This is a good op/ed which follows on similarly troubling reports in OaklandNorth and the EastBay Express this week. People should be very, very afraid of Don Perata. He's basically the Devil, he knows it, we know it, and he doesnt care that we know it, because he's convinced there's nothing we can do about it.

Anyone with actual integrity would make a vow not to exceed the campaign spending limit,based on principle, and say, you know what? i'm going to run on merit and not try to buy an election like Meg Whitman. If the good people of Oakland truly want a mayor with my name recognition and baggage, well, here i am.

But Perata doesnt work that way. He practically defines the phrase "beholden to special interests." His arrogance when dismissing corruption allegations is palpable--he essentially blames it on Bush administration's anti-Democrat vendetta, but there were valid questions about the money trail leading to Lily Hu and the Don's son, plus a lot of other stuff we probably don't know about--and it seems not only likely, but probable that overspending the cap was his plan all along.

that's not a good sign for a city facing a $60m budget deficit. And anyone tied that close to prison guards and the police union probably isnt the best guy to exact concessions from the police union, retain libraries and community services, nor press for the level of police accountability we so desparately need in the wake of ongoing corruption at the OPD. In short, we need transparancy, not obfuscation, in a mayor.

Well, Eric, we agree. I'd love to hear what Perata has to see about this. Doesn't he have some sense of personal responsibility? Accountability?

It was a sad little meeting at Rules Committee today. Council Members Rebecca Kaplan and JeanQuan explained that there were a number of troubling issues concerning Perata's violations and asked both how can we fix this and where do we turn to next? The City Attorney when questioned about who ascertains that the limit has been broken and how do they check, basically shrugged and said, they don't know.

They left it that the candidate's "independent committee" makes their own determination and informs the candidate who then decides for himself whether he is permitted to go over. Between Jane Brunner and Ignacio de la Fuente, they decided that the Ethics Commission will do a subsequent investigation in due time and issue its findings.

Theoretically, then a candidate could find out after the fact that these expenditures did not qualify and be fined. So that is fair to no one. Now, I'm not saying that fairness has anything to do with Don Perata's sense of himself vs. everyone else, but...

So, of course, the other issue sitting out there is whether these expenditures should qualify as independent at all since Perata works for the organization making them.

Worse yet-

I have attended two mayoral forums in the last two nights (I know, yikes). One was for the West Oakland community. Nine candidates showed up and one did not (Perata did not). Tonight at the Metropolitan Greater Oakland Democratic Club, the oldest Dem club in Oakland, only 3 candidates showed up-Jean Quan, Rebecca Kaplan, and GReg Harland.

I don't know which is sadder, the fact that Perata thumbs his nose at our laws or that he thumbs his nose at our local organizations and neighborhoods. Guess it comes out to the same.

Concerns about the loopholes in campaign spending limits are justified but miss the biggest loophole of all:

"volunteer" labor provided by unions, developers,and vendors is completely exempt from all limits.

In the case of Quan, the support of the SEIU is easily worth over a hundred thousand bucks because of the competence of the SEIU political staff and the very large number of city SEIU members who have a huge stake in the outcome of this election.

As disgusting as the relationship between the Prison Guards and Perata, that's only money. The Prison Guards are not about to send "volunteers" door to door here, or staffing phone banks like the SEIU will.

Unlike the SEIU, the Prison Guards could care less who's mayor of Oakland.

Don't tell me that the cops OPOA is the real bogeyman here.

a. membership is what 700 and dropping daily compared to 2 to 3,000 for the local SEIU

b. Perata already blew them off by writing the rebuttal to Quan, DLFs, and Brunner's parcel tax proposal (the one Quan sponsored but didn't inhale).

c. Perata for better or worse, has earned many favors from being a professional pol over the years.  The positive side of that is that he can triangulate between his special interest groups, most of whom only care about state level legislation.

Quan on the other hand, is beholden entirely to the SEIU (and maybe the teacher's union). She has no room to tack between special interests supporting her.

It's gonna be darn hard for her to tell her sole major special interest after she gets elected that all the Oakland city employees have to give back massive reductions in their vested retirement benefits or the city will be forced to devote all of its revenue to paying retirement benefits in the years to come.

For the person who noted that  Perata played a major role in the state budget mess by approving big compensation increases over the years, I'd agree.  But, compare the total compensation that Quan, Brunner, DLF et al approved over the last decade and you'll find that Oakland muni employees are compensated like royalty compared to their state colleagues.

If we're going to make it easier for challengers to defeat professional politicians and incumbents, we need to expand the definition of financial support to include so called volunteer labor provided by employees of the City who do not live in Oakland, employees/principals of vendors who do business with the City, and employees/principals of developers here.

It  won't be easy to write and enforce such rules, but they are vital to ensuring true campaign finance reform here.

-len raphael

temescal

Thanks Len and Pamela. I find it amazing that nio one in the campaign feels the need to respond or address issue of integrity. I know we care--wouldn't we hold our Mayor to the standards we want to hold our family members in terms of fiscal honesty and integrity? Oh yeah, I forgot, we have a Mayor now who didn't pay his taxes.  SAD.

Susan, specifically which neighborhood groups were upset? With some exceptions, most Oakland neighborhood groups consist of a handful of active residents and a bunch of residents who put their names on a mailing list.

Since Kaplan and Quan want to eliminate loopholes in the campaign finance rules, the rules should also be changed to count  PayGo appropriations/payments made in the prior 12 months by incumbents.

One poster whose statement I have not verified stated today on abo re Quan:"

She also gave $25,000 of our Dist4 funds to an “artist” in Montclair to design and install five mosaic sidewalk tiles in the Diamond district. First check for $10,000 issued last month.

Doesn’t beat the $20,000 last year for bi-lingual online training for Cantonese speakers to learn CORE training.

Or, the $10,000 for the Men of Valor (church group) that also gets Measure Y funds and supports both new parcel taxes."

Then there's the perenial use of city funds for incumbent council members to tout their achievments and use of PayGo funds.

Legal yes, shady also a yes.

-len raphael

temescal

Thanks Susan for publishing the letter.  One thing I'm concerned about after reading this letter is how the rules address (or need to address) the fines and sanctions when rules are broken.  As you mentioned by the time all information is available and can be examined the offender (if elected) will already be in office. Oakland is not alone in their concern about the strength of campaign finance laws. The State of California has had the same issues.  

In 1998, after Don Perata was elected to state office, the California Fair Practices Commission found him guilty of breaking campaign finance laws and was fined.  However by the time the information was examined Don was already in office.  Perhaps we need to look at tougher fines and sanctions up to and including removing the elected leader from office if the rules broken are significant enough to question the leader's ability to manage and run a fair campaign and thus lead a City.

Len raises some excellent points about the use of volunteer labor and the value of that labor.  He also mentions some possible unethical spending (currently unverified) from Quan's campaign.  These are additional questions the Ethics Commission needs to look at as part of campaign finance reform.  

In the case of Don Perata there is on record a massive amount of spending from his Hope2010 Cancer Research Ballot Initiative that would suggest spending that has nothing to do with cancer research.  The spending appears to be influence peddling.  For instance it is on record that Hope2010 spent $110,000 to try and recall Jeff Denham, a U.S. Congressman in the 19th District.  The cancer research money, to the tune over over $2MM went to support 2006 statewide propositions for transportation, disaster preparedness, and emergency shelters (all of these propositions passed).  

There are even some expenditures that appear to be going to the not yet on the ballot initiative for term limits for Oakland elected leaders. Although from my research it appears the money was returned to Hope2010. Perhaps none of this is illegal but then again it may be. It certainly appears to be unethical and misleading to those who contributed to what they thought was a statewide ballot initiative for cancer research.

As I've been having this conversation far too much in the past week and will be so happy when it's over- this is being framed as a struggle between good and evil, when it's not.  It's not good or evil- it's politics.  I'm sure that doesn't sit well with a lot of folks, but for me, after the last four years, it comes down to effective or not.  Nobody is bigger than the system we create and if we believe such, then we've given up our power.

I love Oakland, but it needs so much and is so far behind in so many ways, that effectiveness, leadership, capability and assured action are high on my list this election season. Pining about Don Perata doesn't make the other candidates any more capable, effective or electable. 

I understand how you feel RB. I don't agree with you though.  I wouldn't frame it as good vs. evil but I would frame it as morally and ethically acceptable behavior vs. unethical and immoral behavior.  I believe there is still room for that debate in the pulbic discourse. 

For all the Don Perata supporters I've heard from, the argument I hear most is "I'm willing to look the other way as it concerns Don's ethics, but he gets things done and Oakland is desparate for leadership right now. We need someone who gets things done, so therefore there is no other choice but Perata. " 

I would like to provide another way of looking at that argument.  First, the argument by so many of Perata's supporters is similar to the arguments made by supporters of Jerry Brown and Ron Dellums.   Oakland needs leadership and we will get that with someone who has been in national politics (in this case with Don it is at the state level).  Oakland will get the goods, the growth it deserves, we won't have to be San Francisco's step child, etc., etc. 

That type of thinking fogged our brains to the downside to the two men who were our most recent mayors.  Brown did some good things true but I've hardly met anyone who has any praises left for Dellums.  So we, as citizens, did give up our power because of the "praises" of these nationally ranked leaders and what we thought that would bring to Oakland.

Well hello, here we are 12 years later and where is Oakland?  Do we really want to drag that worn out belief all over again hoping for different results? Are we shielding our eyes from seeing the large flaws that comes with a prominent politican?

Running a city government, while not easy, is not rocket science either. Someone who has spent years studying politics and policy, communications as well as advising the public and teaching hundreds of student has a deep knowledge and can parlay that knowledge to manage the City.  So that is why, in part, I'm voting for Joe Tuman.  The other reason is the man has impeccable ethics.  He is for good government, for reform which will be accomplished by hard work, persistence and a strong desire to lead Oakland, a place Joe has called home for over 25 years.

Karen, your views are compelling--what do Perata suporters say?

DeSilva/Gallagher for Mayor?

October 27, 2010

Is a vote for Don Perata really a vote for DeSilva Enterprises?

Perata for Mayor top-level staff is Anne Willcoxon, wife of Michael Willcoxon, attorney for DeSilva Enterprises.  Perata's Oakland office is at 502 Oakland Avenue. The Willcoxon's reside at a golf club in Moraga.

Perata supporter Oliver DeSilva, doing business as Gallagher & Burke, is the number two Public Works contractor according to the 2007 Low Bidder Response Analysis.  DeSilva is based in the Dublin/Pleasanton area.

Gallagher & Burke recently won a competitive bid between four contractors for a $1.4 million street resurfacing project.  The item was never discussed by City Council; it was on the "consent calendar," meaning batch-Ayed.

DeSilva, doing business as DeSilva, is the number two blight abatement contractor for CEDA.

Just whose "dream job" is Oakland Mayor?

http://www.auditoaklandceda.com

I am way off center because I don't like the way elections are resembling horse races. Therefore, I advocate having candidates take an essay exam on issues, a physical, psychological exam-then a televised verbal exam on issues. you project the results and have the citizens cast their vote. Now, the media will not like this because they make money hand over foot during the election season. But this is the truly honest way to make the playing field level. Equal assessment with equal exposure time. Some may think I am dreaming, but it gets special interests out of the way and the best candidate will emerge! This will take a lot of reforming to accomplish...but everyone who reads this posting knows in their heart this is the best way!

Susan,

From reading comments from some Perata supporters, it is my understanding that they believe Perata can get things done.  And, that Oakland is in such bad shape we need that type of person in office.  Although I would invite Perata supporters to post their thoughts and share them with your readers.

As I mentioned in my previous post, this logic can lead us down the wrong path. This same argument was used to rally around and vote for Dellums.  He had a lot of contacts at the federal level and he did fight for a piece of the pie for Oakland.  Dellums was effective in obtaining millions of dollars in federal stimulus money for Oakland.  But at the local level, he was unable (or lacked the desire) to work within a local governmental structure to improve Oakland.  Some people were even circulating petitions to have Ron Dellums recalled before he finished his first year in office. 

Mother Tucker, this is very concerning. I'd like to hear from some Perata supporters on these issues.