EAST BAY CITIZEN. EVERYWHERE SINCE 2009

Thursday, July 11, 2013

Censure Is In The Air: Oakland City Council Looks Into Rebuking Brooks For Alleged Misconduct

Desley Brooks (PHOTO/Steven Tavares)
OAKLAND CITY COUNCIL//CENSURE | Oakland City Council President Pat Kernighan says nagging questions about the alleged misconduct of Councilmember Desley Brooks needs to be dealt with more sooner than later. On Thursday, she called for a July 25 hearing that may lay the groundwork to censure Brooks for interfering in the construction of a teen center in her district.

Kernighan said the controversy and inaction swirling around Brooks since a city auditor’s report last March alleged 12 violation of the city charter pertaining to non-interference rules has “been a drag on the reputation of the Oakland City Council.”

“I am painfully aware that this is going to be a difficult conversation,” Kernighan said during a rules committee Thursday morning. “I think it is important that we just deal with this issue that has been dogging us for awhile and I would like to dispense with it one way or another regardless of how it turns out before we go on break.”

Councilmember Larry Reid, also cited in City Auditor Courtney Ruby’s report for violating the City Charter, but not included in the potential censure hearing later this month, objected to Kernighan’s proposal. “I don’t think you’re going to get four votes for the censorship,” said Reid. “I think it’s a dog and pony show and I certainly would hope you would rethink your position.”

Reid said it was unfair to ask the three new members of the City Council to pass judgment on Brooks without knowledge of the allegations. “It’s going to be very, very ugly meeting,” said Reid, before adding, “I think it’s a big mistake on your part.”

Kernighan said the hearing is more about resolving the matter one way or another rather than worrying about gaining the requisite votes to censure Brooks. Councilmember Libby Schaaf also agreed with the sentiment.

Two months ago, Kernighan and Ruby issued statements postponing any action on the allegations against Brooks and Reid while the council dealt with more pressing matter such as the tumult in the Oakland Police Department’s leadership and issues surrounding the next fiscal year budget.

However, in the past few weeks, attention again focused on the City Council’s inability to focus on the allegations after an Alameda County civil grand jury report harshly criticized its ability to “self-police” regarding Brooks’ actions interfering with city staff in the construction of the Digital Arts and Culinary Academy. The grand jury’s own investigation mostly corroborated allegations against Brooks found in Ruby’s March 30 report.

The talk of censure comes a day after the AC Transit Board of Directors moved quickly to rebuke At-Large Board Director Joel Young for violating its code of ethics and misusing district property for his own personal gain. Similarly, the use of censure against a public official carries no fines or penalties. However, its use is unusual and carries a certain stain of impropriety going forward, especially for someone like Brooks, who is up for re-election next year.

4 comments :

By MW:

Concerning the Desley Brooks situation:

There is an unwritten rule, & that rule is especially strong in the Bay area, that higher ranking government officials can do virtually anything they want, & regardless of the law.

And as part of that rule & practice, most of the time when allegations are made that this or that higher ranking official engaged in illegal conduct are referred to the AC DA's office for investigation, the lawyers in the DA's office then go through their choreographed charades of pretending to investigate, & then almost always, & regardless of how overwhelmingly strong the evidence of wrongdoing by the big boy, eventually issue a report insisting that it was all the whistleblower's imagination.

And since the other relevant AC agencies now have the lies & garbage report from the DA's office "proving" that the whistleblower is stupid, or a liar, or has an overactive imagination, those other agencies then retaliate against the whistleblower.

And that is why whoever blew the whistle on Nadia Lockyer while she was still a member of the AC Board of Supervisors that she was a drug addict, as erratic as could be, & acting like the most extreme version of a professional nitwit did so anonymously, & to the media, & rather than going through the approved & "proper" method according to the rules of AC government, & which is that complaints of improper conduct are supposed to be made to your manager, and who will supposedly arrange a "real" investigation.

In other words if any lower ranking employee had internally made a complaint about Nadia's conduct while she was still on the Board of Supervisors that Nadia was an extreme drug addict & was also acting extremely erratically & unusually stupidly even by the "standards" of drug addicts, the professional pathological liars with law licenses that the DA's office (and possibly also from the County Counsel's office) had assigned to the case would have gone through their phony & choreographed "investigation" that would have "proved" that Nadia was perfectly fine & that the whistleblower was "crazy." In fact, the report from the DA's office most likely would not have merely "proved" that Nadia was okay, but it probably would have even "proved" that she was outstanding & wonderful & that her conduct, ethics, & performance always met the very highest standards, & that therefore anyone who thought differently was so extremely stupid & completely incoherent, that therefore for the safety of AC's buildings & other employees, said whistleblower needed to be fired & also banned from even entering County owned buildings, & basically banned from even talking with and/or communicating with other County employees.

In fact, I want to know why Desley's improper conduct even came to light, & rather than it being covered up, & the same way such illegal activity by the big boys is almost always covered up. In fact, my suspicion is that Desley did not put much effort into getting along with her fellow big boys, since if she had most likely they would have protected her & covered things up for her.

In fact regarding the big boys protecting each other & covering things for each other, for many years the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and which is headquartered in SF, had a judge who was as senile as could be, & the Court basically served as his nursing home & the US marshals assigned to the Court as his babysitters. However his fellow big boys engaged in virtually non stop PR to brainwash the public into thinking that Judge X was one of the most brilliant minds in the entire country, & even though his mind had been almost completely gone for many years.

While I can't defend her position... I am curious as to who pays for this website and their opinions. There is no advertising so clearly someone is financing Mr. Tavares' opinion. Who is behind the east Abu citizen. Inquiring minds want to know?

Post a Comment