The Oakland Police Department is in need of a major technology upgrade while $88 million in the city’s billboard advertising contracts is being wasted, an Alameda County residents’ watchdog group said in a series of new reports detailing ways to improve the local agency.
The latest Alameda County civil grand jury report, released this week, details missed opportunities in both city policing and a contract with a private sign company that allegedly “improperly influenced” the city’s selection process, as well as possible conflicts of interest with city council members.
Here’s what this year’s report found:
“Missed Opportunities” with Police Technology
The civil grand jury addressed the Oakland Police Department’s so-called realistic view — that the number of officers on the streets is not going to increase dramatically in the near future — and therefore argued that Oakland Police need to develop a long-term strategy to strengthen its crime-fighting techniques.
Part of that, the grand jury argued, would include strengthening local control of the city’s 290 license-plate-reading cameras, which are currently operated by the California Highway Patrol at the behest of Gov. Gavin Newsom.
Currently, OPD does not have a “specific procedure” for determining when to respond to reports flagged by cameras and facilitated by the CHP.
Then there are the OPD gadgets that juries have found to be ineffective, including magnetic GPS trackers that have limited range so officers can’t fire them at getaway vehicles, and cellphone data-collection technology that’s either outdated or prohibited by state privacy laws.
The technology upgrade could come with OPD’s plans for a “real-time crime center” that would centralize these technologies in a single regional location, according to the report.
“The Grand Jury believes that technology would be a more effective force multiplier if it were more effectively implemented and utilized to reduce crime in the City of Oakland,” the report states.
Billboard deal loses profits
A separate report said the city’s contracts with two billboard advertising companies are projected to generate $88 million less revenue over the next 30 years than an alternative proposal presented to the City Council last summer.
The jury noted that the City Council signed the contract with Becker Board Inc. and Outfront Foster Interstate Corp. despite a city staff finding that an alternative proposal by Clear Channel Communications, another major player in California’s signage market, was better.
Becker previously sought support from the Oakland-based Native American Health Center, as well as other nonprofits and private landowners who “potentially would benefit” from his proposal, according to the report.
But the jury found a possible conflict of interest: The health center “previously employed the spouse of a city council member as a paid consultant, and the city council member’s adult child was also actively involved in the organization.”
The report did not identify the city council member in question, but the Native American Health Center’s website shows that Councilman Noel Gallo’s son, Noah, serves on the board. The councilman was a “strong supporter” of the Becker/Outfront deal, the jury report said.
At the time, the councilman’s wife also served on the board of directors of the Oakland Latino Chamber of Commerce, which received free billboard advertising under a contract with Becker/Outfront, according to the report.
Ultimately, the city signed a 31-year contract with Becker and Outfront that would have generated $68 million in revenue with a 10-year extension option, while Clear Channel’s rejected proposal would have generated $156 million in revenue over the initial 30-year contract.
The City Council approved the contract by consent agenda without public debate, and the City Council also allowed the sign company’s lobbyists to exert undue influence “by providing content and language that was inserted verbatim into official City Council documents.”
At the time, historic budget shortfalls were threatening the City Council, so Oakland needed to get the best deal possible, but resorted to a non-competitive process, the report argued, and recommended changes to the city’s practices.
