Brown cleared in ethics complaint

Oakland Tribune, March 20, 2004

Brown cleared in ethics complaint

Commission rules mayor did not violate open meetings law; critics call decision 'ridiculous'

By Heather MacDonald, STAFF WRITER OAKLAND -- Mayor Jerry Brown did not violate the city's sunshine ordinance by introducing a last-minute proposal to change Oakland's risk-management policy, according to the city Public Ethics Commission.

The commission ruled late Thursday that the sunshine ordinance, which requires the city to conduct official business in the open with ample notice to the public, does not apply in this case to the mayor but only to the council, its standing committees and the city's other legislative bodies.

However, commission members were displeased with Brown's actions and agreed the public would have been better served had his proposal been included in agenda material published 10 days before the meeting.

" There is not a question that there was a violation," said commission Chairman Jon Sylvester. "But it is equally clear the ordinance does not apply to the mayor because he is not a legislative body." The commission also expressed frustration with the confusing language of the sunshine ordinance. Several members suggested the law be rewritten to cover the mayor, especially in light of the strong-mayor form of governmentthat was recently made permanent.

The complaint, filed by People United for a Better Oakland, alleged Brown conspired with police Chief Richard Word and other city officials to undercut public debate about the controversial policy at the Oct. 14 meeting of the Finance and Management Committee.

Calling the complaint "silly" and "vacuous," Brown was unrepentant Friday and demanded a letter of apology from PUEBLO.

" There was no violation of either the letter or the spirit of the law," Brown said. "I intend to do it again."

Brown said PUEBLO filed the complaint because of its "zealous" hatred of the Oakland Police Department and its policies. The group is a frequent critic of the department and its officers.

Rashidah Grinage of PUEBLO said the group was only attempting to hold Brown responsible for violating city law and would not apologize. Grinage criticized the commission's decision as politically motivated and "ridiculous."

" They were looking for a way to avoid censuring the mayor, and this is what they came up with," Grinage said. "They simply did not have any political courage."

PUEBLO met Friday to craft the group's next step, Grinage said.

" You can be assured we will not let this rest," she added.

In the fall, PUEBLO sought to force the city's departments, particularly the police, to bear the burden of lawsuits filed against the city by slashing their budgets.

Instead, Brown urged the committee to require police department commanders to hold face-to-face meetings with officers who are the subjects of complaints and allow internal affairs investigations to be reopened if new evidence emerges during a lawsuit or Citizens Police Review Board session.

PUEBLO also filed a complaint against Councilmember Danny Wan (Grand Lake-Chinatown), finance committee chairman. In a settlement approved by the commission, Wan acknowledged the public would have been better served if the mayor's proposal had been listed on the agenda and promised not to commit a similar violation in the future.

Ultimately, the council adopted a hybrid model incorporating Brown's proposal and allotting each department a certain amount of money each year to settle claims, based on a five-year average of payouts.

If the department goes over that budget, it would be forced to justify the additional claims before the City Council agrees to pay it from a citywide risk management reserve fund. But if the department reduces its liability and stays within its risk management budget, it could ask the City Council to allow the department to keep the money for additional programs or rewards, the council agreed.

E-mail Heather MacDonald at [email protected] .