The City of Oakland lost a big whistleblower lawsuit yesterday in federal district court.

The case, brought by Daryelle Lawana Preston, Oakland’s former director of employee relations, included allegations that a top Oakland official pressured her to falsify reports to the city council, and that other Oakland officials improperly negotiated labor contracts with city unions, and willfully violated labor union contracts. Preston said she was punished, and ultimately fired, for speaking up about these activities. A jury agreed with Preston, awarding her $613,302 in damages.

Allegations in the lawsuit hint at the power struggles and intrigues happening within Oakland City Hall in 2012 and 2013. Preston said that former City Administrator Deanna Santana pressured her to lie on multiple occasions in order to get Councilmember Desley Brooks ousted from office. According to the lawsuit, “defendant Santana asked Ms. Preston to falsify a report about East Oakland’s Rainbow Teen Center (“RTC”) and state that City Councilwoman Desley Brooks intentionally and knowingly engaged in hiring practices and purchasing at RTC that violated the City Charter.”


[jump] Preston also alleged that Santana asked her to lie in an oral report to the city council. The lawsuit charged Santana with depriving Preston of her federally protected right to free speech. The judge dismissed this charge against Santana, however, leaving only the city of Oakland as the defendant.

Preston also alleged that Oakland Fire Chief Teresa Deloach Reed improperly negotiated with the city’s firefighters union without authority to do so, and that Santana condoned the activity. Finally, Preston alleged that City Treasurer Katano Kasaine violated the city’s contract with the union SEIU 1021 by refusing to collect dues from part-time employee salaries for several years.

After speaking up about these activities and refusing to cooperate with actions she believed to be illegal, according to the lawsuit, Preston was fired by Santana on October 13, 2013.

“Clearly Santana’s decision to fire Ms. Preston was wrong,” said attorney Dan Siegel, who represented Preston. “The actions that Preston was complaining about were condoned by Santana.”

Santana left Oakland in March 2014 to become the city manager of Sunnyvale. Reached by email about the jury verdict, Santana provided the following statement:

“I agree with the Judge’s action to dismiss the federal whistleblower/first amendment portion of the lawsuit and all lawsuits against me mid-way through the trial. The Judge’s dismissal displayed a clear application of the law and the compelling facts surrounding the lawsuit. I deeply respect the jury process, but I think it is inconsistent with the actions of the Judge.”

Oakland City Attorney Barbara Parker issued the following statement today about the jury verdict:

“We respect the jury process. However, we do not agree with the jury’s verdict. Plaintiff was an “at will” department head in the City of Oakland. That means the City Administrator could terminate her for any reason or no reason at all and without notice. Plaintiff had the burden of proving that the City terminated her for unlawful reasons. We believe the evidence was clear that the City was fully within its rights to terminate Plaintiff.”

Complaint Preston v Oakland by darwinbondgraham

Bay Area regulators plan to reduce harmful emissions from oil refineries, so they should start by not letting emissions increase — that’s been the demand of the Refinery Action Collaborative, a coalition of community and labor groups, since 2013, when the Bay Area Air Quality Management District started working on oil refinery rules.

But earlier this week, air district staffers presented yet another draft of proposed refinery rules that still had no data on possible emissions caps. “We were supposed to get a presentation on numeric caps. That was mandated June 3,” said air district director John Avalos, a San Francisco supervisor. “It didn’t happen.”

Instead, in their presentation to the board’s stationary source committee, staffers outlined a new set of steps for reducing emissions, with reports and proposals going back and forth between the refineries and air district for a number of years. The staffers said they were on track to meet a goal set by the air district board last year: a 20 percent reduction in the emission of certain chemicals and in health risks by 2020.

But boardmembers Jan Pepper, mayor of Los Altos, and John Gioia, Contra Costa supervisor, expressed concern about the lengthy process presented by staff. Pepper pointed out that it could take five years or more to get any actual cuts in emissions. “Our goal is to get reductions as soon as possible,” Gioia said. He suggested that staffers “focus on quicker timelines when you report to the full board.” In the June meeting, Gioia had commented, “We don’t want to see emissions go up while we’re making rules.”

[jump]
But that’s exactly what’s happening, said Charlie Davidson of the Sunflower Alliance. He pointed out that emissions of some of the most harmful pollutants have continually increased over the past decade. Despite this, the air district recently approved permits for projects at three refineries — Chevron, Valero, and Phillips 66 — that would enable them to process oil from Canadian tar sands and other super-dirty crude. Processing such crude, Davidson said, would lead to higher emissions of the pollutants that are already increasing. Chevron and Phillips 66 deny that their projects will involve a change in the crude oil they refine.

Environmentalists insist, however, that it’s urgent to cap emissions at the current level to stop these projects. “What’s really going on,” said Greg Karras, senior scientist at Communities for a Better Environment (CBE), in an interview after the meeting, “is that the refineries want tar sands oil and the air district is fronting for them,” by delaying regulation until the new projects are up and running.

To prevent this, Steve Nadel of the Sunflower Alliance asked air district directors, “Why not include our request for a cap on current emissions levels while we’re planning reductions?”

Since air district staffers did not provide the requested data on possible emissions caps, Communities for a Better Environment submitted its own technical proposal, listing caps on health-harming chemicals and greenhouse gases for each refinery, based on current emissions levels. Capping emissions at current levels, said Karras, “is a no-cost measure that could be implemented upon adoption.” Since the air district’ staffers have said it will take a while to develop a plan for evaluating changes in crude oil, CBE also proposed a moratorium on these changes until the air district develops its rules.

In response, Jack Broadbent, the air district’s executive director, said, “Legally, we would have difficulty” capping emissions. Director Pepper requested that the staffers’ next report include “more clarity on why you think caps are a legal issue.” As for a moratorium on crude oil changes, Broadbent said, “I don’t believe we can do this legally.”

The air district, however, has already changed its draft rules significantly, adopting many proposals from the Refinery Action Collaborative: a plan to regulate refinery emissions, not just measure them, as originally intended; a requirement that refineries apply for permits when they want to change the type of crude oil they refine; dropping a plan that would have allowed emissions to increase if a refinery increased its production; a decision to include greenhouse gases among the pollutants to be regulated; and the twenty percent cap on emissions. “This rule has gotten better because of the public advocacy,” Gioia commented.

While environmental and community groups demanded quicker, stronger action, refinery representatives argued that the staffers’ proposed rules were too harsh and too costly. Kathy Wheeler, an engineer at Shell, said “Bay Area refineries [already] have firm emissions limits. They are the best controlled in the world. These rules would threaten our ability to compete.” Kevin Buchanan of Western States Petroleum Association objected that the composition of a refinery’s crude oil is “competitively sensitive information.”

Within the conflict on whether to cap emissions at current levels, Monday’s meeting continued the debate about capping greenhouse gases in particular. Staffers cited California Air Resources Board (CARB) executive Richard Corey’s opinion that capping greenhouse gases in one part of California would only cause them to increase elsewhere in the state, because of the state’s cap-and-trade system. Both CARB and the local air district staffers say caps on greenhouse gases should be left up to the state.

“That assumes no one else is working on this,” responded Richmond resident Rebecca Auerbach. Anne Donjacour of 350 Bay Area added, “We’re pressing all over the state. That’s more effective than the passing-the-buck approach.”

Broadbent said staffers are convinced that capping greenhouse gas emissions is a bad idea, but to address this ongoing controversy he will create a panel of scientists to study the issue. Meanwhile, the idea of capping greenhouse gas emissions seemed to receive little support from the board. “We all want to see greenhouse gases decrease,” Gioia said, “But our focus is on local health impacts.”

Stories you shouldn’t miss:

1. Water-logged steel rods on the new Bay Bridge could cost as much as $25 million to fix and tollpayers likely will have to pay much of that amount, the Chron$ reports. The steel rods inside the span’s signature tower are inundated with saltwater from the bay due to shoddy workmanship. Regional transportation officials, however, are neither sure of the exact costs to fix the problem nor whether they will be able to charge bridge builder American Bridge/Fluor for it.

2. Ex-Yosemite National Park concessionaire Delaware North has sued the National Park Service in a dispute over iconic place names in Yosemite, including the Ahwahnee Hotel, Curry Village, and Badger Pass, the SacBee$ reports. Earlier this year, the park service awarded the Yosemite concessions contract to another company, Aramark, after Delaware North claimed that it owned the naming rights to numerous places in Yosemite and demanded that the park service hand over $51 million for the rights to those names.

[jump]
3. The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors voted to reinstate healthcare services for undocumented adults living in the county, KQED reports (via Rough & Tumble). The board suspended healthcare services for undocumented adults in 2009 during the recession. The county never stopped providing care to undocumented children, however.

4. The same attorney who is suing Uber — the on-demand ride service giant — for underpaying and mistreating its workers, is now also suing on-demand food delivery services GrubHub, DoorDash, and Caviar, the LA Times$ reports. Attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan alleges in a lawsuit that GrubHub and the others — like Uber — have illegally classified drivers as contractors rather than employees in order to maximize profits. Last month, Liss-Riordan won class-action status for Uber drivers in their suit against the company.

5. The death toll from the fast-moving Valley Fire in Lake County, just north of Napa County, rose to four with the discovery of remains of another resident who refused to heed evacuation warnings from authorities, the Chron reports.

6. And a group of prominent scientists at UC San Francisco has joined the opposition to the Golden State Warriors’ plans to build a new arena across the street from UCSF Medical Center, the Chron reports.

In response to Oakland restauranteurs’ protests against massive rate increases for composting under the city’s new waste contract, city officials and the private contractor Waste Management have agreed to lower businesses’ fees for disposing food waste. The City Administrator’s Office will soon release a proposal to substantially lower the commercial composting rates in the contract that began in July, according to City Councilmember Annie Campbell Washington.

The new proposal, which the Oakland City Council will consider in a meeting on September 29, comes after businesses and environmental advocates were outraged to discover that not only are restaurants facing exorbitant composting rate increases, but Waste Management is actually now charging more for composting than for trash. That means that the city has created a major financial incentive for restaurants to dump their food waste into the garbage to go to the landfill instead of composting and recycling it — a feature of the contract that clearly contradicts the city’s “zero waste” and sustainability goals. Under the new proposal, business composting services would be cheaper than trash services, according to Campbell Washington.

[jump] Waste Management — the Texas-based corporation that sued the City of Oakland when it initially lost the $1 billion, ten-year contract last year — is now the exclusive provider of trash and composting services for businesses and residents. Previously, commercial composting was not part of the city’s franchise agreement, which meant that restaurants could choose any provider to haul food waste — and many in Oakland did not use Waste Management. As a result, under the new contract, restaurants reported composting rate increases ranging from 80 to 120 percent. And although trash rates also increased, composting prices are now higher than garbage fees. For example, the rates that went into effect on July 1 stipulate that 20-gallon carts picked up once a week cost $27.97 a month for trash, but $33.84 for compost; 64-gallon carts with pickups twice a week cost $165.42 monthly for trash, but $198 for compost; and 96-gallon carts picked up three times a week cost $381.21 for trash and $457.62 for compost. 

Under those prices, the composting rates are roughly 20 percent higher than trash services, which means that businesses who want the cheapest rates should only order trash bins and skip out on composting altogether. Campbell Washington said the city and Waste Management have renegotiated the terms of the contract and are proposing to make composting rates for businesses 30 percent lower than equivalent trash rates through July 2016 and then 20 percent lower than trash rates for the rest of the contract. The trash rates would stay the same.

The city hasn’t published the proposal yet or released any rate tables, and spokespeople for the city and Waste Management did not respond to my requests for comment. But businesses interested in specifics of proposed reductions could look at the garbage rates published here and calculate 70 percent of those fees at any level of service to get the new composting prices. For example, under the current contract, 96-gallon carts picked up three times a week cost $381.21 for trash and $457.62 for compost. Under the proposal, the composting fee would be 70 percent of that trash rate — $266.85, which comes out to be a 42 percent reduction from the current rate. If trash rates stayed the same, after July 2016, that composting rate would increase to $304.97. Based on my rough calculations, at different levels of service, it appears that the composting prices under the new proposal would be roughly 42 percent lower than the rates that went into effect in July.

“That’s a significant reduction,” Campbell Washington said. “These are businesses that work on a razor-thin margin.”

Waste Management agreed to lower these rates in exchange for removing a local call center from the franchise agreement, according to Campbell Washington. The original contract had stipulated that the company set up a call center in Alameda County instead of potentially outsourcing those jobs, but under the new proposal with reduced composting rates, Waste Management would no longer be obligated to operate a center in the East Bay. Noting that the contract was already finalized and approved, Campbell Washington added, “We don’t have much leverage in this situation. … Waste Management did not have to negotiate with the city.” 

As part of the new proposal, Waste Management has also agreed to extend a discount for low-income seniors for the full contract. 

Even with the reductions in commercial composting, the rates would likely be higher than what restaurants had previously paid before July of this year. And Gail Lillian, owner of Liba Falafel, who has been spearheading efforts to get fairer composting rates, told me by email yesterday that she’s concerned that this compromise doesn’t go far enough. While reducing composting prices below trash rates is a step in the right direction, she said she does not think the council should commit to having composting be 80 percent of trash after the first year and then for the next decade. She said she will be urging council not to agree to anything higher than having composting be 70 percent of trash rates.

The new proposal would also not address another complaint that environmental advocates and residents have raised about the new contract — that single-family homes with the smallest trash carts (residents who produce the least waste) are facing disproportionately high rate increases. For people with 20-gallon carts, the increase was substantially higher than all other size bins — both in terms of the percentage and actual dollar amount. Advocates said that as a result, the contract was essentially penalizing the most dedicated residential recyclers. Campbell Washington said that Waste Management was not willing to make changes on rates for single-family homes.

Correction: An earlier version of this post cited the incorrect date for the council meeting on the new proposal. It is September 29, not the 30th. 

Stories you shouldn’t miss:

1. Uber, the controversial ride app giant, has purchased the old Sears building in Uptown Oakland for it new East Bay headquarters. The San Francisco Business Times$ broke the story last night. Uber plans to add 2,000 to 3,000 employees in Oakland as part of an expansion plan, the Trib$ reports. Uber has attracted huge amounts of investment capital, but is also facing a potentially costly class-action lawsuit from its drivers. Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf hailed Uber’s announcement, and the city hopes the company’s move will spur more office construction in downtown.

2. Oakland City Attorney Barbara Parker has sued Wells Fargo, alleging that the banking behemoth preyed on Black and Latino residents with toxic mortgages in violation of the law, the Trib$ reports. Parker alleges that Wells Fargo steered Black and Latino residents into expensive high-risk loans when they had qualified for traditional loans.

3. The state Controller’s Office has launched a probe into the City of Richmond’s finances, pointing to irregularities in the city’s financial reporting and the city’s relatively poor fiscal condition, the CoCo Times$ reports.

[jump]
4. Berkeley Human Welfare and Community Action Commissioner Cheryl Davila was fired from her post for authoring a resolution calling on the city to divest from Israel because of the country’s treatment of Palestinians, the Trib$ reports. Councilmember Darryl Moore said he fired Davila, his appointee, because she did not tell him that she had been working on the controversial resolution for a year.

5. Governor Jerry Brown signed a package of legislation that will renew the ability of cities and counties to use property tax revenues to redevelop low-income and blighted areas and build affordable housing, the LA Times$ reports. The legislation replaces redevelopment, which Brown dissolved in 2012, although it is much more limited than that program.

6. The Metropolitan Water District, which serves Southern California residents, is in negotiations to build a massive water recycling plant that will lessen the agency’s dependency on Northern California river water, the LA Times$ reports.

7. And Volkswagen revealed that it sold 11 million diesel vehicles worldwide that were equipped with fraudulent computer software that allowed the vehicles to pass emissions standards when, in fact, the cars were heavy polluters, the AP reports (via the Chron$).