Hi Len

It would be useful for you to speak in your official capacity as a representative of the "Committee to Recall Mayor Quan Now." Anything else is conjecture with no responsbility towards the voters.

Your claim that the election would not cause serious money is based on a lot of "ifs." You constantly complain about city inefficiency. Therefore what makes you think that the city offices can "legally" or "suddenly gain efficiency to" speed up the processing on your group's behalf?

Mark Morodomi, Oakland Supervising Attorney's stated that the Greg Harland et al. petition with July 12 signature gathering deadline, will have a Dec. 2012 to Jan 2013 special election which cause $. There was no mention whether the City Clerk's office can physically or legally speed up the procedure to have it be squeezed into the Nov. general election.

That was from the Oakland Tribute - League of Women's Voters Forum on Jan 25, which is the latest official statement from the City Attorney's Office. Link:http://www.contracostatimes.com/bay-area-news/ci_19818987

The absurdity of this all is that Mayor Jean Quan's term will be tested base on majority 50% vote while the successor is to be voted in by plurality. By law, Mayor Jean Quan's name will not be on the ballot as a mayoral choice.

Leslie,

 1. Speaking as a private individual does in no way invalidate the knowledge of California election law I have gained from many readings of the election code and working with attorneys on the recall, nor does it turn any of my statements into "conjecture." It simply means that the opinions expressed here are my own. The facts remain the facts.

 2. It seems that you're claiming that a recall election would cost additional money simply because the city of Oakland is normally so inefficient. I can't disagree with you there. If opponents want to claim "cost" as an argument against the recall, I won't argue that additional costs may be incurred simply because Oakland city hall leadership is so incompetent. 

 3. Simply because there was "no mention" of something doesn't mean it can't or won't happen. But if you're saying that city officials creating a delay might cause the need for a special (expensive) recall election, even if a special election (as I pointed out) is not required by CA election law, then again - I can't disagree that a high cost could be incurred by a recall solely as a result of Oakland city government inefficiency. However, it's disingenuous to then claim that a recall is inherently "costly."

 4. Our Mayor sQuandered 800 thousand on a special election for an unpopular parcel tax and an unpopular power grab of the city attorney office. She herself conceded those measures were likely to fail.

5. Again: whether the recall will be decided by plurality or ranked choice voting has yet to be determined by the city attorney. What's "absurd" is that people like you won't cease to go around claiming otherwise, when that decision has yet to be made.

Personally speaking only, even if for whatever reason the recall election cost Oakland an extra million bucks, but it resulted in the election of a Mayor who knew how to run her/his police department and anti-violence programs so that violence levels dropped to where we no longer made the top ten most crime ridden cities, and just one fewer little kid wasn't killed by a drive-by, then yes a special election would be worth every nickle.

Those who claim that there will be no "Special Election" are misleading the voters. The petition by Gene Hazzard was certified on 12/7/11.  It is the only one that could come close to qualifying in time to coincide with the General Election but it just doesn’t make it. By my calculations there is no way to avoid a special election for a recall and the more than $1M it would cost the City.  

Allowing for maximum deadlines for each step of the process a special election would have to be called 6 days before the regularly scheduled election on November 6.  The only way the Harland petition, which was certified a month and a half after the Hazard petition (1/24/12), could qualify is if it submitted its signatures long before the 160 days. It is highly unlikely that that would happen.

Here are my calculations for the Hazzard petition:

• ·         From certification (12/7) the petitioner has 160 days to collect and submit signatures. That deadline is ^5/14/12 
  

• ·         Once submitted  the City Clerk has 30 days to certify signatures—^6/13/12

• ·         Once certified City Council has 14 days to set an election—^6/28/12

• ·         Special Election can be set from 88-125 days from June 28^th –9/24/12 or 10/31/12. If it's the latter we would then hold a general election 6 days later!
  

Do not forget that if there is a special election for a recall, depending on how many candidates are on the ballot, we could elect a new mayor with as little as 12% of the vote. No Recall is best for Oakland.

--Susan Montauk

Susan, thank you for these insights! A special election would cost at least $700-800,000 based on past special elections.

Hi Len

Thank you. Susan. NO RECALL is best for Oakland.

Len, I merely meant that if your conclusion is  based on hard numbers, strong confidence, and agreement with the City Atttorney, you would speak as the Treasurer of the "Committee to Recall..." Then all speculations would cease on this question. But that's not the case....

You did not interpret my statement about City Clerk correctly. It may not be legal for them to boost up the deadline to merely accomodate your group's special interest. 

The special parcel tax had a purpose: to pay for services that Oaklanders are asking for. Recall election has no advantage for Oaklanders. Voters have spoken on the parcel tax, I respect that.

Unlike the "Recall groups" who have never ceased campaigning since the last election. Mayor Jean Quan won, fair and square. Respect that. Stop trying to micro-manage the city government throught frivolous lawsuits and recall petitions.

Susan(s),

Len never argued that a special recall election would cost only $30,000. He argued that a *recall itself*, if not held in a special election, would cost only around $30,000, which would be the cost of statistically sampling the signatures. indeed, he showed persuasively, using California election law and the associated date constraints, that a special election is *not* required by law and may be easily gotten around if the cityattorney does the job efficiently. Perhaps some improved reading comprehension skills are in order here.

Leslie,

You write, "Len, I merely meant that if your conclusion is  based on hard numbers, strong confidence, and agreement with the City Atttorney, you would speak as the Treasurer of the "Committee to Recall..." 

That is an extremely naive statement. Len's statements are not automatically invalid because he is not the committee's official spokesperson. What hogwash.

And I happen to agree with him that no matter how much we spend on this election, it will be a good deal to get rid of a mayor who is ruining the town with every breath she takes.

Sandra

The only correction needed to my post is that to safely put the regular Nov 6, 2012 election within the allowable date under the election code, we will submit no later than June 1, 2012. That is because only for the purpose of the 30 day max time allowed the clerk for verification of signatures, the law uses working days instead of calendar days.

Susan, i made it clear that I was only looking at the timeline for the Recall Now petition. But, KRON news did report that the City Clerk said either petition could qualify for Nov 6th regular election.

Why not ask the City Clerk yourself and report back on what the deadlines for submission of each recall petition would be?

Within the specified timeline limits, the law gives discretion the City Council to fix the election date, but comes close to requiring it if a regular election falls within the allowable limits.

Sandra

The election must be held within 88 - 125 days with 14 days prior for the city council to make that decision. That's the law.

Special election is not necessary if and only if a coincident election happens to fall into that 88 - 125 days spectrum. Then the elections can be combined. By Susan's calculation, 10/31/12 is the latest date the election can be held for Gene's petition. There isn't any coincident election, so a special election of $1M must be held.

Sandra, I did not invalid Len's statements. I wish that his group would do the research and come back with a definitive answer. It's their job to do so, not Susan's.

Len

I can' find the Friday's KRON4 report that you are talking about. I listened to that day's  broadcast on the web. No mention of the recall. I did ask you in another post for the link.

Len

I happen to agree with the City Council that City Attorney's office should be appointed not elected. City Attorney's main job function is to protect Oakland from lawsuits. I want the best technical attorney available to do the job and not waste time playing politics.

Once again: Better reading skills. We're not talking about Gene's petition.

"Sandra, I did not invalid Len's statements."

No, you did not "invalid" them. LOL. You said they were essentially baseless conjecture because Len is not empowered as spokesperson for the group.

Get a clue.

As for whose "job" it is to do what, it's not Len's recall committee's "job" to remedy any of your particular misconceptions as voiced here.

Sandra

We are addressing two possibilities. Gene's petition will be a special election, causing $1M.

Len's petition is up in the air.

His group must state publicly that it gives up the July 12 deadline. It will abandon its effort on June 1, even if it doesn't get enough signatures.

All City offices must agree to allow them to speed up their process to accomodate a special interest group.

Assuming all these maneuverings are legal, then we can avoid the $1M price tag.

In conclusion, Mayor Jean Quan's supporters are not mis-stating their case of an expensive recall.

Sandra

Unless something is hard fact, everything else is conjecture. There is no insult meant to Len.

At this moment, only the City Attorney has the authority to tell us definitively. Even then, she can be challenged if her judgement is unfair to Mayor Jean Quan.

Leslie,

You said "All City offices must agree to allow them to speed up their process to accomodate a special interest group."

No one is asking any city office to speed anything up. How long have you lived in Oakland :)

A June 1 submittal to the city clerk gives her office a full 30 working days, and then allows for the full 14 calendar days for the council to make the really difficult decision whether to waste a million on calling a special electiona few days before or after Nov 6th or hold it on Nov 6th.

I think that's a decision even our city council shouldn't need the full 14 calendar days to decide, but I'm assuming they will.

When either recall group gets 20k valid signatures on its petition, maybe you'd call that group of voters a "special interest group" but I wouldn't.

Would you call the 28k voters who signed the Oak to 9th referendum petition a few years ago, "a special interest group" also? (btw, they got invalidated at the very end of the process in part because of an error on their petition that the city clerk missed before approving it. Which is similar to what our attorney thinks could easily happen to the Hazzard petition for its publication defect)

"We are addressing two possibilities. Gene's petition will be a special election, causing $1M.

Len's petition is up in the air."

No, Leslie. Wrong again. It's Gene's petition that's up in the air, since Len's group has demanded that the city invalidate it due to incorrect noticing. Don't know what your basis is for saying the Recall Now petition is "up in the air." Nothing could be further from the truth. It's been vetted by a top election law firm and approved by the city clerk. What on earth are you talking about - again.

Leslie, I found the online archive of the KRON4. They do make it very hard to find but I was motivated because I was interviewed :)

At the end the reporter is standing in front of city hall and does state that the second petition, aka Recall Quan Now, can be scheduled for Nov 6th. In the online version he does not state what I recall hearing on the TV version that he got that from the clerk.

But all of that is moot because you seem to have conceded that a special election is not necessary if Recall Quan Now submits by early June. And I'd add that no special favors from city officials would be necessary to achieve that.

Leslie and Susan, if you want to guarrantee that the recall will be on Nov 6th, just tell all your friends, families, and neighbors to follow the committee @recallquan and www.RecallQuan.com for signing locations/dates to sign the petition ASAP.

The Recall Quan Now petition  was the subject of the original article, which did not concern the Hazzard petition.

Leslie and the other commenters may be "addressing two possibilities" but the article is not. A special election is NOT required, by law or by any timeline contingency other than the usual Oakland government incompetence and foot dragging.

Mark Morodomi, Supervising Oakland City Attorney said, Harland et. all petition election will be a special election.

Leslie, Morodomi's statement is true but he didn't bother to mention that he was presuming Recall Mayor Quan Now would take the maximum time allowed under the law to collect and submit the signed petitions in early July.

No one in the audience or on the panel knew enough to point that out.

I posted on the Tribune site before that panel was held, that there should have been an election law specialist on the panel who was independent of the city. The City Attorney and her assistant Mark Morodomi are not election law specialists and certainly not recall election law specialists.

eg. In Oak to 9th John Russo helped defeat a petition signed by 28,000 Oakland residents asking for a referendum because it would have overturned a vote by the city council, his client.

Martin Reynolds of the Tribune missed the issue when he defended City Attorney Parker as competent and protective of the residents. He didn't get the important legal distinction between having the City as one's client vs having the city's residents as one's client.

Nor did Mr. Reynolds bother to follow up on his commitment online to research the accuracy of his reporters stating that Recall Mayor Quan Now is led by Greg Harland; or that it was accurate to call Harland "a retired businessman" when Harland founded and spends full time operating the West Oakland Food Pantry on Peralta.

Leslie, attached is the Notification of Sufficiency of Draft Petition for Recall of Mayor Jean Quan received from the city clerk, dated January 24, 2012.

"Your signed petitions must be filed with the Office of the City Clerk no later than close of business on Monday July 2, 2012."

So either you misquoted Assist City Attorney Morodomi or he mispoke.

Btw, you will be happy to learn that the clerk and the city attorney's office effectively denied my committee's request to use lightly tinted paper for our petitions to distinguish them from the legally Hazardous petitions and reduce voter confusion.

The Los Angeles, Humbolt, and Alameda County guides to recalls recommend the use of such paper when there are concurrent recalls of multiple similar officials eg. of two judges.

The city attorney's office referred our question to the city clerk's office. A few days later the city clerk's office referred us to the city attorney's office.

Finally today the city attorney's office answered not our paper question but our prior inquiry on a different printing issue. The prior question was whether we can serialize our petitions. We were told it was too late for the city clerk to tell us anything because the city clerk had already approved our petition.

We won't hold our breath waiting for the City to give the same obfuscating response to our other question.

To think anyone could say the City Attorney's office considers the voters to be its client.

What's funny is that nobody in the anti-recall faction ever claims that Quan should not be recalled because she's a good mayor. Evidently they know that claim would be laughable. Instead, they cite fear that the next mayor may be worse, excessive cost and vague ideas like "divisiveness"; and then say that we should give her more time. Evidently, even they know  that she's doing a terrible job. 

We are assuming that the city clerk and city council take the maximum days allowed  by law to process our petition and set a recall date.

However, if for whatever reason they took fewer than the maximum number of days, they could force a special election by putting Nov 6th outside the allowable window of days.

Len,

Thank you for clarifying that. These commenters don't seem to understand simple arithmetic and basic facts. Once again: The *fact* is that no special election is required by law given these date constraints. If a special election is held, it will be the fault of the city government.

Len

You are assuming that City Clerk's office has no backlog of other work to get through. Like I say before, the only authority on this topic is the City Attorney's Office.

Sandra

Mayor Jean Quan is a good mayor: my opinion only.

All Bay Area Labor Unions, the Chinese Community, prominent individuals have come out against the recall. Supporters of the Mayor have been passing out flyers all over Oakland.

During this period, I have seen Mayor Jean Quan working hard for our city:

Mayor's Christmas Toy Drive

MLK Day of Services

DC trip

Recent good publicities we have been getting from New York Times and USA Today.

Leslie: We absolutely are not counting on the city clerk or the council to speed up anything or give us any priority. We are doing our best to time our petition submittal so that if the clerk and the council wait until the very last second allowed to them by law, this can still legally be scheduled by the council to fall on the Nov 6, 2012 regular election day.

If however they did speed up processing, they could sabotage scheduling for a regular election.

Judge Thelton Henderson's commentary about Quan's operation of OPD is equally true of Quan's stewardship of our finances, infrastructure, parks, anti-violence policing and social programs, and  economic development:

"words and promises are not enough"

Over the first three years of Dellums his supporters kept saying "give him a chance".

By the end of the third year even his supporters at the Tribune realized Dellums was a disaster, but by then it wasn't worth the effort to recall him.

If the best a supporter like yourself can say about Quan's achievements are to point to the Mayor's Christmas Toy Drive, MLK Day of Services, DC trip, recent publicity from the NYT about DTO's nightlife, then Quan doesn't have a chance once the recall gets on the ballot.

Leslie: We absolutely are not counting on the city clerk or the council to speed up anything or give us any priority. We are doing our best to time our petition submittal so that if the clerk and the council wait until the very last second allowed to them by law, this can still legally be scheduled by the council to fall on the Nov 6, 2012 regular election day.

If however they did speed up processing, they could sabotage scheduling for a regular election.

Judge Thelton Henderson's commentary about Quan's operation of OPD is equally true of Quan's stewardship of our finances, infrastructure, parks, anti-violence policing and social programs, and  economic development:

"words and promises are not enough"

Over the first three years of Dellums his supporters kept saying "give him a chance".

By the end of the third year even his supporters at the Tribune realized Dellums was a disaster, but by then it wasn't worth the effort to recall him.

If the best a supporter like yourself can say about Quan's achievements is to point to the Mayor's Christmas Toy Drive, MLK Day of Services, DC trip, recent publicity from the NYT about DTO's nightlife, then Quan doesn't have a chance once the recall gets on the ballot.

"toy drive," "DC trip"? LOL LOL LOL

Meanwhile the murder rate skyrockets, children are being murdered in broad daylight on the streets, OPD is on the brink of receivership (echoes of the school system under Quan's leadership), Occupy Oakland is in a rage and out of control due to Quan's self-serving political waffling and indecision and has cost the city much more than it needed to due to the outside agencies charging us solely because of that indecision, half the key players in the government have left because of her (Batts, Russo, and half a dozen others), and even her former ally Dan Siegel has abandoned her. If the Quan administration is not a sinking ship, I don't know what is.

Leslie's comment - "she is a good mayor" - is fairly unique. You don't hear that too often (if ever) among the anti-recall crowd. Their CHIEF ARGUMENTS are NOT that Quan is a good mayor. Again: that is a risible. Their chief arguments are all about the logistics of recall. They, unlike Leslie, know better than to make a claim like Quan being a good mayor. Toy drive? What good are toys when young children are being murdered on her watch?

What's the 2012 homicide rate looking like, by the way? What are we up to?

Let's see some more Measure Y "solutions" from "mayor" Quan. My God.

If all she's good for are toy drives, then put her back as a kindergarten teacher where she belongs. Oakland is not kindergarten. Quan is drastically out of her league.

Toy drives, Town Hall, generating businesses... creating positive events in the lives of Oaklanders are part of the important job of being a Mayor of any city.  I get the Mayor's newsletter. It truly represents Oakland as what we are: a vibrant and interesting city with elevated crimes in hotspots area.

I do not believe in stimatizing the whole city because of crimes that are committed in a few parts of the city. It creates a false image that is inaccurate for out of towners. Obviously New York Times and USA Today share this view by promoting positive images of our city. Sadly speaking, our neighbor across the bay, CBS San Francisco and San Francisco Chronicle and the "Recall Groups" don't. City rivaly from SF?

For public safety, there's the 100 blocks initiatives. I went to the Safety Summit at Laney College and a recent neighborhood presentation to learn about the topic. This is the first time in history, public safety officials from Alameda county to city level get together and support a viable public safety plan for Oakland. I believe in the men and women who are working hard on it.

At one of the neighborhood meeting, I saw a homicide/shooting graph that goes back to early 1990s. There was a spike at the end of 2010, other than that, pretty much flat. Mayor Quan is working on bring the homicide/shoorting down and stepping on a lot of toes to bring accountability into all city department.

She is indeed being judged by a different standard from previous Oakland mayors. Making personnel changes are now a reason to recall a leader? This seems to me an abuse of the recall law's intent.

Leslie, you've made some great points. Len, you have as well. For me, recall questions mean assessing the cost of the shift--and the value of a potential replacement as well as looking at performance over the past 12 months.

Hopefully we can all set differences aside and show up at the "Stand for Oakland" demonstration on Monday... 

Hope to see you all there on Monday!

Leslie, you and Quan are more concerned about our image than about our fellow residents getting killed and mugged etc.

Great news to hear from you that our homicide levels aren't increasing, merely cruising along at stratospheric levels relative to almost every other American city.

That 100 mystery block plan?. You really do read every word of Quan's newsletter, don't you?

"I would call it a sort-of crime plan," said Franklin Zimring, a UC Berkeley law professor and renowned criminologist, who said the plan does not make the tough decisions to prioritize what will be lost. "Everything that's done in the plan is not done to the prejudice of anything else."

Zimring thinks 100 blocks is too many for the short-staffed Police Department to focus on and criticized the plan for not stating, among other things, what services police will de-emphasize so that they can focus on the special zone.

--

"David Kennedy, a criminologist, said Oakland's homicide rate partly reflects the failure of city leaders to follow through on crime-fighting initiatives.

"They simply have the inability to stay focused and keep on track. The city gets easily distracted and can't stay the course," said Kennedy, who directs the Center on Crime Prevention and Control at John Jay College in New York.

David Kennedy, who created the Operation Ceasefire initiative that helped lower crime in several major cities, said Oakland has not shown enough commitment to keeping residents safe.

"When a city has had consistently high levels of violence such as Oakland and given that there are now proved approaches to reducing that violence, failure to do so is a failure of core civic leadership," Kennedy said.

-------------------

MOBN had a piece on how Oakland has squandered milllions in Federal aid meant to implement Operation Ceasefire.  Misspent during Quan's tenure as finance chairperson of the city council and continuing during her first 6 months as mayor thru June 2011.

http://oaktalk.com/2011/11/14/call-ins-and-crime-reduction-in-oakland-part-ii/

Now Quan proxies like Don Link pretend that they've just heard about Operation Ceasefire and are gushing with enthusiasm to implement it.

----------------------

But yes, voters are now applying a higher standard to their mayor than they did to say Dellum.

They won't repeat the mistake they made waiting for Dellums to improve.

------------------

To recall Mayor Quan from your home,

email info@recallquan.com

or go to RecallQuan.com and select the volunteer menu.

Interesting debate. Without taking sides on the recall (which does seem like it would be costly), a few things I'd like to note:

Len, couldn't a "failure of civic leadership" be equally applied to the City Council, the City Attorney, the City Administrator, and OPD? Or does it only apply to the Mayor?

also, Quan does not "operate" OPD. Technically, City Administrator Deanna Santana and chief Howard Jordan do.

Sandra, homicides in Oakland spiked to almost 150 in 2006, during the Brown administration. Since then, they have averaged around 100 or so, with minor fluctuations. That's still far too many, but if we're looking at long-term trends, we're actually seeing a reduction in violent crime levels from 6-7 years ago -- before the economy tanked (which in and of itself is a causal factor for crime). it's a fairly knee-jerk reaction to claim that murder rates are "skyrocketing" without backing that claim up with any evidence.

It's fair to say that Quan hasn't looked good throughout this entire Occupy Oakland saga -- indeed, she's been like the wick of a candle burning at both ends-- however, O/O presented a fairly unique challenge which just about any big city mayor would have had difficultues dealing with, if we're being completely honest.

The unpopular raid on Oct. 25 which angered progressives was ordered by Deanna Santana, not Quan. Quan was also not directly responsible for the wounding of Scott Olsen by OPD -- which is what turned O/O into a national flashpoint.

She has, however, steadfastly refused to throw OPD and Chief Jordan under the bus for their role, even as lawsuits mount and accountability/misconduct cases pile up. I guess my question here is, is there any way to ascertain that a different mayor would have handled things better? and if so, how?

If we are going to talk about "self-serving political waffling and indecision" are we only going to apply that to the Mayor, or does that also apply to the City Council?

It's also not factually-accurate to charge that Russo and Batts left because of Quan. Russo butted heads with Quan, true, but also with the City Council. He clearly had a seperate agenda--possibly, fueled by his own political ambitons, from both the Mayor and Council, which seems highly detrimental to the notion of a united city government. There has been some speculation that he took the Alameda job in part due to the opposition (from both the public sector and within city government) to the gang injunctions he was a cheerleader of, which cost the city around a million dollars with questionable effectiveness (i.e. violent crime is up in NSO since the injunction was enacted). In other words, he got out before he could be hit by the boomerang of public opinion turning against the GIs. More than likely, he was told to lay low for a while and then try to resurfance on the statewide stage in a few years.

In Batts' case, despite the myth (perpetuated by certain San Francisco newspaper columnists) that Quan was responsible for his departure,the facts are these: a) he was not well-liked by the rank and file; b) liked to take weekends off (which is when crime generally spikes); c) was hired specifically to get OPD in compliance with the NSA; d) began looking for a new job when it became clear OPD would not meet their deadline for compliance;and e) resigned just two days after a report which held him personally accountable for failure to comply with the decree was released.

It also doesn't seem fair to point a finger at Quan for OPD's ongoing woes. After all, the NSA was mandated in 2003, which was eight years before Quan was elected. What this means is this: basically, the department has had nine years--and three mayoral administrations--to get its act together. Its failure to comply with the terms of that mandate--achieving less than half of the necessary reforms--appears to have very little to do directly with the Quan administration, since we are talking about pre-existing conditions.

Again, i'm not taking sides here on the recall. But the question i do have for recall supporters is: who are you going to replace Quan with? You are asking voters to take a leap of faith. However, i'd rather not sign a blank check for the future of Oakland.

I'm not going to say that Quan has been an outstanding mayor, and she has clearly made soem mistakes and had some awful luck. Still, perhaps, we are holding her to a higher standard than we did for Dellums or Brown (who, in retrospect, was quite the illusionist).

In any event, it's fairly clear from an objective standpoint that she's taken a lot of heat which perhaps should have been more evenly distributed among all responsible parties in city government.

Sorry, but I'm just not convinced that "Anyone But Quan" would automatically do a better job. The Governator was not better than Gray Davis.

So, name some names. Let's see what horse you're running. Cards on the table. Len and Sandra, who's your candidate(s)?

Eric, couldn't agree more that " failure of civic leadership" applies to the whole crew at City Hall and has for years.

What's needed is a slate of good government candidates to run for mayor and the open council seats. That is more important than any single mayoral replacement for Quan.

Long overdue that voters hold their Oakland elected officials to a higher standard than they have in the past. In better economic times it's easy for mediocre politicians to get re-elected.

I can disclaim all I want, but in my role in the recall drive, I wouldn't name my choice to replace Quan even if i had one.Which I don't yet have. I want to ask a bunch of hard questions of the candidates before I decide.

One of them will be how they propose getting out of the 19Mill/year we pay Goldman to get out of a stupid interest rate swap our officials committed to back in, I think, 2005. (yes Quan was on the finance committee).

I doubt if our current mayor even understands what an interest rate swap is.

Another question will be how they propose to decide which anti-violence expenditures are effective and which are not.

Some people against a recall accuse us of being a front for some particular candidate and other people accuse us of not having Quan’s replacement all wrapped up and ready to serve.

Build a recall and some good candidates will come because we have many good smart residents who know how to work with different groups and manage large organzations. They realize we’re at a crossroads facing tough choices that will determine whether we continue to go downhill or recover at least as quickly as other similar sized cities.

Don’t blame us if you don’t like any of the usual suspects and say "at least Quan is honest" or "she works hard".

That won't be enough to keep us out of Chapter 9 or cutting the over 50 pct unemployment in many areas of town.

Aka "tell it to the Judge" (as in Thelton Henderson or Fed Bankruptcy Court)

After the recall is rolling, I’ll redouble my personal efforts to persuade some very competent resident(s) to run.

Each of us should do the same.

I know there are residents out there who would make fine mayors. I’ve met them. The problem is convincing them to run.

In the past they wouldn’t run because they knew they didn’t have a chance in a city where wedge politics reigns supreme.

Len Raphael, temescal

RecallQuan.com

info@recallquan.com

"Build a recall and some good candidates will come"

That seems extremely optimistic, and differs greatly in tone from your typical pessimistic view, Len. I realize that you are committed to supporting a recall, but for those of us who are on the fence or have yet to decide one way or the other, we might like to know who the candidates are before making a decision which cannot be undone once it is done.

If we include the current City Council members as examples of "failure of civic leadership" for all the reasons previously mentioned, then does it really behoove us to support any of them as possible candidates? But if not these likely, usual suspects, then who else?

See where i'm going with this?

"in my role in the recall drive, I wouldn't name my choice to replace Quan even if i had one.Which I don't yet have."

So, in other words, you're operating purely on blind faith? And you want everyone else to adopt this same point of view because you are 100% sure that Quan's replacement will be an improvement, if she is recalled? That's asking a lot.

So let me ask you something: If i'm an Oakland voter and i'm skeptical of both Quan and current city leadership, why wouldn't i also be skeptical of a recall effort which plays coy about what type of mayor it wants to bring in?

Eric, the rest of my statement was

"I know there are residents out there who would make fine mayors. I’ve met them. The problem is convincing them to run.

In the past they wouldn’t run because they knew they didn’t have a chance in a city where wedge politics reigns supreme."

I don't call that blind faith.

All those labels you're sticking on my very bald head: "typically pessimistic", "coy".

Heck yes, I'm totally pessimistic about where business as usual at City Hall will take us. Straight into Chapter 9, securing our place in the top 10 most dangerous cities, and over 50 pct unemployment in many parts of town.

I don't call it coy to devote my community energy to a recall now and not to finding a good mayoral candidate.

Recall Mayor Quan Now is a very broad tent.

By law it is not a candidate campaign committee. And it is illegal to take information off the signed petitions to use for any other purpose besides validation.

So it is not coy for the Committee to refuse to endorse a candidate.

Each supporter has her or his opinion on what qualities are needed in Quan's replacement, and some know whom they want to see run. Many are keeping an open mind.

Whom would you like to replace Quan?

Len Raphael, temescal

(for more information on the recall go to

RecallQuan.com or email info@recallquan.com or http://www.facebook.com/recallmayorquan )

"it is not coy for the Committee to refuse to endorse a candidate."

Hmm. Len, i thought you weren't speaking in your capacity as treasurer of the committee, but as an "individual resident." At least that's what you claimed in the article. Has that changed?

Hasn't changed. 

As a resident I am saying it is not coy for the Committe to refuse to endorse any candidate.

The Recall Mayor Jean Quan Now faq includes a statement that Greg Harland will not be running in the mayoral replacement race.

len raphael, temescal

(for more info on Recall Mayor Quan Now

go to www.RecallQuan.com or email info@recallquan.com)

Len
Please don't resort to personal insults. We are here to conduct a civil conversation on the "Recall issue."

I care deeply about the homocides in the flats and I also care deeply about Oakland's image. One does not preclude the other. 

From your point of view, the most optimistic result would be that we get a new Mayor, one who "wouldn't run becasue they knew they didn't have a chance in a city where wedge politics reigns supreme."  Mayor of Oakland who Would not or could not deal with wedge politics is a recipe for failure.
_____

I have reasons to doubt your group's assessment on the performance of our mayor and our city government.

I suppose your recall group is an example of  "good smart residents who know how to work with different groups....." What I have seen is to the contrary.

The group's goal is relatively simple and mechanical: Recall Jean Quan. Yet, it has failed to come up with a coherent strategy, failed to stay together,  failed to do election arithmetic, failed to come up with a credible candidate...

City officials don't have the luxury to splinter out into a separate group, as your small group has done.

Leslie - I am neutral in this, but would like to point out that those things you mention make Mayor Quan a good Mayor are all things Mayor Dellums did too, or

were already underway when or even before he was Mayor.

Susan Mernit, I hit the Reply button under Leslie's comment.  Instead it appears at the very bottom of all comments.  Anything that can be done about that? Thanks...

After hearing people who believe that the mayor is over her head, incompentent, unable to control her own police dept, etc. express reservations about recalling the mayor before they know who the replacement might be, I realized that I was assuming everyone understood the mechanics of a recall. Some of them say give Quan more time before evicting her.

A good feature of the recall-election mechanism is that a voter who wants to find a competent mayor, but is skeptical of the candidates unknown at this point or wants to see how she does over the next 8 months, can safely sign the recall petition now to put the recall on the November ballot, and then wait and watch and question the candidates who do run for mayor.
 
If you don't like any of the candidates a lot more than Quan, all you have to do is vote "no" on the recall ballot item.
 
But even if you vote "no" on the recall on Nov 6th, nothing prevents you from hedging your bet by marking your choice for mayor on the chance that the recall succeeds.
 
This would not cost the city more than maybe $30K to validate recall petition signatures, and you a wide gamut of choices ranging from keeping Quan to replacing her.
 
This week you can sign the Recall Mayor Quan Now petition at the Grand Lake Theater from 6:00 p,m. to 8: 00 p.m., Wed through Friday.  Look for the red, white, and blue signs of Recall Mayor Quan Now. For other locations and times, check the schedule on RecallQuan.com or follow @recallquan

Len Raphael, Temescal

Len

You are still passing out mis-information.

People who sign the petition has to know that Mayor Jean Quan will not be on the mayoral ballot.

She has to succeed by majority while the successor can win by plurality.

Gene Hazzard's petition: to cost $700,000 - $1 Million.

Your petition: No one has answered yet from City of Attorney's office about the legality of your alleged plan. Also, your Committee has not legally recinded the right to the signature gathering deadline.  According to the Supervising Attorney, Mark Morodomi, this is a special election to take place Dec, 2012 - Jan, 2013 to cost $700,000 to $1 Million.

The cost to the city will be rancor in the communities, diverting attention to the recall instead of solving problems, and setting  precedent for a minority group to pressure decision making process of the city.

Hi Livegreen,

Len is mis-using the comment section for  promoting his article and his recall effort by changing topics at will. So your question and rebuttal on the public safety issue would be answered somewhere else under a related article.  There is plenty of time since his group, Harland, et al. has dragged us all into this time-consuming process. This thing won't end until July...Nov...Dec..or even Jan 2013???

Lesley, you still don't understand the recall election process.

If we submit our petition by approx June 1 2012,  the regular Nov 6 2012 ballot will have a line item asking for a yes or no on the question "shall Jean Quan be recalled"

Then there will be a list of candates running for Mayor, with a yes or no next to each name.

The votes will be tallied.

If a simple majority of voters said "yes" to the recall line item, then Quan is recalled and the County voting authority tallies up the votes for each candidate.

If a simple majority of voters said "no" to the recall line item, then Quan is not recalled and there is no counting of votes of the candidates or at least no effect from such counting.

Simple majority rule

That is why Quan does not get two chances to stay, once via the recall question and again as a candidate.

The reason Progressives fought for the recall and initiative process is that the incumbent always has the advantage because of patronage, access to resources, visibility, momentum etc.

You are complaining that the recall process does not give the incumbent two chances to remain in office.

Recall petitions will be available for signing this week, Wed thru Fri 6pm to 8pm at the Grand Lake Theatre. For other times and locations see RecallQuan.com or @recallquan

Len

You are the one who does not understand the nuances of the process. I notice that you did not point out anything I have written as incorrect.  You are merely pushing your interpretation.

Mayor Jean Quan has to succeed by majority while the successor can win by plurality.

If the process is so simple, why is it that we still have no answer from City Attorney's Office concerning your petition? I think we need to wait for the City Attorney's verdict on the special election issue before passing out new or false information.

No "ifs". Does your group rescind the right to collect signatures on Jun 1 even in the case of insufficient signatures? That's a necessary condition to qualify for the Nov ballot.

Have you consider the possibility that District 4 voters keep voting Quan in as its council person because they like her? What you are doing is disrespecting the decision made by the voters of Oakland.

You are against Mayor Jean Quan because she is a progressive and you are a Republican??? On policy issues??? That's clearly not the intend of the Recall Laws.  If you have so much time, please go recall all of our Congress, it had a approval rating of 12% or less, few months ago.

Leslie, the Recall Mayor Quan Now Petition for the Recall of Mayor Jean Quan was approved for colllection by the City Clerk on January 24, 2012. That's a matter of public record that you can verify by calling or visiting the Clerk's office to confirm.

While you're there, ask why that and other documents without personal information is not on their website. The answer they gave me was "The City is under no obligation to post your petition on line."

If you want to change the state charter recall law, no one is stopping you. You could even start your own petition to do that.

But meanwhile, you are railing against a 100 year law, best described by Secretary of State Bowen:

“Progressives fought for years to put more power in more people’s hands and the 1911 election took democracy in a new direction,” said Secretary Bowen, California’s chief elections officer and custodian of the State Archives. “While the system is far from perfect, voters have been using some very powerful tools to counter their elected representatives for the last century."

http://www.sos.ca.gov/admin/press-releases/2011/db11-041.pdf

Len

Just read the two-pages pdf.

I think Secretary Bowen would think you took her statement out of context. She was talking about "women's right to vote" and "social conditions" back in "1911."

I am not railing against the law. I am railing against its mis-use.

This is still a fact:

Mayor Jean Quan has to succeed by majority while the successor can win by plurality.

Leslie,

That would be Secretary Debra Bowen. Her name is across the top of the pdf.

Len

thank you. I'll take your word for it. It's been corrected.

Len, i'm just going to cut right to the chase here: this "article" should never have appeared on Oakland Local. it's just too biased and not objective enough to be an honest primer about a recall election.

Your comments--all 8 gazillion of them--speak to this fact. Repeatedly. You not only contradict yourself at several instances, but you claim to be speaking as both an "individual resident" and on behalf of the Recall Committee, which subtracts from whatever credibility you might otherwise have on both accounts.

I dont really want to go over all of the numerous individual points which could be argued here, but when you attempt to hold Quan accountable for the failings of OPD--which are so egregious that a federal judge is beginning to enact serious reforms unprecedented in any major city in America--you are clearly exaggerating a situation which far above the mayor's level of responsibility. At this point, its safe to say that no mayor would have been "able to control" OPD, which--obviously--cannot control itself.

It's been pointed out to you already that OPD's failure to abide by the NSA has been consistant across three mayoral administrations. Yet you somehow expect Quan to shoulder all the blame for that.

It's also been pointed out that your recall effort has some serious organizational and coherency issues--which you have steadfastly ignored. To that, i would add it appears you also have some ethical and moral issues. It's kind of sneaky, or perhaps underhanded is a better term, to imply that the recall effort is about furthering a progressive agenda (as your quote from Bowen does), when the money behind it is anything but progressive. So let's be real here.

Do you really believe you are that opaque? People are not idiots. We can read between the lines.

and again, i say this not as a Quan supporter, also as someone who is officially neutral on the recall: if you want to buy a political ad which is clearly identified as such , do so. but please don't try to fool anyone into thinking that your "primer" is an objective, unbiased, account when it's clearly not.

Eric, the primer was comprehensive and unbiased about the mechanics of a recall.

Other than the one correction which I marked as such, nothing has been brought up by you or anyone else that was incorrect by commission or ommission in my explanation of the mechanics of the recall.

It filled a need for info that the unbiased Trib panel discussion didn't even touch because it was filled with poly sci types who were told not to sound partisan and outright did not know the intricate rules. Plus an assistant city attorney who couldn't say anything that could harm his client, the City government. (yes, that is legally his client, not the residents)

If the City Clerk and the City Attorney office had known the rules they would have caught the  glaring error in how Hazzard published his petition. That wasn't Hazzard's fault or other recall committee's fault. That was a screw up of the City.

As for your criticism that the recall movement doesn't have it's act together. Give it the same break you give other grass roots efforts. Heck, if you've worked in local political campaigns run by pros, you'd know those aren't exactly well oiled machines.

Quan could have fired Batts, called him on the carpet, used the bully pulpit etc if she cared a hoot about running an effective opd that protected residents effectively and lawfully.

I don't think that's on her agenda. Frankly, I think it fit her agenda better to put opd in a position where it violated the rights of protestors and became the villain.

People in glass houses dept. Readers have criticized your pieces as being gonzo journalism/blogging and you gave what i thought what valid reasons. My piece, unlike yours, were labeled Opinion pieces.

Why are you so sure there is some great conspiracy behind the recall?  I heard the same thing about the green /white No on H, I, J signs around the city which were a conspiracy of one, me.

As to the role of money in this? Have you ever run a successful campaign of any kind that didn't require money to pay for signs, buttons, phones, lawyers, etc?

Small contribs help but the bulk always comes from fewer bigger sources. 

If a surrogate for Mayor Quan wants to run, they're welcome to it and most likely there will be at least one based on rumors that a former staff member might run.

Have you read both petitions? They list the proponents.

Have you gone to the city clerk and asked her to put all the petition documents that are public documents online ? Put the blame for lack of transparency where it belongs on Quan's administration.

Note: the names of people who sign the circulated petition will not be public. Use of them or disclosure for any reason other than qualifying the petition is prohibited by state law.

Len Raphael, Temescal

Sign the Recall Mayor Quan Now petition at the Grand Lake Theater Thurs and Fri 6pm to 8pm.