CAO Announces Layoffs and $2.6 MM Grant Cuts; Pared Down Council Meetings Continue Amid Other CAO Requests for Increased Spending
Oakland's City Administrator Jestin Johnson announced long-anticipated layoffs in an email to staff this week, according to sources and an internal memo sent Thursday, viewed by this publication and reported first by the East Bay Times and Oaklandside. The layoffs were announced to staff Thursday. Another Johnson memo announcing $2.6 MM in cuts to city-funded contracts with third-party service providers preceded the layoff announcement on Tuesday, but was not reported until Thursday as well by CM Janani Ramachandran via Instagram.
In December, the City Administrator's Office [CAO] brought the budget-balancing layoff actions to Council for ministerial acknowledgment in mid-December as part of a package to rebalance Oakland’s adrift budget—but it was part of a Phase 2 set of actions that some hoped could be averted. At that time a legislative report estimated 91 city positions would be laid off—according to Johnson's memo, the 100 figure includes "bumped" employees who could be shifted to potentially lower paying jobs or other assignments. By late January, layoffs were confirmed in closed session and were a spreading open secret across city departments ahead of the announcement.
Most of the layoffs will be in Public Works and the civilian section of OPD, with an effective date of February 28.
City Unions and Workers Contend the Layoffs May be Illegal
SEIU 1021's Oakland Chapter President, Antoinette Blue, told Oaklandside that the City is not following policy or law in its lay-offs reported a late Friday response by the City’s collective unions. An IFPTE 21 city worker confirmed to this publication that there is a wide-spread perception by city workers that the City isn't following its own civil service rules, which require that temporary workers, probationary workers, and workers with least seniority be laid off before permanent workers with high seniority. The employee, who asked to remain anonymous, told this publication that they believed the layoffs are yet another example of an incompetent city administration contributing to a worsening economic outlook for the City, with potential lawsuits from the City's unions being yet another misstep.
“[City Administrator and Finance Department] numbers keep changing, their actions don’t address the actual problems facing Oakland…and now they have exposed the City to litigation simply because they couldn’t follow clearly defined civil service rules,” the employee told this publication.
The employee gave the example of a 20 year co-worker in a revenue-generating position who is being given a lay off notice. That worker, they say, has clear seniority within their classification and the revenue they generate funds their position. Most importantly, though the layoffs are ostensibly meant to balance the General Purpose Fund, the funds that pay the position salary are derived from outside of the GPF. The employee believes that the layoff is actually being carried out as retaliation because the worker is an outspoken union member.
$2.6 MM Third Party Service Cuts Come as Surprise
Meanwhile, an internal memo* sent to the City Council members on Tuesday evening by City Administrator Jestin Johnson, announcing additional cuts to third-party service contracts has caught some Council members by surprise.
Johnson's’ memo reminds Council members that the body “directed the City Administrator to take additional actions as necessary to close the budget shortfall this fiscal year. Under this authority, the City Administrator’s Office is today distributing notices to recipients of City grants, providing them with 30 days’ notice that their grant agreements are being terminated…”
Johnson hints at the unexpected nature of the cuts, however:
“while we will be bringing more detailed expenditure and revenue updates to the Council in February, we anticipate your offices may be asked about these terminations, and we wanted to be sure you had the information prior to the distribution of these notices,” Jenkins writes.
The cuts affect programs run by 13 organizations subsidized by City grants and will be cut in mid-performance—payments for work already completed will be paid, but no further services will. The largest contract reduction on the list is $583K for a cannabis industry workforce certification and training program; the next largest is for a Spanish Speaking Unity Council grant for “human services support” that will yield $350K savings. Many of the remaining contract amounts are for $210K and under, some are as little as $10K. A Centro Legal de la Raza grant for “workers rights education and outreach” is just $70K. A Meals on Wheels contract will be cut for savings of $150K.
Tuesday's 5 pm email followed committee meetings where city staff nevertheless brought requests for expenditures. Notably, the Finance Department itself brought a request to appropriate funds for a contract renewal with Blue Sky financial consultants. The 4-year $650K contract with Blue Sky financial consultants is already budgeted for $255K in this fiscal year, and will cost $190K in the next that begins July 1.
The City also brought a request for $180K rent forgiveness for a former plaza tenant—Big Oakland—that has since moved to another location. Several questions came up about the scope and necessity of the Blue Sky contract and it was continued to a February 26th Finance meeting. But the rent forgiveness was forwarded to Tuesday’s City Council meeting as part of a new lease agreement for the same space with Family Bridges, and may seem an awkward companion to the news of widespread belt-tightening if discussed at length Tuesday.
$1 MM Centro Legal Tenant Protection Grant Withdrawn at Rules
At Rules Committee Thursday, the renewal of a long-standing contract with Centro Legal de La Raza for $1 MM in tenant support services and eviction defense [separate from the worker-related grant] was withdrawn for unspecified reasons—during the meeting, CM Carroll Fife protested the removal and the City Administrator eventually committed to reintroducing it for scheduling this coming Thursday, with changes made to the legislative report. Though the tenant protection contract is not among the contract cuts listed in Johnson's Tuesday memo, the memo also notes that more contract terminations could be ahead.
“Unfortunately, we do anticipate additional reductions remain necessary, including additional grant terminations and impacts on city contracts,” the email states.
Answers on the Centro Legal tenant protection contract are purportedly forthcoming at the 2/6 Rules Committee meeting.
Council in Low Gear
The layoffs and cuts come while the new City Council remains in low gear in its first weeks. This Tuesday’s Council meeting will be the second this month that has no Non-Consent Calendar items, which means there will be little deliberation at the meeting. The Consent Calendar is also short, most of the items are ministerial with the few items of substance on the agenda having been heard at sparsely agendized Committee meetings. As this publication reported previously, two committees were cancelled for lack of items to consider last week, Life Enrichment and Public Safety. Despite the public prominence of OPD's pursuit policy, the next Public Safety Committee 2/11 has also been cancelled due to lack of items to consider. No informational reports on City Administrator budgetary actions have been requested nor scheduled at Rules, nor to any committee.
Items going straight to consent include an Lease Agreement for 95 units of affordable housing at E 12th remainder parcel; and the new lease for Family Bridges for office space in the City owned plaza that houses City Hall with $180K in rent forgiveness for the previous tenant.
No specific reason has been given for the need for the contract cuts.
Addendum: After the publication of this article, Roots Community Health responded with a statement about the upcoming cut, complaining of a unilateral approach without engaging organizations:
Roots Community Health acknowledges the critical budget situation that the city of Oakland is facing and the tough road ahead. As long-time contracted partners with the city serving vulnerable populations, we would have hoped to work collaboratively with city leaders to seek solutions and set - or at least understand - priorities. Too often budget crises are balanced on the backs of those most in need. With all of the current uncertainty at the local and federal levels, we need leadership that seeks collective solutions that don’t abandon our values. A unilateral approach without engaging community leaders and elected officials or considering who we are as a community does not bode well for addressing the current crisis.
Superior Court Judge Ursual Jones-Dickson Appointed Interim ALCO DA in Marathon Day of Public Comment
In a nearly four hour public meeting, Alameda County’s Board of Supervisors [BOS] voted for the interim District Attorney who will run the office until a legally required election occurs next year. The BOS eventually took a split-vote in favor of Ursula Jones-Dickson through a complicated process that resembles ranked choice voting. The candidate was backed by “SAFE”, the loose organization founded by developer and Oakland property investor Phillip Dreyfuss, realtor Carl Chan and Brenda Grisham.
Ironically, the SAFE protagonists, several of whom have on the record denunciations of ranked choice voting, chose a slate-based strategy for their campaign for Jones-Dickson, pairing their advocacy for her with another candidate, Annie Esposito. Unlike the other five candidates, the two ran as allies, and Jones-Dickson promised to hire Esposito in a high level position—Esposito served under O’Malley for a decade at ALCO before leaving for Contra Costa County DA's Office when Price won ALCO's seat. According to a source with direct knowledge, Jones-Dickson has claimed she will also hire former DA Nancy O’Malley to fill a role in her administration.
The voting consisted of three rounds—in the first, each supervisor could choose up to two of the 7 candidates. The three candidates with the most votes advanced to the second round; supervisors again voted for as many as two candidates to advance to a final round, where one candidate was chosen. The decisive votes were taken by Supervisors Dave Haubert and Lena Tam, who supported a combination of either Jones-Dickson and Ann Esposito throughout. Both Miley and Elisa Marquez initially supported Johnson alongside Jones-Dickson but voted for Jones-Dickson in the final round [Marquez voted for Jones-Dickson in both rounds 2 and 3]. Tam voted for Esposito in the final round, while Bas voted solely for Johnson in all three rounds.
Despite being the clear favorite of SAFE Jones-Dickson claimed she had no relationship with the organization in her statement to the board shortly before their decision.
“I didn’t know any of these people from SAFE,” Jones-Dickson said in her comments to the board ahead of their vote.
Jones-Dickson, however, mentions SAFE several times in her power point to the BOS, and was seen attending a rally held by members of the group before the meeting.
Little has actually been made public about the details of Jones-Dickson’s 26 years in the Alameda County justice system outside of her resume. Jones–Dickson served as a prosecutor and Deputy District Attorney in the DA’s office for nearly 14 years, but there are only sparse details about the kinds of cases she prosecuted or how she performed in them.
Jones-Dickson has also been an Alameda County Superior Court Judge since 2013, appointed in mid-term by then-Governor Jerry Brown—most of that time has been spent in the juvenile court system. Because Jones-Dickson has never had an opponent for the office, her name has never appeared on a ballot and she has never produced campaign materials or appeared publicly campaigning.
Though the shadow of Venus Johnson’s professional relationship with Bonta loomed large in several comments, many supervisors lauded both Bonta and Johnson in their preface to the vote, even those who voted for Jones-Dickson. Nate Miley went so far as to say he considered Bonta a friend in his comments, though he ultimately voted for Jones-Dickson after proposing Johnson alongside her in his first and second tier vote. Haubert lauded Johnson in his post-vote remarks.
The public remarks during the meeting broke about evenly for Johnson and Jones-Dickson/Esposito, making them the frontrunners, but more speakers wanted someone other than Jones–Dickson/Esposito to fill the role than those that did. Regardless of whatever differences between the two—Johnson also worked under O’Malley for 8 years and several speakers who supported her remarked that there were few resemblances between Johnson’s goals and Price’s—speakers who favored Johnson were concerned about the possibility of increased sentencing, a carceral pov at the DA’s office and a blind-eye towards police abuses under Jones-Dickson, Esposito and several other candidates.
You can see a sampling of public remarks at this live reporting from the Oakland Observer X-account.
*The memo on cutting contracts/programs was sent before the layoffs memo; but due to the processes involved in layoffs, including meetings with the issue introduced, the information on layoffs became public as early mid-January. CM Janani Ramachandran revealed the existence of the contract memo on Thursday in an Instagram post.
Comments ()