Oakland police are in dire need of upgrading their technology, and a city billboard advertising contract is leaving $88 million in much-needed funds unused, a watchdog group of Alameda County residents says in a new series of reports.
The latest Alameda County civil grand jury reports, released this week, detail missed opportunities in both the city’s policing and its contracts with private billboard companies that allegedly had “undue influence” in the city’s selection process, as well as a potential conflict of interest with a city councilman. The report also describes how local authorities could do better in the future.
This year’s reports revealed the following:
“Missed opportunities” in police technology
The grand jury in the civil case considered a realistic assessment by the Oakland Police Department that there will not be a dramatic increase in the number of police officers on the streets in the near future, so the OPD must develop a long-term strategy to increase its effectiveness by using technology to fight crime.
Part of this strategy is better local control of the 290 license plate reading cameras installed in the city, which are currently operated by the California Highway Patrol at the direction of Governor Gavin Newsom, the grand jury argued.
Currently, OPD does not have “specific procedures” in place to decide when to respond to reports flagged by readers and supported by CHP.
Then there are OPD devices that the jury found ineffective, such as magnetic GPS trackers that officers cannot target at fleeing vehicles because of their limited range, or cell phone data collection technologies that are either outdated or prohibited by state privacy laws.
Upgrades to this technology, the report said, could coincide with OPD’s plans for a “real-time crime center” to centralize these technologies in a single regional hub.
“The Grand Jury believes that better implementation and use of technology is a more effective force multiplier in reducing crime in the City of Oakland,” the report said.
Billboard deal leaves money on the table
Another report found that the city’s contracts with two billboard advertising companies will generate $88 million less revenue over the next three decades than another proposal presented to the City Council last summer.
The city council signed a contract with Becker Boards and Outfront Foster Interstate even though city staff had concluded that another offer from Clear Channel Communications – another dominant player in California’s billboard market – was better, the jury found.
Becker had previously asked the Oakland-based Native American Health Center for support, as well as other nonprofits and private landowners who would “potentially benefit from his proposal,” the report said.
However, the jury found that there was a possible conflict of interest: The health center had “previously employed the wife of a city council member as a paid consultant, while the council member’s adult child was also actively involved in the organization.”
The report does not name the council member in question, but the Native American Health Center website states that Council Member Noel Gallo’s son, Noah, is a board member. The jury report states that the council member was a “strong supporter” of the Becker/Outfront deal.
At the time, the councilman’s wife was also on the board of the Oakland Latino Chamber of Commerce, which received free billboard advertising as part of the Becker/Outfront deal, the report said.
In the end, the city signed a joint 31-year contract with Becker and Outfront – with an option to extend for another 10 years – worth $68 million, while Clear Channel’s rejected proposal would have brought in $156 million for an initial 30-year term.
The council approved the contract on its consent list, without public discussion. It also “allowed lobbyists from billboard companies to exert undue influence” by “providing content and language that was copied verbatim into official council documents.”
With the City Council facing a historic deficit at the time, the report argues that Oakland should have struck the most lucrative deal possible but instead relied on a non-competitive process. The report recommends changes to the city’s practices.
