The ACFJC just got a good sized US DOJ grant, and announced it on the website.
Along with the press release on the grant, for just under $1M, the ACJFC made two false claims of how much they have accomplished.
One, they claimed they had reduced domestic violence deaths from 26 to 6, and two, they said they have helped "20,000 victims".
The truth is, the ACFJC has only been in existence for two years, since August. 2005, and the DV death rate has been going down, not just here but throughout the country, for a long time. The last year the deaths were as high as 26 was 1996, NINE YEARS BEFORE THE ACFJC EXISTED.
They used a completely phony base year because it sounded a lot more impressive. Simple as that.
As for the "20,000 victims" after I pointed out the death rate number was phony, the ACFJC changed the web page to show they had provided, "20,000 services" to victims and families.
In fact, soemthing like giving out a brochure may be considered a service, answering the phone, damn near anything, so by that definition they probably have given out 20,000 services. I do not think they could justify the claim that all the people who called them or took a brochure, were actual victims. I was over there and took a bunch of brochures, and most likely I am in that 20,000 number.
The truth is, the place is very dead, far more workers go in the place, on a given day, than clients. Even if there are many helpful things done by staff offsite, at other locations, the need to centralize all services, (which cost a lot becuase it involved a big repair and remodeling to that building) which was the original rationale for starting the FJC, has pretty much been shown a false premise by how few people actually use the place. It's a boondoggle, millions of dollars taken by a rich county in California from a Federal agency which otherwise might have gone somewhere it is really needed. And the money was spent on a facility people simply don't use much.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Alameda County Family Justice Center, Bill Lockyer's wife Nadia
It's been a long time since I posted. I wanted to mention first of all, the Alameda County Family Justice Center in Oakland, and it's hiring of Bill Lockyer's wife, Nadia Lockyer, as Executive Director.
First off, Family Justice Centers are agencies set up by Federal grants from the US Dept. of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women, OVW, to offer "one stop shopping" to alleged victims of domestic violence.
Someone had the idea to put all the things a DV victim might need, (shelter, prosecutors, financial aid) in one spot, becuase they claimed it was a big deal for the victims to go to all the agencies they might need on their own.
The Feds have so far funded about 15, around the country. The Alameda County Family Justice Center, (by the way, the employees are mostly Alameda County, the managment is the Chief Asst. DA, Nancy O'Malley, but still they are Federally started and funded to some extent. ????)
was started in August 2005, it's just over two years old as I write this.
The Center has always been Nancy O'Malley's baby. As I said, she is the Chieft Asst to the DA, the number two in the office. It's been rumored DA Tom Orloff will retire at the end of his next term, so it's not unlikely O'Malley will become the next DA. In Alameda County, normally the outgoing DA or Sheriff designates his successor, and no one runs against that person. If there is an actual contest in the next election, it would be the first time in 40 years.
Nancy O'Malley is not an honest person. She lied to my attorney about an important point in my case, to make what the lawyers call a "false offer of compromise".
I should explain for the non-lawyers what a "false offer of compromise" is.
In a civil case, if one lawyer, let's call her O'Malley, tells the opposing lawyer, let's call him "Steve's lawyer" that she is agreeable to settle a case, on terms X, and says she will write up the agreement and fax it over, but then, when the agreement comes in the fax machine, only a day before the hearing, with a bunch of important terms changed to be different than verbally agreed, so that the opposing lawyer has been lured into not fully preparing for the hearing, that is a "false offer of compromise".
Essentially, the dishonest lawyer's offer to negotiate, or compromise, a settlement of the lawsuit was false, and if you can prove it was false and made in bad faith, (tough to do since she made sure all the promises were by phone only) you could sue over it.
Additionally, when I first came to court, and asked Judge Conger for more time, since my lawyer needed to get ready for the case, O'Malley told Judge Conger in open court, on the record, that she had spoken to my lawyer and he had told her he was not going to be representing me. I told Conger I did not believe it, and Conger to her credit gave me a continuance, and of course, my lawyer was at the next hearing. What my lawyer had told O'Malley was that he was not yet the attorney of record at the first time they spoke by phone,. but O"Malley deliberately twisted that into a claim that he would never be on the case, (and therefore my request for more time was deliberate stalling, and it should not be granted)
The right to have an attorney is very basic, it's almost universally respected by the courts, so not only did O'Malley lie to Judge Conger, she went over a line which is not usually crossed in terms of trying to keep me from having a lawyer.
But it turns out lies and manipulation are standard operating proedure for O'Malley.
Which brings me back to the hiring of Bill Lockyer's wife as Executive Director of the ACFJC.
First, it's important to understand, O"Malley is the true head of the Center, and she intends to remain so. It does not mean much that Nadia Lockyer is now the Executive Director, because Nadia is on the Alameda County DA staff, subordinate to O'Malley. Obviously, as wife of Bill Lockyer, Nadia is in no way like a normal DA staffer, O'Malley will do everything within reason to keep her subordinate happy, so that Bill will keep on doing favors for the DA"s office in return, but if push came to shove for some reason, O'Malley would have the power, not Lockyer.
As to manipulation, look at the hiring of Nadia. They made a big show, apparenlty for the benefit of the Feds, of using an objective hiring process, with two separate committees, one for initial screening, one for final selection, of the new Exec. Direc, but the committees were stacked with DA staff, also subordinate to O'Malley.
Harold Boscovich, Karen Meredith, Lisa Foster, and Nancy O"Malley herself, were on the committtes. Each committee had four members. So ultimately, the DA people made up half of each committee. That means they could bar any applicant other than Lockyer, and keep her from being barred in turn, by simply tying any vote.
Additionally, the criteria for the job were changed, without readvertising the new requirements, after the deadline was already passed.
That is worth saying again: The advertised the job as sort of a non-lawyer, non politician, sort of a social worker type, in the job annoucement, but then they hired Nadia Lockyer, a politician/lawyer. When I asked O'Malley about that, she claimed that, after thinking about it some, and asking the San Diego Family Justice Center on their experience, they found out really only lawyers did well as heads of these agencies, so they better hire one, and Lockyer looked like a good bet. They did not readvertise the job to announce they wanted a laywer, they just took one who had applied.
O'Malley's annoucement of the hiring of Lockyer was kind of funny. It said quite a bit about her background, but nothing about who her husband was. I think the lawyers call that omission "consciousness of guilt".
I contacted the Head of OVW, Mary Beth Buchanan, back in Washington DC, to tell her about the AG's wife being hired. She did not know about it.
Technically, under the California Constitution, the four DA staff on the selection committee are subordinate to Bill Lockyer, so, if they all voted lockstep to get Nadia the job, then after all the smoke and mirrors, what essentially happened was, Bill Lockyer's subs hired Bill Lockyer's wife.
Also, again if those DA staff chose Nadia Lockyer, there is a question of the Federal grant rules being violated, and the state law which forbids an elected official from using his position to financially benefit himself being violated, (Nadia Lockyer's salary would be community property, and thus benefit Lockyer as well) or his family.
From the standpoing of the ACFJC, they got a pretty face to put on the brochures, and most likely, if he can, Lockyer will help out Alameda County with some found money in the future, as he has in the past. (by settling the Diebold voting machine case and funneling more settlement money to the Alameda DA, than that officer really deserved, for example)
The negative would be, instead of a strong leader in addition to O'Malley, it will all remain her show, and depend on her. Fine if she does everything right, bad if she screws up, and personally, I think she is too stubborn to listen to good advice, so if she screws up, the problems will not be corrected.
First off, Family Justice Centers are agencies set up by Federal grants from the US Dept. of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women, OVW, to offer "one stop shopping" to alleged victims of domestic violence.
Someone had the idea to put all the things a DV victim might need, (shelter, prosecutors, financial aid) in one spot, becuase they claimed it was a big deal for the victims to go to all the agencies they might need on their own.
The Feds have so far funded about 15, around the country. The Alameda County Family Justice Center, (by the way, the employees are mostly Alameda County, the managment is the Chief Asst. DA, Nancy O'Malley, but still they are Federally started and funded to some extent. ????)
was started in August 2005, it's just over two years old as I write this.
The Center has always been Nancy O'Malley's baby. As I said, she is the Chieft Asst to the DA, the number two in the office. It's been rumored DA Tom Orloff will retire at the end of his next term, so it's not unlikely O'Malley will become the next DA. In Alameda County, normally the outgoing DA or Sheriff designates his successor, and no one runs against that person. If there is an actual contest in the next election, it would be the first time in 40 years.
Nancy O'Malley is not an honest person. She lied to my attorney about an important point in my case, to make what the lawyers call a "false offer of compromise".
I should explain for the non-lawyers what a "false offer of compromise" is.
In a civil case, if one lawyer, let's call her O'Malley, tells the opposing lawyer, let's call him "Steve's lawyer" that she is agreeable to settle a case, on terms X, and says she will write up the agreement and fax it over, but then, when the agreement comes in the fax machine, only a day before the hearing, with a bunch of important terms changed to be different than verbally agreed, so that the opposing lawyer has been lured into not fully preparing for the hearing, that is a "false offer of compromise".
Essentially, the dishonest lawyer's offer to negotiate, or compromise, a settlement of the lawsuit was false, and if you can prove it was false and made in bad faith, (tough to do since she made sure all the promises were by phone only) you could sue over it.
Additionally, when I first came to court, and asked Judge Conger for more time, since my lawyer needed to get ready for the case, O'Malley told Judge Conger in open court, on the record, that she had spoken to my lawyer and he had told her he was not going to be representing me. I told Conger I did not believe it, and Conger to her credit gave me a continuance, and of course, my lawyer was at the next hearing. What my lawyer had told O'Malley was that he was not yet the attorney of record at the first time they spoke by phone,. but O"Malley deliberately twisted that into a claim that he would never be on the case, (and therefore my request for more time was deliberate stalling, and it should not be granted)
The right to have an attorney is very basic, it's almost universally respected by the courts, so not only did O'Malley lie to Judge Conger, she went over a line which is not usually crossed in terms of trying to keep me from having a lawyer.
But it turns out lies and manipulation are standard operating proedure for O'Malley.
Which brings me back to the hiring of Bill Lockyer's wife as Executive Director of the ACFJC.
First, it's important to understand, O"Malley is the true head of the Center, and she intends to remain so. It does not mean much that Nadia Lockyer is now the Executive Director, because Nadia is on the Alameda County DA staff, subordinate to O'Malley. Obviously, as wife of Bill Lockyer, Nadia is in no way like a normal DA staffer, O'Malley will do everything within reason to keep her subordinate happy, so that Bill will keep on doing favors for the DA"s office in return, but if push came to shove for some reason, O'Malley would have the power, not Lockyer.
As to manipulation, look at the hiring of Nadia. They made a big show, apparenlty for the benefit of the Feds, of using an objective hiring process, with two separate committees, one for initial screening, one for final selection, of the new Exec. Direc, but the committees were stacked with DA staff, also subordinate to O'Malley.
Harold Boscovich, Karen Meredith, Lisa Foster, and Nancy O"Malley herself, were on the committtes. Each committee had four members. So ultimately, the DA people made up half of each committee. That means they could bar any applicant other than Lockyer, and keep her from being barred in turn, by simply tying any vote.
Additionally, the criteria for the job were changed, without readvertising the new requirements, after the deadline was already passed.
That is worth saying again: The advertised the job as sort of a non-lawyer, non politician, sort of a social worker type, in the job annoucement, but then they hired Nadia Lockyer, a politician/lawyer. When I asked O'Malley about that, she claimed that, after thinking about it some, and asking the San Diego Family Justice Center on their experience, they found out really only lawyers did well as heads of these agencies, so they better hire one, and Lockyer looked like a good bet. They did not readvertise the job to announce they wanted a laywer, they just took one who had applied.
O'Malley's annoucement of the hiring of Lockyer was kind of funny. It said quite a bit about her background, but nothing about who her husband was. I think the lawyers call that omission "consciousness of guilt".
I contacted the Head of OVW, Mary Beth Buchanan, back in Washington DC, to tell her about the AG's wife being hired. She did not know about it.
Technically, under the California Constitution, the four DA staff on the selection committee are subordinate to Bill Lockyer, so, if they all voted lockstep to get Nadia the job, then after all the smoke and mirrors, what essentially happened was, Bill Lockyer's subs hired Bill Lockyer's wife.
Also, again if those DA staff chose Nadia Lockyer, there is a question of the Federal grant rules being violated, and the state law which forbids an elected official from using his position to financially benefit himself being violated, (Nadia Lockyer's salary would be community property, and thus benefit Lockyer as well) or his family.
From the standpoing of the ACFJC, they got a pretty face to put on the brochures, and most likely, if he can, Lockyer will help out Alameda County with some found money in the future, as he has in the past. (by settling the Diebold voting machine case and funneling more settlement money to the Alameda DA, than that officer really deserved, for example)
The negative would be, instead of a strong leader in addition to O'Malley, it will all remain her show, and depend on her. Fine if she does everything right, bad if she screws up, and personally, I think she is too stubborn to listen to good advice, so if she screws up, the problems will not be corrected.
Saturday, May 5, 2007
Alameda County Govt. -- Tammany Hall in the 21st Century
Hello and thanks for looking at my blog on Alameda County California.
Alameda County is right across the Bay from San Francisco. The main cities are Berkeley and Oakland. It's mostly urban, and, like the rest of the San Francisco Bay Area, liberal and overwhelmingly Democratic Party.
I believe the one party system has led to a lot of problems in the County government. It's a wealthy area, most of it, with a huge tax base, and therefore, there are a lot of political spoils to be had by those who can make the right connections.
Without an opposition party to keep them honest, the misconduct and sometimes outright criminal actions of those in power have become business as usual. They are often not even regarded as particularly newsworthy.
I am most liberal myself, and don't oppose most of their platform, but the insider dealing transcends party loyalty. It's time to stop it.
Alameda County is right across the Bay from San Francisco. The main cities are Berkeley and Oakland. It's mostly urban, and, like the rest of the San Francisco Bay Area, liberal and overwhelmingly Democratic Party.
I believe the one party system has led to a lot of problems in the County government. It's a wealthy area, most of it, with a huge tax base, and therefore, there are a lot of political spoils to be had by those who can make the right connections.
Without an opposition party to keep them honest, the misconduct and sometimes outright criminal actions of those in power have become business as usual. They are often not even regarded as particularly newsworthy.
I am most liberal myself, and don't oppose most of their platform, but the insider dealing transcends party loyalty. It's time to stop it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)