Oakland City Employee Defends $165,500 Salaries for City Managers

An Oakland City employee posted in support of Brooke Levin, Assistant Public Works Director, complaining that the We Fight Blight article describing problems with the tree services program was unfair to Ms. Levin. The employee also strongly supported Ms. Levin's $165,500 salary, which keep in mind is only $10,000 less than the Governor of California. The email, which appears to be from a high level employee at the City, reflects just how out of touch Oakland City staff and managers are when it comes to bloated employee salaries, customer service, and accountability, particularly with the City facing an unprecedented financial crisis and laying off 80 police.

According to City records, Brooke Levin has been working with, and for, the Public Works Department for the past 19 years. Ms. Levin started with the City of Oakland in 1991 as an aide to Mayor Elihu Harris, focusing on Public Works and Planning issues. From 1994 until 2004, she was the Public Work's Environmental Services Manager, overseeing the city's watershed, environmental compliance, recycling, solid waste, and sustainability program. In March of 2004, Ms. Levin was appointed as the Interim Assistant Public Works Director, with responsibility for the maintenance of streets and sidewalks, and the city's buildings and vehicle fleet Ms. Levin is now the Assistant Public Works Director and oversees the tree services program, among other responsibilities. She has also served as the Acting Public Works Director in the absence of the current Director. Ms. Levin has a base salary of $165,500 per year and has a retirement benefit of 2.7% at 55. This means Ms. Levin could retire at 55 and, assuming 20 years of service at the City of Oakland, would be entitled to a retirement of $89,370 per year for the remainder of her life.

The post from the city employee is in reference to the We Fight Blight Post, City of Oakland: Mismanaged, Incompetent and Unfit to Serve Residents?

Dear Editor: I think this article is very unfair to Ms. Levin. I am neither a friend of nor an employee of Ms. Levin. I do, however, know of her work ethic, her dedication and the high standards to which she holds herself and her staff.

Brooke Levin, Deputy Public Works Director

Your reader speaks of Ms. Levin's incompetence with the Tree Services Division. However, your reader was remiss in not noting that Ms. Levin assumed responsibility for the Tree Division just 2 months ago. I don't know about you, but it seems a little unreasonable to expect an executive level manager to know the in's and out's of a new division in that short period of time. Furthermore, a reasonable individual would not expect a senior manager like Ms. Levin to be personally apprised of the status of every tree in Oakland. That's what databases and first line staff should know. To direct such micro-level questions to an assistant director is synonymous with asking the CFO of a mid-sized company whether he knew what the Company paid on their last phone bill!

As I said before, I am neither a friend nor a foe of Ms. Levin. All I know from regular observation is: MS. BROOKE LEVIN IS ONE OF THE MOST DEDICATED, TALENTED, HARD WORKING, CITY EMPLOYEE WE'VE GOT and the City is lucky to have her. As for her pay, how would you compensate an employee who runs a 300-person organization (approx.) but still responds to emails and phone calls at 2 or 3am in the morning? Does your reader work that tirelessly at his job?

Look, the bottom line is this: as public servants, we are tasked to assist a constituent courteously regardless of his/her attitude, viewpoints, or agenda. Most people recognize we are people too and therefore, are by no means perfect. They appreciate us when we do the best we can. A very small minority (perhaps your reader?) will choose to attack with criticism and insults and will not be appeased no matter what we do. By writing this, I hope those who read this article will see that this most public attack on Ms. Levin is misguided. ~ Anonymous City Employee
 
We think this city employee is sadly misguided and woefully out of touch with reality. First of all, Ms. Levin has been working with, and for, the Public Works Department for 19 years and has managed the streets and sidewalks in the City for the last six years. She has had plenty of opportunity to become familiar with the requirements for street trees. Street trees affect sidewalks, right?. In Oakland, haven't you ever walked down the buckled and crumbling liability we call sidewalks. Many are in this condition due to inappropriate trees planted by the City of Oakland.

For Ms. Levin to have little to no understanding of the tree services program within Public Works after working with and in the Department for 19 years says a lot about the lack of coordination among managers within Public Works and the lack of initiative on Ms. Levin's part to understand how other programs in the Department function. Now that Ms. Levin is responsible for street trees, and there have been significant questions raised by the public over the mismanagement of the street trees program, one would think Ms. Levin would have at least read and understood the city's tree ordinances and reviewed the status of the program with relevant city staff before meeting with our reader. Isn't that a legitimate managerial responsibility?

Ms. Brooke and Ms. Lin, the Deputy City Administrator, who both met with our reader have yet to answer the most basic of his questions: who owns the trees the City was cutting down? This is fundamental as it governs the public process required by City law to remove the trees? As well, the City Arborist brought to the meeting by Ms. Levin could not answer the question. When directly asked by our reader who owned the public right of way that contained the sidewalk, the tree well and the tree, Ms. Levin could not answer the question and did not offer to find the answer for our reader. This is the response the public gets, after Ms. Levin has managed the streets and sidewalks in Oakland for over six years (we won't even get into her responsibility for a repaving cycle of 85 years and third world conditions of our roads and sidewalks).

We agree with the city employee that Ms. Levin is not expected to know the status of every single tree in the City, but that is not what our reader was asking. We do, however, expect her to be an expert in her area of management, and we expect her to be responsive to the public (which includes our reader). This means figuring out the answers to legitimate questions posed by residents and finding out the legal status of the two trees in context of the tree ordinances before meeting with our reader. So we invite either Ms. Levin or Ms. Lin to answer the question.

Regarding Ms. Levin's salary, the Executive Director for Caltrans, Cindy McKim, has responsibility for maintenance and operation of 50,000  lane miles throughout the state, a budget of more than $13.8 billion and responsibility for 22,000 employees, and is actually paid less than Ms. Levin due to state budget furloughs. Additionally, the Executive Director for Caltrans has a retirement benefit of 2% at 55. Assuming 20 years of service with the state, McKim would get a retirement benefit of only $66,000 compared to Ms. Levin's $89,370. So how is it that Ms. Levin's salary is appropriate for her level of responsibility when other public officials with far more responsibility are paid less? You can see state worker salaries at the Sac Bee.

Residents in the city are tired of paying for bloated city salaries, especially at the expense of public safety, and especially when there is poor customer service from city executives who do not understand the laws and programs they are responsible for implementing, when their management and oversight of staff and department functions is questionable, and who get upset when held accountable by knowledgeable members of the public. We are sure it is uncomfortable for some city employees to have the spotlight shined on city operations and when they are held publicly accountable for their performance. However, since the City of Oakland has been so poorly managed and the customer service lacking in many respects, contributing to crumbling infrastructure and the City's current financial crisis, perhaps what is needed to ensure the public gets what it pays for is to hold its managers and executives publicly accountable.

What will be telling is how, when and whether Ms. Levin and Ms. Lin actually addresses the concerns of our reader. To date, they have both failed to answer the most basic question: Who owns the trees? To date they have failed to ensure that when trees are cut down the City follows local, state and federal laws. To date, they have failed to substantively address the issues raised by our reader. Perhaps our anonymous city employee who so eagerly defended Ms. Levin and her $165,500 salary can tell us.  We are only talking about two trees here. This cannot be so difficult for Ms. Levin and Ms. Lin, who collectively make $285,000, or can it?

Perhaps with a new Mayor and City Administrator there will be some significant housecleaning and an emphasis on transparency, quality customer service, and knowledgeable and responsive management.

Oakland--First World Taxes, Third World Services

The Oakland Tribune recently reported that due to the city's "truly unprecedented" financial crisis, the City Council may be placing both a parcel tax and a utility tax on the November ballot to generate more revenue ( New Oakland tax measures.). The City of Oakland already has some of the highest combined taxes in the west. Overall, the city's annual budget for FY 2009-11 is approximately $1.1. billion dollars (Oakland City Budget). Yet,  the city is unable to use existing revenues to balance our budget and maintain infrastructure and wants more money from residents. Its hard to imagine how overtaxed middle class residents are going to be willing to fork over even more taxes when most feel they don't get their money's worth to begin with.

City Councilmembers and the City Administrator, Dan Lindheim, suggest the budget problem is due strictly to the dire state of the economy. There is no doubt revenues across the board are down. While all local governments in the State of California face the same problems of reduced tax revenues due to the poor economy, not all all share the same massive budget problems as Oakland. In the City of Oakland, Councilmembers and the City Administrator alike are framing the budget quandary to force residents to pony up more tax revenues--give us more money or we will cut core police and fire services. Certainly, there is more to this story than the poor economy.

The City Council's recent demand for more revenues is largely a scare tactic to cover up the mismanagement and lack of leadership among the City Council, the mayor and the City Administrator. Their rationale for new taxes is that a good share of the city's budget is consumed by voter mandated programs, such as Kids First OO and Measure D, Measure Q for libraries, and Measure Y for Violence Prevention and Public Safety, and because they have already cut other programs to the bone, they need more revenue from John Q. Public or they will be forced to cut police and fire which make up the majority of the General Purpose Fund. If police and fire are not to be cut, they proclaim a need to eliminate wholesale senior citizen services, libraries and parks.

Of the approximately $1 billion of revenue, approximately $421 million is the General Purpose Fund budget. Of that $421 million approximately 88%, or $369 million, is mandated for certain programs. This of course all depends where you pull the numbers. (Oakland Budget Office) (Balancing Measures FY 2009-10 Budget Shortfalls) (Oakland City Budget Facts). Of course there are alternatives to additional taxes including repealing all voter mandated programs or suspending them to allow discretion in re-directing revenues to provide core city services like police and fire. These measures would have to be taken to the electorate in the form of ballot measures not unlike new taxes. However, that tough solution seems to have eluded City Council, the Mayor and the City Administrator.

Nevertheless, what is being ignored here is any discussion on the mismanagement of city finances and the lack of leadership among City Councilmembers, the Mayor and the City Adminstrator. As early as July 2008, concerns were being expressed about the revenue projections of former City Administrator Deborah Edgerly that relied on rising property tax and transfer tax revenues at a time when the economy was tanking. In 2008 the City Administrator and City Council also were drawing down the City reserves from $70 million to $15 million. Despite furloughs, elimination of vacant positions, and other budgetary measures, the then $15 million dollar deficit eventually ballooned to approximately $114 million (cumulatively). This was largely because City Councilmembers, the Mayor and the City Administrator failed to make realistic revenue projections and failed to act swiftly enough and cut deeply enough to stem this massive budget deficit.

Why neither Councilmember Jean Quan, as the Chair of the Finance Committee, or Dan Lindheim as the City Administrator have been able to get a handle on revenue projections and their relationship to the budget deficit is a mystery. Budgets involve revenues and expenditures. If revenues are going down, expenditures must follow at an equal or greater rate or you generate a deficit. 

Another glaring lack of leadership revolved around the Kids First debacle. When the voter approved Kids First Measure OO went back on the ballot for a second time as Measure D seeking even a greater piece of the budget pie, every City Councilmember knew that the program was a budget buster. At that point, the City was projected to be $50 million in debt. Yet, none of the City Councilmembers, including Jean Quan who is now running for Mayor, took an active leadership role to campaign against the Kids First revenue grab. They all saw that train wreck coming, but did nothing to repeal Measure OO altogether. In fact Jean Quan actively negotiated a compromise that put Measure D on the ballot and guaranteed Kids First a significant slice of the City budget, albeit at a lower rate than Kids First originally sought. She then spun it as a budget saving measure and a necessary compromise at a time when the city finances were in disarray and going downhill fast.

On another front, the city has allowed tax dollars to be spent on sending staff to attend Eskimo yo-yo making classes in Alaska and other excessive out of state travel that occured in 2007-2008 as revealed by the Alameda County civil grand jury (Frequent Flying Staff). All the while, Mayor Dellums continues to spend extravagant amounts on his Washington expense account for top five star hotels, exclusive restaurants, limousine service and a chauffeur (Ron Dellums Living Large). Ironically in a September 27, 2008 SF Gate article, Chris Heredia quoted Mayor Dellums in response to our budget woes as saying that "At the end of our review, we came to the conclusion: Oakland is living beyond its means. As mayor, my job is to speak the truth, as painful as it is". It is certainly true that some have been living large at the public trough, including our Mayor. Yet our City Administrator Dan Lindheim and Councilmember Jean Quan routinely dismiss such boondoggles as being so small they are irrelevant to the overall budget problem.

On still another front, the City Auditor has refused to take a 15% budget cut that other politically elected officeholders agreed to. It's no wonder the city's budget deficit seems to grow and grow and grow.

Now that the city has dug itself a huge budget hole, we have to wonder why City Councilmembers and the City Administrator Dan Lindheim have chosen to frame the budget problem as one of raising more revenue through additional parcel taxes, rather than one of repealing voter mandated measures, such as Kids First, to allow greater discretion in the use of all existing revenues so that core city services, such as public safety, can be maintained. Oakland has first world taxes, but third world services. The problem is lack of leadership and an unwillingness to tackle the real problem--voter mandated spending, mismanagement of existing revenue and a failure to set core priorities. City Councilmembers are unwilling to discuss repealing Kids First because it is like the third rail of politics in liberal Oakland.

Meanwhile, our public infrastructure seems to be crumbling before our very eyes and has a direct effect on reducing the volume of taxes we collect. The city uses very little of its discretionary budget to maintain infrastructure such as roads and sidewalks. The paving cycle in the City of Oakland is 80 plus years. That's right, the city streets get paved once every 80 years or so. Maintenance of infrastructure, such as roads and sidewalks, is commonly viewed in the United States as a core local government service, as are police and fire. In the City of Oakland they are not. The city relies on state and federal tax dollars to repave city streets. This money, which is subject to state and federal budgetary issues, is largely metered through the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.

Roads that are full of potholes and sidewalks that are significantly deteriorated have a direct affect on the city's ability to maintain and generate a higher volume of tax revenues. If our basic infrastructures is falling apart and creates blighted conditions, it signals to others the poor state of our local economy, the poor health of our local government, and the inability of the city to maintain core services. These conditions, on top of already high tax rates and high crime rates result in fewer people interested in locating in Oakland, fewer businesses willing to operate in Oakland, and fewer people interested in recreating and shopping in Oakland. This means lower demand for housing which results in lower home prices and lower property tax revenues and transfer tax revenues. This also means lower business taxes, hotel taxes and sales taxes because the lower overall volume of businesses and shoppers. Think of all those people flocking to San Francisco, Walnut Creek, and Corte Madera for their safe, clean, pothole free shopping experience. Oakland is one of the lowest sales tax generators in the Bay Area. Ever wonder why?

In North Oakland, residents have been complaining to the Public Works Department and for the past year about the poor state of Shattuck Avenue between the Berkeley border and 55th Street and torn up sidwalks on Tremont Street. The City Public Works Department has made several half-hearted efforts to fill some potholes and to put asphalt over concrete sidewalks. Still Shattuck is rapidly deteriorating and has numerous potholes that are a safety hazard to bicyclists and motorists and the deteriorated sidewalks on Tremont Street have already caused one serious injury. Frustrated residents have even taken it upon themselves to mark numerous potholes with spray-paint on Shattuck between Alcatraz and 65th Street, as a warning to motorists and bicyclists. The city cannot provide basic core services such as filling potholes and fixing deteriorated sidewalks that are safety hazards, yet they want more money. Interestingly, as part of the proposed budget solution the city will reduce the street and sidewalk maintenance program by eliminating five vacant staff positions in the Public Works Agency. This reduces the number of concrete grinding crews from three to one for the entire city.

To the City Council and the City Adminstrator here are our recommendations to address the budget crisis:

1. Place measures on the November ballot to repeal all voter mandated programs, including Measure OO/D Kids First, Measure Q and Measure Y. This is necessary to restore discretion in our budget process. We have enough existing revenues to provide core city services. We are just being forced to use them in ways that do not meet core objectives such as public safety and maintenance of infrastructure;
2. Develop a prioritization of core city services with a focus on public safety, infrastructure, and revenue generating enterprises. A safer, cleaner and better maintained city will attract middle and higher income residents and shoppers to Oakland, thereby, generating more tax revenue. We need to increase the volume of taxes not by taxing the middle class out of Oakland, but by growing businesses and attracting new residents;
3. Stop using a budget process that mandates across the board cuts equally. Not all services are equal and not all services are necessary in times of budgetary crisis. Whole programs should be cut if they do not fall within the core services provided by local government. Cut all other city services that do not meet the descriptions identified in number 2. We cannot continue to be all things to all people during a budgetary crisis;
4. Personnel expenditures are the single biggest cost in the city. City employees have some of the highest salaries in the state and country for comparable sized cities. Require all remaining staff to take a 20% furlough and eventually renegotiate 15-20% permanent reductions in pay scales and freeze any cost of living adjustments for the next four years when union contracts are due.
5. Re-negotiate benefit packages when the union contracts are due to create a second tier retirement program for new staff that is no higher than 2% at 55, requires an 8 year vesting time period and requires existing staff to pay an additional 5% towards their retirement benefits;
6. Institute pay for performance measures to ensure taxpayers actually get their money's worth from city employees. This would include courteous and prompt service to all city residents. Fire employees who do not perform to well-defined metrics. This will create incentives for all employees to better perform their assigned job duties.
7. Require that all elected offices take a 20% funding cut. Yes, this even includes the City Auditor.
8. Establish strict guidelines and protocols for travel and training that applies to all city staff and all elected officials. This policy should mirror the per diems the state of California has adopted including strict controls on out of state travel.
9. Require the City establish a rainy day account for future economic crises.

Oh, and stop ignoring the residents' complaints and fill the potholes on Shattuck Avenue and fix the sidewalks on Tremont Street before someone gets seriously hurt, sues the City and makes our budget deficit even larger.