Reporter's Notebook: Committees Review, 10/14/2025; 10/16/2025

Reporter's Notebook

Rules Committee, the committee that schedules all legislation to the Council's agendas, can be a pretty boring meeting. But this past Thursday's Rules Committee, October 16, was far more exciting [relatively] than usual from a news gathering standpoint. Two arcs that Oakland Observer has been diligently following reached a second act.

Reappointments of Garcia Acosta and Farmer Proceed After Significant Delays and With Uncertain Council Vote Ahead

The Police Commission drama that began with Rules Chair Kevin Jenkins' improper rejection of the reappointments of Garcia Acosta and Farmer looked like it was coming to an end on Thursday. The Council's only legal role in the process is to accept or reject the appointments made by the Oakland Police Commission Selection Panel and that must be done by the entire Council body. The Council can decline the appointments, but that becomes a matter of public record in a publicly noticed meeting. If Council doesn't approve or reject within 60 days, the appointments go through anyway. At the meeting, the Oakland City Attorney Ryan Richardson confirmed that the 60 day countdown began the first day the item was introduced on an agenda for Rules, 9/25.

Jenkins sidestepped this process to claim that "concerns" brought to his attention now needed to be re-adjudicated by the Panel, apparently in a months long process that he implied he was directing the Panel to begin a new—powers he does not possess in the Charter. The City Administrator's Office could not get itself involved in all that, because its role is to dutifully convey the appointments to Council scheduling. And so the CAO brought the item right back to Rules the next week. But at that point on Thursday the 2nd, Jenkins cited Rule 19 of Council Rules of Procedure, which requires the Rules Committee to have substantive discussion over Mayoral appointments to the OPC, as a reason to delay the item again. Jenkins claimed the item now needed to be scheduled to a separate Rules meeting and discussed in open session as a substantive matter.

At that meeting, October 16, a noticeably hurried Jenkins moved the appointments for scheduling to Council without discussion as soon as they were read in, nearly forgetting that public comment on the issue still needed to happen before the vote. At least 15 speakers came to the meeting, a rarity, and nearly all in support of both Farmer and Garcia Acosta and critical of the way Jenkins and the Rules Committee has handled the reappointments. This included members of the all-volunteer Selection Panel, including a statement read into the record for the Chair of the body. Oakland Police Commissioner Wilson Riles, a former Council person himself also spoke, and denounced the claims against Farmer [there are video segments in the Twitter Thread link]. Only two speakers had criticisms of Farmer and Garcia Acosta, both are well-known advocates aligned with a small group of pro-OPD boosters, Tuan Ngo and Rajni Mandal. In her comments, Mandal, a frequent contributor to the conservative OPD-focused Oakland Report, revealed that she was the author of the letter that appears to be the source of the claim of "concerns" about the two Commissioners.

It was clear there was no appetite among members to keep the Rules Committee's hands on the appointment; but as he often has in the past, non-committee CM Ken Houston, appeared and demanded that the appointments go to non-consent. And as often has happened in the past without explanation, the Rules Committee obliged. In non-consent the reappointments have a stronger chance of being voted down than if they were in the bulk vote Consent Calendar. CM Carroll Fife voiced concerns about sending the item to non-consent, but the majority of the Committee seemed fine with it. She was the lone no vote, based on that qualifier.

Should the Council vote down the appointments, the Selection Panel would have to start from scratch with new recruitment and candidates. During the time it would take to recruit, interview and send appointments through Council, the OPC could have only five members, the quorum minimum, with no alternates. The Lee administration could move two appointments during this time, but they would also have to go through the same process at Council. The term of Shawana Booker, a Mayoral appointee, ended on October 16 as well. Mayoral appointees can serve at the pleasure of the Mayor, but Booker could simply step down now that her initial term has finished. The OPC could find itself in a position where it again can't make quorum during the police chief selection process.

Encampment "Abatement" Policy Special Council Meeting Proposed by Houston in Ad Hoc Motion from the Dais

A staffer for CM Ken Houston, the author of the "Abatement" rewrite of the City's Encampment Management Policy, appeared at the same meeting, conveying Houston's request for the scheduling of a special meeting to hear his abatement policy again. When last we heard of this legislative proposal on September 10, it was thoroughly criticized by dozens of members of the public and several CMs expressed concerns about the language. It had some other issues, including the state body that grades the City's state homeless funding applications basically saying it would likely lose Oakland $20 MM in funding. The item was tabled for another committee meeting with no date specified, where CM amendments would be added.

In the meantime, an Oakland City Attorney report that showed that Jenkins was involved in crafting the legislation and that Jenkins and Houston had violated the Brown Act by secretly vetting the legislation in serial meetings with every member of Council ahead of the meeting emerged. All of this gave the impression that the momentum had slowed, and that could still be the case—but at the meeting Jenkins accepted the rationale that the legislation is urgent, and its scope so large that it needs a meeting of its own on October 27. CM Brown pushed back with concerns of ongoing lack of transparency and notice in suddenly scheduling meetings, but in general CMs seemed open to scheduling a special meeting in the next several weeks. CM Fife said she would be travelling during this time, but already has amendments prepared. The discussion ended with the item not being scheduled at that time and Jenkins committing verbally to honoring the concerns in moving forward—but that also means that the pause could have a perverse outcome, with the meeting scheduled outside of any public view, and as a special meeting, which would require little public notice.

Wang Requested OPD's Legislation to Expand City's Surveillance Network Bypass her Committee and Go Straight to Council; Rules Said No

Public Safety Committee Chair Charlene Wang apparently asked Rules Chair Jenkins to convey her desire that a significant expansion of OPD's surveillance apparatus bypass her own committee and go directly to a City Council meeting. Jenkins floated the request, which he attributed to Wang, during the meeting. The request received no support. The Privacy Advisory Commission recently voted to recommend the Council reject the proposal, which would augment the Flock license plate reader units in Oakland with video surveillance units accessible 24/7 by OPD.

At a recent private admission meeting with the Chamber of Commerce, Wang falsely accused the PAC of holding back Flock cameras and said that the body has too many privacy activists.

This is CM Wang claiming at a private Chamber of Commerce event that Privacy Advisory Commission prevented a community from buying Flock w/their own funds, using the story to demonize Commissioners. It's false. Only tech owned/run and/or purchased by City needs PAC approval pic.twitter.com/XXF65tNqU2
— Jaime Omar Yassin (@hyphy_republic) October 16, 2025