City Attorney says the Oakland Police Commission can elevate ‘holdover’ alternate Omar Farmer to a vacant seat — but only temporarily, and he must be replaced ‘promptly.’
Juan, thank you for your comment. The New York Post article contains no factual errors or omissions, as far as we can tell. Our article cited it as an example of national coverage of the story. Thank you again for your comment; the discussion is appreciated.
If the commission was held to the same discipline standards as the police, I wonder how many suspension days the commission would give themselves for violating the law.
can agree that that the boards and commissions in Oakland, in general, are barely functional. I say this as a former member of the Community Policing Advisory Board. I say this as someone who gets one email after another about canceled meetings, often due to lack of quorum.
I imagine we will disagree with the underlying reasons for the dysfunction. I watched one roadblock after another get in the way of us making progress, and most of those roadblocks were due to either to board/commission members not showing up or the city slow walking us.
My sense is the city, generally, prefers to keep these bodies as weak as possible.
I was someone who took my role very seriously, showed up at meetings throughout COVID and then back to in-person meetings, pushed to make the board more functional, and just as we were gaining real traction, I was replaced by Janani Ramachandran for reasons that were based on fictions.
Council members don't necessarily want hard-working, competent people on boards and commissions because they don't necessarily want functional boards and commissions.
It's the voters who want the functional boards and commissions.
With respect to the need for unbiased members of the Police Commission, what does it mean to be unbiased? Does it mean one needs to be ambivilant about police misconduct?
The main goal of the Anti Police-Terror Project was and is to stop police from terrorizing people. Omar Farmer wants the OPD to stop terrorizing people. I want the police to stop terrorizing people. Pamela Price wants the police to stop terrorizing people. And more than eighty percent of Oakland voters, those who voted to create the Police Commission, want the police to stop terrorizing people.
Do you think that Oakland voters expected the commission to be filled with people who are ambivilant about police misconduct?
And how about you? Are you for, against, or ambivilant about police misconduct?
I agree with you that the intent behind the Commission is accountability, and just to be clear, I absolutely support strong oversight and accountability - for OPD and for the oversight bodies themselves.
Where I see this differently is that the issue here isn’t really about whether someone supports accountability. It’s about whether the Commission is following the rules that give it legitimacy in the first place.
The City Attorney’s opinion is pretty clear that someone who hasn’t been confirmed by Council isn’t qualified for a new fixed term, and that any elevation from an alternate role is only temporary and has to go through the normal process.
There are also real questions about whether this was properly noticed and done in public under the Brown Act.
So for me, this isn’t about motives or ideology. It’s about making sure the system works the way voters intended : with accountability and with proper process for all sides involved.
We also agree that we would like the boards to follow the rules. And I will say that when I was on the CPAB, the training that I was supposed to receive never materialized. I learned on the job as best I could. Board members were often reaching out to city staff to clarify the rules.
If I have to weigh the priority of having the boards and commissions follow the rules down to the letter with having police follow the same laws they enforce, I would prioritize having police follow the same laws they enforce.
It's really hard to get solid board and commission members. These are volunteer positions, and frankly, it's very easy to slack off. Omar Farmer wants to do the work. He is an amazing, hard-working organizer who wants to hold law enforcement accountable.
If we could just go that one extra mile in Oakland to hold OPD accountable, we could get off of federal monitoring and save a bunch of money.
I hear you on the priority- and getting OPD into compliance matters.
I just don’t think it has to be a tradeoff. We can expect police to follow the law and expect the oversight body to follow the rules at the same time.
The reason that matters is that if the process isn’t followed, even with good intentions, it can undermine the credibility of the Commission and make it harder to sustain the kind of accountability everyone wants.
What is the specific concern in this case? Rules exist to serve as guard rails. What is your concern about this specific guardrail, and what would it take to rectify the situation? Preventing Omar Farmer from serving feels both punative and counter-productive.
The concern is really about how a vacant seat is filled.
There are two guardrails here: A full term appointment is supposed to go through the standard Selection Panel and Council confirmation process, and any action to fill a vacancy has to be properly noticed and taken in public. That’s what makes the appointment transparent and legitimate.
So the issue isn’t about stopping someone from serving in the short term. It’s about whether those steps were followed.
The fix is pretty straightforward: make sure any temporary selection is done through a properly noticed public action, and then fill the seat through the standard process.
This is the process that was used in 2024 to elevate the current Chair (who was an Alternate) to fill a vacant position - so there is precedent.
We can agree that that the boards and commissions in Oakland, in general, are barely functional. I say this as a former member of the Community Policing Advisory Board. I say this as someone who gets one email after another about canceled meetings, often due to lack of quorum.
I imagine we will disagree with the underlying reasons for the dysfunction. I watched one roadblock after another get in the way of us making progress, and most of those roadblocks were due to either to board/commission members not showing up or the city slow walking us.
My sense is the city, generally, prefers to keep these bodies as weak as possible.
I was someone who took my role very seriously, showed up at meetings throughout COVID and then back to in-person meetings, pushed to make the board more functional, and just as we were gaining real traction, I was replaced by Janani Ramachandran for reasons that were based on fictions.
Council members don't necessarily want hard-working, competent people on boards and commissions because they don't necessarily want functional boards and commissions.
It's the voters who want the functional boards and commissions.
With respect to the need for unbiased members of the Police Commission, what does it mean to be unbiased? Does it mean one needs to be ambivilant about police misconduct?
The main goal of the Anti Police-Terror Project was and is to stop police from terrorizing people. Omar Farmer wants the OPD to stop terrorizing people. I want the police to stop terrorizing people. Pamela Price wants the police to stop terrorizing people. And more than eighty percent of Oakland voters, those who voted to create the Police Commission, want the police to stop terrorizing people.
Do you think that Oakland voters expected the commission to be filled with people who are ambivilant about police misconduct?
And how about you? Are you for, against, or ambivilant about police misconduct?
The Oakland Police Commission was created to hold local law enforcement accountable to the law. Measure LL was approved by Oakland voters with an overwhelming 83.19% of the vote. My sense is that some of the folks involved in this conversation do not want the Police Commission to hold law enforcement accountable. My sense is that some folks involved in this conversation don't want Omar Farmer to be on the commission because he wants to hold local law enforcement accountable to to the law. Is this a fair read?
I respectfully disagree. My issue with Farmer is he is not an unbiased person where the police are concerned. He is a defund the police supporter who spends time doing pod casts with Pamela Price, another defund advocate. He does not consider the police departments cultural changes from pre 2003 to now, and I'm guessing a majority of the departments officers were hired after the NSA, and some probably weren't even born yet.
The commission is it's own worst enemy. They have advanced hocs which run forever and take far too much time producing results. The commission is likely slowing the process down where police policies are concerned. They should be focused of getting the department into compliance with the NSA so we don't have to continue wasting our tax money paying for a never ending oversight boondoggle.
Juan, thank you for your comment. The New York Post article contains no factual errors or omissions, as far as we can tell. Our article cited it as an example of national coverage of the story. Thank you again for your comment; the discussion is appreciated.
Hi Sean, thanks for your note. I respectfully disagree with your assessment of the article. The inflammatory headline is "Twice-rejected Oakland commissioner who wants to defund police gets elevated after improper vote" yet the article doesn't interview the subject to validate that statement, nor offer additional proof based on public quotes, commission votes, or policy statements. What they state may very well be true, but it is a one-sided article aimed at exposing dysfunction and anti-police sentiment re: progressive politics and West Coast cities in order to fuel the NY Post's conservative talking points and fuel their readers' biases.
Juan, the New York Post article says, "Farmer declined The Post’s request for comment when contacted." It further states that "Farmer has aligned with the Anti Police-Terror Project, which has called for defunding the police and investing in community-based alternatives."
Hi Sean, that's pretty thin. What policies in his tenure has is pushed forward that back that stance? Again, I'm not defending this guy, I think he was appointed against process. But the article cited doesn't adequately cover why he's objectionable, other than so-called "aligning".
Can you share in a subsequent article what his policies are? Again, not appointed properly and we need fresh voices, but let's hear all the things he's done which actually support defunding or are counter-productive to a safer Oakland and improved police force.
Juan, thank you for your comment. The New York Post article contains no factual errors or omissions, as far as we can tell. Our article cited it as an example of national coverage of the story. Thank you again for your comment; the discussion is appreciated.
If the commission was held to the same discipline standards as the police, I wonder how many suspension days the commission would give themselves for violating the law.
Abolish the anti police, police commision
can agree that that the boards and commissions in Oakland, in general, are barely functional. I say this as a former member of the Community Policing Advisory Board. I say this as someone who gets one email after another about canceled meetings, often due to lack of quorum.
I imagine we will disagree with the underlying reasons for the dysfunction. I watched one roadblock after another get in the way of us making progress, and most of those roadblocks were due to either to board/commission members not showing up or the city slow walking us.
My sense is the city, generally, prefers to keep these bodies as weak as possible.
I was someone who took my role very seriously, showed up at meetings throughout COVID and then back to in-person meetings, pushed to make the board more functional, and just as we were gaining real traction, I was replaced by Janani Ramachandran for reasons that were based on fictions.
Council members don't necessarily want hard-working, competent people on boards and commissions because they don't necessarily want functional boards and commissions.
It's the voters who want the functional boards and commissions.
With respect to the need for unbiased members of the Police Commission, what does it mean to be unbiased? Does it mean one needs to be ambivilant about police misconduct?
The main goal of the Anti Police-Terror Project was and is to stop police from terrorizing people. Omar Farmer wants the OPD to stop terrorizing people. I want the police to stop terrorizing people. Pamela Price wants the police to stop terrorizing people. And more than eighty percent of Oakland voters, those who voted to create the Police Commission, want the police to stop terrorizing people.
Do you think that Oakland voters expected the commission to be filled with people who are ambivilant about police misconduct?
And how about you? Are you for, against, or ambivilant about police misconduct?
I agree with you that the intent behind the Commission is accountability, and just to be clear, I absolutely support strong oversight and accountability - for OPD and for the oversight bodies themselves.
Where I see this differently is that the issue here isn’t really about whether someone supports accountability. It’s about whether the Commission is following the rules that give it legitimacy in the first place.
The City Attorney’s opinion is pretty clear that someone who hasn’t been confirmed by Council isn’t qualified for a new fixed term, and that any elevation from an alternate role is only temporary and has to go through the normal process.
There are also real questions about whether this was properly noticed and done in public under the Brown Act.
So for me, this isn’t about motives or ideology. It’s about making sure the system works the way voters intended : with accountability and with proper process for all sides involved.
We also agree that we would like the boards to follow the rules. And I will say that when I was on the CPAB, the training that I was supposed to receive never materialized. I learned on the job as best I could. Board members were often reaching out to city staff to clarify the rules.
If I have to weigh the priority of having the boards and commissions follow the rules down to the letter with having police follow the same laws they enforce, I would prioritize having police follow the same laws they enforce.
It's really hard to get solid board and commission members. These are volunteer positions, and frankly, it's very easy to slack off. Omar Farmer wants to do the work. He is an amazing, hard-working organizer who wants to hold law enforcement accountable.
If we could just go that one extra mile in Oakland to hold OPD accountable, we could get off of federal monitoring and save a bunch of money.
I hear you on the priority- and getting OPD into compliance matters.
I just don’t think it has to be a tradeoff. We can expect police to follow the law and expect the oversight body to follow the rules at the same time.
The reason that matters is that if the process isn’t followed, even with good intentions, it can undermine the credibility of the Commission and make it harder to sustain the kind of accountability everyone wants.
What is the specific concern in this case? Rules exist to serve as guard rails. What is your concern about this specific guardrail, and what would it take to rectify the situation? Preventing Omar Farmer from serving feels both punative and counter-productive.
That’s a fair question.
The concern is really about how a vacant seat is filled.
There are two guardrails here: A full term appointment is supposed to go through the standard Selection Panel and Council confirmation process, and any action to fill a vacancy has to be properly noticed and taken in public. That’s what makes the appointment transparent and legitimate.
So the issue isn’t about stopping someone from serving in the short term. It’s about whether those steps were followed.
The fix is pretty straightforward: make sure any temporary selection is done through a properly noticed public action, and then fill the seat through the standard process.
This is the process that was used in 2024 to elevate the current Chair (who was an Alternate) to fill a vacant position - so there is precedent.
What is the appropriate process at this point to move forward with Omar Farmer?
We can agree that that the boards and commissions in Oakland, in general, are barely functional. I say this as a former member of the Community Policing Advisory Board. I say this as someone who gets one email after another about canceled meetings, often due to lack of quorum.
I imagine we will disagree with the underlying reasons for the dysfunction. I watched one roadblock after another get in the way of us making progress, and most of those roadblocks were due to either to board/commission members not showing up or the city slow walking us.
My sense is the city, generally, prefers to keep these bodies as weak as possible.
I was someone who took my role very seriously, showed up at meetings throughout COVID and then back to in-person meetings, pushed to make the board more functional, and just as we were gaining real traction, I was replaced by Janani Ramachandran for reasons that were based on fictions.
Council members don't necessarily want hard-working, competent people on boards and commissions because they don't necessarily want functional boards and commissions.
It's the voters who want the functional boards and commissions.
With respect to the need for unbiased members of the Police Commission, what does it mean to be unbiased? Does it mean one needs to be ambivilant about police misconduct?
The main goal of the Anti Police-Terror Project was and is to stop police from terrorizing people. Omar Farmer wants the OPD to stop terrorizing people. I want the police to stop terrorizing people. Pamela Price wants the police to stop terrorizing people. And more than eighty percent of Oakland voters, those who voted to create the Police Commission, want the police to stop terrorizing people.
Do you think that Oakland voters expected the commission to be filled with people who are ambivilant about police misconduct?
And how about you? Are you for, against, or ambivilant about police misconduct?
The Oakland Police Commission was created to hold local law enforcement accountable to the law. Measure LL was approved by Oakland voters with an overwhelming 83.19% of the vote. My sense is that some of the folks involved in this conversation do not want the Police Commission to hold law enforcement accountable. My sense is that some folks involved in this conversation don't want Omar Farmer to be on the commission because he wants to hold local law enforcement accountable to to the law. Is this a fair read?
I respectfully disagree. My issue with Farmer is he is not an unbiased person where the police are concerned. He is a defund the police supporter who spends time doing pod casts with Pamela Price, another defund advocate. He does not consider the police departments cultural changes from pre 2003 to now, and I'm guessing a majority of the departments officers were hired after the NSA, and some probably weren't even born yet.
The commission is it's own worst enemy. They have advanced hocs which run forever and take far too much time producing results. The commission is likely slowing the process down where police policies are concerned. They should be focused of getting the department into compliance with the NSA so we don't have to continue wasting our tax money paying for a never ending oversight boondoggle.
Like the article, but the NY Post should not be cited as a reliable source given it has no local desk and has an obvious political slant.
Juan, thank you for your comment. The New York Post article contains no factual errors or omissions, as far as we can tell. Our article cited it as an example of national coverage of the story. Thank you again for your comment; the discussion is appreciated.
Hi Sean, thanks for your note. I respectfully disagree with your assessment of the article. The inflammatory headline is "Twice-rejected Oakland commissioner who wants to defund police gets elevated after improper vote" yet the article doesn't interview the subject to validate that statement, nor offer additional proof based on public quotes, commission votes, or policy statements. What they state may very well be true, but it is a one-sided article aimed at exposing dysfunction and anti-police sentiment re: progressive politics and West Coast cities in order to fuel the NY Post's conservative talking points and fuel their readers' biases.
Juan, the New York Post article says, "Farmer declined The Post’s request for comment when contacted." It further states that "Farmer has aligned with the Anti Police-Terror Project, which has called for defunding the police and investing in community-based alternatives."
Hi Sean, that's pretty thin. What policies in his tenure has is pushed forward that back that stance? Again, I'm not defending this guy, I think he was appointed against process. But the article cited doesn't adequately cover why he's objectionable, other than so-called "aligning".
Can you share in a subsequent article what his policies are? Again, not appointed properly and we need fresh voices, but let's hear all the things he's done which actually support defunding or are counter-productive to a safer Oakland and improved police force.
No.
Well okay then