Oakland (Special to ZennieReport.com) – Gene Hazzard, the Oakland Photographer and Activist, scored big with his legal challenge against The City Council’s Oakland Measure X Resolution of 2022; Gene got the court to rule that it was what he claimed: illegal. The twist is that the Court Clerk did not enter the default immediately, but sent it to the Judge.
If you’re reading this and follow Oakland Government, you know who Gene Hazzard is. Gene is the man who took up the mantle of the late Sanjiv Handa, who would routinely go to Oakland City Council Meetings and bring up what the City of Oakland was not doing correctly. Gene has taken on a number of initiatives he found to be problematic, like The Oakland Promise. But this time, in the case of the Oakland Measure X, Gene won.
All Of This Started With Gene’s July 28th 2022 Complaint Filing To Alameda Superior Court
Gene Hazzard’s issue, expressed in emails and his July 28th 2022 complaint filing with the Alameda County Superior Court is that Oakland Measure X is an “illegal” ballot measure because it violated something called “The Single Subject Rule” in the California Constitution.
Gene came on to Zennie62 YouTube Live to talk about his complaint 5 months ago:
According to Chris Micheli in the McGeorge School Of Law Blog Network’s Cap.Impact.com publication “Per Article II, Section 8(d) of the California Constitution, “An initiative measure embracing more than one subject may not be submitted to the electors or have any effect.” Essentially, if an initiative embraces more than one subject, it can neither be submitted to, nor enacted by, the voters.”
By contrast to California Law’s Single Subject Rule, this is what Oakland Measure X is about, and also shows that it is basically a multiple-subject ballot initiative, according to SPUR aka San Francisco Planning and Urban Research:
What Oakland Measure X Would Do
Measure X would makes a series of changes to the Oakland City Charter:
- City Council term limits
Oakland has seven district councilmembers and one “at-large” councilmember who is elected by the entire city. Currently, there are no term limits for councilmembers. The measure would limit councilmembers to no more than three consecutive four-year terms in one council position. The measure would also allow a termed-out district councilmember to run for the at-large council seat immediately after their previous term.
- Closing the mayoral tie-breaker loophole
Currently, the mayor can serve as a tiebreaker vote if the City Council is split 4-4 on an item, but this power is rarely exercised.[1] Under the City Charter, the City Council can only pass a resolution or an ordinance by an affirmative vote of five or more members. This means that a measure fails if just one councilmember abstains, since the measure would not have received five affirmative votes. By having one councilmember abstain, opponents eliminate the mayor’s opportunity to vote and possibly cast a fifth vote in favor of passage.
This charter amendment would automatically make abstentions and absences count as a “No” vote and allow the mayor to break the tie. Legally required recusals would not count as a “No” vote.
- Updated mayoral succession
The measure would name the City Council president as “acting mayor” should the mayor be unable to serve. The council president pro tem would serve as acting council president until an election can be called to fill the mayoral vacancy.
- Ballot measure meeting requirements
This measure would require charter amendments, bonds and parcel tax measures to be considered at two council meetings before being sent to voters in an effort to increase the transparency and assessment of such measures.
- Setting salaries for councilmembers, auditor and attorney
The current salaries of councilmembers are lower than commensurate roles in the region.[2] Under this measure, the Public Ethics Commission would review the salaries of city councilmembers biannually and adjust them based on a set of parameters, as well as set the salaries of the auditor and city attorney, which are currently set by the City Council.
- Campaign restrictions for city auditor and city attorney
The measure would prevent the city auditor and the city attorney from endorsing, donating to or otherwise participating in campaigns for ballot measures or people running for city office.
- City Auditor’s Office minimum staffing
The measure would provide the City Auditor’s Office with a minimum of 14 staff positions, not including the city auditor. The number of staff could only be lowered if the council finds that the city is experiencing extreme fiscal straits.
- Additional requirements for who may run for city auditor
The measure would add a requirement that candidates for city auditor have three years of public sector experience in auditing, policy analysis, performance evaluation, investigative oversight, and/or accountancy, or equivalent private sector experience. Additionally, the city auditor would be required to resign if they run for another city office.
- Clarifies the scope of city auditor duties
The measure would more clearly describe the types of audits that the city auditor can perform. Currently, the city auditor reviews the performance of various government agencies and makes recommendations for improvements. This measure would allow these audits to be conducted at the city administrator’s request. It would also allow them to review city departments, commissions and programs, as well as investigate allegations of waste, fraud and abuse. The auditor would have the authority to review any city records or property and would need to publish an annual report that summarizes recent audits and recommendations.
- Council-appointed vacancies on boards and commissions:
The measure would create a formal process for the City Council to nominate candidates to city boards and commissions when vacancies occur. For boards and commissions that allow the City Council to nominate members, the process would be as follows:
The council would provide a list of nominees to the mayor within 45 days of the vacancy.
The mayor would have 90 days to review the candidates and submit nominees to council for final approval.
If the mayor does not put forward any of the council nominated candidates for boards and commissions, the mayor could put forward their own nominee.
If the council declines to approve the mayor’s nominee, the process would start all over again.
How Measure X Wound Up On The November 8th 2022 Ballot
Oakland City Council Resolution No. 89317 CMS was introduced by Oakland City Councilmembers Dan Kalb, Loren Taylor, Sheng Thao, and Nikki Fortunato Bas on July 12, 2022. It was approved by City Attorney Barbara Parker as to form and legality. Measure X was a resolution on the Oakland City Council’s own motion submitted to the voters for the November 8, 2022 General Municipal Election, and was a government reform measure that would amend the City Charter.
On Election Day, November 8th, 2022, Oakland Measure X passed with 94,497 “yes” versus 23319 “no” votes. Since Oakland Measure X only needed 50 percent plus 1 vote to pass, it was approved by Oakland voters with flying colors. By that time, Gene’s complaint was just waiting its turn in court like a ticking political time bomb.
On November 29th, 2023, the time bomb quietly went off.
Default Sent To The Judge For Case Management Conference April 30th, 2024
Gene Hazzard shared the information via email. A simple two page “tentative order” that reported what is called a “default judgement”. That happens when the defendant fails to answer the plaintiff’s claims or fails to appear at the hearing. In this case, the judge may, upon the plaintiff’s request, hear and decide the case without hearing the defendant’s side. This is called a default judgment and that’s what Gene tentatively won. The twist is that Gina Fu, The Clerk of Alameda County Superior Court, checked the box marked “Default NOT entered as requested – SENT TO JUDGE.” (The Alameda County Superior Court Judge on the case is Jo-Lynne Lee.)
Oakland Measure X is illegal. For now. A case management conference is set for April 30th, 2024 at 3 PM in Department 15, with Patrick McKinney as the judge (rather than Eumi K. Lee) unless the assignments are changed at the start of the year 2024).
Will City of Oakland Appeal The Ruling?
At this point, it’s not known if the City of Oakland will appeal the ruling, but given the fact that a simple and completely unassailable error was made, it would be a waste of Oakland taxpayer money for the City Attorney’s Office to try.
UPDATE: City of Oakland To Appeal Default Judgement Today, December 14th 2023
As it turns out, the City of Oakland did file a last-minute appeal and now there’s a case management conference today at Alameda County Superior Court, at 3 PM PST. The details here: “Oakland Measure X Ruled Illegal: Last Second City of Oakland Challenge Filed“
Gene Hazzard’s Win Should Make The Oakland City Council Pay Attention To Complaints
If the Oakland City Attorney’s Office had taken Gene’s complaint seriously and adjusted its ballot measure, none of this would have happened, or been necessary. But the problem in Oakland is it does not matter who you put in the seat of the City Council, that person will always think that Oaklanders who issue individual complaints are outsiders not worthy of their attention. That’s how Oakland City Councilmembers treated Sanjiv Handa and that’s how they’re treating Gene Hazzard.
The saddest part of the story is that what passes for mainstream media in Oakland copies the behavior of the Oakland City Council. To date, Zennie62Media is the only outlet that has covered this issue regarding Mr. Hazzard’s complaint.
Stay tuned. Be sure to read ZennieReport.com to learn about the racist media coverage of the Oakland Horn Barbecue vandalism and fire.