Narrow Search

  • Show Only

  • Category

  • Narrow by Date

    • All
    • Today
    • Last 7 Days
    • Last 30 Days
    • Select a Date Range

Comment Archives: Stories: Blogs: News

Re: “Troubled by Police Mishandling of Sex Crime Investigation, Federal Judge Orders City of Oakland Back to Court

And millions more in taxpayer dollars now must be committed to ongoing Federal oversight which has already cost the City of Oakland more than $30 million. And still, the OPD budget continues to increase yearly with many millions of unbudgeted overtime.We are hostages on a runaway train hurtling down the tracks. We can only pray that the Oakland Police Commission will, in time, provide the kind of oversight and accountability that the City has thus far been able to achieve.

Posted by Rashida Grinage on 06/27/2017 at 11:57 PM

Re: “Oakland Council Meeting Disrupted, Vote on Budget Prevented

Shameful denial of the democratic process! If I can't get my way government can't be allowed to work. Sounds like president Donald Trump.

Posted by ed gerber on 06/27/2017 at 4:07 PM

Re: “City of Oakland Poised to Give Public Land to Nonprofit that Improperly Received $710,000 in County Funds

Do we detect Schaaf's fine hand in this new way to steal public monies? Just asking.

Posted by Steve Redmond on 06/22/2017 at 4:21 PM

Re: “Grand Jury: Oakland’s ‘Backroom Dealing’ to Sell City-Owned Land Is Systemic Problem ‘Vulnerable to Undue Influence’

And yet the residents continually vote for the same people who are screwing them over..... how progressive!

Posted by Robert Hope on 06/22/2017 at 10:32 AM

Re: “City of Oakland Poised to Give Public Land to Nonprofit that Improperly Received $710,000 in County Funds

Was Brooks operating in her professional capacity when she was alleged to have assaulted Brown ? If not, then I don't see how Brown would have any claim against the city.

Whenever land is sold off at below market rates there is always something underhand in the works.

Posted by alphie noakes on 06/21/2017 at 2:14 PM

Re: “City of Oakland Poised to Give Public Land to Nonprofit that Improperly Received $710,000 in County Funds

Something stinks about this whole business. The City of Oakland is once again skirting the requirements of good governance in the name of "providing affordable housing." Where is the transparency the public is entitled to and which the law requires? I call upon the entire Council to withdraw from this plan until all legal and financial qualifications have been established. The process should be thrown open to enable other qualified non-profits to make competitive bids. Chuck Johnston, Jack London Waterfront Warehouse neighborhood.

Posted by Chuck Johnston on 06/21/2017 at 12:51 PM

Re: “City of Oakland Poised to Give Public Land to Nonprofit that Improperly Received $710,000 in County Funds

Can we please take into consideration about all the homeless people living in tents under the underpass in West Oakland please it doesn't cost much put up a couple of homeless shelters for these people is making our city look so bad it's making us look bad we are now the world champions of the NBA but we still can't take care of our own people come on now please help us don't kill us if need be i will work my self to help these just give me a chance 5104593972 give me a call

Posted by loverboy12 on 06/21/2017 at 10:49 AM

Re: “City of Oakland Poised to Give Public Land to Nonprofit that Improperly Received $710,000 in County Funds

The city council wouldn't do a thing like trying to buy off someone suing the city (Why is the city, as a whole, responsible of the alleged actions of a council member no on city time or city property?). Not to mention encouraging an organization that has behaved in a way that would in no way shape or form be tolerated by ordinary citizens.

Maybe, it's a effort to curry favor with a county supervisor? Naaaa... Never happen.

Please, everyone notice, exactly which council members were in favor of this travesty...

Remember them well on election day. Don't take to the streets.

VOTE THIS CORRUPT CABAL OUT!

Posted by Bruce Ferrell on 06/20/2017 at 11:39 PM

Re: “City of Oakland Poised to Give Public Land to Nonprofit that Improperly Received $710,000 in County Funds

I hope they didn't pay James Cahill of Pilar Consulting Services very much to prepare that 990, because he obviously doesn't know what he's doing in that regard.

There are numerous questions that have "no" answers, where the answers should be "yes" (as in "no" would raise a red flag).

There are fields that should have descriptive sentences but instead have minimal text. The program service accomplishments should say things like, "We provided # of services to # of people in # of locations" - at minimum. The answer should not be "charitable" - one word, charitable. It's obvious that the preparer not only didn't know what he was doing, but couldn't be bothered to read even the basic instructions on the form itself.

There are boxes that should be checked that aren't (the treasurer should be an individual trustee as well as an officer, the same as Elaine).

There is no data shown on the return for 2014, which should be present as the organization states it existed in 2014. Perhaps the preparer didn't do the 2014 return, but he should have obtained the information from the organization.

Also, considering they report property tax expense, the fact there is nothing on the balance sheet for fixed assets, is another red flag of incompetence. The $11k spent on "Information Technology" would also generally result in fixed assets.

Going through this 990 more closely, it is actually quite impressive how incompetently it was prepared. The Public Support % on Schedule A should be 100%; instead it is shown as 0%.

The statement of program service accomplishments shows $5100 in expenses but "0" for grants, where, on the functional expense page, the $5100 is listed as being entirely grants given to domestic individuals.

As far as there being no details of the Other Fees, it is possible that it was detailed on an attached page that did not make it into the archived version. I've seen that happen before. However, this just looks like more evidence of negligence on the preparer's part.

The fact that almost all the expenses are put under "management and overhead" is something that is a red flag for mismanagement. However, based on the overwhelming lack of competence in the overall tax preparation, to me, this doesn't indicate mismanagement, just an incompetent tax preparer.

Posted by Sarah Lockhart on 06/20/2017 at 9:55 PM

Re: “City of Oakland Poised to Give Public Land to Nonprofit that Improperly Received $710,000 in County Funds

I wonder why the city of Oakland would sell land at an enormous discount to Elaine Brown's organization. Could the reason be that Brown is currently suing the city for millions?

Posted by Charlie Stephen on 06/20/2017 at 6:47 PM

Re: “Grand Jury: Oakland’s ‘Backroom Dealing’ to Sell City-Owned Land Is Systemic Problem ‘Vulnerable to Undue Influence’

Can EBX please comment on why they have no "award winning investigative reporters" looking into the council members who seem to have been party to this?

Could it be that EBX and it's award winning reporters are nothing but sock puppets for these very council members; subverted by their political agenda(s) and beholden to them?

And why does this article read so very closely to the one on this topic by a certain media outlet from across the bay, while avoiding the specifics (from the grand jury report) in that article?

Citizens of Oakland want to know.

Posted by Bruce Ferrell on 06/20/2017 at 10:11 AM

Re: “Photos: Warriors Celebrate Second Title in Three Years with Parade and Rally in Oakland

Someone also need to check the budget. Very fishy and misuse of funds

Posted by concern _123 on 06/20/2017 at 8:31 AM

Re: “Photos: Warriors Celebrate Second Title in Three Years with Parade and Rally in Oakland

Someone need to check to see if city gets paid. You will be surprised. Then they will blame it on the person who is no longer with the cuty

Posted by concern _123 on 06/20/2017 at 8:03 AM

Re: “Grand Jury: Oakland’s ‘Backroom Dealing’ to Sell City-Owned Land Is Systemic Problem ‘Vulnerable to Undue Influence’

There should be a ballot to limit term of council members

Posted by concern _123 on 06/20/2017 at 8:01 AM

Re: “Grand Jury: Oakland’s ‘Backroom Dealing’ to Sell City-Owned Land Is Systemic Problem ‘Vulnerable to Undue Influence’

The problem is that the Public Ethics Commission has no hammer, other than public disclosure of misdeeds by public officials. There are no fines, no censures or any other punitive actions resulting from a continuous trend of back room deals. The politicians who do this know the law, they just don't care. They feel much like the orange idiot in Washington, "the rules don't apply to me". This pattern is not new and seems to only be getting worse despite recent battles with neighborhoods over disclosure and process. As shown in the E12th st debacle, even after the City Attorney advises the City Council of the law, they routinely ignore it and break the law anyway. There has to be consequences to these actions. Either personal, by way of fines or suspension. More importantly, the community should hold their feet to the fire by way of the ballot box.

Posted by Gary Patton on 06/20/2017 at 6:45 AM

Re: “Grand Jury: Oakland’s ‘Backroom Dealing’ to Sell City-Owned Land Is Systemic Problem ‘Vulnerable to Undue Influence’

Residents always lose when the City gives away our public lands which would be far more valuable if used for low income housing, recreation facilities or green areas. These deals are usually short-sighted cash grabs which are extremely profitable for developers, often only providing housing for affluent people who want to move here, regularly displacing existing residents who council members are supposed to represent. And once the land is gone, it's gone for good.

Posted by Andy Gillis on 06/19/2017 at 4:28 PM

Re: “Grand Jury: Oakland’s ‘Backroom Dealing’ to Sell City-Owned Land Is Systemic Problem ‘Vulnerable to Undue Influence’

"The city has 90 days to respond to the Grand Jurys findings and recommendations."

Or what? 10 lashes with a wet noodle?

Posted by JP Massar on 06/19/2017 at 3:47 PM

Re: “Grand Jury: Oakland’s ‘Backroom Dealing’ to Sell City-Owned Land Is Systemic Problem ‘Vulnerable to Undue Influence’

In the past two years the city of Oakland has spent a great deal of time and money installing something called a Public Ethics Commission.

Designed according to its chief salesman, CM Dan Kalb, to improve confidence in city hall.

'Nuff said.

Posted by Hobart Johnson on 06/19/2017 at 2:49 PM

Re: “Crucial Legislation for New Oakland Police Commission Stalls in Committee as Activists and Councilmembers Fight Over Rules

If Council members believe that background checks are important, they should require checks of all candidates for elected office in Oakland.

The way it is now, the only "check" is the City Clerk checking that a candidate is registered to vote at their stated address. Candidates for City Attorney and Auditor must provide proof of current state license.

No official verification of resumes or candidate's statements.

Len Raphael, CPA
Temescal

Posted by Len Raphael on 06/17/2017 at 9:38 AM

Most Popular Stories

Best of the East Bay


© 2017 East Bay Express    All Rights Reserved
Powered by Foundation