This Tuesday, it's another short regular meeting–there's one public hearing, and only one item on the Non-Consent Calendar, with 12 on the bulk-vote Non Consent Calendar. This will be the second meeting with the new rules that have Public Hearing and Non-Consent items first on the agenda beginning at 3:30 pm. But now the reversed timing, where the items of stated community relevance are earlier in the day may be more pivotal, because that Non-Consent item is the reconsideration of the Selection Panel appointments of Ricardo Garcia-Acosta and Omar Farmer. The deliberation could result in another set of controversial and questionable Council moves.
On Non-Consent:
Selection Panel Appointments for Police Commission:
As Oakland Observer reported, the Selection Panel re-appointments for the Oakland Police Commission, who are currently serving as the Chair and alternate, will be deliberated on non-consent. The legislative item is in fact two separate items, set up as choice of two opposing resolutions, one to accept the appointments and one to deny them. This is actually the first time any appointments have been presented to the Council in this way. Although the Council always has the option of voting no for an appointment, there may be no example of Council doing so before the body's apparently OPOA-influenced decision to deny the Selection Panel's appointments and the Selection Panel's charter-empowered decision to send them back. And there is nothing in the legislative record that shows a binary item presentation like this one. In the past, the Selection Panel appointments have been listed much as the Mayor's picks are in Tuesday's agenda, as an affirmative choice only.
Council previously denied the Selection Panel picks in a contentious and confused process. But much to the dismay of police oversight advocates, the CMs were short on rationale other than their stated belief that there wasn't enough outreach for the community-driven process. Several CMs claimed that their offices weren't notified as they usually are to amplify the call out for applicants. An accompanying report from the City Administrator's Office confirms that all of the CMs were notified ahead of the process last Spring, however.
The Selection Panel and its advocates have contended that the few number of applicants can be explained by the reality that the two incumbents were strong candidates for the open community-chosen roles and few applicants with legitimate interests in police oversight applied for that round. Reporting by the East Bay Times suggests the Oakland Police Officer's Association influenced the outcome of the Council's decision-making role. At a committee meeting last week, CM Fife evinced skepticism about the Council process on the SP choices, which she missed in October due to travel.
The Council's nearly-unanimous negative reaction to the community-driven choices will be juxtaposed against a congenial vibe for the Mayor's picks for the OPC, which, despite lacking the charter-minimums for appointment, were sent to the full Council on Consent with few questions. Oakland Observer has had point to point reporting on this issue, including the Selection Panel meeting in which the members voted to return the same appointments to Council, as much an assertion of independence as confidence in the candidates.
Update: As an update to this reporting, about an hour before last night's meeting, Oakland Observer confirmed that Wong's background check was still incomplete. His appointment was withdrawn by the Mayor's office as the item was read in to non-consent last night for this stated reason.
See these articles:
Jaime Omar Yassin
Jaime Omar Yassin
Jaime Omar Yassin
Jaime Omar Yassin
Some Noteworthy Items on Non-Consent:
Montclair Parking Facilities Operating Agreement
While the 5 year operating agreement with the Montclair Village Association to run the La Salle parking structure itself is not likely to be controversial, the conversation may range into an upcoming move to shift parking enforcement from OakDOT to the Finance Committee—the shift has largely been opposed by rank and file members of the City's unions and has taken center stage in public comment during the Montclair discussion. There is an upcoming committee deliberation about the decision as well.
MOU Between OPD and Santa Clara Stadium Authority/Santa Clara Law Enforcement for OPD Superbow/FIFA Security Support
The OPD is seeking to send a maximum of 25 officers to Santa Clara to help with Superbowl and FIFA security on Superbowl Sunday in February and FIFA games in the summer. To do that, the OPD has to sign an MOU with those agencies that will outline obligations and monetary compensation and must present it to Council for passage.
OPD hasn't been very articulate about why it should be lending its services in this way, as its own union decries a lack of staffing and the reality that the FIFA deployment will likely coincide with Juneteenth celebrations. Assistant Chief Casey Johnson during the meeting confirmed that mutual aid obligations, where California law enforcement agencies help one another, aren't a very big consideration here.
CM Wang: Would there be a rupture in the relationship with Santa Clara [if Council votes no]? Do you think they may not be willing to return [mutual aid services], or what would be the consequence?
Interim Assistant Chief Johnson: I don't think there would be a rupture. I just think it would send a little bit of a message again. You know, with all the barrier, cities dealing with their own issues, when one city reaches out to another, we try and assist when possible. Again, we also know that we may not always go to assist, but we also like to try and keep those relationships intact, where, if we may need someone, they come to us. If they need us, we go to them.
It's also clear that Santa Clara is not relying on OPD because as Johnson noted, OPD could send fewer or no police if there are staffing issues or critical incidents in Oakland during those times.
One of the more plausible rationales for the MOU was noted by Johnson later in the meeting, when he described the decision about sending the officers as decision between satisfying officers who "want to go to the Superbowl" and doing their job as police in Oakland.
"Again, I get the draw of 'I want to go to the Super Bowl. I want to go work FIFA', right? It's cool. But again, we have a city to protect, and the city is going to be the priority. And so I get that you may want to go, but if we can't fill [Oakland staffing levels], then no one's going to go," Johnson told Public Safety Committee members.
Delegated Maintenance Agreement with CalTrans to Service On-Off Ramps
Despite an agreement that simply pays Oakland Public Works to pick up trash in Oakland-intersecting freeway on and off ramps, this item in committee engendered some heated debate and a surprisingly lengthy discussion about staffing and resources that had a decidedly different negative flavor than the OPD discourse. On the merits, however, it's not controversial.
Comments ()