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: Thursday, March 13, 2014 10:08 AM
To: Parker, Barbara; McElhaney, Lynette; Ruth Bernstein
Cc: Kernighan, Pat; Salem-Boyd, Kathleen; Emily Kirby
Subject: RE: draft ballot questions for measure

Barbara, Kathleen:

Thanks for your time on this. I think everyone understands the caveat - and at the same time, we hope
you feel that you've been able to have the time and space needed to provide edits and direction that get
this ballot measure in a shape that could potentially meet your approval when that time comes. That is
the whole point of this exercise.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: draft ballot questions for measure
From: "Parker, Barbara" <BParker@oaklandcityattorney.org>
Date: Thu, March 13, 2014 10:02 am
To: "McElhaney, Lynette" <lmcelhaney@oaklandnet.com>, "Ruth Bernstein"
<ruth@emcresearch.com>
Cc: <tom@cliffordmoss.com>, "Kernighan, Pat"
<PKernighan@oaklandnet.com>, "Salem-Boyd, Kathleen"
<KSalem-Boyd@oaklandcityattorney.org>, "Emily Kirby"
<emily@emcresearch.com>
Hi Lynette,

Ruth confirmed this is understood.

I provided the caveat once again because the early morning email said that the two key prerequisites had been
met: (1) language the City Attorney actually will utilize and (2) no tax rate increase: 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.

From: McElhaney, Lynette
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 9:50 AM
2
To: Parker, Barbara; Ruth Bernstein
Cc: tom@cliffordmoss.com; Kernighan, Pat; Salem-Boyd, Kathleen; Emily Kirby
Subject: RE: draft ballot questions for measure

Barbara,

We are moving forward with the understanding you continually express. No need to keep sounding like a
broken record. Your statements are received and understood.

~Lynette
_____________________________________________________________________________
Councilmember Lynette Gibson McElhaney
Representing the Heart & Soul of the City
Oakland District 3 |1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, 2
nd
Floor | Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: (510) 238-7003 Fax: (510) 238-6910

From: Parker, Barbara
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 9:17 AM
To: Ruth Bernstein
Cc: McElhaney, Lynette; tom@cliffordmoss.com; Kernighan, Pat; Salem-Boyd, Kathleen; Emily Kirby
Subject: Re: draft ballot questions for measure

Dear All:



Sounding like a broken record, for those of us who are old enough to understand
the analogy, our comments and positions regarding the draft question 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.



Regards,

Barbara J Parker
Oakland City Attorney
510-703-5718

As if it harmed me giving others the same rights and privileges that I possess; as
if it were not indispensable to my own rights that others possess the same.



On Mar 13, 2014, at 7:32 AM, "Ruth Bernstein" <ruth@emcresearch.com>
wrote:
3
Lynette,
because we also have "increase high school graduation rates" I do not think "dropout
prevention" is problematic from a messaging standpoint. In my opinion provide is stronger
than support so I would leave it in for now. The language we have in the poll currently will get
what we need, a test between continuing the current rate, or trying for an increased tax. We
know that the final language may change, but we believe this will get what we need for the
next step.

We are planning to conduct the survey in Chinese and Spanish as well as English, so we will
move forward with translation and start interviewing as soon as we can. We will be in touch
early next week about timeline.

Thank you all. Let us know right away if there are any problems or questions,

ruth

From: McElhaney, Lynette [mailto:lmcelhaney@oaklandnet.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 12:50 AM
To: tom@cliffordmoss.com; Parker, Barbara; Kernighan, Pat
Cc: Salem-Boyd, Kathleen; Ruth Bernstein
Subject: RE: draft ballot questions for measure

Tom,

Thank you for your thoughtfulness and care with this critical work. I believe you
are correct the only thing I'll add is that Barbara is not wedded to the word "drop-
out prevention." It can stay or go as you determine what is best to test in terms of
messaging.

I had suggested that we change the word "provide" to "support" before listing the
range of intervention services since the City is not necessarily a direct service
provider.

Other than that you're good to go on my end.

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: tom@cliffordmoss.com [mailto:tom@cliffordmoss.com]
Sent: Wed 3/12/2014 11:59 PM
To: McElhaney, Lynette; Parker, Barbara; Kernighan, Pat
Cc: Salem-Boyd, Kathleen; Ruth Bernstein
4
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 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
5
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.



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
6
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.









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,

7


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 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
8
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

One Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, 6th Floor

Oakland, CA 94612

(510) 238-3034

(510) 238-6500 (fax)

ksboyd@oaklandcityattorney.org
9



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]