I liked your article about the multiple citizens commissions overseeing the police department. No wonder we can't keep police chiefs or officers with this kind of interference. What can the city council do about this mess? What about a charter amendment to get rid of the police commission and put responsibity for the police dept. with the mayor and city council where it belongs?
This is one of the better, most cohesive articles written, regarding why and exactly how the failure of OPD goes on year-after with not a glimmer of hope in sight for ever resolving the myriad of dysfunctions that continue unabated?
Hi Donya, thank you for your comment. We would like to publish your comment in our next Letters to the Editor column. Our standard is to sign letters with the writer's name and city. Would you please be so kind as to let us know your city of residence? You can let us know through private message. Thank you!
Hi, yes. . .Name: Donya Luiz, Oakland, CA 94602 where I reside in the Flatlands, an No.#2 of of the Two existing Oaklands' where then there exists Oakland No#1 where all the wealthier parts of Oakland's residents live, which is "above" MacArthur Blvd an Incl: Glenview, Broadmore and Montclair and south.
Very well written article on the city’s quandary regarding its police department. By every metric, Oakland PD has been a failure. It hasn’t been able to get from under its Federal Monitor, hold onto a police chief, much less get a grip on crime - without outside assistance- CHP, like mentioned in the article. And that Police Commission…..it needs to go.
Perhaps it’s time to look toward contracting with the Alameda County Sheriffs? If the OPD doesn’t exist, will the federal monitor go away? It’s truly worth exploring. The city may even save money in the short term, but it will definitely reduce its pension obligation footprint in the future. It’s time to look at this option.
Not a care by John Burris and Jim Chanin on this matter as they clearly have had a hand in this non-sense.
In fact, I was just informed that for a while, Jim Chanin profited from this arrangement until he was forced out of a role (basically serving as the fox that guards the hen house). If this is true, it speaks volume of the mis-character of Jim Chanin.
I liked your article about the multiple citizens commissions overseeing the police department. No wonder we can't keep police chiefs or officers with this kind of interference. What can the city council do about this mess? What about a charter amendment to get rid of the police commission and put responsibity for the police dept. with the mayor and city council where it belongs?
This is one of the better, most cohesive articles written, regarding why and exactly how the failure of OPD goes on year-after with not a glimmer of hope in sight for ever resolving the myriad of dysfunctions that continue unabated?
Hi Donya, thank you for your comment. We would like to publish your comment in our next Letters to the Editor column. Our standard is to sign letters with the writer's name and city. Would you please be so kind as to let us know your city of residence? You can let us know through private message. Thank you!
Hi, yes. . .Name: Donya Luiz, Oakland, CA 94602 where I reside in the Flatlands, an No.#2 of of the Two existing Oaklands' where then there exists Oakland No#1 where all the wealthier parts of Oakland's residents live, which is "above" MacArthur Blvd an Incl: Glenview, Broadmore and Montclair and south.
Very well written article on the city’s quandary regarding its police department. By every metric, Oakland PD has been a failure. It hasn’t been able to get from under its Federal Monitor, hold onto a police chief, much less get a grip on crime - without outside assistance- CHP, like mentioned in the article. And that Police Commission…..it needs to go.
Perhaps it’s time to look toward contracting with the Alameda County Sheriffs? If the OPD doesn’t exist, will the federal monitor go away? It’s truly worth exploring. The city may even save money in the short term, but it will definitely reduce its pension obligation footprint in the future. It’s time to look at this option.
Maybe it's actually Time to start talking about the bullying an infighting inside the Comission huh?
Not a care by John Burris and Jim Chanin on this matter as they clearly have had a hand in this non-sense.
In fact, I was just informed that for a while, Jim Chanin profited from this arrangement until he was forced out of a role (basically serving as the fox that guards the hen house). If this is true, it speaks volume of the mis-character of Jim Chanin.