Oakland’s CM Pat Kernighan Ignores Info Exonerating Desley Brooks

by

Oakland Councilmember And Oakland City Council President Pat Kernighan (District 2) continues to hone and refine her new role as Oakland’s version of the The Emperor from Star Wars.

Joining with Oakland City Auditor Courtney Ruby in an unholy tag team that was first against Oakland’s two black councilmembers, Desley Brooks (District 6) and Larry Reid (District 7) they’ve now elected to zero-in on one of them, Brooks, just to make it all a bit more digestible.

The fact is, all of this is being done because there are Oakland Councilmebers who don’t like Desley Brooks and the way she treats them. But rather than handle the issues behind closed doors, as Oakland elected officials have done in the past, Kernighan, Ruby, and Oakland’s Chief Administrative Officer Deena Santana have decided to use this most politically tone-deaf and wrong-headed approach. One that wastes taxpayer dollars, literally, on a witch-hunt.

What’s most sad about this attempt to censure Brooks is that Desley’s being accused of “interfering” with Oakland City Staff in the process of building the Rainbow Teen Center and other projects. But, in point of fact, Councilmember Kernighan can not only be accused of “interfering” with Oakland City Staff in the construction of the 12th Street Bridge Project herself, and has ignored evidence that would have exonerated Councilmember Desley Brooks from censure.

When she was running for reelection in 2010, Councilmember Kernighan personally focused on the then-under-construction 12th Street Bridge as a symbol of her ability to get things done. Kernighan even made a video with me that I did not post, but contains her comments on what she did to make the dream of a newly reconstructed street a reality. Pat could not do that without contacting Oakland City Staff.

Instead of pointing the finger at Brooks, Pat should point the finger at herself. In fact, the Oakland City Council should censure itself, not one person.

And then there’s this from Brooks:

“To date, no one has produced an email or other correspondence where staff advised me to do something; 1 refused and undertook a different course of action. Absent such action, there is no showing of “willful” actions on my part. To the contrary, I specifically asked staff to advise us on the process and we followed their direction.”

Desley Brooks Response To Censure

What follows is Councilmember Desley Brooks’ written response to the censure motion. It originally appeared in PDF file format. I converted it to text, then formatted it for use here. It contains evidence that Brooks said was ignored by Councilmember Kernighan in the pursuit of the censure motion.

From: Councilmember Desley Brooks

Subject: Response to Motion for Censure

Dear Members of the Council:

I want to start by thanking Councilperson Kemighan for scheduling this item because as a result we were able to obtain copies of documents, which had been requested by The Turner Group, The Black Elected Officials of the East Bay; and the Oakland NAACP. Somehow Ms. Kemighan was able to obtain documents that these individuals and organizations could not. I also want to thank Ms. Kemighan for revealing what I had long suspected that she, the Auditor Courtney Ruby and the Grand Jury only considered and released those documents which supported their version of events. What Ms. Kemighan, Auditor Ruby and the Grand Jury hoped was that you would be so titillated by their salacious allegations that you would not look substantively at the evidence they provided in support of these claims. I’m asking you to prove
them wrong; let’s look closely at Section 218 of the Charter and their evidence.

Section 218 of the Oakland Charter says:

Section 218. Non-interference in Administrative Affairs. Except for the purpose of inquiry, the Council and its
members shall deal with the administrative service for which the City Administrator, Mayor and other appointed
or elected officers are responsible, solely through the City Administrator, Mayor or such other officers. Neither
the Council nor any Council member shall give orders to any subordinate of the City under the jurisdiction of the
City Administrator or such other officers, either publicly or privately; nor shall they attempt to coerce or influence
the City Administrator or such other officers, in respect to any contract, purchase of any supplies or any other
administrative action; nor in any manner direct or request the appointment of any person to or his removal from
office by the City Administrator or any of his subordinates or such other officers, nor in any manner take part in
the appointment or removal of officers or employees in the administrative service of the City. Violation of the
provisions of this section by a member of the Council shall be a misdemeanor, conviction of which shall
immediately forfeit the office of the convicted member.

To violate Section 218 there has to be some action on the part of the offender ~ the giving of orders, an attempt to coerce or influence, or an attempt to have an employee removed from their position. Upon close review of their evidence you will see that my involvement is very limited. Typically what is shown is an inquiry from me and communication between staff to which I was not a party. 1 cannot be guilty willfully violating the Charter where I did not affirmatively act.

Only a judge or a jury can determine if Section 218 has been violated because it is a crime. As such, no one at the city, not Ms. Kemighan, the Mayor, the City Council, the City Administrator, the City Attorney, the Auditor, or the Grand Jury has the authority to determine if a violation has occurred.

Many of the inaccuracies found in the Auditor’s report can be found in the Grand Jury report. I will use the Grand Jury format to respond to both reports. Keeping this in mind, let’s look at the evidence.

DACA BACKGROUND

Pulte built DACA in 45 days. They demolished the inside of the building; reframed, replumbed; upgraded the electrical; reconfigured the layout; removed the play structure and parking lot; planted new sod and landscaping; installed a new gate; reconfigured the facade; painted the exterior; installed a new gate around the facility; installed new sidewalks. All this work was done in this time frame to comply with Rebuilding Together’s National Reveal Day.

Knowing that the timeline was faster than the city would ever move on any project, the first call I made was to then City Administrator Dan Lindheim. 1 advised Mr. Lindheim of the time constraints and asked him if we would be able to take advantage of the opportunity. He asked then CEDA Director Walter Cohen to pull together the necessary staff to meet at the site to see if this was possible. This was in late February beginning of March 2010.

Staff advised us that Pulte could roll a facade improvement project into the donated project. We could pay for the facade project with facade redevelopment grant or a Neighborhood Project Improvement grant as there were already monies that had been allocated to the Teen Center.

Having no reason to doubt the information provided by staff, Pulte started construction on March 9, 2010. (See date on email from Larry Gallegos dated March 8, 2010 attached hereto as Exhibit “C”). The project was completed by April 24, 2010. Pulte tracked their expense and followed the process that staff had previously outlined for them.

It wasn’t until Febmary of 2011, that staff advised Pulte that there was a change in the requirements for payment. This is almost a year after completion of the project. (See Doryanna Moreno’s email dated February 22, 2011, where she says “Dan now understands that state law prohibited construction contractor employees from providing volunteer labor on the project if the contractors are to be paid” attached hereto as Exhibit “D”. See also. Shelly Derensburg’s email dated February 25, 2011 attached hereto as Exhibit “E”) the project could not be put out to bid because the project had long been completed. Pulte in good faith relied on the information provided by staff; followed staffs direction; spent their money with the expectation that they would be reimbursed.

DACA CONSTRUCTION

Much has been said about DACA being built without a competitive bidding process; but neither the Auditor nor the Grand Jury acknowledge or consider the statement from Pulte Homes, the contractor on the project, which explains why the project was not put out to competitive bid. The statement was included in my document submission for the March 6, 2012 Council meeting. (Pulte’s statement is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”).

In the statement Pulte makes a number of statements that contradict the conclusions raised by both reports. Specifically,

Puite states:

“Before getting involved with the project, Councilwoman Brooks pulled together a team from the City to plan with Pulte and the Rebuild Together organization”

“We needed to figure out the scope of what the City wanted done for the project and how we could help. Councilwoman Brooks got a group together to discuss the project.”

“We were informed that there was grant money available to cover the costs above and beyond what we were going to
donate…”

“If there were no grant funds available, we would have looked at what we could have funded only through donated time and materials.”

“Then in May, the city communicated an entirely different direction to us.”

“It appeared that Councilwoman Brooks brought all the parties to the table early on in the process to make sure we proceeded in the most appropriate way possible.”

Why did the Auditor and the Grand Jury not review Pulte’s statement? It would be helpful for all involved to understand why the Auditor or the Grand Jury did not include Pulte Homes recitation of the facts regarding the planning and construction of DACA are consistent with mine.

Both reports imply that there was something untoward in using Pulte on this project. I did not know any of the representatives of Pulte or their subcontractors prior to working with them on this project. I received no monetary benefit personally or for my campaign. Other than the pride of building a beautiful facility for deserving young people, I received
no personal benefit on the project. I am resubmitting Pulte’s statement for your review. Both reports feign that might have gotten a better deal had the project been competitively bid; nothing could be further from the truth. The City received more than $300,000 in labor and materials and only paid, two years after the fact, $151,000.

Councilperson Kemighan submitted documents that were supposed to demonstrate evidence of me negotiating the scope of work for Pulte’s contract. These documents can be found at pages 6 through 13 (Kernighan numbering). (I have attached them hereto as Exhibit “F”). I don’t know if Ms. Santana, Ms. Kernighan, Auditor Ruby and the Grand Jury were intentionally trying to deceive the public but these documents have nothing to do with the Rainbow Teen Center/DACA. Rather, the scope of work referred to is for a staff report on the NPI Program and funding for the Rainbow
Recreation Center (the resolution for this item is.attached hereto as Exhibit “G”. Moreover, all of the emails on these pages, with the exception of two (2) are not from me, to me, nor am I cc’ed on any of them.

DACA STAFFING

Ms. Kemighan submitted pages 15 to 25 of numerous emails between staff regarding the hiring’s in my office (attached hereto as Exhibit “H”). Not a single one of these emails is to me, from me or cc’ed to me.

My staff made no secret where the employees were going to work. Each and every hire was processed through the Department of Human Resources. Never once did a single person raise an issue with the hires. Moreover, each and every one of my hires was signed off on by the Director of Personnel and the City Administrator.

According to the City Auditor’s report “the potential interference was mitigated through the Administrafion’s adoption or ratification of the Councilmember’s involvement.” (Page 7 of the Auditor’s report). Each DACA hire was signed-off on by the Personnel Director and the City Administrator. Why did the City Auditor overlook this information? More
importantly, why didn’t the Auditor find that there was no interference because the City Administrators ratified the hires?

The Grand Jury at page 38 claims that employees at DACA did not have the required background clearance prior to working with kids. They base this finding on emails. Neither the Grand Jury report nor the Auditor’s report indicate any effort to interview any of the employees who worked at DACA when it first opened. At least four of the current employees were employed at DACA when it first opened. Had they been interviewed each would have said that no one worked with children prior to clearing their background and other checks.

Finally, both reports give the impression that there may have been nepotism or cronyism in the selection of DACA’s staff. They also questioned the qualifications of the staff and the salary at which they were hired. I did not know any of the staff prior to their being hired at DACA. In addition, each one of DACA’s staff is accomplished in their respective field. They
have countless awards and recognitions. Each is compensated well below what they could be paid in their profession. They accepted this level of compensation because they believe in the work and they care deeply for the young people they serve. The staff is so exceptional that the Office of Parks and Recreation as late as last week attempted to poach DACA’s
staff to work at other facilities.

ARROYO RECORDING STUDIO

Both the City Auditor’s report and the Grand Jury report (page 33) raise.issues about the building of this recording studio. What both reports fail to state is that I paid for the build-out, equipment and fumiture for this studio. 1 gave $ 114,000 from my discretionary funds for the Studio. As such, 1 was not merely the Council Member, I was also the client.

EQUIPMENT PURCHASE

A multi-page bill from the Guitar Store that bears a stamp that says “CEDA Payment Approval” is submitted as evidence of. The stamp has fill in the blank lines to add the funding code, project, and purchase number, authorized signature among other things. My signature is on the line that says authorized signature. I do not now, nor have I ever, possessed a
“CEDA Payment Approval” stamp. A City staff person would have had to provide my staff with the prestamped form. My assistant filled out the forms for my signature. Where 1 made my mistake was that I didn’t review the forms and the stamp more closely before signed the documents.

CONCLUSION

Not withstanding this process is improper; the language of the Council’s Code of Ethics is very specific. The Code of Ethics says at number 12: “by being willing to censure any member who WILLFULLY violates the rules of conduct contained in this Code of Ethics” (attached hereto as Exhibit “J”). To be “willful” one needs to be deliberate or intentional.

To date, no one has produced an email or other correspondence where staff advised me to do something; 1 refused and undertook a different course of action. Absent such action, there is no showing of “willful” actions on my part. To the contrary, I specifically asked staff to advise us on the process and we followed their direction.

If Ms. Kemighan had such grave concern for the Council’s reputation one wonders why she has singled me out. Truth be told what’s motivating Ms. Kemighan in this process is purely political. It should be noted that when her political allies, Councilpersons Kaplan and Schaaf participated in activates that violate the charter Kemighan did not suggest the process
of censorship. Specifically, she didn’t bring a Censure action against Ms. Kaplan when she directed Oakland Police Officers to provide passage to demonstrators (an incident that was widely known); or why she didn’t bring an action against Ms. Schaaf who wrote to the City Administrator and advised her that she had instructed staff to develop a costing tool (attached hereto as Exhibit “I”). One would also wonder why Ms. Kernighan doesn’t admit her own violations of the Charter when overseeing the drafting and implementation of the Equal Access Ordinance; directing staff not to issues tickets to certain areas; or the renovations of Quickway. When will these matters be scheduled?

BACKGROUND:

Pulte Homes has volunteered and participated for about six/seven years with the Rebuild Together Oakland program.In 2009, for example, our employees helped with an elderly woman’s home that needed renovation. In addition to our employees helping with landscaping and general maintenance of this home, we also solicited the help of our contractors to remodel her kitchen and bath, and repair the HVAC.

Our employees donated a lot of their time and effort, and we had contractors willing to be a part of this philanthropic endeavor.

In 2010, we wanted to participate again in the Rebuild Together program and do even more for the greater community.

That’s how we got involved with the Rainbow Teen Center. .^Before
getting involved with the project, Councilwoman Brooks pulled together a team from’ the City Jo
“plan with Pulte and the kebuild Together organization. We found out that the City of Oakland purchased the 4,000-square-tooot building three years ago with hopes of providing a place for recreation and enrichment programs for neighborhood teens. It was a great opportunity for us to help make a difference and really benefit the community.

We needed to figure out the scope of what the City wanted done for the project and how we could help. Councilwoman Brooks got a group together to discuss the project. (Entities at the planning meeting were Puite, Rebuild Together, City economic development director, senior planners, persons involved with City grants and reimbursements and building
department.

We were informed that there was grant money available to coyer costs above and beyond, what we were abje to donate;^ (about $130,000), and that ke7 proje^s would include a teaching kitchen for the kids, music recording studio, computer lab, front elevation, entry area and landscaping. JfJjTere^were no grant fun^s,availahle. we would have looked at
what we could have funded onfy through donated time and materials.

We discussed the best way to proceed and how reimbursements would be provided through the City grants. Because this- philanthropic effort involved many donations and some additional costs, it was determined that this was not a job that could be bid. We were told bids were not
necessary because of the_nature of this proje^ We were told it can’t be bid because it is a donated concept with an additional cost, covering contractors cost. The direction provided was for Pulte to act as a general contractor of sorts and manage the process. We tracked costs and
invoices and got our trade partners to donate all or most of the cost. The value of what was done is well more than $300,000 and the expenses for the grant were $121,000. The Council approved the grant reimbursements last April.

Then in May, the city communicated an entirely different direction to us. We were told that even though people were volunteering their time, that those contractors’ employees who worked on the Teen Center needed to be paid the prevailing wage. We reached out to every one of the
contractors involved (some of whom were now out of business) and ask them to provide this background detail. The prevailing wage “gap” was determined to be about $30,000. We were told the City needed to pay these workers directly, even though their, time was originally donated.

In Oct/November of last year, we signed an agreement with the City regarding the reimbursement to Pulte and the prevailing wage with contractors. Then, nothing more happened.

QUOTES

Th£ scope of the project,_wasjlBlermined by_many city officialsinvolyed in the planning process If there were not avallableg rant funds^oLif-W.eJo[d,[3a35£ts^ne^ to De”^id7
we would have looked at whatwe could^BIXLyid5-excLuslv.elyl[2iX^ donation

Pulte donated countless hours of management time, employee resources and sweat equity along with the generosity- of our trade partners. Every contractor donated something and we all were so proud to provide something very valuable to the community. We got a lot of personal satisfaction in making the vision of the teen center a reality.

It appeared that Councilwoman Brooks brought all the parties to the table early on in the process to make sure we proceeded in the most appropriate way possible.

All these entities came together to put together this outstanding facility for the community. Despite the difficult housing market, our partners’ willingness to donate manpower and material enabled us to take on a much larger scope than we dreamed possible. We are now coming up on two years on project completion and what we thought was a great community philanthropic effort is being questioned. It’s all so disappointing.

SCOPE OF WORK PERFORMED

Pulte refurbished the back 650 square feet of thc buikling at 5818 International
(Rainbow Teen Center). The work included:

Totally demolishing the interior space; ^
Rewired and replumbed the space;
Reframed and shect-rockcd interior;
Painted interior and exterior;

Reconfigured interior space to build culinary’ kitchen; video studio;
recording studio and editing room; office; and bathrooms;
Redesigned the facade;

Installed new sidewalks;

Demolished existing play structure;

removed asphalt throughout yard area;
Installed new iron fencing around the perimeter of the yard;

Installed irrigation system;

Installed walking paths in the yard;

Installed landscape and sod.

Page 1 of 4

Æ Vou replied on 3/11/2010 10:14 AM.

From: Gallegos, Larry Sent: Thu 3/11/2010 10:09 AM
To: Brooks, Destey ”
Cc:

Subject; FW: Grant agreement.
Attachment^T ‘

City Atty’s office is saying if we use our Fagade Improvement Program funds for our own public facility we’d
need to go through a special Public Hearing process to make the necessary blight findings under the
Cooperation Agreement. This would obviously lake too much time.

It would be a lot easier and faster if we use our Coliseum NPI funds that have already been approved for this
project since we’ve already gone through that process for those funds. Please let me know if this is okay with
you and I will move this forward…

Larry Gallegos (e-mail-. laqa([email protected]

City OfOakland, CEDA- Redevelopment Division

250 Frank Ogawa Plaza, 5th Floor

Oakland, OA 94612

(510) 238-6174 ph.

(510) 238-3691 fax

. From: Bill Sadler [mai!to;[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, March 11. 2010 9:20 AM
To: Gallegos, Larry
Cc: Brooks, Desley; Hunter, Gregory
Subject: RE: Grant agreement.

Larry,

Attached is an estimate for the improvements to the front elevation of the Rainbow Teen Center. Please call
me if you have any questions! ‘ ~ — . ~

Bill Sadler

Land Development Manager

hltps://oakinail.oaklandnet.coinyBxchange/DBrooks/Senl%20Itcms/FVV:-168.EML/PvV:%2… 2/22/2013

Page 2 of 4

Pulte Homes – Bay Area Division

Office – 925.249.3244

Fax-925.249.4373

Cell – 925.383.5425

From: Gallegos, Larry [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent; Tuesday, March^J2QlD-10r33-AM-
To: Bill Sadler ^
Cc: Brooks, Desley; Hunter, Gregory
Subject: R& Grant agreement.

Hi Bill,

Please provide us a line item estimate for the fagade project so we can begin to prepare the papen/vork for the
grant agreement

Thanks,
Larry

Larry Gallegos (e-mail: [email protected])

City of Oakland, CEDAr Redevelopment Division

250 Frank Ogawa Plaza, 5th Floor

Oakland, CA 94612

(510) 238-5174 ph.

(510)238-3691 fax

From: Brooks, Dcsiey

hltps://oakmai!.oaklandnet.com/Exch3ngc/DBrooks/Scnt%20Itcms/FW:-l68.EML/FW:%2… 2/22/2012

Page 2 of 2

Larry Gallegos {e-maJI: laaalleaosfaoaklandnet.cDm)
Cjly of Oakland, CEDA- Redav2)opment Division
250 Frank Ogaiva Plaza. 5th Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
(5-10) 238-6174 ph.
(510) 235-3691 Tax ∑

∑ From: Brooks, Dsslsy . –
Sent: Monday, Mardj^OS. 20;0 3:tB-PM– ∑ ‘ ∑ ∑ ∑
∑ To; Gallegos, Larry; ‘Bill Sadler’ ‘ ∑ ‘
Subjec±: Grant agreementi

HeyLany: ‘ ∑

This .is a follow up to our conversation with Bill regarding eKpsndiirojes. for the
!Raaribow Teen Center Rehab project. As’we all agreed Pulte will pay for any. expenses
and submit an invoice to the Oty for reiinburseirient. Clan we pro^’ide Pulte with a ∑
‘ grant agreement to this effect. As I mentioned they are starting the project tomorrow .so
time is-of the essence. ∑ ∑ ∑. . ∑∑

Looking forward tp hearing from you soon.

Desley Brooks
” CouncU Member, District 6

o QtyHaU
1 Pranlc CI>gawa Plaza, 2nd Floor
Oakland, .CA. 94612 ‘ – .
(510)238-7006 ∑ , ,
(510) 9S6-2650 (FacsimiiJe)

[email protected]. . . . ,∑

Keep Makings Difference-Pay It ?orwardi

COHFlOEf^TiALrrY NOTiCETVia email may conla^ conftdsnllai and prtvUeeeE) iT)a\enallDf Iht srf,euse cf Ihe intended rsapienKs). Aiiy
rBview, USB. dlstribulbn ordsciosªre bvolhets Is stnclly p.Tjhibilsd. Hyou have received ihls canmudicalim in error, please fio% tfe
sender immedlalely by ema3 and dstels the message and any file attachments from your sompuler. Thaik yav.

5″

Page 1 of2

You forwarded this message on 2/22/2011 9:07 PM.

F r o m : Dan Lindheim [[email protected]] Sent; Tue 2/22/2011 3:07 PM
V.
T o : Brooks, Desley

C c :

Subject: Fv/d: Pulte

Attachments;

FVi

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From: “Moreno, Doryanna”
Dat-p; Fghniary ?? Jpl 1 ^-n^ q’; PM P<;T To: "Dan Undheim" , “Hunter, Gregory” . “Seamans,
Daniel” , “Barnes, Deborah”
Cc: “Laden, Vicki” oaklandcitvattornev.orq>
Subject: RE; Pulte

Dan:

I spoke with Dan Seamans, who is handling the contract, and Deborah Barnes
about the prevailing wages issue. Dan^now understands that state law prohibited
coD5]XLJ£tion contractor employees frorn providing volunteer labor on the project
if the contractors are to be paid. Dan provide me and I provided Deborah^nd
Shelley a list of the construction contractors that Pulte intends to pay. Dan S. is
supposed to coordinate with Deborah^ as well, and her staff will follow up with
Pulte and the licensed contractors to construct the labor record (i.e., determine
which of their employees provided free labor, how much labor they provided and
what they should have been paid).

Dan S., Deborah: Can you provide Dan L. a status on the investigation?

Doryanna M. Moreno

Supervising Deputy City Attorney

Offtce of the City Attorney

One Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, 6th Floor

Oakland, CA 94612

510.238.3^92

hUps://oakinaiLoaklandnct.coni/lixchange/DBrooks/ltibox/20] l%20″I een%20Ccnicf/Fwd:… 2/21/2012-

Paae2of2

510.238.6500 (fax)

Original Message–
From: Dan Lindheim [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, Ffjbruary 22, 2011 2:’15 PM
To; Moreno, Doryanna
Subjecl: Pulte

Desley wanted to know where the Pulte payment was, Is there new info?

Sentfnam my iPhone

https://oakmai!.oak]aiidrieLcom/i;’:xchangc/DBrooks/Inbox/20l l%20Tccii%20Centcr/r-wd;… 2/21/2012

Page 3 of 4

From: Darensburg, Shelley [mailCo;[email protected]^
Sent: Friday, February 25- 2011,^:0^_AM
To: Bill 5a”dler
Cc: Seamans, Daniel; Gallegos, Lany; Hunter, Gregory; Barnes, Deborah
Subiect: Prevailing Wages on Rainbow Recreation

Hi Bill,

This email is a follow up to our telephone conversation this morffjjg_regarding prevailing requirements on the Raintcw
Recreation Center project. In reviewi^lg^HI^bids’5ndtnvoices submitted for reimbursement, it appears that bids included
labor and that Pulte and/or its subcontractors are being compensated for not only material but labor. The Labor Code does
not exempt employees of a licensed contractor from prevailing wages on a so called “volunteer” project if the licensed
contractor employer receives payment for the project. Therefore, since Pulte’s bids appeared to include tabor and it seeks
compensation for work at the Rainbow Teen Center, employees of Pulte and any of its subcontractors that provided labor,
regardless of whether the employees wished to provide volunteer labor, must be paid prevailing wages.

Ijbor Code 1702.4 states,

(C)An individual, shall, not bQ considered a volunteer, if the person is otherwise employed for
compensation at any time (i) in the construction, alteration, demolition, installation, repair, or
maintenance work on the same project, or (ii) by a contractor, other, than a corporation qualified under.
Section SOI (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code as a tax-exempt organization, that is receiving
payment to pet^rm construction, alteration, demolition, installation, repair, or maintenance work on
the same project.

Please provide the following infonnation for Pulte and each of its subcontractors: 1) a list of their employees that –
performed labor, volunteer or otherwise, on the Rainbow Teen Center Project, 2) the employees’ names, addresses, social
security numbers, 3) the dates and hours vwirked, 4) description of the work performed (work classifications); 5) hourly
wage rates for each employee if any wiere paid, and 6) payroll records for any employees that received compensation.

Your prompt response to this request will expedite Pulte’s request for payment.

Thank you.

Shelley

Shelley Darensburg
Senior Contract Compliance Officer
Department of Contracting and Purchasing
250 Frank H. Ogawa Plav^, Suite 3341
Oakland, California 94612
(510) 238-7325
(510) 238-3363 fax
sdarensburqPoaklandnet.com

“The orify tyrant I accept In this world is the stiff, voice within.”
– Mah3tma Gandhi

hltps;//oaknia!l.oaklaiK!act.coni/£xchau£c;/DBrooks/hibo>a’2011%20Tcea%20Cciiler/RE:^ 2/21/2012

H i Desley,

Are yot okay with the below scope or did you want us to include something else with the
new allotment of NPl funds?

Thanks,

L a r r y –

L a r r y Gallegos (e-mail: lagallegosl^oaklandnet. com)

C i t y of Oakland, CEQA- Redevelopment Division

250 Frank Ogawa- Plata, 5th Floor
I
, Oakland; CA 94612

(510) -238-6174 ph.

(510) 238-3691 fax

∑’FromT “∑pafi’kh’/ “Rupa ” ~—
Sent; Wednesday, Wa^ch J7, 2010 3; 38
To: Gallegos, Larry
Cc: -Soo Hoo, L i l y ; Schwarz, Alison; Bembry, Rsco; Seamans, Daniel
Subject: RE: Rainbow Rec Center – NPI grant update and response
Importance: High

Larry – I just .spoke with Reco. Can you please run this scope by Councilmember Brooks

$54,000 i n Colise’jun’NPi funds to redo Gym F l o o r i n g ,redesign windows on r i g h t ‘and l e f t
sides of entryway, and pay for new blinds to help with heat management.

These seem to be the current p r i o r i t i e s of Parks and Rec. s t a f f – b u t they would rather’have
us double check with Co’oncilmember Brooks’to make sure she agrees. .-∑∑

Thanks,

Ruoa .

Rupa’Parikh^ Urban Econcynic Analyst IIJ

∑City of Oakland – Redevelopment Division

250 Prank H. Ogawa PlEfza, Suite 5313

O r i g i n a l Message–
‘Fron:~Ero-crIrs,-De-srey—– – T’ – , –
Sent; >!ed 3/17/2010 3:54 PM – ∑ .
To: Gallegos; Larry
Cc; Hunter,, Gregory ‘ ” . ‘

Subject: RE: Rainbow Rec Center – N?I∑grant update and responss

No, I am not oJcay with this scope. C a l l nie to discuss further.

Desley Brooks

Council Member, ‘^District 6

C i t y H a l l

1 FranJ: Ogawa Plaza, 2nd Floor

Oa)LLand, CA ^ 94612

\510] 235-7006 . ‘ ∑ ‘ ∑

(510) ,985-2650 (Facsimile)

dbrooksSoaklandnet. com

Keep i^aking a Difference — Pay ‘It Forward!

From; Gallegos, Larry
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 3:49 PM ‘ . –
To; Brooks^ Desley
Siibject:. Fri; . Rainbow Rec Center – MPI grant update- and response
Importance: High

7

Oakland, CA 94612

Ph: ∑ (510) 238.6248

Fax-. (510) 23B.3691

Note: I am i n the -office Mon-Wed only.

From: Bembry, Reco
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 3:26 PM –
To: Seamans, Daniel; Parikh,.Rupa
Cc:’Gallegos, Larry; Soo Boo, L i l y ; Schwarz, Alison
Subject: RE: Rainbow Rec Center – NPI grant update and response

Hello Team, as you a l l know, and as is apparent by the work that’s already started at the
s i t e . Council Member Brooks has a vision, a scope and a private sector match .involved wi-th
a c t i v i t y at Rainbow Recreation Teen Center and p o t e n t i a l l y the main recreation f a c i l i t y as
w e l l . ^^_^*i,S!S.^^^^2-}J-.r.^^^-^^- ^’^ hfi’^, fT^’i’^^TTig, soqpe^ I again, recommend you contact her
d i r e c t l y , my thought i n i t i a l l y was to v i s i t the sTte to a l t – l e a s t have a handle, of what
the s i t e looks l i k e and the location and proximity of both NPI projectis and how they, might
connect to the Prop 84 grant submittal, we’ve, done thait portion as a. pre-meeting phase,
now i t ‘ s time to Id-ck phase I I i n gear.

Phase i l – meeting with Councilmember Brooks to .determine vision and scope.

I hope this is helpful,
>

Reco

From: Seamans, Daniel
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, “2010 2:07 PM ‘
To: Parikh, Rupa
Cc: Gallegos, Larry; Soo HoOr Lily; Bembry, Reco;”Schwarz, Alison
Subject: RE: Rainbow Rec Center

Hi, Rupa

I am working on implementing the previous t^PI grants, and I have not been determining the
unmet needs at the site i n a comprehensive way. It seems to me that the proposed scope f o r
additional grants i.n this funding round should come from the Parks and Rec department, or
‘perhaps from Councilmember Brooks. Reco Bembry i s the Parks and I^ec-person who i s i n
charge of the 5818 Interiiational Teen Center and the Rainbow Rec Center, and I think he
would be the best person to ask, There i s a large Prop 34 grant a p p l i c a t i o n pending f o r
both f a c i l i t i e s .that A l i worked on, so she -would kiiow how best to coordinate with that.
3

∑When Reco and I were out at the Rainbow Rec Center the f a c i l i t y manager informed us that
h i s most pressing need was f o r restoration of the gym f l o o r i n g , and the gym i s not covered
i n the Prop__64 grant proposal, sn t h i s .migh-t hp thp hp.gt ntip nf t-hp funds at Rainbow Rec
Center.

D a n i e l Seamans

C i t y of Oakland, CEDA Redevelopment

250 Frank Ogawa Plaza, Suite 5313

Oakland, CA 94 612-2034

Phone; 510-238-3250

Fax: 510-238-3691

dseamanseoaklandnet.com

From:- Parikh, Rupa . ” ” .
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 1:54 PM
To: Schwarz,’-Alison; Seamans, Daniel
Cc: Gallegos, Larry; Soo Hoc, L i l y
S’ub’jectT “RE: Rainbow”Rec”C’efiter ”

How soon would you be able to get. a scope to us? We b a s i c a l l y have $54K that we’re
w i l l i n g to give to you i f ybu want i t , but we can’t do that unless we can j u s t i f y to the
C i t y Attorney’s O f f i c e and the C i t y Council what,’the funds would be used f o r . I have two
weeks to finalize the NPI aw^rd.q BPH r-^mniP^P -hha Pn-t-t-nn-ii &ftpnr-t-. – Let me know iT^^yon–gijys”
c^TT’C^ne’up with a basic scope that the Attorney’s can review withi’n”‘that-‘fime framed ; ^ ‘

Rupa

Rupa Parikh, Drban Boonomic Analyst III

C i t y ‘ o f Oakland – Redevelopment D i v i s i o n

250 Frank H. Ogawa- Plaza, Suite 5313.

Oakland, CA 94 612 ∑

Ph: (510) 238.6248

Fax: (510) 23B.3691

Note: I am in the o f f i c e Mon-Wed only.

From; Schwarz, A l i s o n
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 12:03 PM
To: Parikh, Rupa; Seamans, D a n i e l –
Cc: Gallegos, Larry; Soo Hoo, L i l y
Subject: RE: Rainbow Rec Center

No. At this time we have a very conceptual plan for both the Rec. center and .the Teen
Center. A scope would have to be determined.

A l i Schwarz

Project Delivery, F a c i l i t i e s Planning

C i t y of .Oakland, Public Works Agency

250 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 4344 ∑

Oakland, CA 94612

(510) 23B-7310

From: Parikh, Rupa
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 11:30 AM
To: Seamans, Daniel; .Schwarz, A l i s o n .
Cc: Gallegos, Larry ∑ . ‘
Subject: RE: Rainbow Rec Center

Dan and . A l i :

I f we give 554K to Rainbow Rec. Center from this 2010_Coliseum NPI round, do you know what
i t would s p e c i f i c a l l y be used on?

Thanks,
/Rupa

Rupa -Parikh; Drban Economic Analyst I I I

C i t y of Oakland – Redevelopment D i v i s i o n

250 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 5313.

Oakland, CA 94612

Ph: (510) 23B.624B

Fax: (510) 238.3691

∑Note: . I am i n the o f f i c e Mon-Wed onlv.

From: Gallegos, Larry
Sent: Wednesday, Karch 17, 2010 11:09 AM
To; Parikh, Rupa
Subject: FM: Rainbow Rec Center

lb

F y i .

Larry Gallegos (e-mail’: lagallegos^oaklandnet .com}

City-*of Oakland, CEDA- Redevelopment D i v i s i o n

250 Frank Ogawa Plaza, 5th Floor

Oakland, CA 94612 ‘ ‘

(510) 23B-6174 ph. ∑

(510) 23B-3591 fax-

From; Seamans, Daniel
Sent: Thursday, March-.ll, 2010-12:55 ?M
To: Schwarz, A l i son
Cc; Gallegos, Larry; Berobfy,- Reco
Subject: RE; Rainbow Rec Center

H i , A l i ‘ ∑ ∑

Thanks f o r sending the plans.

I have^^ questions:

1. When w i l l the City hear about the grant? .

2. We have 540,000 of NPI funds to do minor improvements on the Rec Center, and also NPI
∑funds for the Teen Center. I f the City does not get the grant, do you have room i n your
schedule for the design and construction mana gement. of these small improvement p r o j e c t s ? I
.believe .we. have .funding for t h i s .

3. I f the grant does come through, can the NPI projects be coordinated and managed with
the grant improvements? … _ ∑ . –

Thanks,

Daniel Seamans

City of Oakland, CEDA Redevelopment

250 Frank Ogawa Plaza, Suite 5313

Oakland, CA 94 512-2034

Phone: 510-238-3250

Fax: 510-238-3691

dseamansgoaklandnet.com

li

Hi paniisl,

I believe you are correct, the project i n the past has been managed by the’Councilmember
d i r e c t l y . Do you have a copy of the NPI grant? I can have s t a f f ,to see what was. comple-ted
or not and we can work from there. I do remember the windows were ‘suppose,to be done and
.they aire not an’d the t i l e i n the back room i s no’t done to my knowledge. I have cc Reco
Bembry on this email who i s the’General Manager and who w i l l be the, contact f o r your
Questions.

Please let me know i f I can be of further assistance. ,

Audree

From: Seamans, Daniel
∑Sent: Wednesday/ March-03, 2010 11:4.7 AM
To: Jones-Taylor, Audree V.
Cc: Gallegos, Larry; Parikh, Rupa
Subject: Rainbow Rec Center ,

Hello, Audree
∑) ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑
I have been assigned to work on implementation of the NPI p r o j e c t s f o r the Rainbow-Rec
Center and the 5B1B International Teen Cehter, I would l i k e to check with-you to v-erify
what has happened with the FY 2Da5-7NPI project f o r the Rec Center.

Am*I correct i n thinking that the project.from FY 2006-7, f o r $40, 000 to improve the
center by adding new t i l e s and windows and other minor c a p i t a l – investments, has not been
implemented?

Thanks f o r your help, ∑ . ∑ ., ;

Daniel Seamans

City “of OaJQand, CEDA Redevelopment

250 Frank Ogawa P l a z a , ‘ S u i t e 5313

Oakland, CA 94512-2034

Phone: 510-238-3250

Fax: 510-238-3691

dseamansGoaklandnet.com

From; Schwarz, Alison
Sent; Thursday, March l i , 2010 10:47 AM
To: Seamans, Daniel
Cc: Gallegos, Larry; Bembry, Reco
Subject: RE; Rainbow Rec Center

Daniel,

I have attached the site plan for the Rainbow Park Expansion and New Teen Center grant
∑application. You should know that- Council Member Brooks i s i n the process of doing- some
improvements to the teen center that are a b i t d i f f e r e n t from what i s on the Teen .Center
f l o o r layout on this plan.’ If-we get the grant we w i l l be s t a r t i n g from whatever has beei
completed this spring by Council.Member Brooks e f f o r t s . ‘ ∑

Let me know i f you have any questions.

A l i Schwarz

‘Project ‘Delivery,’ ‘Facii’iti’e’s’ Planning-‘

C i t y of Oakland, Public Works Agency

250 Frank H. Ogawa’Plaza, Suite 4344

Oakland, CA 94 612

(510) 238-7310

From: “Seamans, Daniel
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 5:35 ?M
To: Schwarz, .Alison
Cc: Gallegos, Larry; Bembry, R.eco
Subject: RE: Rainbow Rec Center

H i , A l i

I just spoke with Reco Bembry about the. implementation of the CQliseum Redevelopment
Neighborhood Project I n i t i a t i v e (NPI) projects f o r the Rainbow Rec Center ($40K) and the
5818 International Teen Center ($80K) . Reco mentioned that you have just finistied-work on
a large Prop 84 grant application f o r the teen Center. Since any improvements that we
Undertake with the NPI funds should ccinplement the proposed work f o r the prop-84 grant i t
would be useful i f you could’send me a copy of the plans or the scope of work from the
grant proposal, i f they are available. – Reco and I also wondered i f we could involve you
i n the planning of the NPI funded work, to take advantage of your know.ledge of the s i t e
and ,the proposed grant.

Thanks,

Daniel Seamans

\3

Fit ED-
OrfiCE 01- IHZ CiT’t CI ERf

2010 APR 15 PH 5!17

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OF THE CITY OF OAKLAND

Resolution No. _ _ _ _ C M S.

AGENCY RESOLUTION ALLOCATING FUNDING IN AN
AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $180,000 UNDER THE COLISEUM
REDEVELOPMENT NEIGHBORHOOD PROJECT INITIATIVE
(NPI) PROGRAM FOR (1) ART GARDEN BEAUTIFICATION
PROJECT AT PETERSON STREET BETWEEN FORD STREET
AND CHAPMAN STREET (2) STREET BANNERS
BEAUTIFICATION PROJECT ALONG INTERNATIONAL
BOULEVARD IN THE FRUITVALE DISTRICT (3) MURAL
BEAUTIFICATION PROJECT AT 1446 HIGH STREET (4)
IMPROVEMENTS TO RAINBOW RECREATION CENTER AT
5800 INTERNATIONAL BOULEVARD (5) CORRIDOR
BEAUTIFICATION PROJECT ALONG INTERNATIONAL
BOULEVARD FROM 67TM AVENUE TO 72″^ AVENUE (6) STREET
BANNERS AND UGHTPOLE PAINTING BEAUTIFCATION
PROJECT ALONG INTERNATIONAL BOULEVARD IN THE
ELMHURST DISTRICT (7) INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR
IMPROVEMENTS TO THE EAST OAKLAND BOXING
COMMUNITY CENTER AT 816 98TM AVENUE; AND (8)
LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENTS TO SOBRANTE PARK, AND
AUTHORIZING A CONTRIBUTION OF AGENCY FUNDS IN AN
AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $74,000 TO THE CITY UNDER THE
COOPERATION AGREEMENT FOR THE RAINBOW
RECREATION CENTER AND SOBRANTE PARK
IMPROVEMENTS

WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency adopted the Coliseum Redevelopment
Neighborhood Project Initiative (“NPI”) program on July 19,2005 by Resolution No. 2005-
0044 C.M.S. to assist in addressing general blight conditions within the Coliseum
Redevelopment Project Area, and allocated $ 180,000 as the Agency budget authorization for
Fiscal Year 2009-2010 for the program; and

WHEREAS, Coliseum Redevelopment staff reviewed all applications to the NPI
program and made recommendations for fijnding under the program; and

WHEREAS, under the NPI program guidelines, all improvements proposed to be
funded by the program must be submitted to the Agency for review and approval; and

WHEREAS, the City of Oakland and the Redevelopment Agency entered into a
Cooperation Agreement on July 1, 2004, which generally governs the provision of assistance;
and the payment of funds between the two agencies, including Redevelopment Agency
financial contributions and other assistance to support City-sponsored improvements; and

WHEREAS, Section 33445 of the California Health and Safety Code authorizes a
redevelopment agency to pay for the installation cost or construction of publicly-owned
facilities, if the legislative body has consented to such funding and has made certain findings;
and

WHEREAS, the City Council is consenting to the use of Agency funding for the
improvements to City-owned property under the NPI program pursuant to Section 33445 of
the California Health and Safety Code; and

WHEREAS, Redevelopment staff recommends that $180,000.ofNPI program funds
be allocated for the following improvements:

∑ Art garden beautification project at Peterson Street between Ford Street and Chapman
Street ($8,000)
∑ Street banners beautification project along International Boulevard in the Fruitvale
District ($24,000)
∑ Mural beautification project at 1446 High Street ($28,000)’
Improvements tn Rainbffw F^^r^ion Center at 5800 International Bouleyard-
($54,0002,
– Corridor beautification project along International Boulevard from 6?’*^ Avenue to 72″”
Avenue ($6,000) ‘
∑ Street banners and light pole painting beautification project along International
Boulevard in the Elmhurst District ($20,000)
∑ Interior and exterior improvements to the East Oakland Boxing Association
Community Center at 816 98* Avenue ($20,000)
∑ Landscaping improvements to Sobrante Park at 470 El Paseo Drive ($20,000); and

WHEREAS, funding for the improvements identified above will be transferred from
Coliseum Operations Fund (9450), Coliseum Redevelopment Organization (88659),
Miscellaneous Services Account (53719), Undetermined Project (000000) to projects to be
determined; and

WHEREAS, the Agency Administrator requests authorization to make all required
expenditures and enter into grant agreements with the project sponsors to implement all the
improvements funded by the NPI Program within the project budgets without returning to the
Agency for further approval; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED; That the Redevelopment Agency hereby adopts the recommendations
from Redevelopment staff for funding allocations under the Coliseum NPI program and

authorizes funding for those projects identified above in an amount not to exceed $180,000;
and be it

FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Agency hereby authorizes a contribution of
$74,000 in Redevelopment Agency funding from Coliseum Operations Fund (9450),
Coliseum Redevelopment Organizafion (88659), Miscellaneous Services Account (53719),
Undetermined Projects (000000) to the City under the Cooperation Agreement for the
improvements to the Rainbow Recreation Center and landscaping improvements to Sobrante
Park to Oakland Redevelopment Agency Project Fund (7780) in a project to be established;
and be it

FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Agency herebyfindsand determines as follows:

1. That the funding of improvements to City facilities and public improvements
under the NPI Program will benefit the Coliseum Redevelopment ProjectArea by
helping to eliminate physical and economic blight within the Project Area for the
reasons set forth in the staff report accompanying this Resolution;

2. That due to the fiscal constraints on the City’s general fund and the high number of
capital projects and public safety projects competing for limited City funds, neither
the City’s Capital Improvement Program budget nor other City funds are available
to providefinancingfor the City facilities and public improvements authorized for
funding under the Coliseum NFl program, and therefore no other reasonable
means offinancingthese projects is available to the City other than
Redevelopment Agency funding;

3. That the use of tax increment funds from the Coliseum Redevelopment Project
Area for the above projects is consistent with the implementation plan adopted for
the Coliseum Redevelopment Project; and be it

FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Agency Administrator is authorized to negofiate
and execute grant agreements with (1) the Jingletown Arts and Business Community, (2) The
Unity Council, (3) LBC Associates, (4) Keep Oakland Beautiful, (5) Allen Temple Housing,
and (6) East Oakland Boxing Association, or their affiliates, for the above improvement
projects; and be it

FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Agency Administrator or his designee is
authorized to take any other action with respect to the above projects and the NPI Program .
consistent with this Resolution and its basic purpose.

IN AGENCY. OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA, 2010

PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES – BROOKS, DE LA FUENTE. KAPLAN, KERNIGHAN, NADEL. QUAN, REID. AND
CHAIRPERSON BRUNNER

NOES ”

ABSENT –

ABSTENTION –

ATTEST:

LATONDA SIMMONS
Secretary of the Redevelopment Agency
of the City of Oakland, California

OFFICE or THE CITT (.l£Pª

2010 APR 15 PM 5: 17

OAKLAND CITY COUNCIL

RESOLUTION NO. C.M.S.

RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AND APPROPRLVTING REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY FUNDS UNDER THE COOPERATION AGREEMENT IN AN
AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $74,000 FOR (1) IMPROVEMENTS TO THE
; RAINBOW RECREATION CENTER AT 5800 INTERNATIONAL-,
^ U L E VARD, AND (2)LXNDSCAPING IMPROVEMENTS TQSOBRANTE
fSRK AT 470 EL PASEO DRFVE WITHIN THE COLISEUM
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA UNDER THE NEIGHBORHOOD
PROJECT INITIATIVE (NPI) PROGRAM

WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency adopted the Coliseum Redevelopment
Neighborhood Project Initiative (“NPI”) Program on July 19, 2005 (Resolution No. 2005-0044
C.M.S.) to assist in addressing general blight conditions within the Coliseum Redevelopment
Project Area; and

WHEREAS, all projects proposed to be funded by the program have been submitted to
the Agency for review and approval; and

WHEREAS, the City of Oakland and the Redevelopment Agency entered into a
Cooperation Agreement on July 1, 2004, which generally governs the provision of assistance and
the payment of funds between the two agencies, including Redevelopment Agency financial
contributions and other assistance to support City public improvements; and

WHEREAS, Section 33445 of the California Health .and Safety Code authorizes a
redevelopment agency to pay for the cost of installation or construction of publicly-owned facilifies,
if the legislative body has consented to suchftindingand has made certain findings; and

WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency has authorized $180,000 of NPI Program funds
for improvements to public and non-public facilities, including $74,000 for two City-sponsored
projects and other funds for improvements to City public improvements; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED: That the City Council hereby consents to Redevelopment Agency funding

of improvements to City facilities and public improvements in the Coliseum Redevelopment
ProjectArea under the NPI program, and accepts a contribution of $74,000 in Redevelopment
Agency funds under the Cooperation Agreement for the City-sponsored projects below and
appropriates such funds to the City repayment account in Oakland Redevelopment Agency
Projects Fund (7780), in projects to be established for the following:

4 ∑ $54,000 for improvements to the Rainbow Rprrpatin^ Pppipr located at 5800
International Boulevard:
∑ $20,000 for landscapingimprovements to Sobrante Park located at 470 El Paseo Drive;
and be it

FURTHER RESOLVED: That the City Council herebyfindsand determines as follows:

1. That the funding of improvements to City facilities and public improvements under
the NPI Program will benefit the Coliseum Redevelopment Project Area by helping to
eliminate physical and economic blight within the Project Area for the reasons set
forth in the staff report accompanying this Resolution;

2. That due to thefiscalconstraints on the City’s general f\ind and the high number of
capital projects and public safety projects competing for limited City fiinds, neither
the City’s Capital Improvement Program budget nor other City funds arc available to
providefinancingfor the City facilities and public improvements authorized for
funding under the Coliseum NPI program, and therefore no other reasonable means of
financing these projects is available to the City other than Redevelopment Agency
funding;

3. That the use of tax incrementftindsfrom the Coliseum Redevelopment Project Area
for the above projects is consistent with the implementation plan adopted for the
Coliseum Redevelopment Project; and be it

FURTHER RESOLVED: That the City Administrator or his designee is authorized to
take any other action with respect to the above projects and the NPI Program consistent with this
Resolution and its basic purpose.

IN COUNCIL, OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA, ^ , 2010

PASSED BY THE FOLLOWINGVOTE:

AYES – BROOKS. OB LA FUENTE, KAPLAN KERNIGHAN. NADEL, QUAN, REID, and PRESIDENT BRUNNER i
I
NOES – I
1

ABSENT –

ABSTENTION –
ATTEST: LaTonda Simmons
City Clerk and Clerk of the Council
of the City ofOakland. California

I’

Hey Audree.

We finally opened the Academy today. He need to have ijacfcground checJcs run on the’
instructors, t e l lme what-the process i s to have this done. ∑ Also I want the academy
∑marketed with the other sununer camp programs. Let me Xnow what we need to do f o r this as
well.

Thanks.

Desley

Pesley Brooks .
Vice Mayor . .’ *
Oakland City Council Member, D i s t r i c t 6
C i t y H a l l ‘ ‘ , ‘ ∑ ∑
1 Frank Ogawa-Plaza, 2nd Floor
Oakland, C A ‘ 94612 – ‘ ∑
(510) 238-7006 (office) ‘ ∑ . ,
(510J 986-2650 (facsijnile)

dbrooks&oakiandnet.com . _

Keep Making A Difference — Pay It Forward! . . . . .

Montrice
Subject: RE: New Hires for Qjuncilmembsr Brooks-Office .

i

.-∑ ∑∑\Susan,

.)∑∑.∑ ∑ _
I received your voicemai! this morning concerning v/hat needs to be done on the 6 nsu’ hires. Here is v/hai I have so.
raf…The following three can be pfocessed as usual – they passed their teckgrounds:
HB had approved the packets last week and-Clara.Vi’35 v/alking the documents through for signatures last week… As far
.as I.know; these employeesv/oiild get paid this Thursday If all the hlrihg documents are subrhitted to Payroll by.today or
tomorrow.
r o r f l Æ f S B . ^ Æ , – a n d ^ a ^ ^ ^ :these hiripg packets were approved for-the purp.ose of getting them paid for
the hours they have already worked. Clara was going to walk these through also. However,-you-wHI”need t o ‘ ∑ ∑ ‘ . ∑
coordinate with Payroll on how to best pay them for the nours’worked. They should not work any more hours until the ∑
results of their backgrounds are known, (OPR estimated thai the.results might come back sometime-this-week — we ∑ –
should check oh this on a dally basis.) Of course, if they fail, the background, thay wouid,rioi;be albwad tp work with tha
taens, etc.. pieaee’see below. ‘ ∑ -;∑
Jason: can you inforrri Susan / Clara if any of these background results (ffiSfflffli Q@BS, and VBShBai^). have borne’in
since last Wednesday? .

∑∑ ∑\Jhanks,
._^aryl

-Fromj-LooK-Daryl.
Sent:’Wednesday; March 30, 20119.:03 AM
Tc: Garzon, Clara; Sanchsz, Susan; Micche!l,Oeson _
Cc; Wright; Lisa D.; Taylor-Uoyd,-Michelle; Qay, Joyce F.; -Walsh, Kip

Subject R.E: New Hires for Councilmembsr Brooks Office . _ _

Hi Clara, ∑ . ∑ ;
Thank you for hand-carrying the documents through the Budget Office and CAO for signatures for ffg^rf^ gnd

∑ Update: I spoke with Payroilthis morning (3/30)-they informed me that if they receive all the documents by Monday
(4/4) or Tue5day(4/D) of next week, they should be able to get them into the system on. time to get them paid during the
regular payroll cycle (Payday is on Thurs, 4/7).

However, keep In mind thai these three have not yet passed their background check and should not be working additional
hours until the results are availablo and they have passed. ∑ ∑ . _

) Jason; Is it possible for you to provide an update on thesa backgrounds each day next week?

∑–Finallyryour-officev/i!l-need-to work-direDlly-\yith-the-Payrot{Dep3itnv2nt-to.dsiennine how-to pay-these.individuals-io;.
tho hours worked should 1) any of Ihem fail their background or 2) the results of the background check not be available

Pax: (510)238-6129
cgai:zon@oah’kndnet.com

,om:’Mftchei|,’Jason
Sent; Tuesday, -Ma/ch 29,2DiJ ID.’ID AM . – – – ∑ ‘
TD; Look, Daryf; Garzon, Clara . – ,
Cc; Wright, titea 0.; Taylor-(-foi<^, Mcheiis; Sanchez, 5u3an; Cfay, Jo^^ Subject: RE: Mew Hinss for Councilmember Brooks Ofrice. Heilo Daryf, They ara-being processed/schedufed, ws dc noihave the resufeas of yet. f don't think the-results v/id bs-in until next week. We will keep you posted as they clear. ' . Jason M. ∑ . . : . . - * . - . . . Fromr look, Daryl ; Sent; Tuesday, Mardi 2?/-^'ll'10;12'AM , to;. M/tchfell, Jason; .Ga;zoD,'-Q3ra^ ∑ , Cc;,Wright/Lisa D.; Taylor-Uoyd,' Miche!le; Sanchsz, Susan Iinportanbs; High . . . . . . Hi Ciara, Jason,, '"^∑∑y^nyv/ordon-yie bacfcgroujidsro- . If we don't hear soon, v/e msy have to find a way to pay these individuals for the time worked, but not have final approval until.the.background checks are.complete. . ∑ Thx, . . . . . . . . ^ From: Loofc, Daryf Sent Monday,.March 28,20112;2'1 PM ∑ To: Mitchell, Jason ' - Cc; Gsrzon, Qara; Wright, Lisa D.; Taybr-Lloyd, Michelie; Sanchez, Susan 'Subject; RE: New Hires forCoundlmember Brooks Office . Hi Jason, ∑ . ' ' ∑ /will process the hiring packets f o r ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ , I ^ S i ^ S ^ ^ . andSlS^^^imfnediateiy. i don'f recaJ) seeing a padtei io; I ∑ ∑A'Vhen do ybii think theresultswill be in for ths iollowing?? \ ) Thanks, Sparyl ∑ ∑\ rfom: MItchel!, Jason Sent; Monday, March 28, 2011 1:08 PM To; look, Daryl Subject; RE: New Hires for Councilmember BrooJcs Orfjcs Hello Daryl, . , ' ∑ The foliowng individuals-have completed and passed the fingerprinting (live scan) and background'test: the others are being-processed ana' their status is stiii pending. Thanks,' - ' ∑.Jason M. From: Look, Daryl ∑ Sant:.Monday, Mardi 28, 2011 12:08 PM . ,, J D : Mitchell; Jason ^)ubject: NeW HirK for Councilmember-Brooks Office Jason, Cm reviewing some documents that were subrnitted through DHPwM today. Can you please. Donfinn if any required - background checks have been completeo' forthe following applicants who are going through.the hiring process for Councilniejribef_PSE-14;_positjonE? l-understand they are going to.be working on the "RainbowTeen Center" which' may have'exposure-to-working-wftii youth' (as well as other posslbie.Council projects). . . - ∑ . Although these positions appear to be funded out of the City Council Office, it's apparent the employees v/ii)beworl
Sent: Tuesday February 05,20131:24 AM ∑
To: Santana, Deanna; Jordan, Howard; Bolton, Christopher; Stbffmacher, Bruce; Nosakhare,
∑Shereda
Subject , police staffing

My #1 goal for 2013 is to figure out how to get Oaklaiid to 1,000 cops (and adequate ci-vilians to support them)
∑witbin a reasonable amount of time. As I think you both know, I’ve asked Donna.Hom to develop an excel tool
that would allowus to easily cost-out variousscenarios. Fimiring out costs and the timing of costs will help us
identify”the gap andmakethe case to voters and other flinders of ourneed and ourplaa. But let’s not talk about”
money fornow… ‘ . ∑ ∑ * –

∑ It seems that right now, no matter how much moneywe had, we are not.physically capahle of hiring up quickly ‘
enough. I’ve heard and believefhe adage “quick to hire, quick to fire.” We can’t rush hiring so much that we . ∑
compromise on quality. I knowin the pastwe contracted out traimng withmixed results. At’the same time, if 1 ‘
we accept the current status quo.ofbeiagable to run only 2 academies a year, producing,only 80 new ofiica:s a
∑year, offset by up to 60 officerper .year attrition (netting us only20 officers’per year) – we wont’get to 1,000 for
19 years –2032. Not accq)table. .

If we could e!q)and academy size to graduate 45 o:Sicers, run 2 and a half a year, and reduce attrition to 3
officers a month, .that would net’76-77 ofScers a year. That would get us to 1,000 in 5 years or 2018. Throw in 1
lateral academy a year of 10, we could get to 1,000 in 4.5 years. Thatfeels a bit better. If you see other feasible
scenarios that get us to 1,000 in under 5 years, please tell me. All ideas should be on the table.

So here are questions Pd like answered:

.1. What are fhe roadblocks (besides moaey) to running more than 2 academies a year? How can we get over
them? Once these roadblocks are removed,.how many academies canwerun a year without compromising ihe
quality of recruits or liie quahty of training?

2. What are the roadblocks'(be3ides money) to expanding-the class size of each academy? -How can we get over
them? Once these roadblocks are removed^ how many recruits could each academy accoromodate without –
coiaprpmising the quality of recruits or the quality of training?

3. I’ve heard in the past that laterals don’t always work out for OPD. Are there certain conditions (s,g., salary
reductions or layoffs in otherjurisdictions) thatmalce condit3.ons better for atti’actiiig quaiit}^ lateral recruits? Do
thoseconditions exist now? How does the NSA affect o^or ability to recruit quality laterals? Are there other . –
factors that could help infltisefforts (PR, targeted recruitment, sigmng bonris?) Can a lateral academy be done
at the same time aregular academy is ranning without delaying either? Whst can we do to make lateral hires
work better for Oakland?

4. Have we assessed ourpredicted attrition rate for tlie coming year? Due to less officers atretirement age, etc.
do we have reason to estimate- it -will go do\^^i? Can we do a s’ur^’ey or H.g3essmei3.t. of the causes of OPD’s
cmxent attritio.n rate? Would a DROP prograrn. such a-s tbey rise iii l A red.’i’ice our attdtioa a:-*d bejustified until
we reach 1,000 officers? “^Tiat else can we do to reduce atbrttion? ‘ . ‘

City Council Code of Ethics
From Resolution No. 78307 C.M.S.

Each member of the City Council has a duty to:

1. Respect and adhere to the American ideals of government, the rule of law, the
principles of public administration and high ethical conduct in the perfomiance of public
duties.

2. Represent and work for the common good of the City and not for any private interest.

3. Refrain from accepting gifts or favors or promises of future benefits which might
compromise or tend to impair independence of judgment or action.

4. Provide fair and equal treatment for all persons and matters coming before the Council.

5. Learn and study the background and purposes of important items of business,before
voting.

6. Faithfully perform all duties ofoffice.

7. Refrain from disclosing any information received confidentially concerning the
business of the City, or received during any closed session of the Council held pursuant
to state law.

8. Decline any employment incompatible with public duty.

9. Refrain from abusive conduct, personal charges or verbal attacks upon the character,
motives, ethics or morals of other members of the Council, staff or public, or other
personal comments not germane to the issues before the Council.

10. Listen courteously and attentively to all public discussions at Council meetings and
avoid interrupting other speakers, including other Council members, except as may be
permitted by established Rules of Order

11. Faithfully attend all sessions of the Council unless unable to do so because of
disability or some other compelling reason.

12. Maintain the higheststandard of public conduct by refusing to condone
breachesof public trustor improper attempts to influence legislation, and bybeing
willingto censure any memberwho vvillfully violatesthe rules of conduct contained
in thisCode of Ethics.

Leave a Comment