Comments on: Edgerly on paid administrative leave

By: len raphael

len raphael — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:00:09 +0000

Has William Noland, the finance director who offered the cash “reimbursement” to the (ex) controller, been put on administrative leave or is he still overseeing our city’s money?

By: Joanna/OnTheGoJo

Joanna/OnTheGoJo — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 05:35:38 +0000

What was I saying earlier? It indeed doesn’t end, but at least she was terminated so she can take her wishes to the legal system. No more paid administrative leave! I guess Dellums realized that it was a no win situation, so better to pay her less now (more later?) and perhaps (?) save his reputation. He must have been feeling some serious heat on this.

By: Joanna/OnTheGoJo

Joanna/OnTheGoJo — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 22:49:08 +0000

Oh, now it gets really interesting. First DE appoints Cheryl Thompson to replace her and says that Dellums doesn’t have the authority to name someone else. (who wrote this freaken charter?)

Then, she says she was out Friday at a funeral and a doctor’s appointment. I hear workers’ comp claims can be lucrative…

And oh yeah, she wants to move her retirement to December 31st – so that she can get even more paid administrative leave! Yeah, and I’m sure she’ll want a bonus to go with that.

It just doesn’t end, does it? Go away and be happy that you’re getting PAID administrative leave. Please.

By: californio

californio — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 02:14:38 +0000

You can argue this both ways. Honest, hardworking public servants don’t need reams of guidelines and regulations to do their job right. Well-written guidelines help keep people honest and hardworking. On balance, though, it seems to me that, as Deckin says, the character of the human being outweighs the influence of paper regulations; as any barfly will tell you, ‘You can’t legislate morality.”

The question then becomes, how do we find someone decent for mayoral candidate, and after that, how do we go about changing the city charter for the better? Does the Edgerly mess represent enough of a scandal to energize Oaklanders or their representatives to begin work on, say, limiting the scope of the city administrator’s power? Is this important enough to make a campaign issue? Doubtful, given the state of things.

By: V Smoothe

V Smoothe — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 19:59:48 +0000

Deckin –

I think perhaps you’re painting too rosy a picture of Oakland 25 years ago, when we had the exact same structural problems we have today, and as well as the same issues of crime, poverty, and unemployment, although perhaps at that time, crime was more limited to certain geographic areas.

I would argue that without sound policy, what you refer to as “minutia,” we have no hope of good governance, no matter who’s running things.

By: Deckin

Deckin — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 19:50:21 +0000

I think some are confusing good policy with good governance. Neither is either necessary or sufficient for the other. This city had, as of about 25 years ago, a solid reputation for effective, if not transparent, government. Crime was kept in check, streets were lit and parks were cleaned (without bond measures), the library was well stocked (again, without bond measures), all with a city charter with far fewer ‘structural problems’ than what we have today. Policies are words on a page; people are what make for good governance. Right now we have a perfect storm of massive incompetence, large quantities of malfeasance, a substantial hint of criminality, and a citizenry that is more consumed with a presidential race on which we, as citizens of a thoroughly Blue state, will have little to say, than it is with a local government that touches our lives daily.

Thinking that a recall ‘personalizes’ things gets it precisely backwards. It’s always personal in politics. And it’s time to get those people out of government. All the CEDA minutia and zoning issues are just flim flam until we get the people necessary and sufficient for good governance. A recall election is the political analogue of a busload of lawyers heading over a cliff: A good first start.

By: Andy

Andy — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 19:00:43 +0000

Reading these comments and the CED write up by V, I am even more depressed about Oakland govt. The situation is totally unbelievable.

As for a recall, I think it is time. Not because I believe that it would directly change anything, but it would put our elected officials on notice.

By: PaulineZ

PaulineZ — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 04:36:10 +0000

Per the Chronicle 6/28, Edgerly will collect a pension of more than $150,000 a year. How can that be in a city as “poor” as Oakland

By: len raphael

len raphael — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 08:22:33 +0000

a recall campaign personalizes the problem and diverts attention from fix the same stuff from occurring again after who ever took over from dellums. but it does remind councilmembers and mayors that they are the servants of the voters instead of the other way around as it done here.

apart from charter reforms re campaign finance, and maybe term limits, you’re still left with an amazingly entrenched powerful bureaucracy that like some really tough intelligent vine (what was that musical?) is confident that it can outlast any four year or 8 eight year term mayor. that confidence is well deserved.

(btw, why does it seem that civil service and merit promotions are mere formality in oakland govt jobs?)

By: Chris Kidd

Chris Kidd — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 01:03:39 +0000

Just imagine, Max: Before the strong mayor initiative, the city manager had even MORE power than they do now. Not that the strong mayor initiative has turned out gangbusters or anything…

Now imagine what a driven, competent, fair, moral, intelligent person could do as city administrator. The first strike against deborah should have been the fact that she had to be persuaded to take the city administrator position. We should have only brought in someone who had a burning passion for the job.