Police Commission Heads Into Uncharted Territory on Chief Hire; Oakland City Council Meeting Preview 10/03/2023

Oakland Police Commission Enters Uncharted Territory, Upcoming Meetings in Question

After months of infighting, the Oakland Police Commission [OPC] entered a new phase of instability this week as a showdown between current leadership–Chair Tyfahra Milele and Vice Chair David Jordan–and several other Commissioners seeped into the Oakland Police Chief hiring process. The latest Commission fissure occurs around Milele’s agendizing of a “town hall” during a regular open session meeting with the focus of deliberating whether former Oakland Police Chief Leronne Armstrong should be “reinstated” to the role.

In the lead up to the meeting, two Commissioners, Marsha Peterson and Regina Jackson, sent emails to the Commission, city agencies and, apparently, local media, stating their intention of boycotting meetings until Jordan and Milele term out of their seats in mid-October. The two added that they were concerned about alleged threatening physical postures by Jordan during a closed session meeting. Jordan and other witnesses dispute that characterization of events and say its a pretext to deny quorum before Jordan and Milele’s terms end.

Though Peterson and Jackson both reference the alleged incident with Jordan, Jackson also notes her concern with the legitimacy of “fast-tracking” Armstrong and giving the appearance that he can be “reinstated”. A third Commissioner, Alternate Karely Ordaz *, joined with Jackons an Peterson to contact media ahead of the meeting. Following the revelations by the Commissioners, Milele, in a memo on Commission letterhead, vowed to continue the "town hall" as an iteration of the hiring ad hoc committee if quorum couldn't be reached. Milele decried the "continuing pattern" of missing meetings by the Commissioners.

The emails follow another missed meeting by the same group of three commissioners on Thursday, September 14,  which had to be re-agendized for the following Monday to conduct necessary business. Jackson missed that meeting as well, though Peterson and Ordaz attended.

For her part, Milele’s recent action seems to lead both the Commission and the City into uncharted territory. The Commission has the Charter mandated role of assembling a slate of at least three candidates for ultimate selection by the Mayor for the Chief position. The Commission can’t hire the Chief; the Commission’s sole role is to put out a job announcement and prepare a list of at least three candidates for the Mayor’s ultimate selection. The Mayor cannot make her own list of candidates, she must hire from the list or send it back and ask for a new one. The Charter no longer allows a Mayoral administration to unilaterally hire a Police Chief as it did before the advent of the ballot measures responsible for the Police Commission.

Milele has signaled in more than one instance that the Police Commission could include Armstrong in a set of candidates, but it’s not clear if that requires Armstrong to apply for the job, and it’s not clear if he has done so. Milele has also stated that the Commission could recommend Armstrong be “reinstated”; though that’s apparently not an option allowed in the Charter. Armstrong, as all Oakland’s Chiefs of Police, was an at-will employee, and his termination did not hinge on the completion of the administrative process he requested upon receiving notice of termination. He has no legal right to return to his job, and there is no path for him to do so, even if Thao desires it.

No Show for 3 Commissioners

As promised the three Commissioners missed the meeting. A second alternate who could have bridged the gap to quorum, Angela Jackson-Castain, has missed all meetings since the section panel passed over her application for full Commission appointment; she also did not attend. As promised, Milele, who sits on an ad hoc hiring committee along with Jordan and Commissioner Rudy Howell, convened a session of that ad hoc to hold the "town hall".**

According to the video record, about 25 residents came to the meeting and some of those were clearly reporters and camera technicians. 16 people spoke to the body, only two of which opposed Armstrong holding the Chief position again. Speakers included ex-Commissioner Brenda Harbin-Forte, who mischaracterized the arbitrator’s report as an “order” [it’s not binding]; Council member Noel Gallo, who spread wildly inaccurate misinformation about the Federal Monitor; and Brenda Grisham, who is leading a campaign to recall Alameda County DA Pamela Price.

Several of the speakers wrongly believed that Thao had violated the law by firing Armstrong before the outcome of the administrative hearing. Some also believed that the report was the product of a court hearing with binding outcomes. Others incorrectly thought that the administrative process should have taken place before Armstrong’s dismissal and could have stopped it. All of those who supported Armstrong believed that Thao could, through a unilateral act, reappoint Armstrong.

“The verdict is in, innocent. [Armstrong] should be immediately returned to his job. He should not have to go through an application,” said Ben “Coach” Tapscott during his comments.

Commissioners didn’t address comments from the body or public, and Milele ended the meeting by simply stating that the Commission has limited powers and could either recommend reinstatement [which is not possible] or add Armstrong to the slate of candidates.

Unclear Near-Future

It’s unclear what will follow last week’s events. If Jackson, Peterson and Ordaz make good on their claim, there may not be another open session of the Police Commission before the terms of Jordan and Milele end in mid-October. The Chair and Vice Chair's tenure ends in the first week of the scheduled process to review a list of candidates for potential submission to the Mayor. Jackson has argued in her email that the process can continue in the hands of the hiring consultant and thus the missed meetings won’t affect the timeline to hire the Chief.

It’s also unclear if the Commissioners declared intentions to frustrate quorum can trigger a process of adjudication and dismissal with the Council. The Council can remove Commissioners with an affirmative vote; the Commission would also have the predicate for removing Commissioners after they miss three consecutive meetings, but would apparently need quorum for that. Though the hiring ad hoc committee can continue to meet without quorum, the current impasse, if it continues, leaves the Police Commission unable to hold meetings where binding votes can occur.

After the meeting, Vice Chair Jordan sent Oakland Observer a statement suggesting he viewed the town hall as ultimately unproductive due to how “polarized” and politicized the discussion around Armstrong has become.

In my time on the Commission, I've tried to maintain an inclusive and nuanced discourse while addressing the issue before us. Last night, I don't think we accomplished that. I still believe publicly engaging with the conflict surrounding the chief position has value. Though it has become so polarized, full of accusations, sloganeering, and catchy headlines, we seem to have lost the middle space where true dialogue can be fruitful. I had hoped for a broader spectrum of community voice but it seems that only those on one side of the issue felt empowered to engage us on the topic, which honestly has been an ongoing concern in general. I hope we can find a way to change that in order to strengthen our process.

What's At Council This Week

This week’s Council meeting isn’t as stacked with legislation as meetings have been recently, but Council members will nevertheless have to grapple with some difficult conversations as two weighty reports come before the body for deliberation and discussion. First the City will discuss a recommended and required response to the Alameda Grand Jury’s report on Oakland’s 911 system. By law, the City must respond in writing to the report, first regarding legitimacy of the issues; then on the recommendations to address them. Council will review the City/OPD response before it becomes official and it's possible Council will add amendments or deletions.

Council will also finally review a required Redistricting Commission “charter report”, a charter-mandated overview and critique of the process prepared by the Commissioners. The report was first published by the Commission almost a year ago in December 2022, and it's not clear why its being agendized for discussion now–it reached the Rules Committee in April and originally was scheduled for July, but it was bumped before summer recess.

The General Plan, which was voted for unanimously in a special meeting on Tuesday morning will have its second reading, but it's unlikely it will get much discussion on the Consent Calendar. On September 29, the City posted a synopsis and report on the GP on the Oakland website which you can read here.

Redistricting Commission Charter Report

Before 2021, the Oakland Redistricting Commission’s [ORC] inaugural year, the City Council remapped Oakland’s legislative district lines every ten years as mandated to balance populations in Oakland's seven Council districts–a process that many critiqued as a magnet for political favor-doing and self-interested boundary creation. Legislation crafted by the City Council and presented to the public as Measure DD in 2014 recast the process as a resident-led independent body that would begin its work in 2021. Oakland's City Charter requires the Commission to issue a report following the process, which the ORC completed and published last December. Council is finally reviewing the report, nearly a year later.

Per Report, Redistricting Faced Covid, Other Problems

For the inaugural body, an initial number of commissioners were picked randomly from a screened list of applicants for the ORC; thereafter, those Commissioners chose the rest of the Commissioners and alternates. But from the start, the redistricting commission faced problems, according to the report–Covid landed in Oakland right as the process began. Commissioners couldn’t meet in person and meetings were held on zoom. The federal census on which the Commission would rely for the data necessary to redraw boundaries was delayed due to the pandemic. And for the first several months of meetings, the ORC had little–and sometimes no–public engagement.

As the report recounts, however, those were just the start of the fledgling Commission’s worries. In the earlier days of the pandemic fewer residents understood how to access the meetings or how to use Zoom, curtailing public access. The report finds this was exacerbated by the failure of the City to properly advertise the process–according to the report, billboards and radio ads had been planned, but they never came to fruition.

The Commission also faced polemical decisions like how to include the affluent and whiter hills areas–especially in light of a report by Darlene Flynn, the City’s Race/Equity Dept Director, that backed an initial map which would have carved certain hills areas into their own single district in an effort to strengthen flatlands voting power. Then, another battle erupted over which district would get the Coliseum, D6 or D7.

Ultimately, the Commission missed its deadline to create a map, and had to go into overtime to do so–allowed as contingency in the original charter language. That required a City Attorney intervention to prevent the state from drawing the map instead. Regardless, the Commission struggled to maintain quorum for the remainder of the meetings necessary to pass a map.

The report notes that the Commission was unprepared to gauge and critically engage with the boundary issues for the Oakland school district, issues that came up during live meetings where some Commissioners admitted they did not know what the redistricting goals should be for OUSD. As the report notes, those with idiosyncratic knowledge of the school district issues, took lead haphazardly. Other issues were unique to Oakland–such as the fact that while East Oakland’s Latino population outstripped the Black population in the last ten years, the Black Citizen Voting Age Population remained higher in both D6 and D7.

The report also suggests the Commissioners weren’t adequately capacitated to gauge community Zoom participation and emails vs legitimate Community of Interest [COI] input. The Commission struggled with evaluating claims of COI from residents sending in petitions via email and participating collectively via Zoom.  Language access was also a particular sticking point for the Commission that exacerbated the perception that genuine COI were unable to fully make their voices heard. The report concedes that the Commission never achieved a unanimous definition or even understanding of relevant criteria like COI.

Live mapping was also arduous and difficult to follow or make transparent, the report notes–the struggles were exacerbated by a flood of, in the larger view, a minority of Oakland residents overwhelming live mapping processes during public comment periods with opinions Commissioners lacked tools to parse as representational. The report literally refers to the character of public commentary during meetings as the “decibel” level.

Recommendations, But Failure to Dig into Details

The report has several recommendations, mostly focused on amplifying the amount of city and independent consultant support the Commission gets; amplifying and improving the mapping technologies; having better understandings on how to engage and evaluate public opinion; and better education for Commissioners on all aspects of the legal aspects, process and technical aspects of mapping and demographic analysis. The report also recommends using print media, billboards and radio platforms as well as direct mailers to advertise the next redistricting process as well as a method for direct input from residents that can be tallied and captured in a cohesive way.

During the Rules committee discussion, some CMs expressed concern about the way the mapping consultant–Redistricting Partners–was chosen. In a brief response in an accompanying report, staff responds that there are few companies that specialize in redistricting expertise, and that RP came well regarded for its work with a similar independent process in Long Beach, Ca.

But the report often lacks depth and suggests recommendations without serious reflection on the issues that motivated them. For example, the report suggests the elected Chair of the Commission refrain from unduly influencing votes through their position, but declines to analyze the issues that came up with significant lobbying of Chair Lily Gangas. And the report fails to get at the more troubling issues of the Commission’s vulnerability to political pressure and connections to political bodies. D6 CM Loren Taylor inserted himself into the redistricting question over the Coliseum, and called for supporters to bombard the Commission with demands that the Coliseum go to D6.

Current D4 CM Janani Ramachandran’s residence was cut out of the district she was in the midst of running to represent in one of the penultimate maps, and appears to have participated in public pressure in an ultimately failed attempt to change the lines to include her neighborhood again–despite clear guidelines that forbid the Commission from considerations of incumbents or political candidates. An inordinate number of the Commissioners were principals in local organizations with long-standing ties to political actors, including the Unity Council, EBALDC and Allen Temple Baptist Church, which has a representative on the Coliseum Joint Powers Authority Board. EBALDC and Unity Council in particular have contracts with the City of Oakland and are currently developing City-owned parcels with City assisted funding processes.

An accompanying and spare report by Darlene Flynn appears to suggest the final outcomes were less than optimal, but is so brief, the actual criticism is not clear.

The geographic area of Oakland with the highest concentration of racial disparities, historical disinvestment and political disenfranchisement received the least consideration and engagement with residents of this community of interest. Sadly, the current arrangement has measurably underserved this community with tragic results. While this was a missed opportunity to address the history and tensions this analysis raises, the Commission has documented the challenges it faced that contributed to leaving these issues unresolved.

The report also acknowledges more connectivity with Flynn’s department and a focus on creating an equity informed map are crucial. But the statement also elides an egregious failure at the Commission that may have been deliberate. During mapping in an intermediate stage of the process, Flynn sent the Commission a supportive statement for map K3, the so-called “hills only” map that would have created a hills district with the intent of creating more voting power in the flatlands.

"Redistricting is a meaningful opportunity to support civic engagement, enhance representation and participation. Map K3 is most promising for accomplishing this end," Flynn advised in the email.

But the Commission ignored Flynn’s memo and Chair Gangas consistently advocated against the map. The process for excluding the map was also questionable; the Commission took a vote excluding the map, rather than whether to adopt it. That meant only a simple majority was necessary to remove K3 from consideration. The Commission brought Flynn in for a presentation at the next meeting, but did not revisit the map Flynn recommended.

City/OPD Response to Grand Jury 911 Report Findings and Recommendations

The City of Oakland and OPD are required to respond to the findings and recommendations of the Alameda County Grand Jury report on Oakland’s 911 response, structure and staffing. Oakland usually has 90 days for a mandated response to such reports, but asked for an extension; this response is due by October 20.

City staff/OPD agree with most of the findings and recommendations in general–like the fact that Oakland takes too long to answer emergency calls, is understaffed and is taking too long to install its Computer Aided Dispatch and records system upgrades. But OPD quibbles with some findings and recommendations, and argues against the specifics, but not spirit, of some of the recommendations–like the Grand Jury’s recommendation to add 15 managerial staff. Oakland argues 37 staff of various grades should be added instead. The report also contains a table with the proposed spending line items for $2.5 MM in additional funds that are being returned to Oakland from the Oakland Coliseum Joint Powers Authority. The Council can amend the staff/OPD responses by vote.

The response is fairly brief and straightforward, and can be read here [Attachment b]:

Consent Calendar:

Tuesday's Consent Calendar is a mix of items coming for their second required vote [including the General Plan], and items forwarded unanimously by respective committees, including the infill catalytic grant for affordable housing, and various reports that won’t get discussion, but will be voted to be received and filed. You can read more about those as well as access the individual item files here.

The Consent Calendar also contains a proposed settlement for the family of Miles Armstead, an Oakland resident who was murdered by neighbor Jamal Thomas after several escalating confrontations. Last year, the family sued the City of Oakland, Alameda County and its probation department as well as the former landlord of the killer, arguing their actions–and OPD’s and ALCO’s failure to detain Thomas, led to Armstead’s death at his hands. The suit names an OPD officer who responded to a penultimate call for service at the Armstead home for emboldening Thomas–the suit claims that by treating both Armstead and Thomas at fault in equal measures, he emboldened Thomas to continue escalating. Thomas was later arrested but allowed pretrial release, which the suit claims allowed Thomas the freedom to kill Armstead. The suit argues that Thomas’ probation officer knew that Thomas was violating a restraining order by stalking Armstead and could have revoked his conditional freedom, but did not, again emboldening Thomas. Thomas is also named in the suit. The City is settling for $450K.

Commission and Board Appointments [the Mayor appoints, Council ratifies by vote]:

Parks And Recreation Advisory Commission:
Kye Whitmore

Commission On Persons With Disabilities
Benjamin Bartu

Public Safety And Services Violence Prevention Oversight Commission
Sonya Mehta

Sugar Sweetened Beverage Community Advisory Board
Marjorie Freedman

Youth Advisory Commission
Reappointment of Brian Ibarra Morales

Housing, Residential Rent And Relocation Board Appointment
John Deboe/Tenant Representative

*Ordaz is a current alternate who has been regularly substituting in the absence of dismissed Commissioner Brenda Harbin-Forte but was recently selected and appointed to a full Commission role that will begin in mid October.

**the Commission began using smaller ad hoc committees to do necessary work with the flexibility afforded smaller bodies that aren’t required to meet state Brown Act requirements on public meetings several years ago.