A new proposed charter amendment would change how commissioners are chosen, move the Inspector General under the City Auditor, and remove the Commission’s role in hiring the police chief.
Another great article Oakland based and Oakland Police issues based. One of the things I appreciate about the articles you have been publishing is you present the issues and concerns without apparent hyperbole or tipping of the scales.
I have been watching commission meetings for a long time now. I'm always taken aback by what I view as significant narcissism displayed by many of the Commissioners. They take any public criticism as a type of personal attack and sometimes behave in a manner that would lead an officer to some type of discipline or reprimand.
The Commission spends an inordinate amount of time on ad hocs that don't produce timely changes to policies or procedures, while seemingly demanding the department they oversee to immediately respond to their every whim.
One thing I do enjoy watching is the commentary by a few regulars. I honestly think they could just record their comments and hit play when the approach the mic. They dont offer any differentiation in their comments. Ms. Mandal is seemingly the only regular who focuses directly on the responsibilities of the commission and oversight of the department.
It seems to me that by concentrating on the legal complexities, the main issue gets overshadowed. Do most regular citizens understand these legal arguments, and more importantly, are they interested in understanding them?
I think we want a well staffed and functioning police force! Period.
Politicians and bureaucrats need to hash it out and not play the legal game. You were hired and elected to get results. Show some good will and cooperate instead of bicker.
Thank you for another insightful and important article. I appreciate Councilmember Houston effort to address this huge problem of the Police Commission. We do need a new charter amendment. I would propose setting up an Police Advisory Commission to replace the current police commission. We need to be in more dialogue with our police officers and work with them, not the kind of oversight that we have. Our police want to do there duty and protect Oaklanders. Mindy Pechenuk, candidate for Oakland Mayor 2026
It's probably not Mr. Montana's fault, but the editor's, because there is supposed to be fact-checking at a legitimate news organization All of the articles penned by Montana have major errors that undermine the obvious ideological claims in the content,. First, the Commission did not fire Kirkpatrick alone, that was a combined Commission/Schaaf decision and was a different use of the Charter than a direct Commission firing. Schaaf said her major reason for firing Kirkpatrick was that her rebellion against the NSA had kept the City in longer than it should have been. https://www.courthousenews.com/oakland-mayor-testifies-to-losing-confidence-in-fired-police-chief-despite-praising-her/
The two commissioners mentioned here were not "allowed" to continue serving, they were obligated to continue serving. In fact, the Council decision to not reappoint them was based on the information from the City Attorney that quorum instability would not be a problem if they agreed to continue to serve. They continued to do so to prevent the failure of the Commission, which would have put the City in jeopardy of violating the charter. The attorney answered that question specifically from council whose concerns were the sustainability of the Commission.
The City Attorney's opinion does not say that any action by the Commission violated the Brown Act, rather that's been continually added by the Oakland Report. On Thursday, Mayoral appointee Grillo confirmed that as the vice chair told your contributor, Rajni Mandal, there was no closed session vote on Farmer and he was not even mentioned in relationship to Riles appointment. The City Attorney has no legal requirements for the Commission in that opinion, it is an opinion, and the City Attorney does not have the power or role of preventing or enabling the Commission's actions. In any case, the Attorney found nothing to cure or correct. It is splitting hairs to argue that Farmer cannot be elevated to the position, because the odds of his being replaced before the end of Riles term in October, six months from now, is minimal. The Selection Panel is now obligated to choose a new alternate, in any case, and a new permanent commission seat for the term that begins after October. The decision was almost procedural given that the Commission is obligated by the charter to elevate an alternate, and because the Mayor has failed for a year to name one to the body, the only alternate is Farmer. The Oakland Report's laser focus on the Police Commission does bring up questions, because of how many incorrect statements are contained in the reporting.
Usil, thank you for your comment. Our article is factually correct and we stand behind it. Thank you again for your comment; the discussion is appreciated.
I will leave it to readers of good faith to see the difference between the detailed list of errors and mischaracterizations that I notified you about, and your unserious response. These are serious matters, since your organization for reasons that mystify many Oakland residents, has chosen again and again to denigrate Omar Farmer with absurd mischaracterizations of his statements and actions. You were given a chance here to respond to detailed and cited claims that the article is in error. Mr. Montana does not work at the Oakland Report based on "contribution" claim. The burden is on you to fact check his material, and it's clear you did not, and have no interest in doing so.
Hello, all of our articles, including this one, include extensive citations to source evidence so readers and evaluate them and decide for themselves what to think. Thank you again for your comment; the engagement is appreciated.
Yes, I've pointed out your citations do not support the statements. Prove they do. In a previous article, you published, you or Montana wrote this "'City council seeks a pay raise of up to 125% – which would be among the highest in the nation" an indefensible mischaracterization. Show where in the citations this statement is corroborated?
How about this? "The city council rejected Farmer’s request for reappointment twice: on Oct. 21, 2025 and again on Jan. 20, 2026.".That's false, and your citations do not show that happened. According to the Charter, and the legislative records available publicly, the Selection Panel submitted the Selection Panel proposed appointments, arrived at through a process of deliberation in public sessions governed by the Brown Act. Farmer did not "request" the Council reappoint him, he followed city law, applied and was chosen to be the Selection Panel's nominee. Even if the goal is in good faith, this is not professional work.
Another great article Oakland based and Oakland Police issues based. One of the things I appreciate about the articles you have been publishing is you present the issues and concerns without apparent hyperbole or tipping of the scales.
I have been watching commission meetings for a long time now. I'm always taken aback by what I view as significant narcissism displayed by many of the Commissioners. They take any public criticism as a type of personal attack and sometimes behave in a manner that would lead an officer to some type of discipline or reprimand.
The Commission spends an inordinate amount of time on ad hocs that don't produce timely changes to policies or procedures, while seemingly demanding the department they oversee to immediately respond to their every whim.
One thing I do enjoy watching is the commentary by a few regulars. I honestly think they could just record their comments and hit play when the approach the mic. They dont offer any differentiation in their comments. Ms. Mandal is seemingly the only regular who focuses directly on the responsibilities of the commission and oversight of the department.
It seems to me that by concentrating on the legal complexities, the main issue gets overshadowed. Do most regular citizens understand these legal arguments, and more importantly, are they interested in understanding them?
I think we want a well staffed and functioning police force! Period.
Politicians and bureaucrats need to hash it out and not play the legal game. You were hired and elected to get results. Show some good will and cooperate instead of bicker.
Thank you for another insightful and important article. I appreciate Councilmember Houston effort to address this huge problem of the Police Commission. We do need a new charter amendment. I would propose setting up an Police Advisory Commission to replace the current police commission. We need to be in more dialogue with our police officers and work with them, not the kind of oversight that we have. Our police want to do there duty and protect Oaklanders. Mindy Pechenuk, candidate for Oakland Mayor 2026
It's probably not Mr. Montana's fault, but the editor's, because there is supposed to be fact-checking at a legitimate news organization All of the articles penned by Montana have major errors that undermine the obvious ideological claims in the content,. First, the Commission did not fire Kirkpatrick alone, that was a combined Commission/Schaaf decision and was a different use of the Charter than a direct Commission firing. Schaaf said her major reason for firing Kirkpatrick was that her rebellion against the NSA had kept the City in longer than it should have been. https://www.courthousenews.com/oakland-mayor-testifies-to-losing-confidence-in-fired-police-chief-despite-praising-her/
The two commissioners mentioned here were not "allowed" to continue serving, they were obligated to continue serving. In fact, the Council decision to not reappoint them was based on the information from the City Attorney that quorum instability would not be a problem if they agreed to continue to serve. They continued to do so to prevent the failure of the Commission, which would have put the City in jeopardy of violating the charter. The attorney answered that question specifically from council whose concerns were the sustainability of the Commission.
The City Attorney's opinion does not say that any action by the Commission violated the Brown Act, rather that's been continually added by the Oakland Report. On Thursday, Mayoral appointee Grillo confirmed that as the vice chair told your contributor, Rajni Mandal, there was no closed session vote on Farmer and he was not even mentioned in relationship to Riles appointment. The City Attorney has no legal requirements for the Commission in that opinion, it is an opinion, and the City Attorney does not have the power or role of preventing or enabling the Commission's actions. In any case, the Attorney found nothing to cure or correct. It is splitting hairs to argue that Farmer cannot be elevated to the position, because the odds of his being replaced before the end of Riles term in October, six months from now, is minimal. The Selection Panel is now obligated to choose a new alternate, in any case, and a new permanent commission seat for the term that begins after October. The decision was almost procedural given that the Commission is obligated by the charter to elevate an alternate, and because the Mayor has failed for a year to name one to the body, the only alternate is Farmer. The Oakland Report's laser focus on the Police Commission does bring up questions, because of how many incorrect statements are contained in the reporting.
Usil, thank you for your comment. Our article is factually correct and we stand behind it. Thank you again for your comment; the discussion is appreciated.
I will leave it to readers of good faith to see the difference between the detailed list of errors and mischaracterizations that I notified you about, and your unserious response. These are serious matters, since your organization for reasons that mystify many Oakland residents, has chosen again and again to denigrate Omar Farmer with absurd mischaracterizations of his statements and actions. You were given a chance here to respond to detailed and cited claims that the article is in error. Mr. Montana does not work at the Oakland Report based on "contribution" claim. The burden is on you to fact check his material, and it's clear you did not, and have no interest in doing so.
Hello, all of our articles, including this one, include extensive citations to source evidence so readers and evaluate them and decide for themselves what to think. Thank you again for your comment; the engagement is appreciated.
Yes, I've pointed out your citations do not support the statements. Prove they do. In a previous article, you published, you or Montana wrote this "'City council seeks a pay raise of up to 125% – which would be among the highest in the nation" an indefensible mischaracterization. Show where in the citations this statement is corroborated?
How about this? "The city council rejected Farmer’s request for reappointment twice: on Oct. 21, 2025 and again on Jan. 20, 2026.".That's false, and your citations do not show that happened. According to the Charter, and the legislative records available publicly, the Selection Panel submitted the Selection Panel proposed appointments, arrived at through a process of deliberation in public sessions governed by the Brown Act. Farmer did not "request" the Council reappoint him, he followed city law, applied and was chosen to be the Selection Panel's nominee. Even if the goal is in good faith, this is not professional work.
No.