Rules Committee’s Caution on Agendizing “Sanctuary City Affirmation” May Reflect Governor's Concerns on Trump/MAGA Retaliation
Interim City Council President Noel Gallo promised residents he would bring legislation addressing Oakland's potentially precarious situation for immigrant residents last month at an immigrants' rights event. So far Gallo hasn't produced any new legislation, but Gallo's effort at scheduling a largely symbolic "sanctuary city" reaffirmation resolution at the Rules committee received little support—a potential signal of a fraught road for a City Council weighing efforts to combat MAGA politics amid concerns of punitive federal actions.
Opposition to Gallo’s legislation “reaffirming” Oakland’s “Sanctuary City” status through resolution was unanimous among his fellow Rules members, and even included a non-member, D7 CM Ken Houston at the meeting. Houston led on the issue by taking to the public comment lectern and urging the Committee to refrain from scheduling the legislation.
Word from the Top to Refrain from "Sanctuary" Symbolism
Though Houston objected to the resolution on several grounds, he echoed rumors that Oakland’s and other cities’ officials had been advised by California Governor Newsom to refrain from introducing sanctuary city affirming legislation when he mentioned Newsom and Interim Mayor Kevin Jenkins—Jenkins and Newsom attended a recent conference of California urban Mayors in early February. Houston said a reaffirmation would provoke Trump during a time when Oakland’s ongoing access to Federal resources remains an open question.
“I don't understand it. Are we just poking the eye of the new presidential administration? The Governor… Newsom mentioned…don't do it…[and] Lateefah Simon...our Mayor...why are we doing it? We already know this is a sanctuary city,” Houston said.
A source with direct knowledge of closed door conversations in early February suggests that Newsom in no uncertain terms has instructed California mayors to refrain from agendizing sanctuary city affirmations, a reality that seemed to be reflected between the lines of the statements at the meeting. Fife, for example, also mentioned that the Mayor had spoken to Gallo about the legislation earlier in the day as she suggested that the idea return as an informational report on the Sanctuary City policy.
“If we're reaffirming something that nobody knows, not even some members of this Council, as we heard earlier today, [an informational report] is similar, but it's a little different. It's clarifying. What does it mean for Oakland? And it makes it clear to the public what it is that we affirmed years ago…so what I'm suggesting is we do a title change, but actually talk to the mayor's office and bring him in…I know he, he talked to you [Gallo] earlier today,” Fife said.
Oakland’s City Council in 2016 proposed and passed legislation strengthening and enumerating policies in Oakland's 1986 “City of Refuge” resolution in the weeks after Trump’s victory in 2016. The resolutions made it de facto OPD policy to refrain from lending assistance to immigration services or reporting undocumented residency to federal authorities for years in Oakland, though the terms were to some degree unclear—an issue that became came into focus during the administration of former Police Chief Anne Kirkpatrick.
The policy was later recast as a Sanctuary City policy ordinance with more binding language via ordinance in 2018. That policy prohibits the OPD from lending aid to ICE enforcement actions except in the case of a “public safety emergency”.
Concerns of Fractures Between Immigrant and Black Oakland Resident Communities
In his delivery, Houston often referred to his own background, which he said was mixed with Latino and Black descendance as giving him insight into “both” worlds. But Houston also suggested that the appearance of agendizing solely the political situation for Latino immigrants might alienate the Black Oakland public. While Fifepointed out that immigrants in Oakland belong to several different ethnicities, including Eritrean and Yemeni, she agreed that to some extent that the City might exacerbate an appearance that trends towards outsized help for immigrant communities over generational Black resident communities.
“I am torn as an African American woman in the city of Oakland…[whenever] we have policies that seek to support what I believe is the rainbow coalition with everyone else except African Americans, we move it…I see a dwindling Black population, a homeless population that is over half the individuals living on the streets in Oakland who look like my aunts and uncles. I see all of the ways that this city has failed Black people, and yet I still understand that the indigenous folks who gave birth to their great, great grandchildren, who are now considered illegal, are being targeted in this country,” Fife said.
Partnering in Services Over Legislation
Both CMs Janani Ramachandran and Rowena Brown suggested that the City put its efforts into informational roundtables and support information with the County and partner organizations.
“I just wanted to add that I would love the opportunity for us to kind of mirror some of the things that we see taking place, not only at the state level, but also at the county level, with hosting round tables with our Oakland communities, kind of similar to what councilmember Fife was mentioning to really, kind of get feedback on what are some of the needs in this moment, and how we can support these various communities with our already existing Sanctuary City policy,” Brown said.
“The fear that people are experiencing is compounded by a lot of times bringing attention to issues to unleash the wrath of this incredibly unpredictable federal government… I think there's a difference between actions that we take that provoke the monster and the unpredictability that's unleashed from that versus actions that we take to inform and acknowledge we are standing firm as a sanctuary City,” Ramachandran said.
Gallo notably resisted the attempt to recast the resolution as an informational report, at first appearing to believe the two were essentially the same thing. After some back and forth, and being assured by the City Attorney’s office they were not, Gallo agreed to change the title of the item. The item was scheduled to bypass the committee and to go straight to Council on a 3/18 agenda. That agenda has not yet been published.
With “Serious” Allegations in CPRA Queue, DVP Director Muir Warns Against Further Defunding of CPRA in Farewell Statement to Oakland Police Commission
In a frank address to the Oakland Police Commission, departing Community Police Review Agency [CPRA] Director Mac Muir warned Commissioners that the CPRA’s capacities could soon be compromised unless its budgeting and staffing are stabilized and increased.
When Muir took over the role in June 2023, the office was, by his own account, in disarray from lack of permanent leadership for nearly a year, with a large backlog in CPRA cases. In the aftermath, some cases missed statutory deadlines and were dismissed without resolution. Muir warned that the Commission could expect at least that level of disarray—if not more, going forward. In 2023, CPRA had a responsive budget, unlike the one its entering, with both layoffs and a budget slashed to the bone.
“I'm warning you that in advance, that if those layoffs proceed, and I really hope they do not, I hope we're able to retain the investigative staff, certainly that that [delays in closing cases may] be a consequence…I've made clear these concerns to the city in writing, so there's not going to be any confusion if we we end up in dire circumstances,” Muir said.
Muir said that the CPRA is currently working at a fast pace to close as many cases as possible and create a “runway” for the incoming interim director and the potential for reduced staff to deal with fast-approaching deadlines. Muir also warned that the CPRA is in danger of violating the charter if it remains at 5, rather than the required, 7 minimum investigators.
While Muir hasn’t said exactly why he is leaving the role after less than two years, he outlined several reasons about why it could be hard for the Police Commission to attract a CPRA Director. Muir bluntly told Commissioners that the at-will status of the job undermined the ability of the Director to do the job.
Muir is the fourth Director to leave the job in a little over 5 years. Interim Director Anthony Finnel was fired in 2019 as he bridged the agency from its beginnings as the CPRB to the CPRA. Just two and a half years later, Finnel’s successor, John Alden was also dismissed. Because both were at will, no stated cause was required for the dismissals. After Alden’s departure, his Chief of Staff Aaron Zisser took on the role as an interim, with some expectation that he’d take over the job permanently due to his own advocacy for the role. But Zisser left after just five months as interim in 2022.
Muir also hinted that a diminished CPRA could pose problems with recruiting a new director. Muir said that for his own part, he was attracted to the role because of its promise to build a state of the art oversight agency—the idea especially of managing a transition from IAD to CPRA, which would set a standard nationally, made the role especially appealing. Muir said he still believed the CPRA could complete the transition and urged the Commission to continue fighting for it, but also acknowledged that there’s no longer enough staffing to do so in the short term.
“What drew me here in the first place, was understanding that the ability to transition these responsibilities would have a big imprint nationally on police oversight…So now we have our budget challenges, and we went from being budgeted for, if I remember correctly, 31 folks to take over the responsibilities of Internal Affairs to 14 that we have today, and potentially fewer as we do have pending layoffs at CPRA,” Muir said.
Muir encouraged advocates and Commission to fight for the full budgeting of the bodies, and also mentioned a proposed parcel tax ballot measure currently in limbo, meant to fund Oakland’s oversight agencies–the PEC, Commission, CPRA, Office of the Inspector General and Auditor.
“I really encourage this commission to work with as many stakeholders as possible to defend CPRA budget. This has serious consequences for police accountability in Oakland moving forward, and it's not that much money that makes a huge difference for this agency. It's a few investigators, and we understand that there is going to be a very difficult financial time, but it's one where we need to invest in our institutions that have accountability, that hold people accountable.”
Muir also suggested that the CPRA has overseen cases of serious police misconduct of interest to the public—though prevented by disclosure laws from making them known.
“We saw some really significant investigations, many of which may not see the light of day, but we know that internally, it reflects real attempts at accountability and perhaps as the appellate process in any given case, or as the disclosure laws change...ss that develops, some of that information will be out in the coming years. It has been an ongoing challenge, the prospect that maybe only a small handful of cases that we've worked on while I've been here over the last two years will actually become available in a reasonable course of time,” Muir said.
Comments ()