Attorney General's Wife. with no previous experience, Gets Top Job in Alameda County Domestic Violence Center

 
This is a very short article and commentary on Nadia Lockyer, wife of Attorney General Bill Lockyer, being givena a $90,000 per year job as Executive Director of the Alameda County Family Justice Center, a job for which she seems to have no special qualifications. The article also questions the propriety of her employment, considering her husband's position.

The Alameda county Family Justice Center is one of meny local agencies funded by the Federal Department of Justice's Office on Violence Against Women, (OVW).

The center is relatively new, and there was a recent search for the Execuitve Director. Eventually, Nadia Davis Lockyer was given the top job, which pays about $90,000 per year. (initial pay was $65,000 but extra money was found to make it $90,000. I am researching where the extra money came from)



Here is a link to the brochure she put out on her past work and life experience:

 http://www.alamedacountyda.com/nadialockyer.pdf

if that does not work, please type in:

www.alamedacountyda.com/nadialockyer.pdf

This brochure actually gave me a very good laugh. Ms. Lockyer spends three pages telling us about herself, (which all boils down to she had a lawyer father who was involved in Hispanic politics, and she is following his path) and talks about little volunteer work things she's done, but does not tell us her most important qualification for the job, that she's married to the Attorney General. All she says at the end is, "Ms. Lockyer is married and lives in Oakland".

The name Lockyer is relatively rare. Ms. Lockyer uses it, rather than her maiden name, it would seem she wants to have it both ways. She wants political people to know who her husband is, but she doesn't want the public to realize how she got her job. (a job which is a great political platform, this issue of domestic violence is now thoroughly mainstream)

There is not much question that many long time activists in tihs field wanted the top job. The Center is only ten minutes drive from the Rockridge area which has been a locus for this movement.

I will attempt to find out what intrigues occurred before she got the job, where her salary is coming from and if any ethical rules have been violated, as far as nepotism and special influence by the Attorney General are concerned.


e-mail:: boatbrain@aol.com

add a comment on this article

Variations of Ms. Lockyer's name, in case anyone wants to Google her

Steve White 17.Dec.2006 04:27

Nadia Davis-Lockyer

Nadia Maria Davis-Lockyer

Nadia Davis Lockyer

Nadia Maria Davis Lockyer

Wife of California Attorney General Bill Lockyer

Wife of Bill Lockyer

Wife of Attorney General Bill Lockyer

Wife of State Treasurer Bill Lockyer

Arranged by the District Attorney's Office

Steve White 28.Dec.2006 18:37

After speaking to several people involved in the selection process, I've been told the main player was the Alameda County Chief Assistant DA, Nancy O'Malley.

This was not a big surprise. Alameda DA Tom Orloff is an old ally of Bill Lockyer. In fact, Orloff hired Lisa Lockyer, his daughter, in her first job out of law school. After many years as a DDA, Lisa Lockyer got a job with NASA.

To understand how it worked, it's important to look at who was involved in the process. According to the brochure, there were two selection committees. One for initial screening, the other for final interview.

The first committee was made up of the person who wrote the brochure, (unnamed) and three other people. One of the others was Harold Boscovich, he is a DA staffer.

The second stage was a committee made up again of four people. Of those four, two were local DA staff, prosecutors Karen Meredith and Lisa Foster.

With half the votes in the process, the DA could block any applicant in a tie for the ultimate selection. If the writer of the brochure was Nancy O'Malley, as I suspect, that stage was controlled by DA staff as well.

If Lockyer did commit a crime, under Calfornia Govt. Code Section 81700, he seems to have been helped by three or four people in law enforcement.

Selection process was all for show, Nadia Lockyer is DA staff

Steve White 01.Jan.2007 15:47

I have just received a letter from the Alameda County District Attorney's office which indicates Nadia Lockyer is an employee of that office.

The letter goes on to respond to my Public Records Act request for all info relaated to her hiring. The DA's office claims all the info is exempt from disclosure, except for a brochure announcing the job. So they sent me a copy of that announcement.

The denial of information was expected. What was surprising to me is that Lockyer is an employee of the DA's office. I thought the Family Justice Center was an independent entity which worked with the DA, not a subordinate office.

Under the Alameda County Charter, the District Attorney can hire, fire, and promote anyone he wishes, without any need for approval from other branches of county government. (Alameda County Charter Section 35)

The entire selection process seems to have been unnecessary as far as Alameda County law is concerned. There was no need for two selection committees, or even one selection committe.

Therefore, one has to suspect that process, which was pretty much a farce anyway, was either for show, or was intended to create the appearance of complying with Federal rules on spending the Federal grant money given to the project.

The plot thickens. I wrote to Bill Lockyer and told him if there is any basis for it in California law, (and now maybe Federal law) I will be suing him for violating California Govt. Code Section 87100.

Violations of Federal Laws

Steve White 11.Jan.2007 17:10

It seems there was a violation of Federal Laws in the actions taken to get Nadia Lockyer the top job.

The OVW, Office on Violence Against Women, sent me the following letter:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mr. White:

Thank you for expressing your concerns regarding the Alameda County Family Justice Center. All OVW grantees, including Family Justice Centers, are required to follow the Office of Justice Programs Financial Guide, which is available at  http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/finguide06/index.htm. In addition, grantees must follow certain circulars from the Office of Management and Budget, available at  http://www.whitehouse.gov/OMB/grants/grants_circulars.html.

Thanks again,

Marnie Shiels
Office on Violence Against Women

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I clicked the first link, which as the first page of a book on guidelines and rules for Federal graants, then went to the chapter entitled "Conflicts of Interest"

Reading that, it seems pretty clear Lockyer violated the Federal law, and presumably this is why they went through the big show of pretending to use an objective process to pick his wife for the job.

These folks knew they were doing something shady from the start.

Further evidence is that everyone involved is trying to duck my Public Records Act requests for more information. More on that in my next post

Phony Statistics put out by ACFJC

Steve White 25.Sep.2007 13:37

The first week of September, 2007, the ACFJC announced a large grant from the US Department of Justice, and in the grant announcement, which naturally everyone was very happy about, they added some statistics on how much good the ACFJC had done so far.

The stats were impressive. They claimed "Since it's launch" the ACFJC had reduced Domestic Violence (DV) deaths from 26 to 6 in 2005, and, they had provided services to "20,000 victims and their families".

Both claims were untrue. I checked with the Alameda County Public Health Department, and it turned out there has been a very long term decline in DV deaths, from 26 in 1996, eleven years back, to 6 in 2005. The Center opened in the last half of 2005, in August.

So, that first claim gave the Center credit for something that happened long before it existed. And, by the way the DV death decline is a nationwide phenomena, with the national numbers approaching the same as the county.

As for the "20,000" victims claim, I pointed out to the aide to Supervisor Lai Bitker that I doubted that number was true as well. I had no way to check on it, there was no other agency with hard numbers such as Public Health has for death rates, (actually, the death rates may not be solid numbers either) but I doubted there were that many victims helped. The reason is simple. If you go to ACFJC and just stand outside, watching the people come in, not many do. Not nearly enough for them to have helped 20,000 victims in just two years.

Since the web page has been changed to say, "provided 20,000 services" I think my guess was right there. I think it's very likely, to get that "20,000 services" number, ACFJC included every time they answered the phone or gave out a brochure. Seriously, stake the place out, you may wait a couple hourse before anyone who is not staff comes in.

I don't doubt they are helping some people, but the claims made should bear some resemblance to reality. There was a big push for the need to centralize DV services in the County, but to me it looks like it could not have made much difference in how many people they actually reach. What is lacking is any kind of cost/benefit analysis. By inflating the numbers, the ACFJC was trying to deceive the public into thinking the benefit was much greater than claimed.