Ignacio De La Fuente still fighting IRV – call the Council NOW!

5 Jan

UPDATE/CLARIFICATION: The letter I posted below has been circulating online and has been misconstrued as to be from Libby Schaaf as a candidate and formatted in a way that makes it look like Libby herself was a signer to this letter. Libby is Ignacio’s staffer and the email was sent from her City account. It was clear to me that she was acting on the direction of her boss in sending this email so I didn’t even mention her in the post below. This is Ignacio’s fight, not hers. But since I’ve received a few emails asking me what’s going on, I thought it was worth clarifying.

Yesterday, I wrote a somewhat lukewarm action alert about the IRV vote tonight because I was really hoping that the Council would just do the right thing and vote to implement. But this morning I found out that at least one Councilmember is putting up a fight.

Ignacio De La Fuente’s office is circulating the following sign-on letter to Oakland non-profits:

Ranked Choice Voting – Right Idea, Wrong Time

An Open Letter to the Oakland City Council

We represent a broad coalition of community organizations that provide vital services to citizens throughout Oakland.  We write about the City’s unprecedented fiscal crisis that threatens to reduce vital services – services your citizens need now more than ever.  For this reason, we urge you to reject the $1.5 million contract with Alameda County to implement Ranked Choice Voting (“RCV”) until the City can better afford it.  Many of us still believe RCV is a good idea, but now is the wrong time.

Only weeks ago, the City Council held a special budget session to discuss cutting another $18.9 million shortfall from this year’s budget and $25.4 million from next year’s budget.  The report warned that a cut this size “essentially means that General Purpose-Funded City services and departmental operations not outlined above [i.e., legally mandated,] would cease – an untenable proposition.”

When we supported Measure O in 2006 it was with the promise that it would “save hundreds of thousands of tax dollars each election year,” (Ballot Arguments for Measure O).  The Measure’s Title stated this system would be used “without holding a prior June election.”  But times have changed, now it looks like there won’t be any savings, since Oakland officials are planning to put revenue-generating measures on the June ballot.  And unfortunately, due to the timing of tax collections, these measures can’t wait until a November election.

Now, not only will there be no savings, Alameda County is requiring Oakland to pay up to $1.5 million to implement this new voting system. This cost wasn’t included in the City’s current budget – the same budget that is already running a $18.9 million deficit.  So, the RCV implementation costs will have to come out of vital city services – services that have already been cut to the bone and are at risk of being eliminated entirely. Clearly this means even more cuts to libraries, senior centers, parks, recreation programs, the arts, and vital services for seniors, youth and people in need.

Many of us who have signed below continue to support RCV as a best practice, but we urge you to delay its implementation to a year when we can better afford its costs.  At least let’s wait until RCV is in the City’s budget, so we know what the trade-offs are.

[This paragraph will not be submitted to the newspaper as an op-ed, but will be included in version for Councilmembers]: Finally, should RCV be implemented, we are concerned about how voter education and outreach is conducted.  Oakland’s Charter requires “The City shall conduct a voter education campaign to familiarize voters with ranked choice voting.”  We believe you cannot and should not delegate this responsibility to Alameda County.  While Alameda County has claimed to have worked with “community organizations” on an outreach plan, not one of our organizations has been contacted or consulted.  However, some of us have been contacted by the Department of Justice, which is investigating claims that Alameda County has violated voting rights for non-English speaking voters in past elections.  We urge the Council to take every precaution in voter outreach until this investigation is resolved. We urge the Oakland City Council to adopt an effective, accountable education and outreach plan that is responsive to our communities before adopting RCV.

Respectfully submitted,

Various Names

As I explained yesterday, implementing IRV should not be seen as a choice, regardless of the economic implications (which are grossly overstated in the letter above. It is the law and the City Attorney’s opinion clearly states that there is no wiggle room here – the City Charter mandates the immediate implementation of IRV. If you haven’t already, call your Councilmembers today to urge them to vote yes tonight on IRV implementation. See my previous post for contact info and further information.

About these ads

8 Responses to “Ignacio De La Fuente still fighting IRV – call the Council NOW!”

  1. Andy K January 5, 2010 at 10:37 am #

    So, what is the back story, or is IDF just lost on this issue? What are the more realistic costs of IRV?

    • Becks January 5, 2010 at 11:01 am #

      IDLF is not lost at all – he’s just picking and choosing numbers that are convenient for him. $1.5 million is the full cost of implementation, but that’s if Oakland does it alone. Berkeley and San Leandro are likely to do so as well so Oakland’s cost would be under $1 million.

      Also, Ignacio is assuming that the Council will put a parcel tax on the June ballot, but that seems disingenuous because Ignacio is surely going to vote against putting a parcel tax on the ballot. Is it possible that the votes will be there to put the tax on the ballot? Yes. But this is not a foregone conclusion.

      And as V Smoothe (who opposes IRV) explained in her post today, if we end up getting sued over non-implementation, we’re going to end up spending a lot more than if we just implement.

  2. Naomi Schiff January 5, 2010 at 11:26 am #

    What I wrote:

    Dear Councilmembers,

    Please immediately implement the IRV voting systems as approved by the voters of the City of Oakland.

    It may or may not be the ideal system but we voted for it by a very clear majority, and you must implement it or run the risk of embroiling the city in expensive lawsuits, and the risk of undemocratically thwarting the voters’ expressed wishes.

    The delay is already inexcusable. You must not wait any longer. If you don’t like the system after we try it out, you can consider putting a retraction measure on the ballot.

    One of the worst things our city could experience would be a further erosion in people’s faith in city government, and in their trust that elected officials are behaving as their representatives, not as the instruments of others’ desire for influence, power, or financial benefits. Please do not swerve from the course of representing the people who elected you.

    Thank you for all that you do to make our city a better and more democratic place,

    NS (speaking for myself only)

  3. Robert January 5, 2010 at 11:47 am #

    I am confused about the cost of the June election. There is going to be a statewide primary in June anyway, so does it really cost the city $800,000 that has been claimed just to put a couple of issues onto a ballot for an election that is going to happen anyway?

    • Becks January 5, 2010 at 11:57 am #

      Yes, it actually does cost that much. If Oakland doesn’t participate in the June election, we pay zero. If Oakland does participate, we pay our share of the total election cost (the County and other cities pay the rest). Our share is $800,000. I’m not sure how that number is determined, but that is the correct number.

      • Robert January 5, 2010 at 5:35 pm #

        Thanks. Although I am not sure that ‘share’ would be the right word.

  4. John Klein January 5, 2010 at 6:09 pm #

    I don’t think the County of Alameda is “forcing” Oakland to pay $1.5 million. Perhaps that is the cost, but that is not anything like being ‘forced’ to pay it. In any case, it is an overblown figure, higher than any previous estimate.

    That the City of Oakland did not budget for this expense is simply one more example of poor foresight and budget planning. I mean, they’ve known about this for two years. The voters and the democratic process should and will not be black-mailed by this charade of an argument.

    Opponents to implementing popular public policy choices or changes always say something like, “Right idea, wrong time.” They always, always say this kind of stuff. “We like it too, but not now.” Oh, brother.

    All this is so transparent. Perata and De La Fuente are fooling no one. If this weren’t so important, it would be completely comical.

  5. Kent January 6, 2010 at 5:32 pm #

    so what do the readers think of the way the votes went last night? I found the vote on the Port Commission appt. especially interesting.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 201 other followers

%d bloggers like this: