6 July 1917 Woodyard Closed for Summer
9 July 1917 City Council Stages Row; New Line-up
10 July 1917 'Retain Bureau' Will Be Appeal
11 July 1917 Denies Attempt to Recall Mayor
13 July 1917 Offer Petition
16 July 1917 Woman's Protective Bureau, Pastor Opposes "Log Rolling"
17 July 1917 Protective Bureau is Abolished by Council (see below)
18 July 1917 Raid On Protective Bureau Is Charged
Oakland Tribune, July 17, 1917
Davie, Edwards and Soderberg Vote to Discontinue Work Headed by Mrs. Whitnah
Petitions Presented by Many Bodies
Action is Taken Before Large Crowd and AFter Many Had Been Heard in Argument
By a vote of three to two the city council today passed the ordinance abolishing the women's protective bureau as an adjunct of the police department, despite a spirited fight made by friends and supporters of Mrs. Beatrice McCall Whitnah, who has held the office of secretary of the bureau since its creation.
Mayor Davie and Commissioners Edwards and Soderberg voted to abolish the bureau.
"I am here to answer any questions and to face all charges that may be made against me," said Mrs. Whitnah, stepping forward after a number of speakers had presented arguments for and against the ordinance.
"Of some of these people I cannot ask questions because they will not tell the truth. All kinds of calumnies have been directed against the bureau and against myself personally and they are absolutely false.
"As for the charge made by Mrs. Caroline Biork that I prevented her from obtaining a widow's pension, I would say that I had nothing to do with that whatever. A foolish stipulation of the law declared that any woman having property to the amount of $1500 cannot be allowed a pension.
"As for the statement of Mrs. Nellie Cook that I took the side of her husband against her, I would say that Mrs. Cook and her husband came to my office and tried to settle their dispute before me. It was a wrangling farmily row which was not settled when they left."
Puts Questions.
"Has the civil service commission ever asked me for anything?" Mrs. Whitnah asked Commissioner Edwards during roll call. "Have I ever failed to co-operate with you?"
Edwards admitted that she had not. Mrs. Whitnah also asked Commissioner Morse and Commissioner Soderberg if they had inspected the records in her office and were satisfied that they were of such a nature that they should be withheld from publicity. Morse answered in the affirmative and Soderberg replied that he had looked over the records, but had not formed any opinion on that point.
The vote on the ordinance was preceded by the presentation of petitions asking for the retention of the Woman's Protective Bureau from the Women's Social Club, the Building Trades' Council, the Central Labor Council, the Social Workers of Oakland and one hundred attorneys. The communications endorsing the abolishment of the bureau were received from the Taxpayers' League and the Order of Railway Conductors.
Snedigar Not Known
Ollie Snedigar, assistant probation officer, who has been active in that office for the last eight years, was compelled to reveal his identity to Mayor John L. Davie when he arose to address the council.
"Who are you?" asked Mayor Davie.
Snedigar disclosed his name and station and proceeded to make a plea on behalf of the bureau.
He said that during his eight years experience in Alameda county he had become firmly convinced that there is a distinct need for the Woman's Protective Bureau, inasmuch as it performs a work not done by any other agency.
"Undue weight," he said, "has been given to the charity work of the bureau. This is merely an incidental branch of their work. The bureau will be glad to turn this over to the Associated Charities. The work of the bureau goes on in a manner which the public does not realize and the nature of its work is such that the public should not know. It deals with the sorrows and sufferings of domestic tragedies."
Tells History.
Mrs. S.C. Borland related briefly the history of the efforts that were made to establish the bureau. She told of its outgrowth from the work of the Child's Welfare League and made a plea against its abolishment.
"It has been charged against Mrs. Whitnah by the mayor," she said, "that she did not make report to the Civil Service Board. If this be true the council should censure the board for neglecting their duty as well as Mrs. Whitnah."
Mrs. Nellie Bullock of West Oakland spoke briefly against the bureau. She was followed by Mrs. Caroline Bjork, who declared that the work of the bureau was protective only in name. She declared that she had gone to Mrs. Whitnah, then Miss McCall, to endeavor to secure her and in her family affairs.
Her husband, she said, was a drinking man and that she found it hard to make him contribute to the family support. She was not anxious to have a divorce, she said, but Mrs. Whitnah insisted that she should bring her husband to the office of the bureau and talk things over.
"I did so," said Mrs. Bjork, "and I found that my husband's lawyer and herself had it all fixed up between them. She wouldn't listen to me. She told me that I had better agree to a division of the property for I would lose it all if there were a divorce. She dared to tell me that I could live and support my three children on $16 a month."
Mrs. Nellie Cook told another story in which she charged that Mrs. Whitnah had failed to give her protection. She charged that Mrs. Whitnah asked her if she were a member of a church, and that she had replied that she was a member of the Methodist Church, whereupon, said Mrs. Cook, Mrs. Whitnah replied: "I am so sorry. If you were a Catholic I could do so much for you."
This statement was absolutely denied by Mrs. Whitnah later in her speech before the council.
Mrs. Emily Sherman and Assemblyman W.T. Satherwhite also spoke in favor of the retention of the bureau.
Make Statements.
The passage of the ordinance abolishin the bureau was carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Mayor John L. Davie, Commissioners Edwards and Soderberg.
Noes: Commissioners Jackson and Morse.
In recording their votes, Commissioners Edwards, Jackson and Morse explained their reasons.
Commissioner Edwards declared that the city charter had no provision for the creation of the bureau and that it had never been legally in existence. "I believe," he said, "that the charter was not prepared with the idea that such an expenditure of the taxpayers' money should be made. The council must stand between the taxpayers and the taxeaters."
Commissioner Jackson stated that until a provision was made for carrying on the work now performed by the bureau he would oppose its abolishment.
This attitude was also taken by Commissioner Morse, "until such time as we can accurately define the province of the bureau, I believe that it should be allowed to continue in the important work which it is doing," he said.
Mayor's Message.
The Mayor's message follows:
Many protests as well as recommendations have come before this Honorable Body against the abolition of the Women's Protective Bureau. Some completely ignore the reasons given by this Council for abolishing the Woman's Protective Bureau and are so biased as to not warrant an answer. To those open for thought and to your Honorable Body I ask consideration of the following facts.
Mayor Woodman of Los Angeles informs me that the southern metropolis, twice the size of Oakland and known as a progressive city, has not Woman's Protective Bureau or anything like it under public supervision. Los Angeles does charity and correction work under one head--the Associated Charities.
Mayor Wilde of San Diego accords with the stand in Oakland by saying, "The charter of San Diego prohibits the maintenance of charities by public funds, that work being taken care of by private subscription."
From Other Cities.
Other Pacific Coast and Middle West cities, such as Denver, Sacramento, Portland and Kansas City, Missouri, give the same information with Mayor Edwards, saying, "Kansas City has no Woman's Protective Bureau. Our charities and corrections are under the supervision of a Board of Public Welfare appointed by the Mayor and which acts in harmony with private charitable organizations."
To the sensible ones protesting this Council's action I would ask this question, "Is Oakland so wicked, is this city of lowest crime rate in the United States, so immoral that the state and counties are unable to control society or is this protest the proof of the fact that 'once you hire it is hard to fire?'"
Any petition, no matter how lengthy, should be of no consequence to this council if its contents ignore the facts. Those protesting against the pending ordinance abolishing the Woman's Protective Bureau have said much about the efficiency of this department. Kindly consider the following information:
Gets No Reports.
The Woman's Protective Bureau was created by Ordinance No. 576 N.S. December 8, 1913. The Charter made it necessary for that department to be under civil service. The secretary and the assistant secretary obtained their positions by civil service examination, being under civil service in order to be legal. The department is also subject to all rules of civil service governing monthly reports of efficiency, absences, tardiness, etc. Not one monthly report required by the rules of civil service has ever been filed with the civil service board.
The efficiency clerk of the civil service board informs me that it would be impossible for him to make any report upon the Woman's Protective Bureau because there is absolutely no data upon which to base an efficiency report. Therefore, the Woman's Protective Bureau, to conform to the Charter requirements, was placed under civil service and the secretary and assistant secretary given examination, but immediately after taking office the civil service rules have been absolutely ignored thereby making this bureau liegal in its conception but illegal from the date of its opening until the present time.
Says It Is Unfair
The Woman's Protective Bureau is absolutely the only department in the city government that has ignored civil service regulations. This not only raises a question as to the legality of its status, but is unfair to the other departments and employees of the city. Being aware of this condition, I tried over two years ago to abolish this bureau. Failing in this, I requested the secretary to give me a report for the year's work. The ansewr was just like all of the Woman's Protective Bureau's montly statements: it was merely an unofficial summary that shows absolutely nothing.
The bureau's reports will read like this: "Dependent child, two cases Separation, four cases, etc." It could be put at a thousand cases and mean no more. The secretary and assistant secretary could stay at home for six months at a time and make out these bulletins and no one would be the wiser. The Woman's Protective Bureau has never rendered a report since its existence, it has only given out some meaningless bulletins.
My second attempt to deal with this bureau as a department under my supervision was a letter ordering the secretary as a subordinate officer of my department to submit a proposed expenditures to me before incurring them. As yet I have received no answer except through the press, in which the secretary said that she was asking no favors from any official of the city of Oakland and that she would continue her work just as she had, which was not only insubordination, but an affirmation of continuance in disregard of the rules of the civil service and the city charger.
Refuses Responsibility
I do not propose to have the responsibility of such a bureau in my department and I do not believe that this council cares to have the responsibility of such a function in any field of the city's activity.
In conclusion, Gentlemen of the Council, we must not forget the increasing burdens of the taxpayers of Oakland who are contributing over a quarter million dollars annually for charities and corrections. Two hundred and fifty thousand dollars is too great an expenditure when applied to one function and illogically divided between state, county and city. I could not very well advocate a centralization in this work and economy as well if in my own department there was a function of an over-lapping nature and one that has not been found necessary by other cities. This council can best consider a policy of conservation and centralization in this work by passing the pending ordinance abolishing the Woman's Protective Bureau, which has no proper place in the city government and which has not conformed to the rule of our city charter and its civil service provisions.