Statements captured in notes from meetings between D6 CM Kevin Jenkins’ Chief of Staff and City Council members suggest that Jenkins has had a substantive role in encampment management policy amendments currently sponsored by D7 CM Kevin Houston—and that the amendments evolved from a proposal Jenkins had initially co-authored with Houston’s predecessor in the seat, Treva Reid. The notes also reveal some of the logic and perceptions underpinning the amendments. Council President Jenkins, who was not present in the meetings, says he has no knowledge of their content.
The meetings, led by Jenkins' Chief of Staff Patricia Brooks with a "sequential" quorum of city council members, prompted the Oakland City Attorney [OCA] to issue a Public Notice of Brown Act Violations report on September 8, ahead of the September 10 Public Safety Committee meeting that introduced the legislation for deliberation. Though the report was published on the OCA website prior to the meeting, the Oaklandside was the first media organization to report on it on September 16. The OCA notice appears to have not been mentioned in the Committee deliberations on September 10.
OCA Reports Brown Act Violations, Releases Meeting Notes in Public Interest
The report documents that Jenkins’ office and CM Kevin Houston violated the Brown Act by having “sequential” meetings about the policy with more than 4 Council members [a quorum of the Council is 5 CMs] behind closed doors. With the inclusion of Jenkins’ Chief of Staff and Houston, the meetings eventually individually involved every member of the City Council at that time and/or their staff. The OCA report includes the meeting notes, which the OCA states alerted the office to the occurrence of the meetings, as an attachment. The report doesn’t identify the source that sent the notes to the OCA or when the meetings were held, but the content suggests that most would have happened in early May*.
This timeline would have placed the meetings about two months before the legislation was introduced at Rules for scheduling by CM Houston on July 24. Houston appeared at that Rules Committee meeting requesting an August special committee meeting date for the encampment management policy revisions. Jenkins, the Chair of the Rules Committee, suggested a Special committee meeting with a September date instead.
The OCA report itself notably characterizes the involvement of Brooks, who led the meetings, as a representative of the D6 office, not as an attendee in her own capacity or in aid of CM Houston. Brown Act requirements for Council member communications extend to their staff members. The OCA report states that the office first contacted CM Jenkins and CM Houston about the violations before making the notice public. From the point of view of the City Attorney, Brooks participated in the meetings as a representative of the D6 CM, Jenkins.
Meeting Notes, if Accurate, Suggest Jenkins' Role in Amendments
The OCA violation report states that the goal of the Brown Act is to "have the formulation of positions and deliberations occur during a duly noticed public meeting". In the end all the CMs seated at the time influenced the draft behind closed doors due to sequential participation in meetings about the policy, a violation of the public's right to view the process and speak to legislation.
But some statements in the notes, if accurate, suggest that Jenkins played a more substantial role in the encampment management amendment legislation. A note from a meeting with D3 CM Carroll Fife states that Patricia Brooks told Fife that Jenkins had begun revising the Encampment Management resolution with CM Treva Reid and had continued the efforts after her successor, Houston, had been elected. The notes say that Jenkins “has been collaborating with CM Houston” on amendments.
The notes state that in another meeting with Brooks and staff of CM Janani Ramachandran, Brooks told staffers “the project was initially started by Mayor Jenkins and CM Reid, and after CM Reid left office, CM Houston stepped in.”
Jenkins Disputes Involvement
Jenkins has publicly stated that he did not have knowledge of the meetings or their content because he was Interim Mayor when they occurred. When contacted about the contents of the report, including the notes, CM Jenkins sent this publication the response below by email, which he insisted be published in its entirety or not at all. Jenkins continues to maintain he didn't participate in the meetings or have knowledge of the conversations in them.
“I take the Brown Act and transparency very seriously. While the City Attorney raised concerns about the process around recent encampment policy discussions, no decisions were made outside of public view. At the time these meetings took place, I was serving as Mayor and focused on citywide issues across Oakland. I did not participate in or have knowledge of these conversations. As the current Council President, I am committed to ensuring all deliberations happen openly, with full public input—especially on urgent issues like homelessness and how we manage encampments. Oaklanders deserve trust, accountability, and real solutions, and that is how we will move forward together as a city.”
Brooks Says a "Junior Staffer" Interpreted the Meetings in Notes, but Declines to Confirm Accuracy
According to D6 Chief of Staff Brooks, who contacted this publication after Jenkins sent his statement via email, the notes were written by an unnamed D6 council aide. Brooks stated that she herself was ultimately responsible for the existence of the notes and said the content “was surmised by an inexperienced junior staffer,” but declined to explain further or confirm whether the notes are accurate.
Per Notes, the Amendments are Rooted in Belief County is Responsible for Housing Evicted Encampment Residents, Not City
The notes also lend other insights into the process of crafting the amendments which had input from the offices of all Council members in office at that time: At-Large CM Rowena Brown, D1 CM Zac Unger, Interim D2 CM Rebecca Kaplan, D3 CM Carroll Fife, D4 CM Ramachandran, D5 CM Noel Gallo, D6 CM Jenkins and D7 CM Houston, who officially sponsored the legislation.
In conversations with various staff and CMs, according to the notes, Brooks said the policy was based on an understanding that the County, not City, is required to house homeless residents after an encampment closure. Notes from the meeting with aides from the office of At-Large CM Brown, for example, allege that Brooks stated “once individuals leave tents, the situation becomes classified as a public health issue”—meaning that the County is responsible for housing evicted homeless individuals.
According to the notes, Brooks also told CM Unger that the term of the court decision around storing belongings confiscated during closures would end in 2026, allowing revision of Oakland’s policies about how to handle the property of homeless people experiencing closure actions. The notes say that the proposed amendments would exclude vehicles from property under the definition.
Brooks told staff of CM Unger that she did not believe the “re-encampment” ban policy was enforceable because OPD lacks the staffing, according to the notes. Unger then suggested removing unenforceable language that may also appear to “criminalize poverty". Per the notes, Brooks insisted that it was important to have the text “on record” to “deter re-encampment.” The current draft states those who attempt to "return" to a previously closed encampment site are subject to citation or arrest.
*after the Mosswood Encampment eviction which was complete by the first week of May, and before the 12th st Encampment eviction which was begun in mid May
Comments ()