Schaaf's Pattern of Campaign Violations; Judge Orders Chief's Direct Supervision of IAD; Press Event Celebrates Coliseum Sale; Thao Confronts Recall Proponents at Endorsement Meeting

PEC Settlements Show Pattern of Campaign Violations by Former Mayor Schaaf Involving Millions in Contributions

A set of draft settlements that will be presented to the Public Ethics Commission next week for final approval detail a "pattern" of unlawful behavior on the part of former Mayor Libby Schaaf. Libby Schaaf as an individual and as a principal in the committees faces thousands of dollars in fines. The Commission will be the ultimate arbiter in approving the settlements, and will have authority over fines; the fines could be increased or decreased. It's unclear who is ultimately responsible for paying fines directly to the committees or how they will be paid as all three are defunct. Other notable officials and public figures such as Port Commissioner and ALCO Trades Secretary Andreas Cluver and Chamber of Commerce Chair and Port Commissioner Barbara Leslie are also named in the settlements.

Individuals named, include:

—The Oakland Chamber of Commerce as a whole.
—Zack Wasserman, the Chair of the SFBCDC and Chair Emeritus Board Member of the Chamber of Commerce
—The Oakland Police Officers Association [OPOA]
—Jonathan Bair, who later went on to work for Schaaf and principal of a Slate Mailer that supported Loren Taylor, Treva Reid and former Schaaf employer, Ignacio de la Fuente in 2022
—Ernest Brown, a principal in local YIMBY organizations
—Schaaf go-to campaign consultant Doug Linney

The settlements paint Schaaf as the unifying force of malfeasance in three separate independent expenditure committees that together raised and spent over $2 MM on campaigns between 2018 and 2020. Those committees are Committee for an Affordable East Bay [CAEB] in 2020, and the Oakland Fund for Measure AA [OFMAA] and Oaklanders for Responsible Leadership [ORL] in 2018.

The committees were filed by various individuals as non-candidate and officer holder committees, and there were therefore no limits to the amount they could raise or spend on Oakland races under campaign finance law. But the PEC settlements say those designations were incorrect. At the heart of the PEC investigation is the finding that the committees did not qualify as non-candidate controlled committees—any committee where an elected official or candidate has “significant influence” over the activities, fundraising and spending is candidate-controlled according to state legislation. Schaaf had "significant influence" over the committees, the PEC says, relying on definitions from advisory communications from the Fair Political Practices Commission [FPPC], the body that oversees campaign finance law in the state of California, as well as legal precedent.

The PEC, which has been stymied by its inability to enforce subpoenas in the past—most recently with members of Duong family and the principals behind two linked committees involved in the Thao recall campaign—also noted that Schaaf and others agreed to voluntarily submit their communications and documents. Schaaf and others contend they were ignorant of the law and violated it unintentionally. Regardless, the parties to the settlements for CAEB and OFMAA admit culpability under Oakland’s municipal law, and accept the terms of the settlement [the Measure AA settlement includes no admission of violation of Oakland laws, but also accepts the settlement].

The committees raised and spent a combined total of over $2 MM, with Schaaf’s guiding hand behind the ads, leaflets, mailers and campaign materials that they disseminated, according to the investigation findings. The PEC also fined major donors like Julian Orton, the principal in a development company at the time poised to lease or purchase the Oakland Civic Auditorium, who gave over $100K to Schaaf’s Measure AA fund.

An additional effect of Schaaf's significant, but undisclosed, role in the committees was incurring another violation of raising funds over the legal limit for a “candidate-controlled” committee. The Committees should have filed as candidate-controlled, which carries a donation limit, but given Schaaf's hidden involvement, they did not. Two of the committees were found to have violated this law.

Two of the committees saw their goals brought to fruition. Brooks lost her 2018 re-election to Schaaf ally and favorite Loren Taylor. Measure AA ultimately passed after a legal battle on the definition of its tax status. AA was directly linked to Schaaf and she often appeared in its literature, ads and events, giving her an additional source of promotional marketing while she ran for and won her second term in office.

Kaplan won her race by a considerable margin, despite the nearly $200K intervention by the committee Schaaf authored and co-ran.

ORL Was Created to Replace Brooks with a Friendly CM

Schaaf’s direct role was perhaps most visible in the anti-Desley Brooks PAC, ORL, according to the PEC. The settlement notes that Schaaf was the creator of the anti-Brooks committee, a group she organized and developed from scratch with the help of a friendly campaign consultant Doug Linney. Linney, a Schaaf go-to consultant, recounted to the PEC that she invited him into the effort, saying, “Let's do an IE campaign against Desley, and let me see if I can get some other folks involved to make it happen.”

The PEC is direct in its claim that Schaaf created the campaign:

“Mayor Schaaf was fundamental in selecting ORL’s personnel, shaping its
strategy, and determining its messaging. She also initially reached out to professional campaign consultants about starting an independent expenditure campaign, asked Doug Linney to produce a written campaign plan, and continued to have significant participation in ORL even after the campaign was underway. She was a regular attendee at ORL meetings, which were meant to discuss ORL strategy. Mayor Schaaf also made suggestions as to who should be the “public face” of ORL, and remained in personal, one-on-one contact with Linney throughout the campaign.”

At Schaaf’s request, Linney produced the relentlessly disparaging public ad campaign and targeted voter activation that helped Loren Taylor win Brooks’ seat. Schaaf apparently approved the plan. The settlement goes on to describe how Schaaf directed the selection of a “public-facing” proponent for the campaign—someone who would be “believable as a decision-maker on this,", in Linney's words.

After first failing to find anyone in D6 who would assume the role of lead protagonist for the committee to beard Schaaf’s control, Schaaf convinced Jose Dorado, a recent selection panel appointee to the Oakland Police Commission, to do so. In media coverage, Dorado was given credit for running and organizing the campaign.

Schaaf had direct input into campaign materials and their messaging, as well as who to promote as a Ranked Choice Voting [RCV] slate to oppose Brooks, according to the PEC.

The public record shows that two in Schaaf's proposed RCV slate—Natasha Middleton and Loren Taylor—had direct ties to Schaaf and that all but one of Brooks' opponents had direct ties to her. Middleton was a former Schaaf Council staffer and was appointed to two commissions by her. Another candidate, Mya Whitaker, had been previously chosen by Schaaf for a non-official selection panel for the the hiring of a police chief. Marlo Rodriguez, one of the RCV slate, was a complete independent who raised little in funding, had no institutional endorsements and had consequently little chance of winning.

A public record release shows that Taylor approached Schaaf in late 2017 seeking her support for a venture into political office or appointment, unsure of what body or role he should target. The record of emails shows that Taylor met with Schaaf in late November on the question. By the first week of January, Taylor had filed paper work for the D6 race, quickly receiving support from Schaaf and a large proportion of her funder base.

The PEC also notes the direct involvement of Andreas Cluver in the PAC. Cluver is a Port Commissioner appointed by Schaaf as well as the Secretary/Treasurer of the Alameda County Building Trades. That organization and its member unions gave tens of thousands to the effort. The PEC names Cluver as one of the individuals involved in the messaging of a door hanger that encouraged voters to vote for anyone on the ballot for D6 but Brooks. Schaaf reappointed Cluver to the Port role in 2020.

OakPAC, the Chamber of Commerce’s standing campaign finance committee, was used as a “pass-through” committee with the effect of the donors not appearing on ORL paperwork or official documentation, according to the PEC. The settlements describe the role as one negotiated by Schaaf with Leslie and Wasserman. The contribution option was explicitly proposed to major donors by ORL.

Schaaf Retooled the Focus of CAEB and OFMAA

Schaaf was the driving force behind reshaping the two pre-existing committees as well. Schaaf retrofitted the Oakland Fund, which perennially assisted various campaigns. Schaaf also recast East Bay Housing Action, which began its existence as local YIMBY-driven East Bay for Everyone, but morphed into an IE dedicated to the election of Derreck Johnson over Rebecca Kaplan under Schaaf’s guidance. Neither of the committees listed Schaaf as a principal in their paperwork but neither would have been involved in those campaign financing goals had it not been for direction from Schaaf.

Shaping a YIMBY Committee into a PAC to Attack Long-Time Rival Rebecca Kaplan

The PEC details how Schaaf influenced Jonathan Bair to transform an inchoate YIMBY associated finance campaign into one dedicated to attacking sitting At-Large Council person Rebecca Kaplan and promoting Derreck Johnson, a Schaaf ally. Bair would go on to become a Schaaf staffer and run a slate mailer campaign committee supporting Schaaf allies.

The stipulation describes how Schaaf reached out to Bair, convinced him to focus on the at-large race, and then independently researched and recruited the tools and support organizations needed for the purpose. Schaaf brought on the key content producers and strategists for the effort, and they created the campaign plan, materials and ads. Some of the ideas were Schaaf’s.

The settlement notes:

“At the same time that Bair’s committee was getting organized, Mayor Schaaf was looking to assist another potential independent expenditure effort in the At-Large Council race. On her own initiative, she contacted campaign consultants about the costs of an independent expenditure in those races – information that she later provided to Bair after getting involved with his campaign committee. Mayor Schaaf also arranged for Bair to meet with herself, Todd David, and others for purposes of planning how the At-Large effort would be structured. Mayor Schaaf contacted Lyft and secured a $100,000 contribution to the PAC, for purposes of running TV ads supporting Johnson and opposing Kaplan. The original YIMBY volunteers with Bair’s committee were not informed about this plan until after it was already in motion. Some of them even quit in protest rather than accept money from Lyft. The TV ad campaign would not have been possible without this money from Lyft…”

There are some mitigating factors in the anti-Kaplan committee case, according to the PEC—though Schaaf occulted her control and shaping of the committee she did publicly align herself with it by reporting the $100K solicitation. Schaaf, in her role as Mayor, solicited the funds from Lyft, a target of a Kaplan tax legislation proposal and opponent of some Lyft-bike contracts—that $100K became the backbone of the fund, though Schaaf directly solicited tens of thousands of more funding herself. The compromising contribution done without input from the original members of the group caused some volunteer members of the committee to depart and she later reported soliciting the contribution after consulting the PEC’s director at that time, Whitney Barozoto. Lyft used its committee opposing state worker protections for its drivers as the vehicle for the contribution to Schaaf’s committee.

Schaaf also received and repurposed an OPOA poll on the at-large race for messaging—the OPOA gifted the polling data to the Johnson campaign. Johnson's campaign director Michelle Hailey then sent it to Barbara Leslie, the Chamber of Commerce head who redirected it to Schaaf. The PEC notes the polling data should have been reported by both the OPOA and the Johnson campaign as a $38K in-kind donation. The PEC recommends a fine of $23.9K to OPOA for the violation.

Reshaping the Oakland Fund
Schaaf also approached the Oakland Fund, a standing committee that often raised money for political campaigns about becoming the main funding platform for Measure AA. Measure AA had started as a Schaaf-initiated ballot measure, but failed to get through city council. It was then taken up by a private group, which managed to collect sufficient signatures to place it on the ballot. The PEC report suggests that Schaaf then went about constructing her own funding platform for promoting the ballot measure via the Oakland Fund:

“Mayor Schaaf contacted the Oakland Fund and asked them to become the vehicle for the Measure AA campaign. Mayor Schaaf was also fundamental in selecting the key personnel and consultants that worked on The Oakland Fund’s Measure AA campaign and raising its funds. Mayor Schaaf recommended SCN Strategies to develop and advise on the campaign plan, and SCN remained in that role throughout the entire campaign. Initial budget and strategy meetings with SCN took place at the Mayor’s initiative and with her key mayoral staff present, including [David] Silver. Silver recommended the members of the “campaign committee,” advocated for George to be brought on as a key campaign manager/consultant, and continued to help with fundraising. The Mayor was also responsible for raising a major portion of the campaign’s funds.”

The PEC revealed that some volunteer campaign principals were “confused” about their role in the Oakland Fund campaign, and thought that they were simply “ministerial” workers, carrying out assigned tasks, not managing the fund. SCN ran the campaign with partners the organization brought in itself. Along with Measure AA, campaign ads and materials often linked Schaaf visually to the Measure in virtual campaign ads for her own mayoral re-election.

Seasoned Campaign Finance Experts Who Nevertheless Were Ignorant of the Law

In her defense, Schaaf and others contend that they weren’t aware that their involvement violated the law. But the participation of Zack Wasserman in at least one campaign is relevant to the claims that Schaaf and others didn’t know their activities violated the law. Wasserman himself has used this claim in the past when attempting to excuse fines from the PEC for a client who he had wrongfully advised to donate to the legal defense fund for Lynnette Gibson-McElhaney—despite being a contractor in the blackout period for donations. During this same period, Wasserman was the principal for the legal defense fund committee. The PEC notes Wasserman's long years of experience despite accepting his claim at face value. Leslie and Schaaf also have run campaign finance committees for years.

City Officials, AASEG and Community Members Publicly Celebrate Signing of Coliseum Sale

At a special press event on the Coliseum grounds Tuesday, Mayor Sheng Thao and AASEG CEO Ray Bobbitt led a celebration for the historic signing of sale agreements for the Coliseum site. The complicated sale process has followed one of the more fraught narratives in recent Oakland politics, combining several different political arcs, including: the departure of the A’s; the combative relationship between County and City; the long-time institutional neglect of East Oakland; and the City’s ongoing revenue and expenditure imbalance in Oakland’s post-ARPA budgeting and post-Covid economic realities.

Thao announced the completion of the sale in a tweet and press release to journalists over the Labor Day weekend last Saturday August 31, but during the press event Bobbitt and Thao added more details about the City and A’s portions of the sale.

More Steps Necessary to Secure Ownership

Bobbitt told reporters during a Q&A session that although the A’s have sold their ownership stake in the Coliseum, the transfer of the Disposition Agreement [DA] the A’s still currently hold with the County requires a vote from the ALCO Board to transfer the DA to AASEG. The structure of the A’s sale in 2019 required yearly payments but had an immediate payment clause if the A’s were to leave the City. Media reports from late 2023 suggest the payments were made, but the A’s are still in the last stages of the purchase with the County and still under the DA. Bobbitt told reporters that AASEG is working with ALCO staff to schedule legislation for the transfer, which he believes should pass easily.

“[ALCO BOS] is on recess right now, so we’re working with their staff and some of the electeds to figure out exactly when that will be on the agenda, but we’re pushing it to be on very quickly,” Bobbitt said.

In both the City and County/A’s transactions, AASEG will not be able to take full ownership of the site until 2026 when the bonds that both body’s hold on the site will be finally paid off.

City Payment Timeline

Thao told this publication that the initial $5 MM deposit outlined in the term sheet with AASEG was paid to the City, but that the first tranche of $10 MM has a 20 day grace period and had not as of last Tuesday completed transfer. Thao suggested that there’s little concern about the payments being received within a timeline sufficient to meet budgetary obligations.

“So, we will get that [$10MM]…” Thao said. “The contingency is being followed, according to the resolution…there’s no updated contingency that needs to happen.”

The “contingency budget”, according to the mid-cycle budget amendments legislation passed in July, would be triggered if the first tranche has not been received by September 1, the second tranche of $15 MM by November 1, or the remainder $33 MM by January 1. The timeline for cuts to begin should the money have failed to have been received would be October 1, however, within the 20 days that Thao stated.

City Officials Praise for the Sale

During the event, Thao, Assistant City Attorney Ryan Richardson, At Large Council Member Rebecca Kaplan and City Council President Nikki Fortunato Bas all spoke in celebration of the deal and praised the parties involved. Richardson, who is currently running for City Attorney, called the negotiations and its successful resolution the “highlight” of his career.

Thao and others sought to retrieve the impact of sale from the confines of the budgetary discussion of the past few months and position it as a historic investment in East Oakland and in the city in general.

“This has been a work in progress for Oakland’s future, this is an investment, a drop in that bucket for what is to come. Many people thought that institutional capital was fleeing Oakland, that’s not the case. When you are able to be innovative and think out of the box, you know what the Coliseum is, you know that this is the place to be in the Bay Area,” Thao said.

Bas lauded the sale as a long-awaited beginning of East Oakland development and noted that the sale could represent a new chapter for Council cooperation, briefly alluding to the divisive budget process that was based on expectation—and doubt—on the sale.

“As we go back into the session, I want to make sure that we carry forward the spirit of collaboration, of love for our town, of solutions…to make even more investment, even more housing, more jobs, more community benefits happen, not only for East Oakland, but the entirety of our city and our region, Bas said.”

“We have community members coming together with business partners and we are showing that that kind of unity can provide great accomplishment, great accomplishment that serves the current moment, but also will provide revenue and jobs and opportunity for decades to com,” said Kaplan, who is also has a seat at the Coliseum Joint Powers Authority and was involved in the process.

AASEG, Community Members Celebrate Deal

Bobbit highlighted the excitement in the Black community, given East Oakland’s shouldering of the City’s challenges, with its higher share of homelessness, joblessness and as targets of lethal violence.

“You have no idea how excited the East Oakland community is about the process. We thought about bringing all of East Oakland to this press conference, but instead of doing that we’re going to have a large celebration within our community about this,” Bobbit said.

Carolyn Johnson, the CEO of Black Cultural Zone, and the developer of another city-owned parcel two miles up the 73rd avenue corridor at Eastmont Mall was effusive about the potentials of the deal. At one point Johnson rallied a standing ovation for the sale.

“This is what we’re talking about right here, what we can do for our community, for us, by us, with us. This is not only going to be a beacon for the East Oakland Black Cultural Zone, this is a beacon for Oakland, for Alameda County, for the Bay Area, for California…this is amazing, what we’re doing is amazing,” Johnson said.

Orrick Orders Direct Supervision of IAD by Chief, Regular Meetings with Monitor After Revelations of Tran Fiasco

After an NSA meeting punctuated with collective frustration about the ongoing failures at IAD and consequent enduring court oversight process, Judge William Orrick has ordered that OPD's Chief be placed within the "organizational chart" of OPD as a “direct-report” superior for IAD. Per Orrick’s order, the Chief will now on “ a daily basis, bear final and full responsibility for the activities of the Internal Affairs Division”. Orrick also noted that the OPD will remain under court oversight.

The order likely is a response to statements made by the Chief who presided over the IAD failures at the heart of the court intervention, Lerrone Armstrong. In his defense of his sign off on the Chung investigation, Armstrong has repeatedly said that it was not his role to be aware of the details of the cases. The report on Chung found Armstrong's claim to be "not credible." During the NSA meeting the day before, Orrick was already circling around the idea of restructuring IAD directly under the Chief and he identified the IAD’s Tran investigation as the direct reason the OPD would remain under oversight.

“The issues involving officer Tran require the court to continue to extend the oversight. I have a real question in my mind, whether it's necessary to mandate the internal affairs report directly to [the Chief]... I don't want another chief to say, ‘gee, I didn't know about it. It wasn't my responsibility. I couldn't have, I have too many things to do. What? How could I possibly know about this?’ You own the department at this point,” Orrick told Chief Floyd Mitchell.

Other statements in the order by Orrick suggested his concerns about the previous administration of Armstrong and interim chief Darren Allison under which the most egregious IAD failures occurred.

“...the Court can no longer tolerate the lack of integrity, consistency, and transparency with which Internal Affairs has operated. The resolve and attention of the new Chief is required to put the Department back on the path to sustainability of the NSA.”

Orrick also ordered regular meetings with the Court Monitor, OPD Chief and City Mayoral and City Administrator officials, as well as the City Attorney. At those meetings, OPD will be required to discuss notable cases with the Monitor and City staff. The meeting was an anti-climactic end to the period of OPD gains on other tasks like pretextual stops and racially influenced violence that was widely expected to end with the termination of NSA oversight.

Orrick’s order came a day after the most recent “case management conference” , the regular court meeting which allows the parties involved to report and reflect on the current status of the NSA requirements and the City and OPD’s ability to meet them. The recent revelations of a bungled IAD investigation into Phong Tran under Armstrong cast a long shadow over the proceedings and Orrick did not hide his frustration with all parties after over two decades of NSA oversight.

"I want you to throw away whatever speeches you have...cause I'm not interested...I don't want to hear how we got here. I want you to address meeting obligations and any forward looking solutions to this problem,” Orrick said to the assemblage.

OPD's Flagrant Clearing of Tran at the Heart of Order

The IAD’s Tran investigation began when a witness recanted their testimony that put two men behind bars for a murder investigated by Tran almost a decade ago. The witness said she had been both paid and coerced into falsifying testimony by Tran, something she’d regretted for years and was finally moved to correct. A judge later set aside the convictions attained through Tran’s police work, releasing the two after a decade in prison. Tran was later arrested and charged by the DA for perjury and other alleged crimes. DA Pamela Price has publicly stated that the actions have caused the office to look at 125 cases based on Tran’s police work, which may potentially cause more cases to be vacated.

But despite recanted testimony and vacated convictions, the IAD investigation exonerated Tran. As Oaklandside originally reported, the Community Police Review Agency [CPRA] at some point began an investigation of the IAD process that exonerated Tran, along with a third party firm. That investigation found that executives in the IAD structure had impeded the internal investigation and manipulated it so that it would find no wrong-doing, despite the very obvious impacts in the justice system. The CPRA investigation, which is legally binding, led to recommendations of terminations for some members of the executive staff—including Leronne Armstrong’s spouse—and the recommended suspension of Armstrong, who had already been fired by this time.

The most recent monitor’s report alluded to the investigation as the driving rationale for pulling the OPD out of compliance on tasks focused on internal discipline.

Plaintiff Attorneys Stop Short of Calling for Receivership, Orrick Opposes It

In their case management report to the court, plaintiff attorneys Jim Chanin and John Burris wrote that revelation of a fracassed IAD investigation had convinced them that bold measures would have to be taken, up to and including court receivership. OPD had been placed under a kind of receivership in 2012 by the court, which at the time created the Compliance Director position to increase OPD accountability.

But during the meeting, Chanin and Burris hesitated to call for immediate receivership. Chanin for his part said that he would want to see OPD and the City write a report identifying the specific problems with the Tran investigation and the remedies for them. He said that if OPD failed to be truthful about the case nor offer substantive remedies, the Court should move to receivership.

"The court should entertain placing the OPD in receivership. It's a harsh remedy...the City is moving backwards with compliance," Chanin said.

Orrick was immediate in his response.

"Let's not go to receivership....give me anything else that will move the ball forward,” he told Chanin.

Burris for his part was also disinterested in receivership. Burris suggested regular meetings with the court, instead.

“And so I'm suggesting that the court involve itself more so, either regularly scheduled meetings or random type meetings, but somehow, through its own staff...but have checks and balances on these things to see whether or not the reports themselves are being properly looked at at the early stages, not later, not when four or five offices and command people have rubber stamped it, but along the way,” Burris said.

Burris has consistently backed Chief Armstrong, even going so far as appearing on a local blogger’s podcast to suggest that Thao had gone too far in suspending Armstrong in the weeks after her move. Burris has also contributed the maximum amount to Armstrong’s at-large council candidacy, according to campaign finance records. Some of that support may have been reflected in his comment that the City’s actions seemed to be shuffling the deck chairs “on the Titanic”, and clearly seemed to want to move away from a focus on the Chief of Police.

“I was listening to the chief as I've listened to all the other chiefs down through the years, all of whom, as the Court has said, and I also believe, have exercised good faith…all genuinely excellent people who all had best intentions in mind, but in listening today, I'm thinking about the Titanic and shuffling and expecting a different result, and then we've had in the past,” Burris said.

Orrick Drills Into Direct Chief Supervision

Orrick seems to have partially agreed with both Burris and Chanin, suggesting that a more direct scrutiny from the court and City on the process, not its finished products, was necessary. But his questioning of Chief Floyd Mitchell about why the current IAD structure silos the Chief from the internal investigation process revealed his view that serious restructuring of the department is required.

Mitchell, who’s held the position for about four months, seemed open to the idea of restructuring, saying he’d already rebuilt aexecutive team. Mitchell identified OPD’s issues as a matter of culture that drove the failure to abide by policies. But he also warned that one of OPD’s substantive issues is a lack of staffing.

In contrast to Armstrong, who, while still on the job, but on administrative leave, disparaged the NSA process and maligned the Monitor as a money-focused fraud, Mitchell said he was committed to the process.

“It's not about checking a box to get out of the negotiated settlement agreement or court mandated oversight. It's about true organizational change of the Oakland Police Department and how we view our responsibility and relationship with our community,” Mitchell said.

During her brief comments, Mayor Sheng Thao directly blamed Armstrong and former Mayor Libby Schaaf for the past failures and suggested that she’d hired Mitchell because he was outside of the OPD culture. Thao also suggested that Mitchell may very well retire after this current role and so he has no incentive to “sweep things under the rug” to advance.

“I want to be very clear for the public to know too, that this case involves the previous Chief, Chief Leronne Armstrong and the previous mayor…I was looking for fresh eyes to come say, You know what, whatever culture is here that is not headed in the right direction...because we're talking over 25 years…”

Surprisingly, the OPOA’s resident counsel, Rockne Lucia, seemed most supportive of the IAD structure answering directly to the Chief.

“So I think it's a little bit out of the box. It's something I've ever heard of in my 40 plus years of internal affairs division having a direct report to the chief of police. I actually think it's a great idea, because you're talking about cultural change,” Lucia told Orrick.

Thao Confronts Recall Proponents at Democratic Party Central Committee Endorsement Meeting, Committee Votes to Oppose Thao Recall

During an unusual and often raucous endorsement meeting, Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao faced off with her main antagonist, recall proponent Brenda Harbin-Forte over the local Democratic Party Alameda County Central Committee endorsement process. The meeting, plagued with poor sound quality, process and moderation due to significant participation via zoom placed Thao just a few feet from Harbin-Forte, where the two were allowed to plead their case about whether the committee should endorse the recall, or endorse it's rejection

Harbin-Forte told reporters she would step away from the principal role behind the recall and held a press conference where her sister, Gail Harbin claimed she would now be leading the campaign. Harbin also took over the role of Treasurer for the campaign’s finance committee; Harbin-Forte's name no longer appears on the committee's paperwork.

But during the meeting, Harbin read from a prepared statement on her phone often with visible coaching from Harbin-Forte who was sitting next to her. Harbin said that Thao had created a “surge in violent crime” by firing Leronne Armstrong, the Oakland police chief who oversaw one of Oakland’s most significant violence and homicide increases in 2021 and 2022. Harbin also claimed that Thao’s firing of Armstrong led to the City’s failure to escape the NSA federal monitoring.

Thao in her response said she’d been denied a reasonable chance to get results during her time as Mayor before the recall began less than a year after she took office. She said crime had decreased under her tenure and, and recounted her time in court just hours earlier defending the City after the NSA monitor found the City out of compliance on the Tran investigation, which occurred under Armstrong. Thao, mere feet from Harbin-Forte, suggested that bitterness from having failed to garner Thao’s reappointment to the Police Commission motivated the recall.

“If you’re upset with me because I didn’t reappoint you to the Police Commission, I’m sorry…I’m sorry but this is not a seat beholden to one person, this is an appointed position appointed by the current mayor,” Thao said, with inaudible crosstalk from Harbin-Forte.

The Committee voted to endorse a No vote on the Mayoral recall.