Checking in: Oakland Tribunal on Police Violence, Oakland Rising House Party and Organizing against Ranked Choice Voting

So many things to do in Oakland, so little time-you can check this report from Pamela Drake on some you may have missed:

If you’re active in the life of this city, there’s a plethora of ways to keep informed. I found both our special talents and serious shortcomings on display this recent winter week.
On Saturday and Sunday the East Side Arts Alliance, the National Lawyers’ Guild, the New Year’s Movement for Justice (for Oscar Grant), and a host of other civil rights and media groups sponsored A People's Hearing on Racism & Police Violence in a chilly auditorium in central Oakland.
On Saturday I heard heart wrenching testimony from parents’ who had lost their children to police violence, and on Sunday young people who have been stalked by the police bore witness to being singled out for their activist activities since the murder of Oscar Grant. More testimony was given describing the profiling of Muslims and other immigrant groups targeted by US officials and the groups that are resisting its effects.
A panel of legal and academic experts was set up on one side of the stage while the panel that gave testimony was set up on the other. After the witnesses and victims testified, the other panel could ask questions about the incidents or about the organizations many of the witnesses have founded in the fight to obtain rights for their communities.
Not only was the testimony moving in its horror but also in the hope that so many victims have become active in fighting for change. Some of the participants were also artists and poets who brilliantly shared their skills with us.
There was free, delicious food to help ward off the cold and bring people together and all of the involved organizations had tables at the event. The testimony was videotaped and may be given to the UN Commission on Human Rights. Refer to peopleshearing.wordpress.com for more information on this testimony.
My one quibble was that mainstream press was excluded. I understand the concerns about the usual anti-Oakland, anti-youth, and often racist coverage of these kinds of conferences and their participants; but since so many of the young folks who need this information get their news from local television, it made it more difficult for them to be aware of the proceedings. I believe it could have been done without being invasive.
From the chilly school auditorium (what’s with cold California anyway, other states have heat in public buildings!) to a warm home in North Oakland, I attended a house party (I was a co-host among many, including our new mayor) for the Oakland organization, Oakland Rising, a multilingual, multiracial collaborative with deep roots in East and West Oakland's neighborhoods, that encompasses the work of its member non-profits.
The house was packed with Oaklanders who either support the community and electoral empowerment work of Oakland Rising or folks who wanted to know more about what they do and how they do it.
I saw new friends and met again the now grown children of old friends. It was heartwarming on that cold, rainy day to know that young people are dedicated to making our town a better one. In fact, the theme of the event was The Possibility & Promise of Oakland in 2011.
It was also a fundraiser for this relatively young but mighty organization which includes the implementation and education of voters in our new Ranked Choice Voting system as among its recent successes. I urge you to read and then donate on their website towards their good work, oaklandrising.org.
Speaking of Ranked Choice Voting, RCV or IRV (instant runoff voting), I recently participated on a panel which purported to discuss the ins and outs of that system but was actually a precursor to preparing a group of young activists to assist in the repeal of the new voting system.
The panel at TOLA is part of a leadership academy set up by Larry Tramutola’s campaign consultants’ shop. Mr. Tramutola has run lots of successful electoral campaigns, but his most recent campaign, Don Perata’s run for mayor, was less successful than expected by local pundits.
I was told that they wanted to talk about the pros and cons of RCV, ranked choice voting or IRV, instant runoff voting. I thought it was a bit odd that a group set up to train young activists would be focusing on whether RCV was a good idea. After all, it was voted in in Oakland in 2006 and is now in use in Berkeley, Oakland, San Leandro, and San Francisco. Why discuss what is already decided public policy?
I arrived and found out that there were 3 RCV antagonists prepared to argue against our chosen method of voting and me as the sole protagonist. I was told that the details of what happened in Oakland were not really relevant as we were discussing RCV in the abstract while the rest of the panel repeatedly referred to Oakland’s election, particularly David Manson, who had worked closely with the Perata campaign.
Manson asserted that the African-American voters in East Oakland had essentially lost their votes since many of them specified Perata as their number one choice (Quan or Kaplan as number 2). Manson also implied that this type of voting was too complex for flatland voters and disenfranchised them.
David Latterman told us how shocked (almost dismayed)he was that his candidate in the SF Supervisorial race, Malia Cohen, won despite initially coming in way behind. He is the guy who told the Chronicle before the final count in our mayoral election, that it was statistically impossible for Jean or Rebecca to overcome Perata. When it turned out that Perata got so few second and third place votes, he was quoted by Chronicle reporter Mathai Kuruvila as saying, "I underestimated that there are so many people who do not like Perata." Duh.
They didn’t buy that RCV may reduce mudslinging given the existence of the “Anybody but Perata” movement even though most of the remaining candidates were severely restrained in their criticisms of one another.
I had to point out that 72% of the voters managed to chose and rank 3 candidates and that 40,000 more people voted in this mayoral campaign than the June primary in which Ron Dellums was elected. I also thought it was worth noting that Perata outspent Quan by more than four times while only garnering a little less than 35% of the voters’ first choices.
Terry Riley, anti-RCV statistician, told the activists that RCV had resulted in a “topsy-turvy” election result in Oakland. In response to the fact that so many more people go to the polls in November he said, “there are no barriers to voting”, meaning, I guess, that he does not know or care why so many fewer people vote in primaries than in November elections.
His anti-RCV cohort, David Latterman told the group that if RCV was a good idea, “so was asbestos,” but I don’t recall anyone getting cancer from voting in a ranked choice election. I did agree with them that Oakland’s election was probably an aberration, in that the first choice candidate usually does win, despite the method of voting. However, I noted that they had a polarizing candidate who ran a poor campaign. Once again, I had to be reminded that we weren’t really talking about Oakland after all.
Despite of the hypothetical nature of the discussion, later that day I saw two of the very real interns on Lakeshore taking a survey to discover whether people had liked their RCV experience. Look for another ballot measure coming to a city you know soon.

Oakland City Attorney Appointed? Mayor Quan's Terrible Idea

Over the years and before Oakland had an elected lawyer starting in 2000, one of the main complaints was that an appointed Oakland City Attorney was too much the shill of the then-powerful Oakland City Council.  Of course, it was Oakland's mayor who made that complaint more often than others. At times, given that the Mayor couldn't trust who was talking, the lawyer or the council, the complaint was just. But all have agreed having Oakland's top lawyer at the hands of the Mayor would be equally disastrous, which is why it was not don when Oakland had the chance.

Now, with a massive turnover in institutional memory, comes newly-elected Oakland Mayor Jean Quan, pulling a fast one in suggesting Oakland have an appointed and not elected lawyer.  That can't be allowed to happen; here's why.

Mayoral Impulse And Oakland's Lawyer

I remember when, in 1997, and during the time I served as Economic Advisor to Mayor Elihu Harris, Elihu called then-Oakland City Attorney Jane Williams in for what became a blistering critique of her negotiations with the Golden State Warriors over revenue and cost payment splits at the Oakland Coliseum.  Jane may not know this, but Elihu wanted to impulsively fire her right after she left his office, and just because he was angry at the time.

How do I know?  Because I was just outside the door waiting for him to finish with her, so I could complete my meeting with him. See, the entire meeting between the two of them happened because I briefed Elihu on my displeasure with the outcome of the talks with the Warriors (I wasn't in control of the negotiations; Jane and Deena McClain, who still runs the Coliseum's legal affairs as of this writing, were).  Angry that the City of Oakland was going to pay more for stadium costs that Elihu wanted (as close to zero as possible), he got on the phone and called Jane over.  She arrived within 15 minutes.

Elihu told me to wait for him outside.  I knew what was about to happen.  After about three minutes, Elihu erupted.  You could hear Mayor Harris yelling all the way out to the Mayor's Office greeting area.  (And if you know the layout, that takes some doing.)

But with all that, Jane retained her job because she was appointed by the City Council.  Now, if Elihu indeed had the power he wanted to have at the time, Jane Williams would have been out of a job on the spot.    While Elihu's anger was more than justified, firing Jane would not have been the solution; thank God he wasn't able to do it.   But the other problem was Jane had the backing of the Oakland City Council; she wasn't able to be a truly independent agent.

Now, Mayor Quan wants the same power Elihu wanted and because she can't kick out Oakland City Attorney John Russo. Boo hoo. And it's not because John made a bad decision, but more a continuation of petty style issues that have plagued their relationship for years.  But before I continue, some backstory on why we now have an elected Oakland lawyer is in order.

When then-Oakland Mayoral Candidate Jerry Brown proposed Measure X, the initiative that changed the Oakland City Charter such that Oakland now has a "strong" Mayor and an elected City Attorney, the idea was to have a lawyer that, when it came to getting an opinion on a legal question, wasn't the tool of either the Mayor or the Oakland City Council.

Originally, Brown, now Governor of California, wanted the city's lawyer to be under him. But many on the Oakland Charter Review Committee, and Oakland elected officials, balked at the idea, saying that they couldn't trust the view of a Mayor-appointed lawyer, let alone one picked by the Oakland City Council. The result was Measure X, passed in 1998, had the provision for an elected lawyer, so when Oakland voters approved it, that position became the law of the city. Former Oakland District Two Councilmember John Russo became Oakland's first elected lawyer in 2000, and has won re-election twice since, in 2004 and in 2008.

Now, 12 years later, new Oakland Mayor Jean Quan wants to go back to the old system.  Her reasons are, to be frank, surprisingly less than one would expect from any mayor of a big city.  While Quan's complaint to some in the online press has been that she "can't get briefed" from the City Attorney - and to people who don't know Oakland's history such that they can challenge her on her comment - the reality is Quan's never liked Russo's style.

Mayor Quan has complained about Russo's office for some time, and the word's around town.  It's not that Russo has avoided briefing her - that's not true and that she would even allow the public to think that is shameful - the truth is she didn't even like the legal views he came up with.  This is also true for Councilmember Rebecca Kaplan, who's made several statements in opposition to legal opinions coming from Russo's office, of course, only when the City Attorney's views differed from her own.

So the questions come: "Why doesn't Jean (Mayor Quan) like John Russo?"  Who cares?  That anyone would ask such a question is immature (that word again) in itself.  Here's some news: Mayor Quan's not supposed to like John Russo, she's supposed to work with him.

What's happened is - for a host of reasons - Oakland's City Hall has become more like high school that it's ever been in the past (the "thousands of games Elihu would refer to) and now prickly personalities and thin-skins rule the day.  And in this environment, high school-level behavior and petty jealously can impact power positions at a dangerous level.

Quan has worked to squeeze both Russo's City Attorney Office of needed revenue to maintain staff and be effective, and has done the same with the office of Oakland City Auditor Courtney Ruby as well.  And that was through the city's Budget And Finance Commitee, before Quan became Oakland's mayor. Now Jean seems to be wringing her hands and saying "I'm Mayor of Oakland. I can really screw with Russo now," and trying to do so.

Mayor Quan was just elected, and for all practical purposes by a fluke.  Like the election outcome or not, that's a fact.

Because of that, Quan can't overplay her hand, yet she's starting to show signs of doing exactly that.  Quan's laser focus should be on creating jobs in Oakland, and saving California Redevelopment, which is a great tool to use in that effort.  Thinking about how to get even with someone for opinions and views not taken in the past is totally unproductive for a person in a role that's supposed to be about building a city's future.

That's what mayors are elected to do.

Stay tuned.

A Better Solution than Gang Injunctions

I’ve been reading and listening and thinking about the proposed new gang injunctions and the fate of the existing one. I’ve also been thinking about the fates of the proponents and opponents of said injunctions, City Attorney John Russo, OPD Chief Batts, and local legal beagles and civil rights attorneys, Siegel, particularly the younger Siegel, Michael, someone whose courage and heart I’ve long admired.
John Russo was my council member before becoming the City Attorney. He fought against the loitering ordinance because of its pre-emptive and racial profiling components.
I always thought gang injunctions were some of the weird and slightly scary things that happened in LA, a weird and somehow scary place with all those manic freeways and seedy strip malls (even the term is seedy).
Now they’ve come to Oakland and the injunctions as well as the gangs seem to be tearing our political community apart. Today (Feb. 16th)a judge will decide whose career might be promoted and whose might be downgraded a notch by granting or not granting Oakland’s City Attorney a new and broader gang injunction covering the entire Fruitvale district.
The fledgling lives of young men who grew up in devastated neighborhoods in struggling or non-functioning or non-existent families who turned to gangs for a sense of safety and acceptance finding instead violence and intimidation will be the most affected.
Russo or the younger Siegel could also be affected. It could cast a small shadow over the brand new administration of Mayor Jean Quan or the established career of Dan Siegel and throw the City Council into yet another lose/lose confrontation.
Why have Oakland’s politicos decided to go down this road? Is it a passion for justice, a passion for crime fighting, or a passion for one’s own career? Is this struggle between Oakland’s best and brightest even necessary?
For observers it may be titillating to watch the twists and turns in alliances and political careers or to cast each side in some type of morality play while we run a sort of American Idol panel to decides who wins.
But are gang injunctions that useful or the real answer to crime and intimidation in neighborhoods where families struggle to survive intact much less develop socially and economically successful lives?
Just for arguments sake, let’s look at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The 4th Amendment has something to say about pre-emptive arrest or pre-emptive restrictions on private life. Here is the language of that amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I know, some judges have okayed these injunctions in the past. As a former teacher of Government and Economics (laid off when Oakland closed its adult school), I spent a lot of time explaining the freedoms “guaranteed” by the Bill of Rights and other amendments to my students while describing the need to continue to defend them. My students spent a lot of time telling me how none of these rights were allotted to them on the streets of Oakland.
So here’s the first problem- this law/ordinance comes close to (or indeed does) violate due process procedures. Although Russo has worked hard to restrict the use of these injunctions against a general class of people by reducing them to persons that his office believes do pose dangers to their community, that doesn’t mean the injunctions don’t violate the Constitution.
Rather than think of how many ways we can get around the Constitution, I believe that we should look again. Choosing to cross that line, as a community that cares about progressive values and our heritage of struggle against government intrusion, should be the catalyst for a serious discussion.
What we also know is that Oakland is a city suffering from real violence, bad players, and dysfunction. Gangs have developed and taken hold with some youth and young adults, infecting whole families and neighborhoods.
However, lots of violence in Oakland does not come from gangs. It is an organic outgrowth of decades of underserved, preyed upon communities where little to no opportunities meet with zealous law enforcement which often targets those communities.
We also know that Oakland is an underfunded city with limited resources to spend on ameliorating these conditions. It seems that enforcement of the gang injunctions is a pricey venture that may deliver few results.
If the City can find the money to spend to fight for and enforce these injunctions, even given the limited resources that law enforcement already has, it can spend the same monies to institute community policing as first envisioned by the City’s 1995 ordinance.
Community policing requires less funds for automobiles, lawyers, and even highly paid senior officers. If police officers were out walking and talking to neighbors on a regular beat, were able to attend community events and work closely with county case managers and city planners (enforcing the laws on nuisance businesses such as liquor stores), we might have a police department that could prevent crime, even violent crime, by keeping tabs on problem areas or people or corners.
They might also know who was looking for vengeance and why or which group was feeling disrespected or why before it escalated to violence. They might know who in the community to tap into for intervention. We do some of that now through Measure Y/BB but in limited doses.
I’m not claiming that community policing as originally conceived is inexpensive or would bring us utopia, but it is probably a more useful solution, a solution more able to bring our community together to tackle crime and its causes than all this arguing over gang injunctions ever will.
Is the whole fight over gang injunctions is setting us up to spend money for little relief while dividing us as a community, a community that mostly believes in individual rights and the common good?
Let’s go back to a solution we never fully implemented and try coming together for a safer community that as Mayor Quan said, “wraps its arms around our youth.” Let’s really implement community policing. We have a model that we have never fully implemented. It’s time for law enforcement and social justice organizations to work together for a safety solution that is sustainable.

Natalie Munroe Blog Bloggate: What If Oakland Teachers Blogged?

Natalie Munroe is a teacher at Central Bucks East High School in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, just outside Philadelphia who got so fed up with her kids, she decided to blog about it. And now, while all that blogging may cost Ms. Monroe the job she's held, she's still blogging. It brings up the question "What if Oakland Teachers blogged like that?" And the other question: "When will Natalie be the subject of a TV show?"

First, Natalie Munroe has taught English since 2006 and has a reported salary of $54,500 (not bad considering the cost of living there) according to Phillyburbs.com. Her blog Natalie's Handbasket contains (well, contained, since she's taken some entries off public view but the one I'm about to post is still cached as of this writing), some really candid thoughts about the little ones she teaches.

Here's a sample direct from her blog post from fall 2009:

A Big Problem Today

Kids! I don't know what's wrong with these kids today!
Kids! Who can understand anything they say?
Kids! They are disobedient, disrespectful oafs.
Noisy, crazy, sloppy, lazy LOAFERS (and while we're on the subject--)
Kids! You can talk and talk till your face is blue.
Kids! But they still do just what they want to do.
Why can't they be like we were? (Perfect in every way!!!!)
What's the matter with kids today?????

My students are out of control. They are rude, disengaged, lazy whiners. They curse, discuss drugs, talk back, argue for grades, complain about everything, fancy themselves entitled to whatever they desire, and are just generally annoying.

In the past week alone, I've written up 4 separate students--one for dropping the f-bomb in class, one for repeatedly saying "shittin'," one for crafting a pencil topper made from paper clips into the shape of a man and woman having sex, and one for being disrespectful to me (Me: Stop tapping. Him: (ignores and keeps on tapping. Another student tells him to stop but he still doesn't, indicating that if he didn't stop when I told him to, he wouldn't stop for this kid either. Another student then kicked the back of the first student's chair. Me: "I DID tell you to stop that already!" Him: "Yeah, you were ignored." Me: Do you want me to write you up?" Him: "Go ahead." Me: "Done!")

Now reading the entire blog, I really sympathize with what Ms. Munroe has gone through, but this end paragraph was disturbing:

These are the types of students I deal with on a day to day basis. Something must be done about their disrespect and attitude problems. We should do away with the attitudes of the students (and if we can't, we should do away with the students who have attitudes.)

Better to have a pet--- you know where you stand with a pet.

I didn't like that at all.  Does she mean that she wants to kill her students who have attitudes?  Considering the number of news reports of people going off and shooting others in schools and workplaces, that was beyond the pale.  But Munroe says that, even with that, she bears no ill-will toward her students.

Costing Her A Job?

That post, among others, is reportedly going to cost Ms. Munroe her teaching job.  The admin folks at Central Bucks are still investigating her blog posts.  And she's giving them, perhaps unknowingly, new material.  Here's part of her latest (as of this writing) blog post in what she calls "Bloggate," where she learns that her students know about her blog.  This was written on the 12th of February 2011:

When I woke up Wednesday morning and went to work, I certainly couldn't have foreseen what my day--and, in turn, the rest of my life--would be like from that point...

colleague pulled me aside to tell me that students had somehow found my blog and were all abuzz and up in arms about how I'd cursed and said negative things about students in it. The colleague wanted me to know in case it became a bigger deal.

I didn't realize, however, that it already WAS a big deal.

Within the hour, I was in a meeting with the principal who had a pile of my blogs printed out and sitting before him. Within the next 15 minutes, I was gathering my bags from my office and being escorted from the building.

Oh, and she's pregnant. Natalie blogged that the rest of the day was spent in part feeling "violated" as she put it, by reporters showing up at her house. She had to tell her poor three-year-old what was going on with people knocking at her door and deal with her new, though perhaps unwanted, fame.

What If Oakland Teachers Blogged Like That?

As I read that and other posts by Natalie Munroe, the thought of what Oakland teachers might blog kept entering my mind.  I know a lot of great Oakland teachers who put up with a lot every day.  One of my dear friends who I think about every day has a frustrating job at times just dealing with rude kids.  Another friend told me of 12-year-old students in her class doing sex acts in closets.  And another friend was actually robbed at her school.

I thought of all this and concluded that a candid Oakland Teacher Blog would be great because then we could read what their working conditions were really like.  In that, I don't think Natalie Munroe should be fired, but applauded.  She's giving America and the World a really frank view of what's happening at the front lines of education.

What's wrong with that?  Nothing.  Keep blogging, Natalie!

Valentine's Day 2011 In Oakland - Keep Your Money In Oakland

Ok, for all practical purposes, Valentine's Day 2011 is here, (or if you did it on Saturday, gone) even though it's really on Monday. And while I am in suburban Atlanta doing what I'm supposed to do at this stage of life - keeping my Mom company (she's in good health, thanks for asking) I have a life in Oakland, too. For all of my complaints about Oakland, it's a wonderful, beautiful city, that too often takes itself for granted.

So, on Valentine's Day 2011, I ask you to please keep your money in Oakland.  Don't go over to San Francisco, as I often do, or jet off to LA or New York or Chicago or Atlanta.  And it's nothing against SF or LA or New York or Chicago or Atlanta; I go because I know a lot of people there and Mom's here in the ATL.  But the more time you spend in Oakland, the more you realize it's a massively cool place to be.

I got a message from beautiful, dear friend, that she was going to try Miss Saigon Vietnamese Restaurant at 3345 Grand Avenue for the first time, and due in no small way to my video to get the word out about it. This one:



I highly recommend Miss Saigon for Valentine's Day 2011, or any year for that matter.

But maybe pho's not your thing and you want a really nice Valentine's Day experience?

In Oakland, no problem.

Go over to the Lake Chalet at 1520 Lakeside Drive, where you can sit at any one of a number of tables with a great view of the Lake. Here' a video from Lake Chalet's opening day in September of 2009, in case you have no idea what it looks like:



Or...

If you're desire is for a great steak dinner with your sweetie, go to Flora.  It's on the corner of Telegraph and 18th Street in Downtown Oakland across from The Fox Theater, and the Art Deco style is just the right backdrop if you want to make an impression, or just have a good time.

I also have to plug Luka's on Broadway and Grand.  It's for more than just dancing, drinking, and  romancing - the food's really improved.  I recently ordered a steak at Luka's and was out-of-this World surprised.  Since then, I've went back more just to eat.  If Flora's too crowded, go over to Luka's.

If you live in the Oakland Hills, and don't want to drive a long way, go to Crogan's on Mountain Blvd.  That place, for me, goes all the way back to Skyline High School days, but today the food is consistently good and inexpensive.

And if your bent is for something really different, go to Enssaro Ethiopian Restauant at 366 Grand Avenue. It's rare - actually, this is the first time - I recommend a place I've not yet tried - and that's only because of my addiction to steaks - but word of mouth about Enssaro is just insane. The place is getting rave reviews.

And back on steak, The Alley at 3325 Grand Avenue, has a great 20 ounce one that's off the menu.  It's just that Rod Dibble plays the piano on Saturday's so you'll miss him today or Monday.   I love to give Rod support, so make sure you have dinner there when he's playing.

Ok.  Enough from me.  Happy Valentine's Day, Oakland!

Oakland Kona Club Ejects Patron For Negative Twitter Tweets

Talk about the bad business practices of sensitive bar workers, and the Kona Club comes to mind. This only because of the Club's unbelievable-but-true act of asking Aimee J to leave simply because she made a Twitter Tweet against them.

What good asking Aimee to leave the Kona Club - formerly the legendary King's X Bar on 4401 Piedmont Ave, between Pleasant Valley Ave and Ramona Ave (and not far from where my grandfather rests at Chapel Of The Chimes) - was going to do, I have no idea.

 It certainly did a lot of bad, including a bunch of tweets that can be seen on Twitter if one does an "Oakland" search today, and this blog post.

 Aimee took to Yelp to complain about the action:

Against my promises i would NEVER return to this place, I did, because friends were there and I am not to proud to bend to the will of my friends. And SHOCKINGLY i had just as horrible time as ever. I actually had this conversation- I CANNOT BELIEVE IT. them: "Are you the Aimee who has been tweeting against us?" (which i have- ONCE- after I was treated badly there the last time.) me : "Yes" them: "You are not welcome here anymore."

Instead of trying to make things right, they kicked me out again, because all this place is comprised of sad employees living off of low salaries and power trips.

I feel sorry for them mostly. I mean, I've already moved on in my life, but that is where they will be, serving their sad drinks, being jerks: FOREVER.

Pathetic really.

And regarding Aimee's first encounter with the Kona Club, she was asked to leave because she had too much to drink and reported what happened on Yelp on September 18th:

I have never been so humiliated in my life as I was last night, because of this place. I wish i could give this review ZERO stars. HORRIBLE staff.

We arrived about 10:50, the night was young and full of promise. However, when I walked into the bar I made the mistake of having my arm around my boyfriend's shoulders. This apparently made the female bartender there entirely positive that I was actually leaning on him for support, and was too drunk to drink any more. I had, in fact, had a couple of drinks already, couple that with it being Friday and a long day in the office, yeah I probably looked tired, I was! But cut off before the bartender even talked to me? It was funny (frustrating) though because it was that catch-22 situation- the more you argue you aren't drunk the drunker you sound right? LOL. So we just left and had a fabulous night elsewhere therefore ultimately it wasn't a big deal, but I think the principle of it is what bothers me now. I've never been "cut off" from a bar in my life!!! I mean, truth be told, the female bartender was a bit homely and well, plus-sized, my speculation is that she really enjoyed having the power over another woman?

I've been here before and have never been impressed by the service or the bar, and i certainly will not ever return. This is a mediocre bar, with expensive mediocre drinks, sub-par staff and INCREDIBLY cheesy decor. If you're near it yeah i guess stop by as you're waiting to go somewhere else, don't EVER make this place your main event though, unless you're aiming for humiliation. I dunno, may be you're into that kind of thing. haha.

Ok. The Kona Club was both wrong and right: wrong for ejecting Aimee for a critical bar review, but right for cutting her off from having more cocktails during her first visit in 2010. The Kona Club may have saved Aimee from a DUI or at least made her think that stopping drinking was a good idea. The Kona Club should be applauded for that. What the bartender should have done is nicely said "hon, you need a lot of water before your next round. OK?" That would have added sugar to the salt.

But kicking Aimee out later, this year and for negative Twitter tweets, wasn't cool. That's where the Kona Club needs to find Aimee on Twitter @inaimless and apologize to her.

As for Aimee, I recommend visiting The Alley at 3325 Grand Avenue in Oakland. The patrons are helpful. The bartenders, Jennifer and Jackie (who's also the owner) are my long-time friends, and are great. Plus, you can sing your ass off with Rod Dibble at the piano, which is a great diversion from drinking more than you should!

Oakland Zoo Names New Board Members Including Mark McClure

Just got this press release announcing the Oakland Zoo's new board members: Sebastian DiGrande, Daniel Boggan, Jr., Cassady Hudson, Mark McClure, Lora Tabor and Jim Wunderman. To them all, and to one of them, I say congratulations. To my friend amoung, them, Mark McClure (pictured in an Oakland Chamber photo), let me say not only congrats, but maybe this is a good time to get off the Ron Paul bandwagon, eh?

Just kidding, sorta.

But back to the Oakland Zoo.

The rep for the Board of the East Bay Zoological Society (EBZS) was good enough to send over full bios of all of the new board members, so here they are:

Jim Wunderman is the President and CEO of the Bay Area Council, a business-backed public policy organization. Since becoming CEO in 2004, Wunderman has significantly helped increase the council’s advocacy efforts. A couple of the accomplishments under his leadership include: expanding the reach of the Bay Area Council with the opening of its first overseas office in Shanghai, leading the coalition that passed SB 375, a comprehensive law that binds transportation and housing planning, and passing legislation to establish a statewide education data system, a crucial step in fixing education in California.

Prior to his work at the Bay Area Council, Wunderman’s career from 1984 to 2004 was split between both the private and public sectors. In addition to serving on the EBZS’s Foundation Board, Wunderman also serves on the boards of the Bridge Housing Corporation, Fisher Center for Real Estate & Urban Economics, The Keston Institute for Public Finance and Infrastructure, The Pew Charitable Trusts, Sierra Energy, and TMG Partners. Jim was a member of the Governor’s Adaptation Task Force and currently serves on the Transit Sustainability Project Steering Committee.

Sebastian DiGrande is a Partner and Managing Director at the Boston Consulting Group, a global management consulting firm and the world’s leading advisor on business strategy. DiGrande, who joined the group in 1996, is BGC Americas’ leader of the Technology, Media and Telecommunications Practice. He partners with clients in all sectors and regions to address their most critical challenges. In 2009, he provided pro bono services to the Zoo.

Before joining BGC, DiGrande worked as a product manager and major account executive for GTE. He earned his MBA from The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, and a BS in electrical engineering from the Georgia Institute of Technology.

Daniel Boggan, Jr. most recently served as Chief of Staff for Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums in 2007. Prior to working for Mayor Dellums, Boggan assisted the municipal firm of Siebert, Branford & Shank Co. in business development from 2003 to 2006. He acted as Senior Vice President and COO for the NCAA from 1994 to 2003. He has also served as Vice Chancellor for Business Administration at the University of California, Berkeley and as Berkeley’s City Manager. Boggan is deeply committed to public service, and has served on the boards of many local and national organizations. He has been involved with the National Writing Project, the East Oakland Youth Development Foundation, the African American Experience Fund, the California Endowment, and is a lifetime member of both the NAACP and Black Coaches Association. In addition, Boggan serves on the board of directors for Clorox, Collective Brands, Inc. and Viad Corp. Boggan earned his BA at Albion College and his M.S.W. at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.

Cassady Hudson is a Senior Revenue and Royalty Analyst at Hands-On Mobile. She has been volunteering as a docent at the Oakland Zoo for the past ten years and recently completed two years as President of the Zoo’s Docent Council. She joins the EBZS as a Docent Representative. During her tenure as President of the Docent Council, Hudson has ensured council stayed within budget, mentored new docents, developed an annual docent evaluation program in compliance with Association of Zoos and Aquariums standards, and updated by-laws to improve tracking docent commitment.

Mark McClure is a partner at California Capital and Investment Group, a real estate brokerage and development firm based in Oakland, CA. He has worked on both residential and commercial development projects primarily in the City of Oakland.

Mark is proud to be a native Oaklander and has served the public both in appointed positions and on various public boards and community organizations of personal interest. His appointed positions include four years on the Oakland Planning Commission, which he chaired from 2004 to 2005. In September of 2005 Mark was appointed to the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC). Finally, He was appointed to the Port of Oakland Board of Commissioners in December of 2006 where he served as the First Vice-President until March of 2009.

Mark has also served on the Board of The Crucible, a non-profit educational collaboration of art, industry and community in West Oakland. Mark has supported Children's Fairyland by serving on their annual fundraising gala committee. Mark also served a member of the OakPAC Board, an organization that functions as the political action committee for the Oakland Chamber of Commerce. Additional, in February 2006, Mark was nominated to the Oakland 100 Club, a philanthropic organization that benefits the Oakland Boys and Girls Club. Currently Mark serves on the Board of the Oakland Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce and on the Board of the Oakland Police Foundation.

Lora Tabor joined the East Bay Zoological Society Board in June 2010. Ms. Tabor is the General Manager, Corporate & Services HR, for Chevron Corporation in San Ramon, where she provides Human Resources support to Chevron’s Executives and Corporate staffs. She also manages the Human Resources Development Program for Chevron world-wide. In 2006, she returned to the Bay Area headquarters after two years in Cape Town, South Africa where she served Chevron Corporation as the Manager, Internal Total Remuneration. In that capacity, Ms. Tabor managed a global team of professionals developing policies, processes and tools for world-wide use, and coordinated benefit and compensation plans for over 100 countries. Ms. Tabor began her career as a Production Engineer with Gulf Oil & Chevron USA.

Tabor takes an active role with her children in Boy Scouts and Cub Scouts, and has coordinated the Chevron United Way Campaign. She holds a Chemical Engineering degree from the University of Pittsburgh, and lives in Oakland with her husband and children.

If you're wondering how one becomes a board member, the Oakland Zoo's Development Director, Emma Lee Twitchell explains that "Individuals interested in joining the Board may contact the Zoo or a Board member directly, or be recommended by one of the Board members. The process then involves meeting with the Nominating Committee, which makes recommendations to the Executive Committee, then a final confirmation/vote by Board members. The Nominating Committee looks closely at diversity and other criteria to help fill any specific needs of the Zoo based on skills, experience, community representation, etc."

"Save Cal Sports?" Does The University Of California Care?

Today's the day that we'll learn the fate of several University of California sports slated for reduction to reduce a large annual deficit that, in point of fact, has existed for over a decade. It's just that, in the past, the University could afford to carry it; not today.

Still, faced with the prospect of losing men's and women's gymnastics, women's lacrosse, and baseball, you'd think there would be massive alarm bells going off. You'd expect this to be a front page issue on the Cal Athletics website. You'd think "Save Cal Sports" would be a rallying cry for the University itself, and not just a set of concerned alumns.

It's not.  And the Cal Athletics website doesn't ask you to donate money for any one of the sports on the chopping block.

I get the impression the University of California at Berkeley just really doesn't give a damn.  Cal lacks the fight required to maintain its athletic programs; it's just not the focus of a massive campaign, because there is no massive campaign outside of what Save Cal Sports has been able to do - raising $15 million is incredible, and the University itself should help.

The simple fact that only California Golden Blogs is running a post encouraging donations to help Cal baseball - and not the Cal Athletics website - causes me to ask just what the hell is going on?  When I go to Cal Athletics's website, I should see DONATE in red Stanford letters, then explaining that "The Cardinal red will go away if you help us today."

If the University of California and Cal Athletics doesn't care enough to communicate its needs via its websites, why should anyone else care either?    And with this, the Cal's "going to make an announcement" today?

Even the Cal Baseball website communicates the idea that everything's OK as of this writing, when we know it's not.

DONATE > SAVE CAL SPORTS.

The only thing the University should say today is "We're going to get behind Save Cal Sports" and help raise more money.

Anything less would be a shame.