Top Oakland Schools Financial Officer Who Resigned During Budget Crisis Still Collecting Monthly $19,100 Paycheck
https://www.eastbayexpress.com/SevenDays/archives/2018/06/27/top-oakland-schools-financial-officer-who-resigned-during-budget-crisis-still-collecting-monthly-19100-paycheck
Oakland Unified School District senior business officer Vernon Hal stepped down from his post last February amid a multimillion-dollar budget crisis that forced mid-year cuts and layoffs across the school system. While the district’s superintendent and board of directors didn’t blame Hal for these financial problems, many parents and teachers did. And a recent state report and Alameda County Grand Jury investigation also both identified “highly questionable” fiscal practices at the district that were undertaken while Hal was in charge.
But despite having left the district in a condition of fiscal distress five months ago, Hal is still being paid, according to public records obtained by the Express.
Since January, the district has been paying Hal $19,100 per month, plus all of the health and welfare benefits he was receiving while he was an employee. Furthermore, in July, the district is obligated to pay Hal a lump sum of $152,000. And through the end of this month, he’s also accruing vacation days, which the district will have to buy back from him by January 2019 at the latest.
In total, the district stands to pay Hal at least $267,400 for not working for six months, or about six times more than a starting teacher makes in an entire year. After the end of this month, the district is no longer obligated to pay Hal his salary.
This substantial severance package is the result of OUSD’s original employment contract with Hal. That deal required that, unless he was terminated for cause, the district would have to pay him a minimum of six months of his normal salary. The employment agreement was originally signed in August 2014, and in 2016 the school board extended these terms until June 30, 2019 while also raising Hal’s salary to $209,000 per year.
Had the district terminated Hal’s employment for cause, he would receive none of this extra pay.
According to his employment contract, Hal’s responsibilities included “ensuring fiscal solvency and establishing robust prioritization process to ensure adequate and sustainable funding for District priorities.” But the separation agreement that Hal signed in February didn’t assign him any responsibility for the district’s poor financial condition or otherwise find that he violated the requirements of his employment contract.
Two independently conducted investigations have found evidence of purposeful manipulation of OUSD’s financial systems, however.
In May, the state Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team (FCMAT) examined OUSD’s budget practices and found that under Hal’s leadership the district’s finances were trending in a “not sustainable” direction, and specifically that OUSD is in “fiscal distress” due to “intentional manipulation” of the general fund balance in order to make it appear that the system had more cash on hand than it really did. FCMAT’s team called these practices “highly unusual” and “suspicious,” and called for further investigation.
The Alameda County Grand Jury conducted its own investigation of OUSD’s finances and released its findings yesterday. The Grand Jury concluded that under Hal’s oversight, OUSD departments were able to hire for positions that weren’t budgeted, major errors in projecting enrollment led to deficits of several million dollars, and the district also improperly underfunded its self-insurance by as much as $30 million.
The Express was unable to reach Hal for comment. But his separation agreement provides one possible hint as to why OUSD’s board didn’t fire him. The agreement notes that Hal “asserted potential claims against the district relating to his employment, which if litigated, include damage claims for emotional distress.”
OUSD’s general counsel Marion McWilliams didn’t respond to an email from the Express seeking more information about Hal’s potential legal claims against the district.
But the agreement states plainly that Hal threatened possible legal action against OUSD if he were to be fired, and the district determined it was in its best interest to sign the $267,400 separation agreement.
Showing posts with label #Contracts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label #Contracts. Show all posts
Thursday, November 1, 2018
Tuesday, June 20, 2017
140 City of Oakland violating state and city open meeting laws during real estate giveaway meetings
Oakland’s ‘Backroom Dealing’ to Sell City-Owned Land Is Systemic Problem ‘Vulnerable to Undue Influence’
June 19, 2017 - East Bay Express
https://www.eastbayexpress.com/SevenDays/archives/2017/06/19/grand-jury-oaklands-backroom-dealing-to-sell-city-owned-land-is-systemic-problem-vulnerable-to-undue-influence
An investigation by the Alameda County Grand Jury alleges that Oakland city officials routinely violate state and city open meetings laws by discussing multimillion-dollar real estate deals in closed session.
According to the Grand Jury, Oakland officials do not properly notify the public through city council agendas when they’re discussing the sale of a city-owned property, keeping the public in the dark about ongoing deliberations.
The Grand Jury concluded that "the city’s misuse of closed sessions in discussing development of city property is a systemic problem."
Furthermore, the councilmembers and city staff don’t report on the substance of their private conversation to the public, which frequently includes matters such as "project vision, project scope, feasibility issues, community benefits, and selection of a developer" — all of which should be discussed in a public meeting, according to the Grand Jury. Furthermore, opportunities for members of the public to provide input on the deals is extremely limited.
The Grand Jury also found that individual councilmembers frequently hold private, one-on-one talks with the same developers the city is negotiating with. The city has no rules prohibiting these discussions, nor any requirement the contacts be disclosed to the public. As a result, the Grand Jury wrote that it is "concerned that private discussions during the pendency of the selection process favor well-connected developers, and make the process vulnerable to undue influence, or at least the perception thereof."
The Grand Jury is recommending that Oakland update its practices to comply with the Brown Act (the state's open meetings law) and the city's Sunshine Ordinance, and also require councilmembers to disclose when they privately meet with developers who are seeking public real estate.
Oakland's City Attorney did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the Grand Jury Report. The city administrator's office replied to an email that the city council will be preparing a response to the Grand Jury report.
"Backroom deals that exclude our communities have resulted in land use decisions that don’t serve existing residents and negatively impact Oakland’s vulnerable residents," said Ernesto Arevalo, an East Oakland resident who is part of a coalition of community groups that have been asking the city to develop a comprehensive public lands policy for several years now.
"We need more community representation in development, not developer lobbyists and or backroom deal making," said Arevalo. "And by stripping the public of its rightful role in this process, the [city] has spawned lopsided deals which only accelerate the mass displacement of marginalized Oaklanders."
The deals investigated by the Grand Jury include city-owned land at 1911 Telegraph Avenue, 2100 Telegraph Avenue, and the E. 12th Street Remainder Parcel. Negotiations for the Telegraph Avenue lands began in 2014, while the E. 12th Remainder Parcel began in 2015.
The city has 90 days to respond to the Grand Jury’s findings and recommendations.
June 19, 2017 - East Bay Express
https://www.eastbayexpress.com/SevenDays/archives/2017/06/19/grand-jury-oaklands-backroom-dealing-to-sell-city-owned-land-is-systemic-problem-vulnerable-to-undue-influence
An investigation by the Alameda County Grand Jury alleges that Oakland city officials routinely violate state and city open meetings laws by discussing multimillion-dollar real estate deals in closed session.
According to the Grand Jury, Oakland officials do not properly notify the public through city council agendas when they’re discussing the sale of a city-owned property, keeping the public in the dark about ongoing deliberations.
The Grand Jury concluded that "the city’s misuse of closed sessions in discussing development of city property is a systemic problem."
Furthermore, the councilmembers and city staff don’t report on the substance of their private conversation to the public, which frequently includes matters such as "project vision, project scope, feasibility issues, community benefits, and selection of a developer" — all of which should be discussed in a public meeting, according to the Grand Jury. Furthermore, opportunities for members of the public to provide input on the deals is extremely limited.
The Grand Jury also found that individual councilmembers frequently hold private, one-on-one talks with the same developers the city is negotiating with. The city has no rules prohibiting these discussions, nor any requirement the contacts be disclosed to the public. As a result, the Grand Jury wrote that it is "concerned that private discussions during the pendency of the selection process favor well-connected developers, and make the process vulnerable to undue influence, or at least the perception thereof."
The Grand Jury is recommending that Oakland update its practices to comply with the Brown Act (the state's open meetings law) and the city's Sunshine Ordinance, and also require councilmembers to disclose when they privately meet with developers who are seeking public real estate.
Oakland's City Attorney did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the Grand Jury Report. The city administrator's office replied to an email that the city council will be preparing a response to the Grand Jury report.
"Backroom deals that exclude our communities have resulted in land use decisions that don’t serve existing residents and negatively impact Oakland’s vulnerable residents," said Ernesto Arevalo, an East Oakland resident who is part of a coalition of community groups that have been asking the city to develop a comprehensive public lands policy for several years now.
"We need more community representation in development, not developer lobbyists and or backroom deal making," said Arevalo. "And by stripping the public of its rightful role in this process, the [city] has spawned lopsided deals which only accelerate the mass displacement of marginalized Oaklanders."
The deals investigated by the Grand Jury include city-owned land at 1911 Telegraph Avenue, 2100 Telegraph Avenue, and the E. 12th Street Remainder Parcel. Negotiations for the Telegraph Avenue lands began in 2014, while the E. 12th Remainder Parcel began in 2015.
The city has 90 days to respond to the Grand Jury’s findings and recommendations.
Friday, April 28, 2017
134 Oakland Bldg Dept - Code Enforcement strategies were adopted but never implemented.
April 24, 2017
Oakland Must Re-Imagine Code Enforcement As Advocate For Community Health and Safety
The recent fire tragedies in Oakland have shined the light on deplorable housing conditions in which many Oakland residents live. This problem is exacerbated with the growing diminishment of renters’ bargaining powers in a tightening housing market. To address Oakland’s housing habitability problems and prevent more tragedies require us to re-imagine Code Enforcement as an advocate for community health and safety. The City of Oakland and Code Enforcement had embraced such a vision several years ago, but the momentum stalled.
What happened and what can be done now?
Tasked by former Oakland City Administrators to lead Code Enforcement’s transformation in response to the 2011 Grand Jury Report, I had witnessed firsthand how Code Enforcement serves as an implementer for political values. The “get tough on blight” approach, highlighted in the Grand Jury Report, appeared rooted in former Mayor Brown’s vision of Oakland as a bedroom community for San Francisco. It was also driven by the City’s budget mandate that Code Enforcement operations be 100% revenue generating. The prior punitive rules resulted in quickly accruing expensive penalties for lower income homeowners who lacked the resources to fix up their blighted homes. Code Enforcement liens were then attached, transmitted over to the County Tax Collector for collection, and sometimes resulted in homes lost to investors at tax auctions. For example, the 2013 County tax auction included 75 vacant lots that had previous structures demolished by Code Enforcement.
The Grand Jury report served as an opportunity for Code Enforcement staff to be empowered to design a new vision. The staff, supported by a team that included the City Administration, City Attorney, City Council, County Health, and community groups, re-imagined Code Enforcement as a vehicle for community health and safety. To achieve this new vision required Code Enforcement to change its policies, create new partnerships, be less driven by revenue concerns, and allow its staff to operate as caring human beings.
The changes made meant that an elderly, low-income property owner with a damaged roof, rather than receiving a blight notice and subsequent fines, would instead receive referrals to rehab resources from Code Enforcement staff. It meant that Code Enforcement staff received trainings from County Health on health impacts from mold, were lent humidity reading new technology by San Francisco Health, and developed a case management team with County health workers.
However, sustaining the transformation of Code Enforcement required three strategies, two of which the City adopted in theory but never implemented.
First, Code Enforcement critically needs a full-time leader with expertise in health/community development and program/financial management. We had developed a job description for a new Code Enforcement Manager but the position was later eliminated.
Second, the City Council needs to adopt a Proactive Rental Inspection (PRI) ordinance that empowers Code Enforcement to proactively inspect rental units rather than the current flawed complaint system, target limited City resources towards the worst offenders, include anti-displacement strategies, and generate an ongoing new revenue source that’s spread broadly across rental units. Cities like Sacramento and Los Angeles have effectively implemented PRI programs, resulting in improvements to habitability and health.
Third, the City can use part of its new Infrastructure Bond $100 million for housing for a landlord rehabilitation fund in exchange for long-term affordable rents to counter the displacement crisis.
Councilmember Lynette McElhaney has been trying to advance a PRI policy. There’s an informational report from the City Administration headed to the Council CED Committee on April 25th. But there’s only so much the Administration can do—we need City Council action to pass a PRI ordinance, include a Code Enforcement Manager in its new budget, and create a Landlord Rehab/Anti-Displacement Fund. Without all three measures, Oakland’s housing habitability problems, as highlighted by the recent fire tragedies, will go unabated.
Margaretta Lin served as Deputy City Administrator for the City of Oakland and currently serves as Executive Director of the Dellums Institute for Social Justice.
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/oakland-must-re-imagine-code-enforcement-as-advocate-for-community-health-and-safety/Content?oid=6467985
Oakland Must Re-Imagine Code Enforcement As Advocate For Community Health and Safety
The recent fire tragedies in Oakland have shined the light on deplorable housing conditions in which many Oakland residents live. This problem is exacerbated with the growing diminishment of renters’ bargaining powers in a tightening housing market. To address Oakland’s housing habitability problems and prevent more tragedies require us to re-imagine Code Enforcement as an advocate for community health and safety. The City of Oakland and Code Enforcement had embraced such a vision several years ago, but the momentum stalled.
What happened and what can be done now?
Tasked by former Oakland City Administrators to lead Code Enforcement’s transformation in response to the 2011 Grand Jury Report, I had witnessed firsthand how Code Enforcement serves as an implementer for political values. The “get tough on blight” approach, highlighted in the Grand Jury Report, appeared rooted in former Mayor Brown’s vision of Oakland as a bedroom community for San Francisco. It was also driven by the City’s budget mandate that Code Enforcement operations be 100% revenue generating. The prior punitive rules resulted in quickly accruing expensive penalties for lower income homeowners who lacked the resources to fix up their blighted homes. Code Enforcement liens were then attached, transmitted over to the County Tax Collector for collection, and sometimes resulted in homes lost to investors at tax auctions. For example, the 2013 County tax auction included 75 vacant lots that had previous structures demolished by Code Enforcement.
The Grand Jury report served as an opportunity for Code Enforcement staff to be empowered to design a new vision. The staff, supported by a team that included the City Administration, City Attorney, City Council, County Health, and community groups, re-imagined Code Enforcement as a vehicle for community health and safety. To achieve this new vision required Code Enforcement to change its policies, create new partnerships, be less driven by revenue concerns, and allow its staff to operate as caring human beings.
The changes made meant that an elderly, low-income property owner with a damaged roof, rather than receiving a blight notice and subsequent fines, would instead receive referrals to rehab resources from Code Enforcement staff. It meant that Code Enforcement staff received trainings from County Health on health impacts from mold, were lent humidity reading new technology by San Francisco Health, and developed a case management team with County health workers.
However, sustaining the transformation of Code Enforcement required three strategies, two of which the City adopted in theory but never implemented.
First, Code Enforcement critically needs a full-time leader with expertise in health/community development and program/financial management. We had developed a job description for a new Code Enforcement Manager but the position was later eliminated.
Second, the City Council needs to adopt a Proactive Rental Inspection (PRI) ordinance that empowers Code Enforcement to proactively inspect rental units rather than the current flawed complaint system, target limited City resources towards the worst offenders, include anti-displacement strategies, and generate an ongoing new revenue source that’s spread broadly across rental units. Cities like Sacramento and Los Angeles have effectively implemented PRI programs, resulting in improvements to habitability and health.
Third, the City can use part of its new Infrastructure Bond $100 million for housing for a landlord rehabilitation fund in exchange for long-term affordable rents to counter the displacement crisis.
Councilmember Lynette McElhaney has been trying to advance a PRI policy. There’s an informational report from the City Administration headed to the Council CED Committee on April 25th. But there’s only so much the Administration can do—we need City Council action to pass a PRI ordinance, include a Code Enforcement Manager in its new budget, and create a Landlord Rehab/Anti-Displacement Fund. Without all three measures, Oakland’s housing habitability problems, as highlighted by the recent fire tragedies, will go unabated.
Margaretta Lin served as Deputy City Administrator for the City of Oakland and currently serves as Executive Director of the Dellums Institute for Social Justice.
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/oakland-must-re-imagine-code-enforcement-as-advocate-for-community-health-and-safety/Content?oid=6467985
Tuesday, December 20, 2016
24 City of Oakland Planning and Bldg Dept (DBI) - 2011 Grand Jury Report - the logical next step must be a criminal investigation
2010-2011 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report
http://www.acgov.org/grandjury/final2010-2011.pdf
June 2011
Grand jury appalled at Oakland building inspectors
If the annual report of the Alameda County grand jury is an accurate account of the operations inside the city of Oakland's Building Services Division, the logical next step must be a criminal investigation
The city's appeals process, if you could actually call it that, operated more like a scam than a legitimate administrative function where property owners' claims were heard by objective parties. Property owners reported being denied on first appeal, often with the code enforcement officer who issued the citation acting as the hearing officer.
Even when residents didn't appeal and did agree to sign a compliance plan to correct the problems, the agency added a 14.75 percent fee for records management and technology enhancement. Yet, when the grand jury issued a subpoena for records, the city could not locate all of them, the report said.
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/johnson/article/Grand-jury-appalled-at-Oakland-building-inspectors-2366475.php
June 2011
Bldg Services Mgr Receives a 10 year interest only loan made by a debris removal contractor
One of the more troubling findings was confirmation of a 10-year interest-only loan made by a debris removal contractor to a Building Services manager. The same contractor was awarded "a disproportionately large number of contracts" for debris removal and abatement work, the report said.
The loan was reported to the Fair Political Practices Commission, which is required by law, two years later. The city's Building Services manager "at one time listed her address at a property owned by the contractor," the report said.
Inside the city's Building Services offices, the contractor had free rein, and on more than one occasion submitted the low bid for a contract and then issued a change-order to increase its value. "These change orders inflated the price of the contracts, increasing the cost of the lowest-winning bid," the report concluded.
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/johnson/article/Grand-jury-appalled-at-Oakland-building-inspectors-2366475.php
Practices identified in a 1999 Grand Jury Report were still in use in 2011
Another egregious practice, identified previously in a 1999 grand jury report, was still in use until recently.
In its review of property records from 2007 to 2010, the grand jury found "prospective liens" city officials used to issue "warnings" to property owners.
Not only did the practice encumber a property and make it more difficult for an owner to secure funds to comply with city orders, the fines appeared arbitrary and punitive. The report found no correlation between fine amounts and cleanup costs.
http://www.acgov.org/grandjury/final2010-2011.pdf
June 2011
Grand jury appalled at Oakland building inspectors
If the annual report of the Alameda County grand jury is an accurate account of the operations inside the city of Oakland's Building Services Division, the logical next step must be a criminal investigation
The city's appeals process, if you could actually call it that, operated more like a scam than a legitimate administrative function where property owners' claims were heard by objective parties. Property owners reported being denied on first appeal, often with the code enforcement officer who issued the citation acting as the hearing officer.
Even when residents didn't appeal and did agree to sign a compliance plan to correct the problems, the agency added a 14.75 percent fee for records management and technology enhancement. Yet, when the grand jury issued a subpoena for records, the city could not locate all of them, the report said.
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/johnson/article/Grand-jury-appalled-at-Oakland-building-inspectors-2366475.php
June 2011
Bldg Services Mgr Receives a 10 year interest only loan made by a debris removal contractor
One of the more troubling findings was confirmation of a 10-year interest-only loan made by a debris removal contractor to a Building Services manager. The same contractor was awarded "a disproportionately large number of contracts" for debris removal and abatement work, the report said.
The loan was reported to the Fair Political Practices Commission, which is required by law, two years later. The city's Building Services manager "at one time listed her address at a property owned by the contractor," the report said.
Inside the city's Building Services offices, the contractor had free rein, and on more than one occasion submitted the low bid for a contract and then issued a change-order to increase its value. "These change orders inflated the price of the contracts, increasing the cost of the lowest-winning bid," the report concluded.
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/johnson/article/Grand-jury-appalled-at-Oakland-building-inspectors-2366475.php
Practices identified in a 1999 Grand Jury Report were still in use in 2011
Another egregious practice, identified previously in a 1999 grand jury report, was still in use until recently.
In its review of property records from 2007 to 2010, the grand jury found "prospective liens" city officials used to issue "warnings" to property owners.
Not only did the practice encumber a property and make it more difficult for an owner to secure funds to comply with city orders, the fines appeared arbitrary and punitive. The report found no correlation between fine amounts and cleanup costs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)