The Richmond Office of Neighborhood Safety (ONS) and Devone Boggan have been a hot button issue for Councilmember Corky Booze for years, and ONS has undergone a new wave of public scrutiny after the incident in October involving a fight in the ONS office in the Civic Center and a six-person ONS team that traveled to Cape Town, South Africa, as representatives to the World Health Organization’s Fifth Milestones Global Campaign for Violence Prevention Meeting. Boggan was chosen as part of the delegation for the California Wellness Foundation.
For more information on ONS, see:
ONS has an impressive base of high-profile funders and community support, but it also has its detractors, and Corky Booze is detractor-in-chief. Booze has placed two items on the March 26 City Council agenda dealing with ONS. The first is the presentation of a report and the second an accompanying PowerPoint prepared by Booze and City Council Intern Anna Johnson. Click the agenda items below for more detail.
Click here for the PowerPoint and click here for the report prepared by Anna Johnson.
The essence of Booze’s criticism is that ONS is mismanaged and not as effective as it could be. He is calling for a “forensic” audit, which has become the focus of the dispute. The City Council, the city manager and ONS Director Devone Boggan all agree that an audit or review of the agency is needed. What they don’t agree on is the characterization of the audit and who will pay for it and perform it.
The ONS issue has further opened the rift between Booze and ,members of the Richmond Progressive Alliance, which posted the following on March 25:
Scheduled for Tuesday Council Meeting
Councilman Booze Continues Calls for ONS Audit
Last Tuesday's City Council meeting saw a heated exchange over what many see as Councilmember Booze's harrassment of the Office of Neighborhood Safety (ONS). (See Contra Costa Times article by Robert Rogers.)
Councilman Booze has scheduled two items for this Tuesday's Council meeting.
These items may be tabled, but as of now, they are scheduled to be presented and discussed on March 27. You can attend this City Council meeting to show support for ONS and its constructive approach to violence prevention, for actions that encourage ONS staff rather than putting them down, and for appropriate procedures for oversight of city programs. If you wish to speak you should sign up for items I-1 and I-2 (See agenda.)
The contents of this article are based in part on information about these agenda items that was sent to City Council members, the press, some city staff, and Don Gosney. It has NOT been made directly available to the public by posting it with agenda documents on the city website in the normal way.
Agenda item I-1 is a lengthy report by a Council intern under Booze's direction. The report contains few specifics, but Booze's introduction and innuendos in the report strongly imply that the Office of Neighborhood Safety is engaging in irregularities that it is covering up or hiding from the public.
Agenda item I-2 is a motion to hire an outside agency to conduct a "forensic audit" of the ONS. A "forensic audit," despite Booze's twisted explanation, is very expensive, detailed, complex, and well documented audit normally used in civil or criminal legal proceedings. In other words you do a "forensic audit" if you are about to charge people with a crime or you are going to sue them and you need documented evidence.
What is the Office of Neighborhood Safety?
The Office of Neighborhood Safety started operations in late 2007. It is an innovative violence prevention program working with individuals at high risk of committing serious crimes that has shown promising results. The ONS has also partnered with clergy, community organizations and the police department in a number of efforts including Ceasefire. Since its inception, there has been a steady downward trend in overall violent crime in Richmond. (See the ONS Annual Report for 2011.)
One of the most controversial, yet possibly most effective, components of its street outreach program is the Peacemaker Fellowships. Through this program, select individuals with histories of gun violence are offered an alternative-to become "peacemakers" working in the community. They receive a small stipend (funded by outside grants) as long as they meet strict criteria which include following a rigorous routine for setting their lives on course using a Lifemap which they create with the help of ONS staff. This Lifemap includes education, job training, work experience, and a zero-tolerance commitment to give up weapons and gang activity.
This approach of respect and high expectations for positive behaviors is working well. The money spent is well worth it especially when measured with the roughly $200,000/year spent per individual in the prison system which doesn't work. The program has gained national recognition. (See the end of the ONS report.)
The witch-hunting atmosphere of the Booze "report," which contains no evidence and the demand for a "forensic audit," especially hurts a department using an innovative approach to combat urban violence that requires the confidence of the community. Spreading rumors through innuendos directly undermines the work of ONS staff. Instead of supporting these unarmed outreach workers who use peaceful means to diffuse potentially volatile situations, Booze's action uses the council as a bully pulpit to make their work much more difficult.
Role of City Manager
The procedure adopted by Booze is seriously flawed. It is inappropriate for one Council member to embark on a task of micro-managing and investigating one city department on his own, without the collaboration of the City Manager, who is directly responsible for that department. The appropriate procedure would be to bring any alleged problems with ONS to the attention of the City Manager for him to review and follow-up with any actions or recommendations to the City Council that he deems necessary.
There are broader implications that can be very damaging to the integrity of the city government. A demand by one Council member to by-pass normal procedure and call for a forensic audit of ONS is effectively asking for a vote of no-confidence in the City Manager.
Mike Parker
This article represents the views of the author and not necessarily those of the RPA.
Those who want to know more about ONS should also consider attending the HRHRC meeting on Monday night in Council chambers. Devone Boggan will be giving his yearly report to the Commission. (HRHRC Agenda)
A footnote on the definition of "Forensic Audit"
There is nothing wrong with not-knowing. But intentional ignorance is something else. When people at the last council meeting pointed out that the term "forensic audit" implied criminal action or at least legal action of some sort by every definition of the words, Booze dug himself in deeper by misquoting a dictionary.
In his PowerPoint he says:
"This is not a personal attack on any specific person or program. I want to define Forensic Audit as it is defined on eHow.com as having several goals, 'A forensic audit, an examination of an organization's or individual's economic affairs, can have several goals, including mapping cash flow/cash transactions, identifying accounting errors and enumerating total assets.'"
However, if you look at the source you will find out that this is not an exact quote at all but one cobbled together and then taken out of context. eHow's main point is that the audit is for a legal proceeding. eHow.com's definition:
A forensic audit is an examination of an organization's or individual's economic affairs, resulting in a report designed especially for use in a court of law[emphasis added]... [A] forensic audit can have several goals, including mapping cash flow/cash transactions, identifying accounting errors and enumerating total assets."
Wikipedia's definition of forensic:
In modern use... the term "forensic" is effectively a synonym for "legal" or "related to courts".
Similarly, Councilmember Ritterman recently posted on Facebook:
Councilmember Booze's claims that he is interested in transparency ring hollow. He has been dogging Devone Boggan since before he was on the city council. This is a personal vendetta of Councilmember Booze's and it is a misuse of city council time and energy. Not one person spoke in defense of Councilmember Booze's suggestion for a forensic audit. Director Devone Boggan has earned the respect and appreciation of the neighborhood change agents, the ONS fellows, The California Endowment, The California Wellness Foundation the National Council on Crime and Delinquency and the Richmond community. Councilmember Booze is hurting one of our city's most important efforts to help at risk youth and reduce crime. The work of ONS has received international attention as a best practice and its working in Richmond. It’s time for Devone Boggan and ONS to receive the praise, appreciation and support which is their due and for Councilmember Booze to stop his hurtful attacks on Director Boggan once and for all.
It is possible that Booze’s PowerPoint will never see the light of day, at least on television in the Richmond City Council Chamber. City Manager Bill Lindsay, who is committed to a formal review of ONS is recommending that Booze’s item be tabled and wrote the following to City Council members on March 25:
Mayor McLaughlin and Members of the City Council:
As you may be aware, there are two items on the March 27th City Council meeting relating to the Office of Neighborhood Safety. The first is, “Receive a Report from City Council Policy Intern Anna Johnson on the Office of Neighborhood Safety.” The second is the item that was continued from the last meeting, “Direct the city manager to contract with an outside agency to conduct a forensic audit of the Office of Neighborhood Safety.”
The City Council rules are very clear that an item may be placed on the City Council agenda at any time by any Councilmember. Thus, purely from the perspective of authority and legitimacy, it is appropriate that these items be considered by the City Council. However, I recommend that these items be tabled indefinitely by the City Council before discussion even begins, as the City Council discussion and discourse by members of the public on these issues would be incendiary and would not lead to informed policymaking.
First, let me state that I believe there is a need for a comprehensive performance audit of the Office of Neighborhood Safety (ONS). The purpose of a performance audit is to assess the extent to which an organization is achieving its mission economically, efficiently, and effectively. The City has completed performance audits of various functions during the past several years through its internal audit program, and these audits have been very useful as we seek to improve our operations. Such an assessment is intended to be, and has been in the past, objective and systematic, and conducted by individuals that are qualified in the field. A performance audit of the ONS will require an individual or organization with significant knowledge of the services and objectives of ONS (i.e., violence prevention and street outreach), and, as such, will be different from other performance audits that we have recently completed.
Several weeks ago, Finance Director Jim Goins, Devone Boggan, and I met with potential funders of a comprehensive performance audit of ONS. We discussed the potential scope of services, timing, and consultant outreach so that procurement of a qualified auditor and the audit work can proceed using non-City resources. Because of the availability of outside funding, the scope of review can be significantly greater than other performance audits that we have recently completed, and, we believe, significant value can be added to the ONS program as a result.
I met several times with City Council Intern Anna Johnson as she proceeded in her work to evaluate the Office of Neighborhood Safety at the direction of Councilmember Boozé. I respect her intelligence, her technical abilities, and her conscientiousness in working on this project. In meeting with her, I also understood her frustration and concerns in having difficulty gathering information to complete her work. However, her completed work does not address the core purpose for which a performance audit needs to be completed: whether the ONS is achieving economy, efficiency and effectiveness in meeting its organizational mission to reduce the incidence of gun violence in Richmond, especially among youth ages 16-25. Her work, as described in her report, is also characterized as an “investigation,” implying that the project was the result of perceived misconduct. This characterization is unfortunate at best. I believe that any function in any organization can be improved, but such improvement begins with an objective and systematic review of policies and procedures in the context of the organizational mission. It does not begin with an “investigation” which reflects bias.
I want to make it clear that there is some value to the work completed by Ms. Johnson and I appreciate her efforts. However, a presentation to the City Council of an “investigation,” not using objective and systematic professional auditing standards, and not completed by one with significant knowledge of the services and objectives of ONS (i.e., violence prevention and street outreach), will not serve a useful purpose toward informed policymaking, and will be needlessly divisive for the City Council and for the community.
The second item on the agenda, to “direct the city manager to contract with an outside agency to conduct a forensic audit of the Office of Neighborhood Safety” is equally misleading in its implied intent. By definition, a forensic audit is “The application of accounting methods to the tracking and collection of forensic evidence, usually for investigation and prosecution of criminal acts such as embezzlement or fraud.” (www.businessdictionary.com) To the very best of my knowledge, there is no evidence that has been brought to my attention, nor to the attention of the Finance Director, nor to any member of City staff, that would in any way suggest that there is such a concern. Like all departments, financial activities of the ONS are included in the scope of the independent financial audit of the City that is conducted on an annual basis by an outside contractor. The suggestion that a forensic audit of ONS is necessary, like the suggestion that there needs to be an “investigation,” reflects bias, and will not serve a useful purpose toward informed policymaking. Even a City Council discussion of this proposal, when there is no underlying basis in fact that there is the need for such a forensic audit, is divisive and incendiary.
In sum, I understand that the City Council has a legitimate interest, and an obligation, to evaluate the City’s programs with a goal to better serve the community. This can best be accomplished through informed leadership. I believe that these agenda items do not advance this goal, and, in fact, take us a step in the wrong direction. Even a debate on the merits of the ONS report, and of the forensic audit proposal, will do harm. As a resuIt, I recommend that these items be tabled indefinitely by the City Council before discussion even begins, and that the City Council and staff be allowed to continue existing efforts to improve City services in a professional manner.
Sincerely,
Bill Lindsay
City Manager
Tempers flare in Richmond over proposed audit of Office of Neighborhood Safety
By Robert Rogers
For the Contra Costa Times
Posted: 03/22/2012 11:50:42 AM PDT
Updated: 03/22/2012 09:47:14 PM PDT
In a City Council chamber where impassioned theater is routine, Tuesday's meeting was tumultuous, even by Richmond's standards.
The kindling for the flared tempers was Councilman Corky Booze's agenda item calling for a "forensic audit" of the Office of Neighborhood Safety, a city agency with a distinct approach to stemming street violence.
ONS staff and supporters think Booze has a vendetta against the agency's director, DeVone Boggan, and they came to the council meeting in force to defend him.
Police officers had to restore order several times, and at least one speaker was removed from the chamber.
Booze pulled the item from the agenda when he saw the turnout, calling his proposal "premature."
"I knew they were going to raise hell, so I pulled (the item) to give myself more time to get my PowerPoint presentation together," Booze said during a telephone interview the next day. Booze said he plans to bring his agenda item back and make his case for an investigation at the next meeting Tuesday.
Despite pulling the requested audit, more than a dozen public speakers weighed in to support ONS, sometimes directly accusing Booze of spurious motives in seeking to impugn the agency. Boggan is already raising money for an independent performance evaluation. "Why do you feel like you want to break us down?" Kevin Muccular, an ONS agent, said to Booze during public comment. "I feel like it's something personal between you and (Boggan)."
Muccular alleged that during a street corner chat with Booze in 2010, Booze told him, "If I win the election, I want to bring ONS and Boggan to their knees."
The agency, created in 2007, has enjoyed growing praise as violent crime and homicides continue to ebb in the city. More than 1,500 people have been supported in varying degrees through its services, which center on appealing to teens and young adults identified as most at-risk of committing violent crimes.
ONS staff provide conflict-resolution counseling, and the agency gives the at-risk individuals, called "fellows," monthly stipends of as much as $1,000 that are funded by grants.
Supporters say the financial incentives are powerful tools to get fellows to leave lives of violence and apply themselves in school and technical-training programs.
But criticism has dogged the agency. In October, a fight broke out in a third-floor suite at City Hall among several men from rival neighborhoods who were enrolled in ONS' "Operation Peacemaker" fellowship program.
The incident exposed rifts between ONS and the police department, which initially complained publicly about ONS agents' lack of cooperation in the investigation. No charges were filed.
Earlier this month, Boggan announced he is seeking at least $375,000, most in private donations, to fund an evaluation exploring the effectiveness of his agency's programs.
Booze thinks Boggan's plan is aimed at pre-empting his audit.
"(Boggan) wanted to get out ahead of me because he knew I was coming with this audit," Booze said. "This agency has a $3 million budget, and it is my fiduciary duty to ensure that the dollars of the people of Richmond are being spent properly."
But Booze's detractors see it differently. Councilman Jeff Ritterman said Booze's unsubstantiated attacks on ONS were a "real problem."
"Violent crime is Richmond's most serious problem," Ritterman said. "We have something that's working. Let's throw our support behind them."
Support within city leadership for Booze's efforts to initiate a forensic audit of ONS appears shaky. No one on the council spoke in support of his suggestion, and debate was closed on the pulled item before he could respond -- beyond a few testy exchanges with some of the speakers.
But Booze, known for his bare-knuckle approach to city politics, is undeterred.
He said he had a two-hour meeting Wednesday with City Manager Bill Lindsay on the matter and criticized Lindsay for defining "forensic audit" during the council meeting as "looking for evidence of criminal wrongdoing."
"If you define the word forensic, it means to take it apart and dissect it and see if anything is wrong," Booze said Wednesday. "My intent had nothing to do with this 'criminal' stuff. I am about transparency ... why the push back?"
RETURN