Jul 18, 2008 8:56 pm US/Pacific
Court Rules Oakland Can Collect Police Tax
OAKLAND (BCN) ―
The city of Oakland won a legal victory Friday when a judge ruled that it was proper for the city to collect taxes authorized by a 2004 ballot measure aimed at hiring more police officers, even though the city hadn't reached the level of officers promised by the measure.
Alameda County Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch said the city can collect the tax from Measure Y, formally called the Violence Prevention and Public Safety Act of 2004, as long as the City Council appropriates the money in accordance with the provisions of the measure.
Roesch said he agrees with an impartial analysis provided by the Oakland City Attorney's office that was included in the ballot information given to voters before the November 2004 election. The analysis said that the city could collect the tax so long as the money was an addition to the existing police budget.
Roesch's ruling was in response to a lawsuit filed by Marleen Sacks, an attorney who lives in Oakland, asking that the city be forced to return $60 million to its taxpayers, alleging that until very recently it has failed to live up to its promise to reach a level of 739 officers before levying the tax.
The city of Oakland's Web site, in a response to a question about how voters will know that their tax dollars will be spent on hiring more officers, says Measure Y "has several safeguards," including one that "the city will maintain a baseline of 739 police officers in addition to the 63 new officers" authorized by Measure Y, which was approved by city voters in 2004.
Oakland currently has 748 officers, but Sacks says it reached that level only recently and had less than 739 officers for nearly four years, so it should not have been collecting Measure Y taxes.
Roesch said that in analyzing the intent of the measure, he had to rely solely on the language in the measure itself and the City Attorney's analysis and couldn't consider "extrinsic" documents and statements by city officials and other supporters of the measure.
Sacks told Roesch that his ruling "gives any politician a license to lie" to voters to get measures passed.
Roesch said, "I may say it's unjust and I don't like it" but he doesn't know of any legal authority that would allow him to rule against the city, as the state Court of Appeals ruled in a similar case that only ballot language should be considered in analyzing the intent of a measure, not statements by public officials.
Roesch said the appellate court "has spoken and has said you can't rely on public officials" and voters have to read ballot measures carefully are "bound by the words" in the measures.
City Attorney John Russo said Roesch's ruling is the second time a judge has issued a ruling upholding the city's collection of the Measure Y parcel tax, as Superior Court Judge Winifred Smith ruled in the city's favor in a similar case brought by an Oakland taxpayer.
In a statement, Russo, who didn't attend Friday's hearing said, "The position of the City Attorney's office has been the same from the beginning. Whether you agree with how Measure Y has been administered since its passage, the independent analysis our office gave to voters was unambiguous and correct."
Sacks said after the hearing that she's disappointed by Roesch's ruling but the main issues in her lawsuit remain intact and will be addressed by Roesch at a full hearing on the merits later this year.
Sacks said one of the remaining key issues is her allegation that the city is in effect "robbing" its citizens by taking $7.7 million from Measure Y and using it for generalized police recruitment.
Sacks alleges that the City Council's unanimous vote on March 4 to use Measure Y funds to hire more officers is improper because she believes it's really a generalized recruiting drive that should be paid for out of the city's general fund.
Sacks said she hopes that there will be a full hearing on the merits of the case before the Nov. 4 election because she believes a ruling against the city could affect a parcel tax supported by Mayor Ron Dellums and put on the ballot by the City Council earlier this week that would tax families up to $267 a year to hire 105 new police officers and 75 more police services technicians over three years.
Sacks said she believes the proposed parcel tax "is an insult to the taxpayers in light of the city's inability to hire more officers under Measure Y," the recent revelation by the Alameda County Grand Jury that city officials are abusing their credit card privileges and allegations that former City Administrator Deborah Edgerly engaged in nepotism by putting relatives on the city's payroll.
(© CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Bay City News contributed to this report.)
