Don’t confuse the relative silence from Oakland Councilmember Desley Brooks before she faces censure proceedings this Thursday with resignation, she’s merely been assembling her defense. On Monday, Brooks, who was accused last March by City Auditor Courtney Ruby of violating the City Charter’s non-interference laws on 12 occasions, offered the City Council a 35-page defense featuring an array of supporting exhibits and charges of her own.

In the frequently defiant response, Brooks denies any wrongdoing involving interference with city staff in the funding and construction of the Rainbow Teen Center on International Boulevard. Brooks also took aim at Council President Pat Kernighan for placing the censure item on the agenda while accusing her colleague and her allies on the council of their own specific violations of Section 218 of the City Charter prohibiting council members from directing the actions of city staff.

“To date, no one has produced an email or other correspondence where staff advised me to do something; I refused and undertook a different course of action,” wrote Brooks. “Absent such action, there is no showing of ‘willful’ actions on my part. To the contrary, I specifically asked staff to advise us on the process and we followed their direction.”

Brooks also reiterates an argument she has made since Ruby’s scathing report was released March 30 that the City Charter contains no language allowing officials to judge her actions since violation of Section 218 is deemed a misdemeanor subject to immediate forfeiture of office. “Only a judge or a jury can determine if Section 218 has been violated because it is a crime,” wrote Brooks. “As such, no one at the city, not Ms. Kernighan, the Mayor, the City Council, the City Administrator, the City Attorney, the Auditor, or the Grand Jury has the authority to determine if a violation has occurred.”

Specifically, Brooks says problems with the lack of a competitive bidding process in the refurbishing of the building destined to become a much-needed teen center in her district, lay at the feet of the city’s former city administrator. In addition, Pulte, the contractor on the project, which built the center out of philanthropy was not aware of certain city rules and merely followed city staff’s lead. She adds receiving no personally benefit from the project to herself or her campaign. Brooks is up for re-election next year. However, she denies the city could have received a better deal from competitive bidding. She asserts the city received double in labor and costs from Pulte for their $151,000 investment in the teen center

Ruby’s report and a subsequent investigation by the Alameda County civil grand jury, whose finding were released last month, were both critical of Brooks’ approval of a recording studio built within the teen center. Brooks says she used $114,000 of her own discretionary funds to build, furnish and stock the studio with equipment. “As such, I was not merely the Council Member,” wrote Brooks, “I was also the client.”

Mention of an invoice for over $18,000 in recording equipment from a Guitar Store in El Cerrito, first reported last October by San Francisco Chronicle, including a stamp from the city and Brooks’ signature is included in Brooks’ response. However, she does not deny signing the invoice and laments in hindsight not reviewing the form before approving it. “I do not now, nor have I ever, possessed a “CEDA Payment Approval” stamp,” wrote Brooks. “A City staff person would have had to provide my staff with the prestamped form. My assistant filled out the forms for my signature. Where I made my mistake was that I didn’t review the forms and the stamp more closely before I signed the documents.”

In the days since Kernighan scheduled Thursday night’s special council meeting, the often coarse Brooks has remained noticeably silent over her current predicament, which, if punishment is passed by her colleagues, could greatly affect her bid for re-election next year. Over the past year, she has grappled often with Kernighan, Councilmembers Libby Schaaf and Rebecca Kaplan, as well as City Administrator Deanna Santana and City Auditor Ruby. In Brooks’ response she claims the cabal against her have ulterior reasons for attempting to reprimand her, while lodging allegations her colleagues are also guilty of specific violations of the City Charter.

“If Ms. Kernighan had such grave concern for the Council’s reputation one wonders why she has singled me out,” wrote Brooks. “Truth be told what’s motivating Ms. Kernighan in this process is purely political.” Kernighan’s allies on the council, Kaplan and Schaaf, violated the charter, said Brooks, but Kernighan did not act. “One would also wonder why Ms. Kernighan doesn’t admit her own violations of the Charter when overseeing the drafting and implementation of the Equal Access Ordinance; directing staff not to issue tickets to certain areas; or renovations of Quickway,” added Brooks. “When will these matters be scheduled?”


About The Author

Susan Mernit is editor & publisher of Oakland Local ( a news & community hub for Oakland, CA. A former VP at AOL & Netscape, & former! Yahoo Senior Director, Mernit was consulting program manager for The Knight News Challenge, 2008-09; was a 2012 Stanford Carlos McClatchy Fellow; and is a board adviser to The Center for Health Reporting at USC, Annenberg School of Journalism. She has consulted with many non-profit organizations on strategy, product development and social media/engagement, including, TechSoup Global, Public Radio International and the Institute for Policy Studies/Economic Hardship Reporting Project, led by Barbara Ehrenreich.

4 Responses

  1. Len Raphael

    Last night’s proceeding at City Council was an embarrassment. Brooks critics had some valid points but were flat out wrong about some changes and couldn’t back up others. That so much time and energy was devoted to Brook’s alleged misdeeds in order to “restore trust” in Oakland government backfired. Watching that meeting reinforces the sense of residents that the council can’t focus on important tasks and reach consensus.

  2. Jonatton Yeah?

    I agree. It was an embarrassment. But I think it was for different reasons. I dunno about you, but if I was a innocent person I wouldn’t need to bring an unruly mob of people to shout down at my accusers and treat the council meeting like a zoo to show how uncorrupt I am. But, once again, in Oakland, right and wrong is decided by who screams the loudest so I suppose it should be expected.

  3. Seamus

    I don’t think city council meeting should be run so. People were allowed to be disruptive. Is it just a shouting match? Highest decibel wins?


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.