Video montage 1. Oakland police department’s Bearcat armored vehicle was deployed at the recent shootout at Manzanita Park.1 (Video source: KTVU. Montage by Oakland Report)
Editors’ note: This article was originally posted by Oakland resident Rajni Mandal on her Substack page. Oakland Report is republishing it with Mandal’s permission for our readers to consider. Subscribe to Rajni Mandal’s Public Safety Updates to receive her articles directly.
“I don’t even think that we should be recommending any type of armored vehicles whatsoever”
Last year, after months of deliberation, the Oakland police commission voted to recommend approval of the Oakland police department’s request to replace its aging “Bearcat” armored vehicle and failing armored Suburban with two smaller armored vehicles.
The police department has described this equipment as essential for public and officer safety. Former police chief Floyd Mitchell stated:2
“From my standpoint, being a military veteran, being a police officer for over 30 years, being a SWAT commander… and being involved in many critical incidents and rescue missions—the [Bearcat] vehicle is meant to save lives.”
— Police chief Floyd Mitchell, June 12, 2025
In November 2025, the police commission approved the police department’s replacement recommendation.
There was, however, one commissioner who strongly disagreed.
Omar Farmer, then an alternate commissioner and unable to vote, presented his own analysis of equipment alternatives and stated:3
“I don’t even think that we should be recommending any type of armored vehicles whatsoever.”
— Alternate police commissioner Omar Farmer, November 20, 2025
Nearly ten months later, Farmer succeeded in persuading the police commission to nullify that vote. By then, he had been elevated to a full commissioner and could vote.
What follows is the story of how Farmer used a genuine Brown Act violation and preliminary guidance from the city’s public ethics commission to pursue a substantive public safety outcome he had been seeking for years.
Share this article with someone you know.
A long history of opposition
Farmer’s efforts to remove the Bearcat can be traced back several years.
In 2021, as a community participant, he took part in the police commission’s armored vehicle policy and replacement process. The commission subsequently adopted a nonbinding resolution calling for Oakland’s police department to phase out and replace the Bearcat.4
Farmer also drafted a separate Reimagining Public Safety Task Force proposal seeking to accelerate the Bearcat’s retirement.5 Although he was not a voting member of the task force, Farmer served on one of its advisory boards and helped develop Recommendation 38, titled, “Eliminate the Bearcat armored vehicle ASAP.”6
The proposal, which listed Farmer as its contact, called for retiring the Bearcat within six to eight months and urged the city to explore bypassing competitive bidding requirements to expedite a replacement.
“In over policed neighborhoods like East and West Oakland, where it’s typically deployed, it strikes fear in those residents. It also has been shown to trigger their trauma, escalate situations like in [Joshua] Pawlik, and not deter or reduce crime.”
— from Reimagining Public Safety Task Force recommendation 38
The police commission’s resolution did not itself end the police department’s use of the vehicle. Under city ordinance, use of approved equipment ceases only after city council approval.7 That binding action was never completed, and OPD retained the Bearcat.
Four years later, Farmer was still trying to turn that unimplemented recommendation into a binding outcome. He described his rationale at a June 2025 police commission meeting:
“When OPD comes rolling through these communities with the Bearcat and other military equipment such as tactical gear, they appear to many of those folks who suffer from PTSD to be akin to an occupying force.”
— Alternate police commissioner Omar Farmer, Jun. 12, 2025
Influencing the police commission’s review
The police commission has the power to review the police department’s militarized equipment requests before the department seeks funding or city council approval.8
As part of that review, the commission convened an ad hoc committee composed of commissioners Wilson Riles Jr. and Sam Dawit and alternate commissioner Omar Farmer, along with several community members and subject matter experts.
The meetings revealed significant discord. Draft recommendations prepared by Farmer and Riles stated that the police department should “divest itself of the BearCat and not replace it with another BearCat.”9 Dawit objected that the recommendations did not represent all the views within the committee, stating “I think that a lot of this is pretty one-sided.”10
He added that “some opinions and maybe some personal agendas” were driving the report and said he would not vote for it. Farmer rejected Dawit’s criticism, calling part of his statement “disingenuous.”
Dawit later submitted written dissenting comments stating:11
“I am disappointed in your final draft statement, as it ignores nearly every position I have verbally brought up over our numerous ad hoc calls.”
— Police commissioner Sam Dawit, Sept 22, 2025
His written dissent was not included alongside the ad hoc committee’s recommendation in the commission’s agenda packet, but the email later became part of Farmer’s public ethics commission complaint.12
Video clip 2. “We have… some personal agendas here that drive a lot of this report.” Police commission militarized equipment ad hoc committee meeting, Sept. 2, 2025.
Commission requires clarification
In October, the ad hoc committee’s recommendations prepared by Riles and Farmer were presented to the full police commission.13 They included the following:
“That, as previously agreed, OPD divest itself of the BearCat and not replace it with another BearCat; and purchase a non-paramilitary armored vehicle consistent with what was agreed to in 2021 when funds become available.”
— from Oakland police commission’s ad hoc committee recommendations, Oct. 9, 2025
This conflicted with the police department’s request for two smaller Bearcat SUVs. During the ad hoc meetings, Farmer repeatedly challenged the police department’s assessment that the other alternatives could not meet its operational needs.
At the October 9 police commission meeting, the police department explained its request while Farmer relied on a separate presentation comparing the Bearcat with alternatives considered in 2021.14
Farmer said he created the presentation to “clear things up,” but also explained that he wanted to revive alternatives the police department had rejected. This echoed a discussion Farmer had at an ad hoc committee meeting, where he clashed with police department staff.
Video clip 3. “I don’t know why we’re trying to roll back decisions that were made whether they’re legally binding or not.” Oakland police commission militarized equipment ad hoc committee meeting, Sept. 2, 2025.
The police commission did not vote on the recommendation. Instead, it referred the matter back for clarification and directed that the police department provide a clear, written description of the equipment it was requesting.15
The Brown Act violation: emails with too many recipients
Following the October meeting, police commission chair Ricardo Garcia-Acosta obtained a written memo from the police department clarifying the department’s request.16 He forwarded it to ad hoc committee chair Wilson Riles Jr. and included commissioners Farmer and Dawit on the email.17
The message therefore included four of the police commission’s seven members. Although the commission requires five members for a quorum under its own rules, four members constitute a majority: the relevant threshold under the Brown Act’s prohibition against serial communications.
Following the email exchange, the police department’s memo was attached to the recommendation and the language being revised to state:
“That, as previously agreed by the Commission and the Council, the Department be directed to divest itself of the current Lenco G3 BearCat and not replace it with another Lenco G3 BearCat; but rather purchase two armored vehicles that are a step down from the BearCat when funds become available; OPD is currently requesting two new Lenco Tactical SUVs (smaller BearCats).”
— Oakland police commission revised recommendation, Nov. 20, 2025
The revised recommendation and police department’s memo were then included in the publicly posted agenda packet for the commission’s November 20 meeting.
Public ethics commission staff and legal counsel subsequently agreed that including four commissioners in the exchange violated the Brown Act. The more consequential question (and the one that would later divide Farmer and the police commission’s legal counsel) was whether that violation invalidated the full police commission’s subsequent public deliberation and vote.
Related story:
The crucial vote
At the November 20 meeting, Farmer publicly challenged the revised recommendation:
“Because the letter that you’re referencing from the ad hoc—the ad hoc hasn’t even met again since we had the previous version of the letter that the public saw. So that new version of the letter, where you’re approving them to have the two newer types of BearCats, the ad hoc never met and conferred to actually put that into the letter…So that’s not necessarily a recommendation from the entire ad hoc.”
— Police commissioner Omar Farmer, Nov. 20, 2025
Chair Garcia-Acosta addressed Farmer’s objection and clarified that the recommendation did not specifically endorse the police department’s two proposed vehicles:
“My understanding is that the recommendation I just read—that the ad hoc isn’t specifically recommending those two new vehicles. The recommendation from the ad hoc and from Council was to divest itself from the current Lenco G3 BearCat and not replace it with a similar one; rather, purchase two armored vehicles that are a step down from the BearCat. There’s no specific [vehicle identified].”
— Police commission chair Ricardo Garcia-Acosta, Nov. 20, 2025
The police commission then publicly discussed whether the revised language authorized the two Bearcat SUVs or merely approved replacing the existing vehicles with a smaller “step-down” alternative. Commissioner Dawit directly asked whether the vote would allow the police department to purchase two Bearcat SUVs. Garcia-Acosta explained that the question was whether the police department’s proposed smaller vehicles satisfied the commission’s criteria and the prior direction to replace the larger Bearcat.
Farmer remained opposed, not simply to the revised language, but to the substantive outcome:
“I just personally feel as a Commission that recommending a BearCat, or any of the types of armored vehicles at this point…I don’t even think that we should be recommending any type of armored vehicles whatsoever.”
— Police commissioner Omar Farmer, Nov. 20, 2025
After discussing Farmer’s objection, questioning the police department staff and receiving public comment, Dawit—an actual member of the ad hoc committee— moved to “approve OPD’s request to divest the current Bearcat and armored vehicles and purchase two Lenco tactical Bearcat SUVs (six-passenger) as a step-down replacement when funds become available.” Riles seconded the motion, and it passed 3-0-2.18
Farmer was an alternate commissioner and could not vote.
Did the Brown Act violation affect the vote?
Farmer maintained that the Brown Act violation (and the revisions made without the entire ad hoc committee’s approval) invalidated the final vote.
At the September 10 meeting, commissioners Farmer and Booker described what happened next. Farmer submitted a ‘cure and correct’ demand to chair Garcia-Acosta and police commission counsel seeking to redo the Bearcat vote. The matter was referred to Booker, who reviewed it with counsel and concluded that no additional action was necessary (these events were described at the Oakland police commission meeting on September 10, 2026)19.
Farmer then questioned commissioner Riles about the disputed revisions at an ad hoc committee meeting in December 2025.20 Riles explained that the language was changed after OPD provided the written clarification requested by the full Commission.
Commission staff explained that the police department had been asked to clarify exactly what it wanted and that its written response was used to align the recommendation with the department’s actual request. Riles described the deputy chief’s letter as:
“The clearest ask that I saw.”
— Police commissioner Wilson Riles, Dec. 2, 2025.
Farmer acknowledged that the letter had been included in the November agenda packet.
This exchange is important. By then, Farmer had been publicly told why the language had changed. He had raised his concerns publicly before the November vote, the full police commission discussed those concerns, and he later received an additional explanation directly from Riles during a public meeting.
When his request to redo the vote was rejected internally, Farmer turned to the public ethics commission.
A continued campaign
After the police commission declined to redo the vote, Farmer filed a formal complaint with the public ethics commission in April 2026.
By that time, Farmer had been elevated from alternate to full commissioner to serve the remainder of Wilson Riles’ vacant term.21 That appointment created a separate controversy: it was announced following a closed session without a publicly agendized vote. The city attorney later issued a public legal opinion concluding that the police commission did not have the authority to elevate Farmer in that manner.22
Related story:
Farmer’s public ethics commission complaint included the emails sent to four commissioners. They included Riles’ approval of the revisions23 and Dawit’s separate email documenting his dissent from the committee’s recommendations.
Public ethics commission enforcement staff later issued “informal preliminary guidance” stating that a violation had occurred and recommending that the police commission consider whether to “cure and correct” it, including whether to redo the Bearcat vote (the public ethics commission itself had not yet heard or decided Farmer’s complaint).24
Public ethics commission staff reviewed the emails, ad hoc recommendations and November meeting.25 But its critical conclusion about why the recommendation changed was attributed to an interview with Farmer:
“According to a public ethics commission staff interview with former* police commissioner Omar Farmer, the adopted recommendation reflects the position that the non-member of the ad hoc committee advocated for.” (*The public ethics commission’s memorandum referred to Farmer as a ‘former Commissioner,’ although he was serving as a commissioner when the guidance was issued.)
— Public ethics commission, Sept. 16, 2026
There is no indication that public ethics commission staff interviewed Dawit, Garcia-Acosta or police commission staff before determining why the recommendation changed. Nor did the preliminary guidance address the extensive public discussion before the November vote or the December exchange in which Riles explained the revisions directly to Farmer.
The public ethics commission’s conclusion also conflicted with the record. Dawit had publicly supported an armored vehicle acceptable to the police department, later made the motion to approve the final recommendation and voted for it. Riles had explained that the recommendation changed in response to the written clarification requested from the police department.
Nevertheless, public ethics commission staff’s preliminary guidance gave Farmer another opportunity to undo the Bearcat vote.
Farmer gets his vote
Now serving as a full commissioner with voting power, Farmer was able to revisit the Bearcat decision under an agenda item addressing the public ethics commission staff’s preliminary guidance—just days before the city council was scheduled to vote on Farmer’s replacement. Whether that vote had any legal effect would itself become part of the dispute.26
Farmer reiterated his position that the email chain and revised recommendations had invalidated the November vote. He also alluded to additional legal action if the police commission declined to nullify it:
“So my feeling is—the bottom line is this is a Brown Act violation, okay? Any commission business associated with the Brown Act violation, to me, should be nullified or canceled out. I feel we have a legal and moral responsibility to do so. It not only damages the Commission’s credibility, but it also exposes us legally. And if this issue isn’t cured or corrected, that’s the direction this could take.”
— Police commissioner Omar Farmer, Sept. 10, 2026, video)
The police commission’s independent legal counsel, Katina Ancar, agreed that including four commissioners on the email chain constituted a Brown Act violation. She disagreed with Farmer about the remedy.
Ancar advised the commission to acknowledge the violation but not redo or nullify the vote. She explained that the ad hoc recommendation was not itself an action of the police commission. The full commission had subsequently reviewed the recommendation at a public meeting, questioned police department staff, received extensive public comment and voted.
Farmer interrupted her:
ANCAR: The question before the commission is because there were four commissioners on that [email thread]. And if there was a substantive change to the recommendation, and commissioner Farmer is saying it was a substantive change. Does that in some way infect and require a re-vote on that recommendation? And my advice is that that recommendation was just that. It was a recommendation. It was not an action of the commission. It was just a recommendation that the ad hoc…
FARMER: NO, no.
ANCAR: No?
FARMER: No. We have the authority. They need our…
ANCAR: The full commission then looked at the recommendation, took public comment, extensive public comment, spoke with OPD again, and then had a discussion on the dais about that recommendation.
Ancar also explained that nullifying the vote would have no current legal effect because the deadline for the Commission’s recommendation had already passed:
ANCAR: My assessment is that the vote does nothing because a new vote would do nothing or a nullification would do nothing because the November 20th vote was taken and the deadline for the commission to take that vote was November 29th.
FARMER: Well, to you it’s nothing. To you it’s nothing. To me it’s not nothing.
Farmer then made clear that he did not want another vote on the merits. He wanted the prior vote erased:
FARMER: “I don’t think we need to retake the vote. It’s moot. We don’t need to do all that. I just want to nullify the vote.”
Commissioners Farmer, Jackson-Castain and Booker voted to ‘‘cure and correct’’ the violation by nullifying the November Bearcat vote, contrary to Ancar’s legal advice. Booker stated, “Since counsel agrees it is a violation, then I vote yes”—although Ancar had expressly distinguished acknowledging the violation from nullifying the vote. Chair Garcia-Acosta and commissioner Grillo abstained. The motion passed 3-0-2.
Farmer explained why nullification mattered. If the police department still wanted the BearCat SUVs, he said, it would need to make “a formal presentation to the ad hoc and to the commission” that included alternative vehicles.
John Lindsey-Poland (a commission “subject matter expert” with similar views to Farmer)27 agreed that nullification had consequences: “If you annul it, you annul that policy. You have no policy on what happens to the Bearcats.”
Despite Ancar’s legal opinion, Farmer intended nullification to force the police department to begin the approval process again.
Video clip 4. “My advice is that that recommendation was just that. It was a recommendation. It was not an action of the commission.” Police commission legal counsel Katina Ancar, Sept 10, 2026.
Who holds oversight accountable?
The Brown Act violation was real. But the police commission’s chosen remedy did more than acknowledge an improper email: it reopened a public-safety decision Farmer had opposed and could not vote against.
Farmer was entitled to oppose the Bearcat and to advocate for alternatives. The issue is whether an ethics complaint should become a second route to reverse a policy decision after that position failed in a public vote.
Public ethics commission staff gave that effort institutional weight before their commission heard the case and without indicating that it interviewed several central participants. The police commission then nullified its vote contrary to its own legal counsel’s advice, without reconsidering the Bearcat on its merits.
The irony is difficult to ignore. A law intended to protect public decision-making was used to undo a decision reached after public deliberation, public comment and a public vote.
Independent oversight is necessary. But without guardrails, an ethics complaint can become a second route to a policy outcome the complainant could not obtain through the ordinary public process.
Oakland has built layer upon layer of independent oversight. What it has not built is a reliable way to hold the overseers accountable.
Don’t miss a beat. Subscribe to author Rajni Mandal’s Public Safety Updates.
Related story:
KTVU contributors. “Oakland police arrest armed suspect hours after shootout near Manzanita Park.” KTVU, Aug. 30, 2026. https://www.ktvu.com/video/fmc-7n92gza1nx3xkybp
Oakland Police Commission. “Militarized equipment annual report.” Meeting video, June 12, 2025. https://oakland.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?publish_id=97a93e5c-4b17-11f0-b7f5-005056a89546
Oakland Police Commission. “Militarized equipment ad hoc committee recommendation and vote.” Meeting video, Nov. 20, 2025. https://oakland.granicus.com/player/clip/7141?publish_id=40b009ad-c725-11f0-a7da-005056a89546&redirect=true
Oakland Police Commission. “Phase out and replace the BearCat.” Resolution No. 21-04, Mar. 25, 2021. https://www.oaklandca.gov/files/assets/city/v/1/boards-amp-commissions/documents/opc/resolutions/resolution-21-04-phase-out-and-replace-bearcat.pdf
City of Oakland. “Reimagining Public Safety Task Force.” Community Policing Advisory Board webpage, accessed Sept. 12, 2026. https://www.oaklandca.gov/Government/Boards-Commissions/Community-Policing-Advisory-Board/Reimagining-Public-Safety-Task-Force
Reimagining Public Safety Task Force. “Recommendation 38: eliminate the Bearcat armored vehicle ASAP." Final report, Apr. 29, 2021. https://www.oaklandca.gov/files/assets/city/v/1/boards-amp-commissions/documents/cpab/oakland-rpstf-report-final-4-29-21.pdf
City of Oakland. “Oakland Municipal Code, Title 9, Chapter 9.65 — acquisition and use of military and militaristic equipment.” Municode, accessed Sept. 12, 2026. https://library.municode.com/ca/Oakland/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT9PUPEMOWE_CH9.65REACUSMIMIEQ
Mandal, Rajni. “Gripped by oversight: how the police commission controls OPD's equipment and operational effectiveness.” Oakland Report, Aug. 11, 2025. https://www.oaklandreport.org/p/gripped-by-oversight
Oakland Police Commission. “Militarized equipment ad hoc committee (Wilson Riles, Jr. and Omar Farmer).” Draft recommendations, Jun. 6, 2025. https://docs.oaklandreport.news/militarized%20equipment%20statement%20draft%20OPC.pdf
Oakland Police Commission. “Militarized equipment ad hoc committee." Meeting video, Sept. 2, 2025, at 24:31. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dqwj_DJshk&t=1471s
Dawit, Sam. “Dissenting comments on the militarized equipment ad hoc committee's final draft recommendations.” Email to committee members, Sept. 22, 2025. https://docs.oaklandreport.news/Ethis%20Complaint_%20Ad%20Hoc%20Comms%20%234.pdf
Farmer, Omar. “Complaint to the Oakland Public Ethics Commission re: Brown Act and Sunshine Ordinance violations by the Oakland Police Commission.” Complaint form, Apr. 15, 2026. https://docs.oaklandreport.news/26-08%20-%20Formal%20Complaint%20Document_Redacted%20(1).pdf
Oakland Police Commission. “Militarized equipment ad hoc committee recommendations.” Meeting agenda, Oct. 9, 2025. https://www.oaklandca.gov/files/assets/city/v/1/police-commission/regular-meeting-agendas/opc-regular-meeting-agenda10_9_25.-2fin3.pdf
Oakland Police Commission. “Oakland Police Department presentation on militarized equipment request.” Meeting video, Oct. 9, 2025. https://oakland.granicus.com/player/clip/7061?publish_id=b2322e33-a5f2-11f0-8df7-005056a89546&redirect=true
Oakland Police Commission. “Regular meeting minutes (approved).” Oct. 9, 2025. https://www.oaklandca.gov/files/assets/city/v/1/police-commission/minutes/7.248.1410910231113-2005/10.9.25_-regular-meeting-minutes.-approved.pdf
Oakland Police Commission. “Militarized equipment ad hoc committee revised recommendation and Oakland Police Department clarification memo.” Meeting agenda, Nov. 20, 2025. https://www.oaklandca.gov/files/assets/city/v/1/police-commission/agendas/opc-special-meeting-agenda11.20.25-fin.2pdf.pdf
Garcia-Acosta, Ricardo. “Email forwarding the Oakland Police Department's clarification memo to Commissioners Riles, Farmer and Dawit.” Email thread, Oct. 10, 2025. https://docs.oaklandreport.news/Ethis%20Complaint_%20Ad%20Hoc%20Comms%20%232.pdf
Oakland Police Commission. “Special meeting minutes (final, approved).” Nov. 20, 2025. https://www.oaklandca.gov/files/assets/city/v/1/police-commission/minutes/4.2612.1111.209259112025/11.20.25-opc-meeting-minutes-final-approved.pdf
Oakland Police Commission. “Public Ethics Commission staff preliminary guidance and 'cure and correct' of the Nov. 20, 2025 militarized equipment vote.” Meeting video, Sept. 10, 2026. https://oakland.granicus.com/player/clip/7748?publish_id=94bf2946-adf4-11f1-a183-005056a89546&redirect=true
Oakland Police Commission “Militarized equipment ad hoc committee.” Meeting video, Dec. 2, 2025. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=en_EKENUFEQ
Montana, Alex. “Police Commission appointment appears to violate state law.” Oakland Report, Apr. 1, 2026. https://www.oaklandreport.org/p/20260401-police-commission-appointment-brown-acts
Richardson, Ryan. “Third public legal opinion re: Oakland Police Commission and Selection Panel.” Office of the Oakland City Attorney, Apr. 9, 2026. https://www.oaklandcityattorney.org/wp-content/uploads/Third-Legal-Opinion-re-Oakland-Police-Commission-and-Selection-Panel-FINAL-April-9-2026.pdf
Riles, Wilson Jr. “Email approving revisions to the militarized equipment ad hoc committee recommendation.” Oct. 20, 2025. https://docs.oaklandreport.news/Ethis%20Complaint_%20Ad%20Hoc%20Comms%20%233.pdf
Ackerman, Tovah. “Informal preliminary guidance re: complaint against the Oakland Police Commission.” Oakland Public Ethics Commission enforcement staff, Aug. 19, 2026. https://docs.oaklandreport.news/26-08%20-%20Cure%20and%20Correct%20Guidance%20Letter%20-%20August%2019%2C%202026%20-%20Signed.pdf
Oakland Public Ethics Commission. “Regular meeting agenda packet.” City of Oakland, Sept. 16, 2026. https://www.oaklandca.gov/files/assets/city/v/1/public-ethics-commission/documents/09-16-2026-pec-regular-meeting-agenda.pdf
City of Oakland. “City Council meeting — appointment to the Oakland Police Commission.” Meeting agenda details, Sept. 15, 2026. https://oakland.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=1437469&GUID=7E49A93B-06B7-41C8-A5A6-5D200FF2D2A1&Options=info%7C&Search=
Ibid. Mandal, Rajni, “Gripped by oversight.”
In Chicago over the past couple of weeks, more than 70 people have been shot and nearly a dozen killed. Yet the mayor just announced he is seeking re-election. There is simply no accountability in these union-run, single-party cities. Broakland, like Chicago, is hopeless.
Rajni and Oakland Report are right! Thank you. This is another good reason why we need to rid Oakland of this police commission. This police commission is politically weaponized. What Oakland needs is a group which works with our police for the safety of our Oaklanders, not against. Mindy Pechenuk, for Oakland Mayor 2026