1

Gerard, Jennie
From: Kernighan, Pat
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 11:20 AM
To: Gerard, Jennie
Subject: FW: draft ballot questions for measure


Pat Kernighan
Oakland City Council President
And Councilmember for District 2
1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza
Oakland, CA 94612
510-238-7002
pkernighan@oaklandnet.com

From: tom@cliffordmoss.com [mailto:tom@cliffordmoss.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 11:59 PM
To: McElhaney, Lynette; Parker, Barbara; Kernighan, Pat
Cc: Salem-Boyd, Kathleen; Ruth Bernstein
Subject: RE: draft ballot questions for measure

Ruth and I have reviewed the proposed language from Barbara and Kathleen, and while it does switch the
order and use a few phrases (like dropout reduction) that are not ideal, on the whole we are comfortable
putting this in the field.

Our comfort is based less on specific words and more on the fact that this language now reflects a ballot
statement that the city attorney's office would approve of to go onto the actual ballot. Put another way -
we are testing a 75 word statement that we could actually use.

That and the "no tax rate increase" test are the two most critical things for this poll.

Thanks to all for your hard work on this - correct me if any of my assumption above are wrong.

Let's get into the field!

Tom
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: draft ballot questions for measure
From: "McElhaney, Lynette" <lmcelhaney@oaklandnet.com>
Date: Wed, March 12, 2014 11:50 am
To: "Parker, Barbara" <BParker@oaklandcityattorney.org>,
"Kernighan, Pat" <PKernighan@oaklandnet.com>
Cc: "Salem-Boyd, Kathleen" <KSalem-Boyd@oaklandcityattorney.org>,
"Tom Clifford" <Tom@CliffordMoss.com>
Barbara,

I have forwarded your revised questions to Tom for his review. I await his response. It is clear
that what sounds clear to me sounds awkward to you and vice versa. But that is not what is
critical. Since we've made the investment in hiring subject-area experts to guide this process, I
suggest that we get out of our own heads and rely upon the expertise of CliffordMoss and EMC to
2
let us know how voters read and receive the information. Clearly, we cannot divorce ourselves
from our education, experience and insider perspective. I worry that it is the City Hall-lingo that
has led the City to multiple failures at communicating with the voters. This is not about advocacy
for or against but rather are we speaking in a way that the voter can understand clearly what is at
issue - both the cost and the return. I agree with you that the language must be clear and
honest. So, let's hear back from them. I suspect that there is yet another perspective that will
aid our efforts.

I'll schedule a meeting with Tom and this leadership team once I hear back from him. And,
please place a hold on your Friday afternoons 3:30 - 5:00 for our standing meeting of the a
propsito team meetings. It is very important that we have the opportunity to benefit from your
contributions during these critical discussions.

You're the best, Lynette


________________________________________________________________________
Councilmember Lynette Gibson McElhaney
Representing the Heart & Soul of the Town
Oakland District 3 |1 Frank Ogawa Plaza, 2nd Floor | Oakland, CA 94612
P: (510) 238-7003 F: (510) 238-6910

For Scheduling: Contact Brigitte Cook (510) 238-7245 or BCook@Oaklandnet.com





-----Original Message-----
From: Parker, Barbara
Sent: Tue 3/11/2014 4:31 PM
To: McElhaney, Lynette; Kernighan, Pat
Cc: Salem-Boyd, Kathleen
Subject: draft ballot questions for measure

Hi Lynette,



Thanks for your lightning speed response. I know you are at CED Committee.



Kathleen and I have reviewed the language and your recommendations. Our comments and
positions below are subject to our ongoing caveat that the City Attorney cannot make a final
decision regarding the wording of the ballot question until the measure is formally presented and
that our wording will be in accordance with the mandate that the ballot question must accurately
and impartially reflect the measure put to the voters.





The attached document includes revisions that reflect Pat's recommendation to add "monitored"
before "by a citizen's oversight committee". We had discussed this at our meeting and it was
inadvertently omitted. We also have provided a new question that includes the language you
desire.

3


Regarding your three recommendations, our position is stated below.



(1) Delete "drop out prevention".



As we stated in our earlier email message below, "including drop out prevention" is not a
statement to the effect that this is the exclusive means to improve high school graduation rates;
the language goes on to mention other actions such as crisis intervention, job training/placement
and support for at-risk youth that can help to improve graduation rates. It is an example and it
doesn't state that it involves drop out prevention programs but simply "drop out prevention". I
believe this is clear in the question and that it adds more substance regarding actions/ and types
of programs the City contemplates to address the abysmal drop out rate.



That said, it is not absolutely essential and we can delete it.



(2) Regarding your concern that City doesn't provide proven community programs and your
recommendation that we substitute "support", the language in our draft is the same language that
is in the original language you provided: "to provide better police and emergency response
services, and proven community programs . . . "



That said, we can substitute "support" for "provide".



(3) Your final issue is the order of the clauses.





From the beginning I have expressed concern about the syntax and phrasing that make it
awkward to read and follow. We have rearranged the language in a manner that flows better
and is easier to follow. I am not prepared to agree that we would construct the question in the
awkward order/manner of the phrasing in the question the committee submitted.





I am in my office. I suggest that we have a conference call including you, Pat, Kathleen and me if
possible to discuss this matter.






4



From: Parker, Barbara
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 2:06 PM
To: McElhaney, Lynette; Salem-Boyd, Kathleen; Kernighan, Pat
Subject: RE: Ballot Questions with City Attorney revisions



Hi Lynette,



Kathleen and I will meet shortly to discuss your proposed edits and get back to you. My
preliminary thoughts:



The "drop out prevention" is not a statement to the effect that this is the only means to improve
high school graduation rates; the language goes on to mention other actions such as crisis
intervention, job training/placement and support for at-risk youth. It is an example and it doesn't
state that it involves drop out prevention programs but simply "drop out prevention".



Regarding your concern that City doesn't provide proven community programs and your
recommendation that we substitute "support", the language in our draft is the same language that
is in the original language you provided: "to provide better police and emergency response
services, and proven community programs . . . "





From: McElhaney, Lynette
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 1:37 PM
To: Salem-Boyd, Kathleen; Kernighan, Pat
Cc: Parker, Barbara
Subject: RE: Ballot Questions with City Attorney revisions



Barbara, Kathleen,



Thank you for your revised draft. I will note the following items with care:

Improving high-school graduation rates is not synonymous with dropout prevention. [THIS
ONE IS KEY]

o Improving graduation rates may include but is not limited to dropout prevention programs.
Other intervention strategies that strengthen school performance, could include: childcare to
student parents; CAHSEE support programs, GED graduations post-secondary and for re-entry
populations etc.

o dropout prevention DOES NOT address the fact that some students who fail to graduate attend
5
school regularly but perform poorly. Improving their opportunity to graduate is not the same as
preventing dropouts.

"provide" proven community programs is also inaccurate. The City does not provide
programs and some programs that may prove effective have not yet been proven in our
communities. A better word here would be "support"

The re-ordering of the tax to the end of the paragraph is awkward and doesn't read well
and is confusing. When taken in its component parts "To reduce gun violence. shall the City of
Oakland improve police?" Of course! But placing the components before the ask obscures the
fact that there is a specific ask of the voter, namely to authorize the collection of a parcel tax and
surcharge. Your recommendation buries this fact at the end of a very lengthy sentence. This is
confusing.



I recommend restoring the prior order for clarity. Replacing the work "provide" with "support"
and omit the specific discussion of dropout prevention.





_____________________________________________________________________________

Councilmember Lynette Gibson McElhaney

Representing the Heart & Soul of the City

Oakland District 3 |1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, 2nd Floor | Oakland, CA 94612

Phone: (510) 238-7003 Fax: (510) 238-6910



From: Salem-Boyd, Kathleen
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 12:13 PM
To: Kernighan, Pat; McElhaney, Lynette
Cc: Parker, Barbara
Subject: Ballot Questions with City Attorney revisions



Please see the City Attorney's suggested revisions to the proposed ballot questions submitted for
review for polling purposes.



Kathleen

_________________________________

Kathleen Salem-Boyd

Senior Deputy City Attorney

Office of the City Attorney

6
One Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, 6th Floor

Oakland, CA 94612

(510) 238-3034

(510) 238-6500 (fax)

ksboyd@oaklandcityattorney.org



CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e-mail message contains information belonging to the Office of the
City Attorney, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The
information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you think that
you have received this message in error, please e-mail the sender. If you are not the intended
recipient any dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited.







________________________________

This is a confidential attorney-client communication. This email contains confidential attorney-
client privileged information and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please
contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message and any
attachments.



P Please consider the environment before printing this email



[v1.03]