City Sued for Measure Y Violations

After a wave of robberies in the Lincoln Heights district of Oakland a year ago, Marleen Sacks realized the understaffed police department cannot provide basic public safety. But, she thought, I'm paying additional Measure Y taxes; what's going on? Sacks, an attorney, began looking into the matter, and now she has filed suit for relief from the bait-and-switch money game played by City Hall. She issued a press release when she filed her lawsuit:

On April 8, 2008, a local attorney and Oakland homeowner filed suit against the City of Oakland alleging numerous violations of Measure Y, a special tax passed in 2004 designed to reduce crime. In her suit, taxpayer Marleen L. Sacks alleges that the City violated Measure Y by recently approving a nearly $8 million raid on Measure Y funds for generalized advertising, recruitment and training for the police department. According to Ms. Sacks, Measure Y and existing law make it clear that Measure Y funds may only be used for specific purposes , and subsidizing the General Fund for general recruitment and academy training is not permitted.

Measure Y generates approximately $19 million annually for the City. It funds violence prevention programs, but also promised the voters an additional 63 police officers, including 57 "Problem Solving Officers," one for each beat in Oakland. Nearly four years later, 23 Measure Y positions remain vacant. Because the officers were never hired, the money collected has been accumulating, and now totals approximately $17 million. The City, on the other hand, is broke. In January a 10-year-old boy was shot and paralyzed by a stray bullet at the top of Piedmont Avenue, and there was significant political pressure on the City to do something about crime.

For years the City has claimed that it could not increase the staffing of the police department because of recruiting problems, so the Mayor put together this ill-conceived and hastily-drawn proposal to take nearly $8 million out of the $17 million Measure Y pot to fund an advertising and recruiting blitz. According to Ms. Sacks, Measure Y makes it very clear that the money can only be used to hire Measure Y officers; it may not be used for generalized recruiting. Indeed, the City Attorney issued a legal opinion agreeing that this was the case. Ms. Sacks argues that the money sought should come from the General Fund, not Measure Y.

The size of the police force today is actually lower than it was when Measure Y passed. The lawsuit also alleges that the City violated Measure Y by not hiring the 63 officers promised, and by continuing to collect the Measure Y tax even though Measure Y specifically provides that the tax would not be collected if the police force dropped below 739. As a remedy, Ms. Sacks is asking the Alameda County Superior Court to require the City to return the approximately $60 million collected to the taxpayers, and to halt further collection of Measure Y taxes until the City makes good on its promises.

Lastly, the lawsuit alleges that the City has illegally taken Measure Y funds in the past to fund Human Resources personnel, to pay for police officers not performing Measure Y functions, and for police academy training that resulted in no additional Measure Y officers. Indeed, the Police Department and the City Manager have admitted that Measure Y funds were taken to fund police academies that provided no additional Measure Y officers, and admit that the money needs to be repaid to Measure Y, but claim that they haven't found an alternative funding source.

A hearing in Alameda County Superior Court is scheduled for May 29, 2008.

Read the petition here (.PDF file)