Courtesy photo

John Russo, left, takes on the position of city attorney Sept. 12, 2000. Then-mayor Jerry Brown stands beside him.

If Tuesday night's City Council meeting is any indication, there is little support in Oakland for gang injunctions, despite the city's rising murder rate.

City Attorney John Russo has been the biggest proponent of the injunctions, but he resigned on Wednesday to become the city manager of Alameda. His last day is June 13. No replacement for Russo has been named.

For years, Russo has clashed with Mayor Jean Quan and some council members. Recently, the cost of the injunctions has become yet another flash point.

Oakland has spent more than $700,000 on the injunctions, which are designed to prohibit alleged gang members from associating with one another in certain neighborhoods. Last week, Quan said she wanted to take a closer look at spending on injunctions. “I could run two youth programs for $700,000," she told reporters.

On Tuesday night, City Council members lambasted Russo and police Chief Anthony Batts for failing to provide more information on the status, costs and effects of the injunctions.

The two were expected to deliver a status report on the injunctions, but in a letter to the council, Russo explained his office would not be able to produce another report on Tuesday, citing staffing shortages and preparations for the Fruitvale injunction hearing on Friday.

Council President Larry Reid, who supports the injunctions, read the letter aloud.

The meeting was the first time the full council had debated the strategy, even though the first injunction has been effect in North Oakland for nearly a year. The city is preparing to file a third such lawsuit, while it continues its legal battle for the injunction in Fruitvale.

Some council members used Russo's absence to express their outrage over the lawsuits, prompting cheers and applause from the audience of mostly anti-injunction protesters, and some eye rolls from less outspoken members.

Councilwoman Desley Brooks blasted Russo and Batts for their absence, even though they were under no obligation to be at the meeting. And she took a firm stance against the injunctions, setting the tone for the lengthy comment session.

“The city attorney never received authorization to enter into this litigation and that they would not as city employees come here to provide us with information this evening is inappropriate,” she said.

Brooks said the city charter requires the City Council to ratify or direct the actions of the city attorney. She accused Russo of acting outside his authority, while a representative of the city attorney's office said that because the cases were filed on behalf of the people of the state of California, they fell outside the scope of the City Council.

Brooks was not impressed.

“Oakland is a charter city, and one of the problems we have had consistently with this city attorney is that he's failed to follow the charter,” she said. “I am at a loss for on Friday how they're going to court. No matter how you feel, whether you support injunctions or don't, we can't just blow this off. We have a way we are supposed to operate.”

Taking cues from Brooks, few of the 50 speakers failed to note the absence of the two officials, who have never attended council meetings to discuss the injunctions. As Tuesday's meeting stretched past 10 p.m., other council members began joining in.

“Even more aggravating is that I went on Facebook and I saw John Russo on there, tonight, when he is supposed to be here. Getting a quarter of a million dollars a year. Can you believe that?” scoffed district 3 council member Nancy Nadel.

Toward the end of the meeting, a weary-looking Reid cut off the debate and postponed further discussion and a vote until the council could receive a report. He said the council was not ready to make a decision on the future of gang injunctions in the city.

"We’ll schedule it for an action item, and everybody will see where I stand on gang injunctions,” he said.