Judge Rules It Was Legal to Mislead Voters About Tax

That's KTVU's headline. Judge Frank Roesch all but said he wants to rule that City Hall lied to voters about how many police Measure Y would provide, but his hands are tied by an appellate court decision. Full report here.

The ruling is a timely warning, arriving just as the mayor and city council have put a Son of Measure Y parcel tax proposal on the November 4 ballot. The court has warned us: don't believe any promise of more police; lying is legal.

So when councilmember Quan writes in her newsletter this week that Son of Measure Y "would bring our police force to 908 sworn officers," a court has warned: assume she is misleading you. After all, she is the one who insisted about Measure Y four years ago, "This brings the total number of police to 802." (Quan website) Sixty million tax dollars later, it has not happened.

City attorney and mayoral candidate-in-waiting John Russo was not happy with the judge's frank advice that voters should disregard public officials' claims about a ballot measure. Russo wrote a letter to the Montclarion asserting, "headlines in some local media outlets misrepresented or misunderstood Judge Frank Roesch's ruling. The ruling did not say that 'under existing law, the city may mislead voters in official materials and statements.'" (Letter to Montclarion, Aug. 1, 2008)

In fact, the judge said exactly that. In his written decision he noted that "the Court need look no further than the enactment [text of Measure Y] itself," not even at section titles. Voters, the judge wrote, must do the same: "The voters are presumed to be familiar with the language of the ordinance," no matter what silky lies councilmembers peddled about police staffing.

Since 2004 Russo's office has defended legal challenges to Measure Y. For example, in Dec. 2005 Russo's office filed a court document asserting, "The ballot pamphlet confirms that the City need only 'appropriate' in its budget, not hire, 739 officers in order to collect the new tax." The measure's language does not require even one additional officer on the streets. The judge agreed that this is what Measure Y says. All of City Hall's rosy talk about more cops on the beat is irrelevant. Just pay your taxes.

Russo goes on in his letter to do what he does best, praise himself: "Voters got accurate, unbiased information from the City Attorney's Office" during the campaign over Measure Y. In fact, Russo stood by while councilmembers peddled lies about police staffing. He let them mislead voters without any warning to the public. It's legal, even if it is unethical, undemocratic, and typical of the banana republic that is Oakland.

Nearly four years later, Oakland still does not have the police promised by City Hall from Measure Y. The resident who sued on Measure Y replied to Russo's letter with her own a week later. She concluded:

I wrote to The Montclarion to warn voters to parse the language of ballot measures very carefully, in light of the court's ruling. Obviously, the city attorney would rather you not do that, so that the city can continue to bamboozle you with false promises of more officers and adequate oversight with respect to the new 'Son of Measure Y' parcel tax. Remember that Councilmember Jean Quan 'guaranteed' that Measure Y would provide 63 additional officers. We're still waiting. What does that tell you?" (Letter to Montclarion, Aug. 8, 2008)