Movement to Recall Mayor Tests Legitimacy
of City Government

By Charles Pine

The movement to recall Oakland Mayor Quan received official certification on Dec. 7, 2011. The next day a Survey USA poll commissioned by KPIX-TV found that 47 percent of residents favor recall. While the recall enjoys solid support among Oakland residents, the City Attorney's handling of it has undermined the legitimacy of government on which democracy depends.

The problem began when Greg Harland and several associates applied to circulate a second petition for recall of Mayor Quan. The City Clerk asked the City Attorney's office for analysis whether two recall petitions could be in circulation for voters' signatures at the same time. Ms. Parker's astounding answer was yes.

The staff attorney who wrote the opinion found no constitutional clause, statute, or regulation authorizing such an untenable situation. (This writer informally received the same finding from State employees.) The attorney rummaged among prior recall litigation and found the Morrow case from 1933. The spin on it was the assertion that "an elections official could act on a second petition when the first petition was tied up in legal proceedings." That situation is wholly different than the one in Oakland. (City Attorney opinion, Dec. 19, 2011, p. 2).

In 1933 the Supreme Court put the situation more bluntly: "Prior to the filing of the present petition a petition for the identical purpose was filed with the secretary of the district, was examined by him and determined to be sufficient, but before the completion of his certificate thereon eleven sections of the petition, containing some 647 names, were purloined from the files of the district." (Morrow v. Board of Directors of the Imperial Irrigation District et al., 219 Cal. 246; 26 P.2d 292; 1933)

The regrettable fact is that Ms. Parker's opinion serves political expediency, eroding the legitimacy of city government. The City Attorney has the Mayor as her client. Ms. Parker must be acutely aware of the relationship, since the previous city attorney, John Russo, resigned last year, citing Mayor Quan's unworkable relationship with him.

It is absurd that two petitions should be certified with overlapping time periods for collecting voters' signatures. Must voters keep track of them or else sign every petition they encounter, thus multiplying duplicate signatures on both petitions? What a gift to Mayor Quan! Oakland voters want to recall the mayor. If there must be a recall petition, Quan's best hope is to release two petitions out the starting gate, hoping that they trip over each other.

We don't need to recall Mayor Quan twice. One recall will suffice, thank you.

Ms. Parker could duck her problem by suggesting outside counsel for the City Clerk. Otherwise, her appropriate recommendation is obvious: there is no applicable State constitutional clause, statute, regulation, or case law. Therefore, the City Clerk has the authority to deny a second petition while the first petition is active.

As noted, Mr. Harland initiated the second recall application. The reason was said to be legal problems with the Dec. 7 petition, but he has not disclosed a defect to the public. Harland had the option to litigate on whatever his concern may be, thus resolving it without undermining recall. Or he could simply let the 160 days allotted to the first petition run out. The rushed filing of a second petition raises serious doubt whether his purpose is to recall Mayor Quan.

The Harland circle lacks the resources to circulate a second petition. Meanwhile, dozens of volunteers are circulating their approved Dec. 7 petition. As for paid canvassers, Harland estimates that kind of operation takes $30,000, and he told the Tribune that "the community" should collect that sum and give it to him rather than to the dedicated group already circulating the existing petition!

The implicit collaboration against democracy between City Attorney Parker and Mayor Quan is yet another reason for recalling the mayor.

The good news is that, despite the maneuvers at City Hall, there is one and only one petition in circulation. If you want to get City Hall back to basic services, public safety, and basic fiscal management, sign the petition offered you. Your signature now amounts to a demand for both a competent mayor and legitimate government.

Charles Pine is a member of Recall and Restore, the committee circulating the petition to recall Mayor Quan. This commentary is his own.