BOS Sets Recall for November; City Unions Want Answers on Business Tax; Police Commission Ballot Measure Panned, Withdrawn at Rules; Youth vs Apocalypse Chastises Port on CED No-Show, and more...

With Bare Quorum, ALCO BOS Votes to Schedule Recall in November General Election

A long-expected decision by Alameda County Board of Supervisors [ALCO BOS] about when to schedule the recall for DA Pamela Price came to a quick conclusion on Tuesday, though only a bare BOS quorum remained to make the decision. With a vote of the three Supervisors still present, the Board voted to consolidate the recall question into the general election to be held November 5, where voters will also vote for the President of the United States and a number of local governance roles.

The decision brought to an end the recall proponents’ campaign to hold the recall in a midsummer special election—a move that could have, as Registrar of Voters Tim Dupuis predicted, cost as much as $20 MM and impacted the success of the general election months later in November. Dupuis shared insights into the challenges of giving in to the proponent's demands and holding a county-wide special election within a short time frame.

“We have to onboard staff early in order to support this special election. We have to identify 32 vote centers for the election …we've also got to work with our paper vendor, as this is a big order for ballots. This is a county wide election. Therefore it's going to be a lot of ballots that are sent out to over 930 or 940,000, depending on the number of voters that we have. And our paper vendor is not prepared and has not stocked up for that many ballots,” Dupuis said, enumerating some among many other concerns he had, including potential legal challenges that would take voting machines out of commission.

The BOS decision has, for months, hinged on a difficult-to-gauge series of events, constrained by statutory time limits, certifications, and duties in what Supervisors have frequently characterized as a historically unique event. Almost every step of the recall process has hinged on a subjective reading of California law, the ancient County charter, constitutional norms and the incoming effects of Measure B, the ballot measure that replaces current recall rules with state rules passed in March. Before the BOS on Tuesday were two options: setting the recall for November's ballot, or at a series of dates within the next 4 months as a special election.

During public comment, speakers alluded to many of these issues. Several speakers noted that the certification of the recall itself was questionable, for example. Reisa Jaffe, an opponent of the recall, noted that the Registrar of Voters had failed to follow the old charter rules, which were still in effect at the time of verifying signatures. Jaffe called the certification of the recall “illegal.”

“Your decision today is not about whether or not the DEA impacts the safety of Alameda County residents. That would be up to the voters if this was a legal election and could go forward. I have heard agreement that the county charter rules that were in place prior to the March primary were applicable to the counting of the signatures for this recall effort. Those charter rules required a determination of the number of valid signatures by 10 days. The method the registrar used to meet that 10-day deadline did not result in enough valid signatures to meet recall requirements,” Jaffe told the body.

Public comment on the issue was only slightly shorter than the one at a previous meeting to certify the signatures, coming in just short of two hours, but it was quite diverse. Among those seeking a recall were relatives of homicide victims who feared a greater surge of violence if Price fails to harshly prosecute suspects involved in the crimes. Several speakers backing the recall also argued that the BOS should have followed the charter’s language, requiring certification “without delay” and then “forthwith causing a special election to be held” thereafter—language that was written before California’s 1949 Brown Act outlawed closed-door decision-making sessions of the entire board. Others claimed that the danger Price posed to law and order was so great, the election should happen as soon as possible by whatever means.

Brenda Portio, whose son had been murdered, said she believed Price’s policies were responsible for increases in violence and urged the body to schedule the recall as soon as possible.

“I ask that you please consider this special election, because we need justice for our babies and aren't actually nothing's going to change and Pamela Price is still in office because yes, crimes did exist, but it has gotten worse. And the leniency in crime has increased as well. That's why they continue to commit these crimes and hurt people as well,” Portio said.

Other speakers in public comment said that the cost of the recall was too great for a special election, especially in light of remarks by Supervisors who acknowledged the County’s budget deficit of $68 MM and the looming $100 MM budget deficit of the Alameda Health System the BOS is responsible for. Yoel Haile, Director of the Criminal Justice Program at the ACLU of Northern California, argued that the expenditure would rob the County of revenue for programs that impact public safety.

“As has been said before, at a time of historic budget deficit at the local and state level, it is imperative that county resources are spent on programs and services that will actually improve public and community safety. Things like civilian response to mental health crisis, community based mental health treatment centers throughout the county, increasing funding to violence prevention programs that prevent and reduce gun violence and gun related homicides, school based restorative justice programs and others. These are the things that we know for sure increase public safety, while facing a current deficit of more than $68 million,” Haile said.

Some opponents of the recall were also involved in the local criminal justice ecosystem. Margaret Petros, the Executive Director of Mothers Against Murder, and a certified victim advocate, noted that Price was shouldering responsibility for decades-old systemic problems at the District Attorney’s office. Petros said that she represented one of the speakers who’d blamed Price for a lack of attention to victims during the meeting—but pointed out that Price’s office was more responsive than previous administrations for that client.

“District Attorney Pamela Price is being blamed for problems and victims’ rights violations that have existed at the DA's Victim Services Unit for the past four decades. There is a systemic problem that you cannot possibly expect a brand-new district attorney to fix so quickly. I can testify to you and in good conscience that this is the first time in my long career that I found a very smart, very sympathetic, new victim services director at the Alameda County DA’s office, who fixed a problem quickly after I complained in an email to DA price…[Price] promptly asked the director to connect with me. And actually a mother who lost her child that spoke today, it was that case—but it was fixed very quickly,” Petros said.

Others argued that a district attorney administration has minimal impact on crime rates, and that Price had not been in office long enough to create any change from her predecessor before the recall campaign began just weeks after she entered office. Richard Spiegelman, a long-time Oakland resident and criminologist, told the board that the focus on Price is misdirected:

“Criminological and scientific data suggest that [Price] had no opportunity to have any impact on the crime rate in Oakland at the time at which the recall was circulated.”

That latter sentiment seemed to be shared by Supervisor Keith Carson, who in his lengthy comments before the vote noted that the recall campaign began only two months after Price assumed office.

"The election of the current DA was November, 2022, sworn in January 3 2023. April, the 13th was the first time I remember seeing in in the papers, a recall effort less than two months after the person just assumed a job...whoever that DA is in place, whoever that person is that has been duly elected, I think that they deserve at least a reasonable period of time, in order to find out what their job entails, to understand their job and be able to carry it out," Carson said.

By the time of the vote, after a brief recess at around 7:20 pm, Supervisors David Haubert and Lena Tam had left the meeting. Haubert and Tam had been present at the body’s regular meeting, which began at 9 am, and had not noted any need for an excused departure during either meeting.

When Chair Nate Miley read back the roll call with both missing, Supervisor Elisa Marquez was incredulous at Tam's departure.

“She’s left?” Marquez asked.

County Counsel Donna Ziegler asked to repeat the roll again after Miley’s initial roll call, reflecting as well the appearance that Tam and Haubert’s departure was unexpected and surprising.

Nevertheless, by the time the question came before the three remaining Supervisors, there was not much doubt that the recall would end up on November’s ballot. Miley, who had appeared in a Twitter-posted photo with recall organizers Brenda Grisham and Carl Chan that Grisham captioned “my A-team” only days before, had been the only unknown factor in the remaining group of three supervisors. Carson had contributed to Price’s 2028 re-election campaign in February and has consistently expressed concerns about the recall and its processes.

Had Miley voted “no” or abstained on Marquez’s motion to hold the recall election in November, the item would have failed; had he followed through and provided a substitute motion for a date in the Summer, both Carson and Marquez would likely have voted no, and that motion would have failed. A failure for both options would have only meant that by law, the ROV would pick up the decision within five days, and Dupuis’ opposition to any outcome besides a November date for the recall election are well documented. But Miley stated his opposition to a special Summer election within moments of beginning his commentary on the vote, saying:

“For me, I think the bottom line is the fact that I can't in good conscience support a special election that's going to cost the county nearly $20 million. And I just feel, as a fiduciary of the taxpayer’s funding, that would be irresponsible on my part.”

While legal issues still remain regarding questions including the certification of signatures and the residency of signature gatherers, they require a non-government actor to engage them by bringing suit against the county. If a court challenge happens between now and November, it could change the ultimate date of a recall, or even determine whether one happens at all.

As Board of Supervisors Counsel Donna Ziegler noted during the deliberations:

“There's a possibility that some people who might challenge are waiting to see the outcome of the election, and then only decide whether or not they will challenge if the outcome of the election is not what they want. I can't know the strategy decisions that are being made by parties who have interests in this process.”

Jenkins Suggests Late Night Suspension of Pursuit Rules “after 2am”—the Hour Lolomania Soakai Was Killed in OPD Pursuit

The Public Safety Committee forwarded legislation to Tuesday's full Council meeting that would, if passed, direct the Oakland Police Commission to review and potentially revise the OPD’s pursuit policies on Tuesday. The legislation was brought by CMs Treva Reid and Kevin Jenkins, who have been somewhat cagey about what they seek as an outcome. At the meeting, Jenkins suggested that after consulting best practices, the Police Commission could arrive at changes to the policies that would enable more pursuits for non-violent crimes. Read more about the best practices and legislation here.

In his comments, Jenkins suggested that one possible change would be to relax the rules on pursuits after 2 am.

"There are times where it might be more feasible to chase, maybe 2 am where there might be less pedestrians out," Jenkins said.

Jenkins returned to the suggestion later, as well.

2 am is the timeframe reported for the collision that took the life of Lolomania Soakai—that collision resulted from an unsanctioned high speed OPD chase on International Blvd in 2022 after involved officers witnessed a car doing donuts. The officers were found in violation of OPD polices and were apparently technically fired, but have been appealing their cases through skelly proceedings. The officers are still listed as employed with OPD.

The Oakland Observer asked Jenkins if he was aware that the timeframes of the incidents have witnessed serious OPD-pursuit-caused collisions. Jenkins responded that he was aware of the details of the Soakai collision. The Oakland Observer also asked Jenkins if he stands by his suggestion that there is less danger to pedestrians in after-midnight chases with the Soakai collision in mind. Jenkins only responded that he believes “the Police Commission should review and make modifications to the policy.”

City’s Unions Want Answers on Business Tax Delinquencies

City unions held a rally ahead of Tuesday morning’s Finance Committee meeting last Tuesday, demanding answers about the City’s accumulating Business License Tax [BLT] delinquencies as a historic deficit casts a pall over budgeting. The unions say that up to $34 MM in taxes appear to be delinquent, according to a memo released by the Finance Department several weeks ago.

Julian Ware, the Vice President of IFTPE Local 21 opened the press conference by saying thousands of businesses were delinquent in 2023, and if the Finance Department fails to collect the funds, workers and the services Oakland residents rely on, will suffer.

“In 2023, thousands of businesses did not pay business taxes by the April 17 deadline. As much as $34 million in business tax collections from prior years may still be outstanding...the first notices of delinquency were mailed a full six months after the normal timeline for business tax collections. Today thousands of businesses still have not been noticed. This has a serious and deeply unfair impact on our city's ability to provide vital services. We have a simple message. Don't make Oakland pay for tax evasion,” Ware said.

The union claim derives from the addition of all the delinquencies over a period of three years, but it's not clear if those are cumulative or when they’ve been paid. In a response to the Oaklandside, City spokespersons suggested that some undisclosed number of the delinquencies have been paid off in the meantime and that the amount may be in the range of $20 MM, including this year’s delinquencies.

At the rally, and during the public comment period at the subsequent Finance Committee meeting, union members from IAFF 55, SEIU 1021, IBEW Local 1245 and IFPTE 21 warned of the dangers to workers and residents if the city balances the budget by relying on layoffs and facility closures instead of missing revenue. Zack Unger, the President of Local 55 and Council District 1 candidate said that he fears the budget will rely on firehouse closures.

“A house fire doubles in size every minute. And what we're looking at is an increase in response times from four minutes to eight minutes, 10 minutes, 12 minutes…We are already at a point where we are unable to do the work that we need to do because we are so short staffed, and the closure of even one firehouse will tip us over into a catastrophic loss. Firehouse cuts are a tragedy for the people in Oakland who can least afford it…we must demand that our finance department do the hard, creative work of looking under every stone for every dollar owed to the citizens of Oakland before we begin cutting services to those folks who can least afford it,” Unger said.

Over the past several weeks, Council members led by Council President Nikki Fortunato Bas have queried the Finance Department about the BLT delinquencies as a way to avoid layoffs.

Though BLT revenue has increased dramatically since 2022 due to a ballot measure originally developed by Bas, Thao and then-Council member Sheng Thao—bringing in $19 MM in additional BLT revenue—this year’s Business Tax revenues are coming in under projections. Those projections predicted growth over the 2022-23 fiscal year, but the revenue instead stagnated and stayed at last year’s levels, creating a $9 MM shortfall in the BLT revenues. Bas first raised the question of the BLT delinquencies at a late March Finance meeting where Roseman and Budget Director Bradley Johnson laid out —the memo was the first response to the questions.

Over the last several weeks at public meetings, Roseman has painted a portrait of a department piecing together the BLT delinquencies using “bankers boxes” of hard copy records after being locked out of the system in the aftermath of the 2023 ransomware attack in partial response. But Roseman has struggled to explain why the Finance Department isn’t capacitated to provide current reports about the delinquencies. Roseman's Finance Department has informed council people that the Department would have to pay their software contractor to run a specific query that can’t be carried out otherwise.

After the rally, union members also lodged their complaints during public comment at the scheduled Finance Committee meeting. Nicole Welch, a 22 year employee expressed frustration about warnings to the City on BLT delinquencies.

“My colleagues who are in the Revenue Bureau, rang the alarm, in January of 2023 of our grave concerns about the collection of delinquency…we had a request to the City Administrator…in January of 2024, regarding the delinquency because as a person who's been here 22 years, I've seen this dance. I know what's about to happen. There is going to be a call for this body to balance the budget off of our backs. And to regress city services to the citizens of Oakland. And I say that right there, collect the money that's owed.”

Chanel Smith, a long-time city worker, feared the City and Council would cut an already depleted workforce in the quest for funds to shore up the budget.

“You have given us skeleton ships for over five years now. And now those are the positions you're cutting. There's nobody there to cut. It's only us here because you've been cutting those positions forever…so where are you cutting from? You're cutting from your staff, they're on the ground working, you're cutting the people that are holding the city up, you're cutting the services that we're offering to our communities, please do more than just look at us as a source of funds.”

Roseman was in attendance at the meeting, but there was no item on the agenda for business license tax, and the questions from city workers went unaddressed.

More information about the business tax could be revealed in the coming weeks as the budget deliberation period begins, and hard data on the steps taken to curb this year’s projected deficit are brought to Council in May. The City’s mid-cycle budget amendments were originally due to be published last Friday, but it’s been postponed, potentially to revise revenue or expenditure projections, according to a source at the City. The mid-cycle amendment is different than the biennial budget process—the amendments alter the baselines of the projections completed in 2023.

Middle School Kids Challenge Council and Port on Airport Expansion After Port of Oakland Cancels Expansion “Study Session” at CED

Several local middle-school students and their adult allies spoke at an Oakland Community and Economic Development Committee [CED] meeting Tuesday, lodging their opposition to the Port of Oakland’s current attempts to increase air traffic above East Oakland’s skies. The meeting had been initially scheduled as a “study session” for the Port’s proposed airport expansion project [rescheduled to May 14], pushed by CM Dan Kalb. But shortly after asking for the item to be scheduled at Rules, Kalb told the public in an open session of the CED that the Port had canceled its presentation with no new date provided.

The students, who organize with Youth Vs the Apocalypse, and are part of Stop OAK Expansion, a large coalition of community and environmental groups that oppose any expansion, came to the meeting where the study session would have been held to make their opposition heard and to complain about the untransparent stance of the port. Tommy, an eighth grader at Urban Promise Academy, told the committee:

“Many neighborhoods like ours in Fruitvale suffer from asthma—50% of my class have asthma or know someone with asthma. Those problems are caused by an increase in fossil fuels and harmful particulate matter. Knowing that airplanes are directed to fly over low income by poor communities and neighborhoods, it will cause even more harm if the airport will expand,”

“This is bigger than just this one expansion of our futures depend on the decisions that we make today. And I think it's incredibly important that we listen to our youth. And we listen to future generations when they say, and we are saying, that we need to protect our communities and our health. These students here today are part of communities that are most impacted by pollution. And you have the power to make decisions right now that can greatly impact our futures,” Naya, an organizer with Communities for a Better Environment, told the CMs.

Cory Jong, a teacher at Urban Promise and an environmental organizer in local schools, shared her experience with students who told her that 90% of their airport adjacent middle school had asthma. “This request to stop the Oakland airport expansion is one of many ways that youth understand the disproportionate impacts of environmental racism on low income, frontline communities of color, and their responsibility as a generation to ask us all to wake up and take action and take action now.”

Several in the group complained about the absence of the port representatives at the meeting.

Kalb reassured the group that he had personally spoken to the Port Director [who he did not name], who gave him an “absolutely firm agreement” to participate in a study session for the project after the completion of its Environmental Impact Report later in the year.

The committee's response was a mixed bag. Kalb and CM Carroll Fife telegraphed support. Fife told students:

“I see a bright future for all of you all if you're advocating not only for yourselves, but also for the adults who we have to share the world with. So thank you for coming here today,” Fife told the students.

But the CMs responsible for the airport-adjacent areas Noel Gallo and Kevin Jenkins appeared unmoved. Several video captures provided by the organizing group to this publication shot during the students’ comments show Kevin Jenkins, the D6 Council member whose district abuts the airport, engaged with his phone instead of speakers. Jenkins was extremely brief in his comments, simply thanking students for coming.

District 5 CM, Noel Gallo, the council member of the area of the school, and the Fruitvale members several of the students claimed as their community, dismissed the students’ concerns by claiming they should focus on the airport as a source of jobs. Gallo suggested students take a tour of the airport instead, to see how it benefits community members.

“So you can actually see from the beginning to the end what is being provided at the airport. Not only employment, economic opportunities, with the expansion…they'll give you a tour of the Port of Oakland. And when you see the growth where the ships are coming in, where the cargo is coming in, where [are goods] being delivered, who's actually working at the Port of Oakland...its Oakland, Oakland residents, there are jobs being created.”

Gallo has expressed public support for the renaming of the airport to attract San Francisco bound passengers and expand air traffic at Port meetings in the past months.

One student, Seva Mesa, later complained about Gallo’s comments to a KCBS reporter:

“I feel like some council members tried to undermine what we were saying, like it will all be fine, because they’re making all these jobs, even though they are killing the planet,” Mesa said.

Attempt to Introduce Oakland Police Commission Ballot Measure Legislation Reveals Strong Opposition from Advocacy Groups, Commission Chair and Council Members

CM Kevin Jenkins pulled his proposed expansive Oakland Police Commission [OPC] Ballot Measure from Thursday’s Special Rules Meeting, where it was scheduled to be heard as a substantive matter*. Jenkins told the body that he pulled the legislation to confer with other council members and community about the language in the proposal.

Jenkins’ pulling of the ballot measure, only seemed to increase concern about the radical changes to the OPC he’s proposed, when members of the Coalition for Police Accountability [CPA] expressed confusion and disappointment at the decision to hear public comment on the item—a requirement of the state Brown Act on public meetings. The CPA’s President, Cathy Leonard, broke order to complain to the rules committee in an unamplified, and unpermitted public comment that nevertheless was picked up in the Council video record. The group, according to the CPA’s President, Cathy Leonard, had an “agreement” that the item would be pulled, and thus did not anticipate public comments and had not signed up for the item within the required time limit—Leonard told the body that a hundred community members were ready to speak on the issue, but had stood down and now could not sign up to speak on the issue. Many members of the group, which essentially co-wrote the original ballot measure that created the Police Commission, still came to speak on the legislation, however.

Jenkins’ current ballot measure proposes a pivotal reversal of the core principles of the Commission, removing the Commission’s power to hire and fire the Police Chief and the Inspector General; removing the community-driven selection process for Commissioners and splitting the appointments between Council members and the Mayor which would produce 9 instead of 7 commissioners, among other changes.

Several members of the CPA and its allied groups opposed Jenkins’ amendments in public comment, describing them as hasty and a politicization of the Commission’s problems over the past two years.

Pastor Jaqueline Thompson representing Allen Temple Baptist Church said she was opposed to the ballot measure concept itself in light of the fact that both Jenkins and CM Dan Kalb are currently preparing an enabling ordinance amendment for the Commission. The Council has the power to dictate several of the rules around the Commission, including qualifications for service and removal of Commissioners by the Council through the enabling ordinance, which is a necessary part of implementing the ballot measures that have produced the OPC. But after Measure S1 amending the OPC passed in 2020, the City Council did not return to update the enabling ordinance, a situation the Kalb/Jenkins legislation seeks to resolve.

“My advice would be that this amendment be removed actually from this committee, given that the enabling ordinance rewrite is already taking place…and given that the rewrite is already in process, perhaps we should yield to that measure,” Thompson said.

The changes to the enabling ordinance were originally introduced last July by CM Kalb and Jenkins. In recent months, the legislation has been undergoing review from the OPC and from the City's unions, including potentially, the OPOA, that might be affected by the changes.

The Chair of the Oakland Police Commission, Marsha Peterson, also spoke against Jenkins' measure. Peterson was at the center of the instability that some speakers and Council members referenced that's shaken the OPC, becoming embroiled in a public fight that appeared more personal than substantive. Peterson also engaged in deliberate strike violating OPC rules that caused the OPC to be unable to meet for about a month.

The struggle itself is intrinsically connected to several ongoing quandaries for the City of Oakland’s political environment—Peterson was aligned with others who demanded the removal of former Commissioner Brenda Harbin-Forte. Those commissioners, as well as members of the CPA, publicly requested that the Mayor use her power as the appointing entity for Harbin-Forte’s seat to do so. The Mayor did remove Harbin-Forte, who subsequently went on to helm a current recall effort against her. Though the leadership that Peterson and her allies opposed eventually ran out their terms and were not reappointed, per their lobbying of the selection panel, Peterson went on to lead the Commission to propose the hiring of former Chief Leronne Armstrong. The move created a public and embarrassing rift with the Mayor’s office, delayed the selection of a police chief for several more months, and contributed to negative media-driven public perceptions of the OPC.

Peterson’s chief complaint at the meeting was that the ballot measure would coincide with an upcoming NSA court management conference, where OPD’s emergence from the NSA could be considered. Peterson argued that the OPC is considered a necessary successor to court oversight, but the proposed ballot measure would weaken that oversight if passed—and the suggestion to the Court that the OPC is not ready for the burden would remain even if it fails.

“The Commission in past court filings has stated to the court that its ability to conduct meaningful civilian oversight is through its charter mandates that were overwhelmingly passed by the voters of Oakland. This proposal calls into question whether the commission is structurally and resource-wise able to provide effective constitutional police reform oversight in light of the proposed charter amendments to the Commission's roles and responsibilities,” Peterson said. Peterson also referred to the ballot measure as “backroom machinations to weaken the Commission”.

Rashida Grinage, long the public face of the measures that created the Commission, noted the dangers of placing the ballot measure next to a ballot measure that would succeed Measure Z and continue to use parcel tax revenue to boost police staffing and violence prevention efforts. Measure Z sunsets this year, and several non-governmental groups are collecting signatures to place its successor on the ballot.

“When we first came to the council in 2014, with Measure LL, we were told that it would not be a good idea to have two different measures on the ballot that both had to do with the police. It would be confusing to the voters and it would jeopardize what at that time was called measure Y [currently known as Measure Z]. And so that is why measure LL was deferred to 2016. So now, we're here again, where you're trying to re-up Measure Z, which funds 70 OPD police officers—which if it fails, will be amazing in terms of the already difficult budget situation that you're facing,” Grinage warned.

In her comments, Council President Bas said she shared the concerns about the presence of a Measure Z successor on the same ballot as a Police Commission amendment. Bas as well as Kalb also wondered if the enabling ordinance changes could be used to answer some of Jenkins’ concerns on the ballot measure.

Kalb, the co-author on the original Measure LL that created the OPC, voiced several concerns as well, rejecting the idea of Council appointing Commission members, or the Inspector General and Chief selection be taken out of the purview of the Commission. Kalb said he supported the goal of expanding the investigatory role of the CPRA, but believed it was possible to find a way to solve the Commission’s problems via the enabling ordinance.

In the midst of the discussion, CM Carroll Fife revealed that the current Inspector General, Michelle Phillips will be leaving the position, a statement that caught Kalb, who had just lauded her, off-guard. The news of the departure of Phillips was confirmed by Oaklandside this afternoon. Phillips had a troubled relationship with the Commission that began with former Chair Tyfarah Millele, but may have extended into the current leadership group.

As Bas noted, the Rules committee has only two sessions left to move forward Council ballot measure legislation in time for the November election. It's not clear if Jenkins' ballot measure will return.

*the Rules Committee generally does not discuss the content or merits of legislation, concerned mostly with keeping schedules balanced and the language of the items themselves in legal bounds. The exception is for Council sponsored ballot measures, which are heard and discussed first at Rules