Selective sourcing: Oaklandside's article on police overtime
Fact check and commentary on Oaklandside’s recent article, “Residents hope OPD’s rampant use of overtime will be addressed in new police union contract”
This article originally appeared in Rajni Mandal’s Public Safety Updates on July 3. Subscribe to receive Rajni’s updates directly.
Selective sourcing
Oaklandside’s July 2 article on police overtime presents one side of a long-running debate over police overtime, labor negotiations, and civilian oversight. It relies heavily on statements from advocacy organizations and labor representatives while giving comparatively little attention to publicly available reports, city documents, and recent developments that provide important context.
‘Residents’ quoted are members of activist organizations
The Oaklandside article interviews and quotes “community advocates and labor leaders” and frames them as “residents,” implying their views broadly represent Oakland residents.
Many of those quoted are members of the Coalition for Police Accountability (CPA), an advocacy organization that has been the driving force behind establishing the Oakland Police Commission, expanding its oversight powers, and promoting structural changes to the Oakland Police Department (OPD).
Readers should know that these are organized advocates for specific policy positions, not simply randomly selected residents.
The article also quotes representatives of city employee unions without disclosing that those unions are currently negotiating their own labor contracts with the City and are advocating for proposals that would affect police staffing and civilian positions.
‘Rampant use of overtime’
This heavily loaded headline is a quote from CPA activist Rashidah Grinage. The article references a CPA memo to the Police Commission stating that “approval to work overtime is not always required and is a big driver in OPD overtime exceeding the budgeted amount.”
OPD’s overtime is publicly discussed by the city council’s finance and management committee, with its most recent report released last March. According to the report, overtime is primarily driven by staffing shortages and operational demands.
Read this related article:
As of last week, OPD had 618 sworn officers instead of the 678 budgeted positions, with 72 unavailable for full duty because of medical leave, military leave, administrative leave, or modified duty — leaving an operational strength of 546 officers. The report identifies this staffing shortage as a direct driver of overtime.
The report also notes that OPD implemented a 20 percent reduction in overtime spending beginning in late 2024 and remained more than $2 million below its revised quarterly spending target during the second quarter.
The largest overtime categories were patrol backfill, shift extensions, special enforcement, violent crime investigations, Internal Affairs workload, Ceasefire operations, and major events—not unauthorized overtime.
Although there have been reports of individual officers working unusually large amounts of overtime (which are currently being investigated by the city), those cases should not be confused with the police department’s overall overtime picture.
Read this related article:
Interim police chief James Beere has also explained that overtime is often less expensive than hiring additional officers because vacant sworn positions generate salary savings that offset overtime costs.
Beere has also stated that overtime paid by third parties, such as the Oakland Coliseum and special events, is reimbursed to the city’s General Fund rather than OPD’s operating budget, making overtime accounts appear more overspent than their actual net fiscal impact.
None of this context—including OPD’s own explanation for overtime spending—is discussed in the article.
‘Many residents complain that OPD’s overspending on overtime eats into other city departments’ budgets’
The Oaklandside article references this quote with an Oaklandside report from 2020. That article did not cite complaints from residents about overtime. Rather, it discussed an internal city report warning of broader fiscal challenges and overspending across multiple departments, including the police department.
The article also quotes Julian Ware, vice-president of IFPTE Local 21, who states that civilian workers have moved out of Oakland because of “OPD going over its overtime budget.”
What readers are not told is that International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE) Local 21 is currently negotiating its own labor contract with the city. Those negotiations include wages, benefits, telework, staffing levels, and proposals to convert additional sworn police positions into civilian positions.
Video Clip 1: "I stood in a photo with you before I knocked doors for Measure E." IFPTE Local 21 reminds council members that the union "worked really hard to help elect" them. (Source: Oakland Report’s June 1 article, “Oakland city union warns of a strike if city council does not approve pay raises, other demands.”)
During recent city council budget meetings, representatives of IFPTE reminded councilmembers that the union had helped elect many of them, referenced their support for Measure E, and urged the council to support their bargaining proposals. The union also publicly discussed the possibility of a strike if negotiations were unsuccessful.
There is nothing improper about labor unions advocating for their members. However, readers should understand that the city worker unions quoted throughout the article also have their own institutional interests in how city resources and positions are allocated. That context is missing from the article.
‘Civilianizing’ police positions
As I have written previously, there has been a push to “civilianize” positions within OPD’s Internal Affairs Bureau by transferring work currently performed by sworn officers to the Community Police Review Agency (CPRA), the investigative branch of the police commission.
The Oaklandside article presents civilianizing Internal Affairs primarily as a cost-saving measure but does not discuss the significant implementation challenges identified in the consultant’s report. The report found that transferring these responsibilities would require more than $2 million per year in additional CPRA staffing, plus expanded training, infrastructure, and administrative support, with any savings likely limited to reduced OPD overtime rather than lower overall City costs.
Most recently, CPRA Director Antonio Lawson acknowledged that CPRA is not currently able to assume the full Internal Affairs workload and instead proposed a much more limited transfer.
GPS in police vehicles
The Oaklandside article cites CPA when discussing the impasse over implementation of Global Positioning System (GPS) technology in police vehicles, but does not explain how it developed.
In fact, GPS had already been installed as part of Oakland’s upgraded dispatch system and was scheduled to be activated in 2024 to improve emergency response times.
During review by the city’s Privacy Advisory Commission, then-CPRA Director Mac Muir urged commissioners to expand the policy so GPS data could also be retained for police misconduct investigations. The commission amended the proposed policy, creating differences between the police and fire department policies, which is important as both departments use the same technology and must have the same data retention times. The item was later withdrawn and has not returned for approval.
As a result, technology intended to improve emergency response times has remained unimplemented for more than two years.
Union influence
The Oaklandside article repeatedly discusses the influence of the police union, describing it as “a well-funded opposition.” However, it gives little attention to the political activity and institutional interests of other public employee unions.
Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 1021 and IFPTE Local 21 actively supported Measure E (providing $1 million in campaign funding) and are currently negotiating contracts with the city involving wages, benefits, telework, staffing levels, and civilianization proposals. During recent budget hearings, representatives reminded elected officials that they had campaigned for Measure E and helped elect many current councilmembers while urging approval of their bargaining proposals.
Read this related article:
The article also references a study authored by IFPTE Local 21 that recommends changes to OPD spending and staffing. Those recommendations closely align with those promoted by CPA and later forwarded by the police commission to the city administration.
There is nothing improper about labor unions advocating for their members. But readers should know that the organizations quoted throughout the article are not neutral observers. They are active participants in ongoing labor negotiations and policy debates involving the city’s budget and police staffing.
A pattern of selective sourcing
One of the more striking aspects of the Oaklandside article is that many of its principal sources come from the same network of organizations that have promoted these policy positions for years.
CPA members, police commission recommendations, CPRA leadership, IFPTE representatives, and studies commissioned or authored by those organizations all advocate many of the same goals: reducing police overtime, civilianizing police positions, expanding civilian oversight, and reallocating resources from sworn to civilian positions.
The article gives comparatively little attention to OPD’s publicly available overtime reports, operational explanations from department leadership, or competing viewpoints contained in city reports.
Readers can reasonably disagree about police staffing, overtime, civilian oversight, and labor negotiations. But those debates are best served by presenting the full range of publicly available facts and perspectives.
Instead, this article largely presents one side of those debates while omitting significant information that would allow readers to evaluate the issues more completely.
Postscript
Oaklandside contacted me before publication and invited me to interview for this article. I declined and instead sent them my two public comments to the police commission regarding the Oakland Police Officers Association (OPOA) union contract negotiations.
I made that decision because of my experience with a previous Oaklandside articles, which I believe inaccurately characterized my views on police oversight. I support constitutional policing, accountability, and strong civilian oversight. My position has always been that oversight agencies should be held to the same standards of transparency, performance, and accountability that they expect of the police department. After asking Oaklandside to clarify an earlier article without success, I chose not to participate in this one.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Rajni Mandal is an Oakland resident and physician who uses public records to share independent, unpaid analysis on public safety and police oversight, helping neighbors understand and participate in the process. She is not affiliated with any union, advocacy or political organization. Learn more:
OAKLAND REPORT IS 100% SUPPORTED BY YOU
We rely on our readers’ voluntary financial support to continue our work.
We are a registered 501(c)(3) charitable nonprofit organization. Our mission is to make truth more accessible to all Oakland residents.
Oakland Report is an experiment in a new form of media. Your donation in any amount helps us reach our goal of restoring accountability journalism to civic affairs in Oakland.
The FLSA overtime rate was completely ignored by the previous city administrator. The city auditor did an excellent analysis for DOT and OPW. The same analysis most likely applies to OPD overtime. The short version is the city is paying more than 1.5x for overtime, and the city council never approved this. Aside from that, OPD gets an overtime budget every year. They just need to stick to their budget.