The first meeting of 2026 has new controversial rules that may diminish public participation. It's a light agenda, but there's a potentially weighty issue on the Consent Calendar
The first meeting of the new year will also be the first meeting in which the new Council rules passed in December are in effect—that means that legislation with public hearing requirements and Non-Consent Calendar legislation will be heard before the Consent Calendar starting at 3:30 PM. There are no public hearing items at Tuesday meeting, but going forward items that were intended to have special public transparency requirements will be heard at 3:30 pm.
The only item on the Non-Consent Calendar, ironically, is legislation to place an almost neutral impact ballot measure on the June ballot to change board requirements for a largely aging cohort of OFD and OPD retirees still drawing pension from the Police And Fire Retirement System [PFRS]. That ballot measure, because it requires a charter change, must be heard before the public twice before it can be passed—it was heard the first time at the December 16 meeting and continued to this meeting. Those rules, however, exclude a much more impactful ballot measure resolution that will cost the city $1.5 MM to $3 MM in tax revenue. That legislation did not have the two-hearing requirement under the charter. It was passed on the same day as introduction, on the Consent calendar with no discussion.
A potentially controversial item that has been rescheduled several times in 2024 comes straight to the Consent Calendar, although it's possible it will be moved to non-consent for discussion—the 27th Complete Streets Project contract. The $10 MM contract has been fiercely contested in the Consent Calendar public comment by McGuire and Hester, a company pushed by CM Ken Houston. The company lost the bid, but its principals principals have argued they should have gotten the contract because of their added mentoring programs. Redgwick Construction representatives, which is the winner of the bidding process that will get the contract if Council approves the item, has also commented at the meetings. Redgwick argues that the M/H's "mentor" companies do not meet the burden of Oakland's minority business contract award rules.
Redgewick is opposing the arguments by Mguire and Hester's claims about Cooper and mentor program, saying that MH didn't offer enough work hours to qualify for SLBE, and would cost 1 MM more than Redgewick's bid. pic.twitter.com/tqDXPBTj4N
— The Oakland Observer (@Oak_Observer) December 16, 2025
There's been an ongoing consent dais battle about an awarded bid, Mcguire and Hester wants it, based on mentor relationship with Cooper Construction...and that's continuing today. pic.twitter.com/HrddJRBvYK
— The Oakland Observer (@Oak_Observer) December 16, 2025
In the meantime, as CM Carroll Fife pointed out at the December 16 meeting when the item was last rescheduled, Redgwick was highlighted as the contractor that was doing work in the area ahead of a Hayward gas explosion. To make things more complicated, OakDOT’s Director, Josh Rowan, and CM Houston, have exchanged ethics complaints over bidding processes and comportment. Rowan has complained that Houston unduly tried to sway the contract toward Mcguire and Hester during an open Council meeting. Houston’s complaint was closed last month with no findings of fault on his accusations of unprofessional accusations by Rowan. But Rowan’s remains active.
Comments ()