING OAKLAND CITY JAIL=CRIME RISES

The Oakland city council will vote on June 17th on whether or not to close the city's detention facility in order to alleviate their "budget crisis." If this proposal passes the citizens of Oakland are getting a bad, unfair deal. What the city government fails to realize is that if this jail should close the crime problem would increase significantly.

Currently, police officers make arrests and take prisoners to the Oakland city jail., located in a central convenient location. Officers drop off their prisoners at the city jail and then are quickly back on the streets to serve and protect, as they are paid by our taxes to do. This process is efficient and frees the officers in a timely manner to return to their duties.

If the city government should get their way, police officers will have to drive out to the county detention facility, an approximate 30 minute drive time, wait in line with other police agencies who are also taking their prisoners to jail, and remain there until the inmate is fully processed into the jail, and then drive back to Oakland to resume their duties. This is a process that takes several hours to complete. Our police officers will be turned into errand boys and our tax dollars will be used to pay the sheriff's department $4.6 million dollars annually to take in arrests made by Oakland Police into their facility.

In addition to taking the criminals off of the streets in a timely manner, the Oakland city jail also generates income for Oakland . This jail contracts with and provides a needed service for other law enforcement agencies such as BART Police, East Bay Regional Parks Police, California Highway Patrol, US Marshall, US Postal Inspector, Oakland Housing Authority and numerous others. These agencies pay the city a fee to admit and house their prisoners. To close a jail that generates revenue for a city with a "budget crisis" makes no sense.

The citizens of Oakland voted in a recent local election for a bond measure to increase the police force in Oakland . It is well known that the city of Oakland has a higher crime rate than any other city in Northern California . We are plagued by drugs and violence, so it is not a surprise that the citizens would want more police protection. It is desperately needed. A bond measure means that we have agreed to use our tax dollars to pay for this well needed service. If the city jail should close then we are cheated-instead of increasing our police protection, it will decrease dramatically. We pay our police department to fight crime and keep our city safe. Whenever an arrest is made an officer is off of the streets taking a prisoner to jail. On average, 150 to 200 arrests are made a day by Oakland Police. Currently there are 4-5 beats unmanned every day in Oakland because there are simply not enough police officers to cover these areas. Overtime is always available and the beats are still not being filled. Many are "burned out" because of overtime. OPD is a "skeleton crew" police force and that truly is a crisis. This is dangerous for the police officers and the citizens. To take any more police officers off of the streets for any reason is a dangerous, scary proposition.

Do not be fooled by the Alameda County Sheriff's ploy to begin taking inmates into the North County jail. This has been tried recently on a test run and has failed miserably. North County jail simply does not have enough space to take on the added responsibility of Oakland 's criminals and they are set up for housing inmates long-term, not admitting pre-trial inmates. Sheriff Plummer is looking out for the Sheriffs Dept. , not the citizens of Oakland . Our tax dollars will be used to pay for North County and Santa Rita to take in Oakland Police's arrests. ( Most arrests will be taken to Santa Rita jail). These facilities are run by Alameda Co. So. who also has budget problems and will likely raise the fees for housing inmates even higher.

The citizens of Oakland deserve more. We need our police officers on the streets to serve and protect us as we pay them to do. We should not be a pawn in the game of politics played between our incompetent, mismanaged city government and Sherriff Plummer's own selfish agenda.

***** Back to top

>From: Jim Coleman <mztgringo@yahoo.com>
>To: coppower@comcast.net, openline@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: FW: [openline] Crime in Oakland
>Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 13:56:00 -0700 (PDT)

>Re: closing of the OPD jail.

>why would the city fathers want to close the only SAFE place in the city anyway ? jim C

***** Back to top

From: "Victor Sandoval" <victorsandoval1@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: [openline] Crime in Oakland
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 12:57:47 -0500

Ron, you're speaking in logical terms so that won't fly in Oakland City
Hall. If they have a former jailer as Chief Of Police they will listen to what ever Plummer, I mean Tucker has to say about it.

Vic Sandoval 7060

From: <mhanson118@aol.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 9:53 AM
Subject: Re: [openline] Crime in Oakland


I agree with Sam completely.  I would like to add to this and say that the City Jail also almost pays for itself.  I was Sergeant of the jail just a couple of years ago.  The jail had long term prisoners (INS and uncharged Federal prisoners).  The feds were paying a substantial amount per prisoner.

The City would make a big mistake closing the City Jail This statement is brought up almost every time they talk budget.  I would like to see a cost comparison with OPD units transporting to Santa Rita.  Also, like Sam said, Investigative units take for granted the ease of interviewing prisoners in our own jail.  It is a pain in the ___ and a lot of time driving to Santa Rita.

Having a prisoner transported to North County to interview takes too long to interview an uncharged prisoner and get your case  charged in time.  Also, the investigative leads that can be obtained from  jail interviews would be lost.

Ron Hanson

Sorry for rambling.  I did not enjoy my tenure in the jail but realize
the importance of it.

***** Back to top

From: Wes Horn <wwh112@email4us.net>
Subject: Re: [openline] The Oakland Jungle...They get what they ask for in Oakland .
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 09:43:08 -0700 (PDT)

OK, let me figure this out. 23 I.A. investigators, less than 1/2 a complaint per officer per year? So when O.P.D. is at full strength you're numbers are (supposed to be) 800 or so? 800 divided by 23 equals 35, but according to a recent posting it was less than 1/2 a complaint per officer per year so divide 35 again by 1/2 (representing the 1/2 a complaint per officer per year) and you have each I.A. investigator investigating about 17 complaints a year. Sounds like a pretty nice job to me compared to your homicide investigators who are working their asses off. My sense is that most citizens complain about rudeness and at my agency, Hayward P.D. the sergeants are responsible for investigating rudeness complaints. Our two I.A. investigators from the Office of Ethical Standards investigate the more serious allegations. H.P.D. has 200 sworn officers so that is one investigator for every 100 officers, unlike O.P.D. who has one I.A. investigator for every 35 officers. From my experience, most rudeness complaints can be adjusted by a phone call or face to face. So I'm curious, does the O.P.D. I.A. investigators handle rudeness complaints as well as the more serious allegations? I know I hate getting BS rudeness complaints, but I feel that it is my job to handle them at my level and to take advantage of the situation to make it a training issue. If O.P.D. adopted this protocol it seems that they could reduce the number of I.A. investigators. Maybe O.P.D. already does this and even if you do, 23 I.A. investigators just seems like overkill in the grand scheme of things.......Wes

***** Back to top

From: "Victor Sandoval" <victorsandoval1@comcast.net>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 13:39:07 -0500
Subject: Re: [openline] The Oakland Jungle...They get what they ask for in Oakland .

My cousin is a cop with LAPD and he was telling me that the new Chief will not allow his I A to investigate any complaints about rude behavior. The use of the term a__hole when dealing with a dirtbag has given the officers a whole new look on life in the streets of LA. But I understand the Chief has a large set of Cahones, he was the guy who cleaned up New York City .

Vic Sandoval 7060

***** Back to top

From: <flatfootinvestigations@nctac.com>
>Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 1:26 PM
Subject: Re: [openline] The Oakland Jungle...They get what they ask for in Oakland .

Does anyone blame the boys and girls in blue for being strictly reactive. With that many head hunters out to get them who would not stay on the low key. The city screws up by paying off turds, prosicutes four guys on a shit case, twice, then trys to fix things by investigating every nut that calls in a complaint about cops hiding in thier trees or what ever. I would love to see those complaints that were not investigated. I can hear them now, "The cop did not waive at me and I waived at him, I want to make a complaint" "The cops are out to get me because I am on parole, I want to make a complaint" " I called in a speeder in my neighborhood and no cop came out, I want to make a complaint".

Oakland , you get what you deserve.

John Larsen.

***** Back to top

From: "Ron Oz" RONOZAWAY@HOTMAIL.COM
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 09:18:12 -0700
Subject: [openline] The Oakland Jungle...

[An opinion in response to Souza's post below]

Oh my goodness... 775 complaints going back 2 1/2 years... that's what, less than half a complaint for each cop per year. How does this compare with complaints about other City employees, or Wall Mart employees? And what of the type of complaint? Rudeness? And what of the veracity of the complaint? All come from nuns and priests? Oh, how unfair to receive a citation... I think I'll complain.

Whadayathink? Is this a job for muckraking Upton Sinclair's The Oakland Jungle or Lewis Carroll's Adventures in Oakland , or even George Orwell's Oakland Animal Farm?

Can one imagine a hierarchy of imbeciles who feel that Oakland can be made safer by lowering the complaint rate while ignoring the crime rate?

Can anyone blame an OPD for avoiding contact lest he offend someone?

If each OPD issued one complaint each year about how they are treated by the administration of Oakland would the full force of Judicial Review be cursed upon them?

If each OPD issued a complaint about each person who spit on them, hit them, abused them, disrespected them, lied to them, perjured their testimony in court, conspired against them, made false accusations and presented false evidence, and even tried to kill them.... then how would those complaints be handled???

Or would the lesson be that with police work complaints go with the territory. That's fair, so try telling that to the malcontents who take advantage of the weenee wimps who invite their malapropisms.

ronoz

Disclaimer: This is merely an opinion expressed with full confidence in The First Amendment. It is not intended to defame or disrepute any person alive or fictional, and any such inference is purely coincidental.

***** Back to top

From: R Souza <Nodui@earthlink.net>
Subject: [openline] More Officers Working in IA
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 04:45:45 -0700

Oakland police have many watchdogs

- Phillip Matier, Andrew Ross

Monday, May 23, 2005

There have been 2,783 burglaries, 2,712 car thefts and 28 homicides so far this year in Oakland -- but when it comes to investigations, it turns out the biggest unit in the embattled Police Department is the one investigating the cops themselves.

"It's ironic, isn't it?" said acting Chief Wayne Tucker.

Indeed it is. There are 700 cops in the city. The homicide unit has 10 officers, burglary has 11, robbery 13 and sex crimes 22.

And internal affairs? Twenty-three full-time investigators and brass.

By comparison, San Francisco , with nearly triple the number of cops -- 2,152 -- has an internal affairs unit of only eight officers.

San Jose , with 1,369 officers, has an internal affairs unit of 10.

The reason behind Oakland 's big number can be summed up in one word -- "Riders." They're the four cops who were accused of falsifying police reports, planting evidence and beating suspects in West Oakland .

So far the case has resulted in two mistrials after juries either acquitted the cops involved or couldn't come to a verdict. But there also was a civil suit filed against the city by 119 people who said they had been victimized by the Riders.

As part of the settlement of that case, the city entered into a court- approved agreement to crack down on police misconduct -- and use all the police staffing it took to do it.

As a result, Oakland 's internal affairs unit swelled from six investigators to the current 23.

And every investigator investigating cop complaints means one less investigating robberies, burglaries and the like.

The city is also paying outside monitors $2 million a year to make sure that complaints against the cops are handled in a thorough and timely manner.

And while progress has been made, problems continue.

Last week, the outside monitor team reported at least 775 complaints of police misconduct had gone uninvestigated -- some of which dated as far back as January 2003.

So, even with the beef-up, "they're not doing a very good job," fumed City Council President Ignacio De La Fuente. "I've already given the chief a piece of my mind on this. Hopefully, something will be done."

With this many cops on the case -- one can only hope.

As a resident of Oakland , I read with some dismay that last weekend eight police beats went uncovered (Oct 12-14) due to a shortage of manpower.  This is in a city that can ill afford less olice
protection.  Oakland has the highest violent crime rate for a city over 250,000 west of Houston .

Yet we do not read about the mayor and other politicians being too concerned about rampant crime.  If news coverage is any indication, our mayor and other politicians are much more oncerned with subsidizing biased anti-police investigations.  The money spent could have saved a few police positions that have been recently eliminated.

Mayor Wilxson ran on a platform to increase police strength by over 100/Yet he has not only supported police cuts, he has been less than supportive of a truly fine police department.  Police orale, incentive and solidarity appear at an all time low.

Having been involved in the criminal justice system as a practioner and now professor since 1964.  I have had occaision to vist over 80 departments nationwide.  None are more professionally competent nor more open and honest with the public than the Oakland Police Department.

While realizing that the police are no panacea to high and rising crime, they give most citizens a certain degree of comfort and security that allows us to leave our homes and enjoy the fruits of a civilized society.  That is not always the case now.   Without police available to respond to citizens calls for assistance, what does a city administration expect a resident to do when victimized by predatory individuals.?

I would hope that in the future at least some of the rhetoric of the city officials and others would be directed against the criminal psychopaths who are driving our fine city towards anarchy and vigilante justice.

Thomas S. McNerney
Nov 1979 Oakland Tribune

(Some things don't change)

Back to Sidetopics