League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
	Alameda County, CA November 15, 2011 Election
	Measure H Appointed or Elected City Attorney City of Oakland Charter Amendment - Majority Approval Required Fail: 13287 / 26.8% Yes votes ...... 36365 / 73.2% No votes See Also: Index of all Measures

Arguments For Measure H

Arguments Against Measure H

The City of Oakland deserves to be represented by a professional attorney whose focus is entirely on the job. Running in a citywide election requires raising big money, and often making promises to big money interests. Being a good lawyer requires a different set of skills. A good lawyer for the City should be hired for the same reasons any business or non-profit hires legal counsel based on professional qualifications. The best lawyers are not likely to even choose to run, knowing they will have to raise at least $300,000 to do so. Do you want a city attorney focused on fundraising or providing sound legal advice? The facts show that elected city attorneys routinely use the position to run for higher office, like the four city attorneys in Los Angeles from 1973-2009. The current elected City Attorney in SF is running for mayor. Oakland's only elected city attorney ran for State Assembly while he was serving as city attorney. Do you want a city attorney focused on the next elected seat or providing sound legal advice? Only 2.5% of CA cities have elected attorneys. Albany had an elected attorney and just returned to an appointed attorney system. Oakland is not the only city re-thinking this issue. Oakland needs unbiased legal advice from a lawyer who is not worried about re-election or the next elected step up. The potential conflict of interest inherent in an attorney who will seek re-election undermines the attorney/client relationship. The City should be represented by an attorney of the highest professional qualifications. Legal advice should be based on law, not politics. Let's take personal political goals out of legal advice. Vote Yes on Measure H. Naomi B. Schiff Harold R. Mayberry - Senior Pastor Emilene J (Emmy) Fearn Ming Ho Patricia Kernighan - Oakland City Councilmember Rebuttal to Arguments For A majority of City Council members want to take away your right to elect the City Attorney, allegedly because elections cost money and elected officials sometimes run for other offices. That's an argument against democracy. Historically, we know that when voting rights are taken away, the consequences are always negative. The Council says it will do a better job of picking a City Attorney than voters will because their selection won't be political. Actually, as the Oakland Tribune put it in an editorial against this measure, if anything the City Attorney would be even more subject to the whims of the highly political Council members, who would hire and have the power to fire the City Attorney. The Council asserts that few cities elect City Attorneys, and that therefore Oakland should follow suit. This is misleading. In any larger cities voters elect the City Attorney to provide a key check on the power of City Council. Moreover, Oakland should never limit itself to policies that a majority of other cities have enacted. Eleven years ago, Oakland residents voted to elect their City Attorney in one of the highest turnout elections ever held. This year, explaining why she supports Measure J, one Councilmember argued that voters didn't know what they were doing. This kind of arrogance is leading the Council to take away your right to vote for City Attorney. The Tribune concluded by arguing that voters should not tolerate this naked power grab. We agree. Vote NO on Measure H. Joe Tuman - Professor, SFSU Robert L. Jackson - Bishop, Acts Full Gospel Church Salvador Garcia III - Firefighter/Paramedic‐ Oakland Resident Joe DeCredico - Architect & Planner Ronile Lahti - Piedmont Avenue Neighborhood Activist

The Oakland City Council majority wants to take away your right to vote. Oakland residents currently elect the Oakland City Attorney. This measure, placed on the ballot by the City Council, would eliminate that right and give permanent appointment power to City Council. Elected City Attorneys are common in big California cities, including Los Angeles. Half of the largest cities in California elect, not appoint, their City Attorney. City Council wants to appoint the City Attorney to ensure it has control. If Council has the right to hire and fire the City Attorney, Oakland's top lawyer becomes beholden to a few elected insiders, not Oakland residents. The Oakland City Attorney's job is to provide high quality, independent legal advice to City Council, the Mayor and each department within the City Administration. The City Attorney is also charged with ensuring that the laws City Council passes protect our constitutional rights and are legally sound. An appointed City Attorney is loyal to those who make the appointment, no one else. An appointed City Attorney will not prevent scandal or lawlessness. Indeed, the appointed City Attorney of the City of Bell, California did little to prevent city officials there from paying themselves exorbitant salaries and betraying the public trust. An appointed City Attorney will not rigorously scrutinize Council's actions and provide independent legal advice to the entire city government. A City Attorney elected by the people will. Don't be fooled. This is not a good government measure; it is a City Council power play. If this measure passes you lose your right to elect our City Attorney and City Council gets exactly what it desires: an appointed City Attorney that will bend to its will. Protect your right to vote. Say no to this City Council power play. No on Measure H Joe Tuman - Professor, SFSU Josie Camacho - Executive Secretary + Treasurer, Alameda Labor Council Jane Brunner - Oakland City Councilmember Walter Miles - Chair, Market Street Corridor Neighborhood Association Ignacio De La Fuente - President Pro Tem of the City Council Rebuttal to Arguments Against The opponents of Measure I would have you believe that they want to take the politics out of the position of City Attorney. The truth is just the opposite. The signers of the argument against Measure I include two of Oakland's most powerful Politicians--both past Presidents of the Council--one of whom has already announced that she is running for City Attorney. Why do these career politicians want to keep the City Attorney an elected position? Because winning elections is what they are good at! Oakland would be better served by selecting its lawyer based on who has the best legal credentials. You deserve to have a professional vetting process for the best legal advisor the City can get. If Measure H passes, Council will lead a transparent search process for an excellent City Attorney with the appropriate qualifications. The problem with using an election to fill this professional position is that 95% of the best attorneys in Oakland won't enter the competition! You, the voters, won't get the best pool to select from, because most good candidates are deterred by the prospect of raising huge sums of money and taking six months of their life to campaign. Let's ensure that the council, mayor, city staff, and ultimately you, get the best skilled legal services available, not the politician who can raise the most money to win an election campaign. Oakland's City Attorney should be the best attorney, not the best politician. Yes on Measure H. Nancy Nadel - City Councilmember Judith Cox Corinne Jan

Full Text of Measure H

WHEREAS, City Charter Article IV Section 401 (1) created an elected City Attorney position that had been previously an appointed position; and WHEREAS, the purpose of this resolution is to return that position to an appointed position; and WHEREAS, 97.5% of California cities appoint their City Attorneys and only 2.5% have elected City Attorneys1; and WHEREAS, the responsibility of a City Attorney is to serve as counsel to the City Council, Mayor, and each department of the City, and to render legal advice; and WHEREAS, the City Attorney is not the lawyer for the general public or any individual or group within the City2; and WHEREAS, the ability of a client, namely the City acting through its elected legislature, to hire and fire its legal counsel is critical to a proper attorney-client relationship; and WHEREAS, the Ethical Principles for City Attorneys adopted by the City Attorneys Department of the League of California Cities states that "the city attorney should provide legal advice that avoids the appearance that the advice is based on political alignment or partisanship", and WHEREAS, the City Attorney should be able to assist a client in choosing wisely from a range of lawful discretionary actions and must not be influenced by personal interest in the political or other external consequences of any such decision, and the City Attorney's advice must be perceived as being free of these influences; and WHEREAS, selecting a City Attorney through an electoral rather than an appointive process creates a significant potential for such conflicts and perceptions of conflict; and WHEREAS, an elected City Attorney chooses his or her own boundaries, and can become involved with various aspects of any issue, ranging from legal to policy to politics, which impacts the ability of the client to distinguish between legal, policy and political advice; and WHEREAS, City Charter Article IV Sections 401 (3), (4) and (5) all relate to that position as an elected position; and therefore, be it RESOLVED: That the City Council of the City of Oakland does hereby submit to the voters at the next special or general municipal election, that City Charter Article IV Sections 401(3), (4) and (5) be put forward for elimination; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, That City Charter Article IV, Sections 401(1), and 401(2) be amended as follows: Section 401(1). City Attorney. The City Attorney shall be nominated and elected in the same manner and at the same election as the Councilmember at large appointed by the City Council and serve at the sole discretion of the City Council. If the Councilmembers are evenly divided, the Mayor shall have a vote pursuant to Section 200 of this Charter. The City Attorney shall receive the salary set by the Council, which shall be not less than 70% nor more than 90% of the average salaries of City Attorneys of California cities within th3 three immediate higher and the three immediate lower cities in population to Oakland and may not be reduced during the City Attorney's term of office, except as part of a general reduction of salaries of all officers and employees in the same amount or proportion. Section 401(2). Qualifications, the City Attorney. No person shall be eligible for or continue to hold the Office of City Attorney either by election or appointment, unless he or she is a citizen of the United States, a qualified elector and resident for at least 30 days of the City or a territory lawfully annexed or consolidated, licensed to practice law in all courts of the State of California and so licensed for at least ten years preceding his or her selection. Section 401(3). Term of Office, the City Attorney. The City Attorney shall be elected to a term of four years beginning at 11:00 a.m. on the Monday following January 1 following his or her election. Section 401(4). Vacancy, Filling of. Upon the declaration of vacancy in the Office of the City Attorney, the Office of the City Attorney shall be filled by appointment by the majority vote of the members of the Council; provided, that if the Council shall fail to fill a vacancy by appointment within sixty days after such office shall become vacant, the City Council shall cause an election to be held to fill such vacancy pursuant to the manner and method as provided for in Article II, Section 205 of the Charter. An appointment or the person elected to the Office of City Attorney for the balance of an unexpired term shall hold office until the next general election for the Office of the City Attorney. Section 401(5). Vacancy, What Constitutes. The Office of City Attorney shall be declared vacant by the Council when the person elected or appointed thereto fails to qualify within ton days after his or her term is to begin, dies, resigns, ceases to be a resident of the City or absents himself or herself continuously from the City for a period of more than thirty days without permission from the Council, absents himself or herself from any ten consecutive regular meetings except on account of own illness or when absent from the City by permission of the Council, is convicted of a felony, is judicially determined to be an incompetent, is permanently so disabled as to be unable to perform the duties of his or her office, forfeits his or her office under any provision of this Charter, or is removed from office by judicial procedure. A finding of disability shall require the affirmative vote of at least six members of the Council after considering competent medical evidence bearing on the physical or mental capabilities of the City Attorney. 1 California League of Cities website accessed June 9, 2011: http://www.cities.org 2 This perspective is reflected in the Mode City Charter of the National Civic League Section 4.03b.