Video clip 1. Two political campaign flyers were posted at Skyline High School in a prominent location next to the school’s main office door. School administration identified the person who posted them as a librarian at the school who also is a teachers union representative. The flyers attacked and named the committees and donors that have backed candidates the teachers union opposes. (Video montage by Oakland Report)
A union rep posted two campaign flyers about the school board elections in the school where he works
At 11:00 a.m. on Monday, Sept. 29, a passerby noticed two political campaign flyers pinned to the bulletin board by the main office at Skyline High School, prominently displayed beside the office door.1
One flyer was headlined, “The wealthy elites funding Oakland school board elections.” The other asked “What’s the problem with ‘Empower Oakland’?”, and named three candidates it expected Empower Oakland, a local political advocacy group to support in the Districts 2, 4 and 6 school board races on the November 3 ballot.2
The flyers were first observed on the bulletin board at 11:00 a.m., and were still on display as of 2:50 p.m. — for nearly four hours, on a school day — before being removed after complaints to the school administration. How long they had been there before 11:00 a.m. that morning is unclear.
After complaints to the school administration and the district’s ombudsperson, Skyline High School principal Rebecca Huang confirmed shortly before 3:00 p.m. that she had not been aware that the flyers had been posted. Huang confirmed that the flyers would be removed right away, and that the administration would check for any other political posters that may have been posted around the campus.3
The school administration identified the person who posted the flyers as a school librarian and Oakland Education Association (OEA) site representative, Dylan Drewry. OEA is the district’s teachers union.
News reports indicate that Drewry is “on the [OEA] bargaining team.”4 Drewry has been quoted in local coverage of this year’s union contract dispute.
In February, as OEA members voted to authorize a strike, Drewry told NBC Bay Area that the district is “investing in the wrong things, like outside contractors, high-level management, high salary management.”5
He told local television station KPIX, “We were told 0% raises, 0% wage increase, which is not only insulting, but it is a pay cut in this environment where we have inflation.”6 He is quoted by KQED stating, “We are in a really profound fight for the schools our students deserve and stability in our schools.”7 And in May, local media outlet The Oaklandside quoted Drewry on the district’s new artificial intelligence policy.8
(Oakland Report could find no public statement by Drewry about the school board candidates, the committees named on the flyers, or the flyers themselves.)
In response to complaints about the flyers, the school administration said that a formal complaint to the district would prompt a “full investigation.”
Editors’ note: Oakland Report is an independent 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. We are not affiliated with any public agency, labor union, corporate interest or political campaign, and we do not offer political endorsements. We present the evidence we find — especially evidence that is elsewhere overlooked, mischaracterized, or omitted — and let our readers decide what to think about it. Learn more
Posting the flyers at school violated district policy — and arguably state law
The posting violated district rules no matter what the flyers said. Oakland Unified School District (OUSD) Administrative Regulation 4119.25 states that employees shall not “post or distribute political campaign materials on district property.”9 The district’s flyer policy requires Communications Department approval for any posting and says material that advocates “for a specific political candidate, party, or religious ideology will not be approved.”10
State law also prohibits the same conduct — with criminal penalties. Education Code § 7054(a): “No school district ... funds, services, supplies, or equipment shall be used for the purpose of urging the support or defeat of any ballot measure or candidate, including ... any candidate for election to the governing board of the district.” Under subdivision (c), a violation is a misdemeanor or felony, punishable by up to one year in county jail and/or a $1,000 fine, or 16 months to three years under Penal Code § 1170(a).11
Subscribe to Oakland Report (it’s free).
16- and 17-year-olds are eligible to vote in school board elections. The flyers were posted where they attend school.
Oaklanders aged 16 and 17 are eligible to vote in OUSD board elections, so Skyline students living in Districts 2, 4 and 6 can register and cast votes in the school board election coming up in a few weeks.12 The main office where the flyers were posted is located next to the high school’s front entrance.
OUSD rules prohibit school employees from using district time “to urge the passage or defeat of any ballot measure or candidate” and district equipment “for the preparation or reproduction of political campaign materials, even if the district is reimbursed.” The regulation applies to all district property — classrooms, hallways, common areas and the main office bulletin board alike.
State law permits a school to host a district-controlled forum for campaign material only if it is open “to all sides on an equitable basis.” A bulletin board displaying the two flyers with no opposing flyers displayed alongside them does not appear to pass that test.1314
Even if the school employee also has a union role, it confers no exemption. For example, in San Leandro Teachers Assn. v. Governing Board (2009), the California Supreme Court held that a district could prevent union newsletters endorsing board candidates from being distributed in teacher mailboxes.15
Whether a criminal § 7054 case could be made is unclear. A thumbtack and a bulletin board are a thin basis for “equipment.” Whether Drewry used district time, printers or paper to produce the flyers is unknown; the school administration identifies him only as the person who put them up.
We could find no instances of criminal prosecution in comparable circumstances. It is more likely than not that the matter resolves through the district’s disciplinary process.
Notably, the flyers carry no “paid for by” line. A reader cannot tell who produced them or who paid.
Disclosure rules generally require a “paid for by” disclosure when a registered committee pays for a communication or spending surpasses $1,000, so no disclosure violation is apparent at the scale of two pages.16 We found no committee registration for “Parents United for Public Schools,” the name credited on the flyer. Its website does not display the flyers.17
Regardless of whether a prosecutor would ever take it up, district policy is clear: an employee may not post this material on campus.
The flyers attacked “wealthy elites funding Oakland school board elections,” but didn’t mention that OEA is the biggest outside spender in the last four school board elections
Here we turn to the substance of the flyers themselves.
Beneath the “wealthy elites” headline, the first flyer listed the funders of eight committees active in OUSD board races, including Empower Oakland, Oakland Parents for Quality Education, former governor Jerry Brown’s Committee for California, and the California Charter Schools Association’s political arm. Much of that history is documented in campaign filings and prior reporting.18192021
What the flyers didn’t include is the biggest outside spender in recent school board campaigns: Oakland Education Association’s own political action committee (PAC).
Oakland Report’s analysis of campaign finance disclosures shows that the OEA PAC has spent $687,000 supporting OUSD board candidates since 2020 — more than any other committee in those races — including two of the incumbent board members seeking re-election: board president Jennifer Brouhard (D2) and vice president Valarie Bachelor (D6).
No other committee comes close to that amount of spending over that span.
A flyer that names no union committee, but lists the opposition-aligned committees under the headline “wealthy elites,” presents only half the picture to the students who see it posted on their school’s walls.
Related story:
The political spending the flyers describe — by groups that have backed candidates the teachers union opposes — is real, but much of it is from past election cycles, not the current one.
In 2020, committees funded by Michael Bloomberg, the California Charter Schools Association and Arthur Rock, together with Jerry Brown’s Committee for California, spent $928,000 supporting Austin Dannhaus, Maiya Edgerly, Leroy Gaines and Clifford Thompson — three and a half times what union-aligned committees spent. Only Thompson won.
In 2022, a committee funded almost entirely by Brown’s leftover campaign money spent $156,500 for Nick Resnick and Kyra Mungia, both of whom ultimately lost.
In 2024, opposition-aligned committees reported $62,000 in independent expenditures, three-quarters of it Brown’s money behind Patrice Berry, against $209,000 from union-aligned committees.
Through Sept. 19, 2026, none of the opposition-aligned committees had reported an independent expenditure in this year’s board races.
In the current election cycle, OEA’s PAC has spent more than the opposition
OEA PAC has spent $15,242 in this election cycle as of the latest campaign finance disclosure filings on September 19, including $5,724 in independent expenditures for each of Brouhard and Bachelor and $1,800 in direct contributions to each.
OEA’s spending in past election cycles suggests that the bulk of its spending is still to come. In the 2020 and 2024 elections, every dollar OEA PAC spent on school board candidates was reported after the close of the first pre-election reporting period in late September. In 2022, 94% of its spending came after that date. That year, the union’s spending stood at about $11,000 on Sept. 24 and finished at $188,000 on election day.
In addition, OEA-backed candidates benefit from door-to-door canvassing by union members, which OEA has publicized on social media.22
To be fair, the opposition-aligned committees have followed similar trajectories in the past. Jerry Brown’s Committee for California made all of its 2024 spending for Patrice Berry in October, and the Brown-funded Resnick and Mungia committee spent its entire $156,500 in the last three weeks of October 2022. So the $9,800 reported for the opposition-aligned committees in the current 2026 cycle to date likely understates how much they eventually will spend, too.
On the opposition side: Empower Oakland gave $1,800 each to Arielle Fleisher, Kathryn Camp and LeAna Powell and, on Sept. 16, $1,300 each to Alexandra Williams and Mike Hutchinson. Oakland Parents for Quality Education gave $900 each to Fleisher and Williams.
Fleisher has raised the most of any candidate at $55,482 — much of it from individual donors, not committees — followed not far behind by Bachelor (also the beneficiary of mostly individual donations) at $46,523.
Hutchinson, the D4 incumbent the second flyer groups with the opposition side, had raised $4,263 through Sept. 19; Empower Oakland’s $1,300 is the only committee money reported for him.
Share this article.
The flyers portray the influence of “wealthy elites” on elections, but they leave out the teachers union’s own influence on the board
The teachers union has spent nearly $700,000 since 2020 to elect school board candidates friendly to its interests — $686,917 in independent expenditures and direct contributions through Sept. 19, 2026, more than any other committee in those races.
Four of the seven current board members were elected with that money and still have the union’s backing: Jennifer Brouhard and Valarie Bachelor in 2022, Rachel Latta and VanCedric Williams in 2024. They form the board’s 4–3 majority on contested votes, including the officer elections of January 2025.23
Related story:
Brouhard, the board president, served three terms on OEA’s executive board before her election. The superintendent the board appointed in 2025, on a 6–1 vote, is Denise Saddler, a former OEA president who led the union for six years.
Those board members then vote on OEA members’ pay and benefits — including substantial increases to union members’ compensation. In June, the board approved a union contract that adds $104.8 million in compensation over three years, despite a formal warning from the Alameda County superintendent of schools that it “endangers the District’s fiscal stability.”
None of this appears on the flyers the OEA representative posted on school grounds.
The flyer’s posting outside the main office follows a year of documented friction between OEA and school administrators
In May 2025, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that multiple Fremont High School staff members told district officials that OEA president Kampala Taiz-Rancifer, after refusing to check in for a visitor pass on March 17, 2025, threatened to beat up principal Nidya Baez; Taiz-Rancifer denied making any threat.24
At an April 23, 2025 board meeting, the president of the principals’ union, United Administrators of Oakland Schools, said members had been told, “We control the board, we got Kyla fired, we can get you fired,” and that “our members don’t feel safe walking to their cars.”25
In December 2025, Oakland Report reported in a commentary that parents who spoke in favor of school consolidation at a board meeting were heckled as “closers” and “privatizers,” and that one was told they would be slapped if they turned around to face their heckler.26
In April 2026, more than 60 OUSD principals signed a letter stating that the district “can no longer afford to postpone difficult decisions about how many schools we operate” — a position the flyers dismiss, when Empower Oakland makes it, as a “doomloop narrative.”27
None of this establishes that OEA directed or approved the flyers’ posting at Skyline High. It does mean the question of whether an OEA site representative posted campaign material inside a school will be read against a backdrop in which administrators have already complained, publicly, about union pressure on personnel decisions.
Related story:
Other considerations and counterpoints
In fairness to OEA and the school employee who, according to the school’s administration, posted the flyers, we note the following counterpoints without further rebuttal:
Parents United describes itself as an independent, parent-led organization, and nothing we found shows OEA produced or approved the flyers.[40]
The flyers’ central claim — that most money to the committees they name comes from donors who are not Oakland parents — is supported by filings and reporting.[41]
The school principal removed the flyers and identified the poster the same day the complaints came in.[42]
OEA president Taiz-Rancifer has unequivocally denied the Fremont High allegations, and OUSD has not said whether it investigated them.[43]
The group remains free to distribute the flyers at eligible locations off campus.
Additional caveats
The timeline rests on one eyewitness observation and the email chain; the flyers may have been posted well before 11:00 a.m.
Dollar figures come from Oakland Public Ethics Commission and Alameda County Registrar of Voters filings through the Sept. 19 reporting period; spending reported after that date, including 24-hour reports in the final weeks, is not included.
Drewry’s role in posting the flyers was identified by the school administration; his OEA bargaining team role is reported by KPIX and The Oaklandside.
Conclusion
Two campaign flyers naming school board candidates were posted on district property for most of a school day and possibly longer, five weeks before an election in which some of the students walking past them can vote.
The district’s regulation and flyer policy prohibited an employee from putting them there — as they would a flyer praising Empower Oakland’s slate — and state law bars the use of district resources for the same purpose.
The employee the school administration identified as having posted the flyers is an OEA site representative and a member of the union’s bargaining team.
The flyers’ accuracy around campaign spending on school board elections is a separate and mixed question — and the biggest outside spender in the school board races is missing from it.
Editors’ note: We invite OEA president Raiz-Tancifer, OUSD employee and OEA rep Drewry, principal Huang, OUSD board president Brouhard and OUSD superintendent Saddler to respond to this article, if desired, either by sending a written response for publication in Oakland Report, or posting a response in this article’s comments, or issuing public statements in formats of their choosing. We will publish any such responses — and if any correction to this story is warranted, we will do so.
Related story:
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
“Charlene Price” is an Oakland resident who has extensive interactions with OUSD. The author’s name has been changed to protect their privacy and prevent personal and professional retaliation. Oakland Report has verified the identity of the writer and the accuracy of the facts in this report.
Parents United for Public Schools contributors. “The wealthy elites funding Oakland school board elections” and “What’s the problem with ‘Empower Oakland’?” Flyers photographed on the bulletin board outside the Skyline High School main office, Sept. 29, 2026.
Empower Oakland had in fact endorsed all three candidates and contributed to their campaigns the week before the flyers were found.
Oakland Report reviewed and verified communications from OUSD administration that identified the person who posted the flyers as Dylan Drewry, a librarian employed by the school and an OEA union representative.
Lin, Da. “Oakland teachers authorize strike amid stalled contract negotiations.” CBS News Bay Area, Feb. 21, 2026. https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/oakland-teachers-authorize-strike-contract-negotiations/
Jones, Velena. "Oakland teachers prepare for possible strike." NBC Bay Area, Feb. 21, 2026. https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/oakland-teachers-possible-strike/4040511/
CBS News Bay Area / KPIX, op. cit. (note 4).
DeBenedetti, Katie. “Oakland teachers approve a strike, as report calls district’s pay ‘not competitive.’” KQED, Feb. 23, 2026. https://www.kqed.org/news/12074272/oakland-teachers-approve-a-strike-as-report-calls-districts-pay-not-competitive
Williams, Cameron et al. "It’s the ‘Wild West’ for AI in Oakland schools. Will a new policy help?" The Oaklandside, May 18, 2026. https://oaklandside.org/2026/05/18/oakland-ousd-artificial-intelligence-policy/
Oakland Unified School District contributors. "Administrative regulation 4119.25, 4219.25, 4319.25 — political activities of employees." OUSD Board Policy Manual, accessed Sept. 30, 2026. https://boepublic.ousd.org/Policies.aspx
Oakland Unified School District contributors. “Share your flyer in our schools.” OUSD webpage, accessed Sept. 30, 2026. https://www.ousd.org/communications-public-affairs/share-your-flyer-in-our-schools
Findlaw contributors. “California Education Code § 7054, subdivisions (a) and (c).” Findlaw webpage, accessed Sept. 30, 2026. https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/education-code/edc-sect-7054/
Ballotpedia contributors. “Oakland, California, Measure QQ, allow 16-year-olds to vote for school board director charter amendment (November 2020).” Ballotpedia webpage, accessed Sept. 29, 2026. https://ballotpedia.org/Oakland,_California,_Measure_QQ,_Allow_16-Year-Olds_to_Vote_for_School_Board_Director_Charter_Amendment_(November_2020)
Justia Law contributors. “California Education Code § 7058.” Justia Law webpage, accessed Sept. 30, 2026. law.justia.com/codes/california/code-edc/title-1/division-1/part-5/chapter-1/article-2/section-7058/
Stagg, Erin. “FAQ regarding political activities by school districts and district employees (K-12).” School & College Legal Services of California, Jan. 25, 2022. https://sclscal.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/03-2022CC-FAQ-Regarding-Political-Activties-by-LEAs-Employees-and-Candidates-EES.pdf
California Supreme Court. “San Leandro Teachers Assn. v. Governing Bd. of San Leandro Unified School Dist. (2009) 46 Cal.4th 822.” California Courts Appellate Case Information, Jun. 18, 2009. https://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/mainCaseScreen.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=1888639&request_token=NiIwLSEnPkw4WzBZSCItTEtIUDw0UDxfJiM%2BIzxTICAgCg%3D%3D&doc_no=S156961
California Fair Political Practices Commission contributors. “Campaign disclosure — advertisement disclaimer requirements.” FPPC webpage, accessed Sept. 30, 2026. https://www.fppc.ca.gov/learn/campaign-rules/campaign-advertising-requirements-and-restrictions/
Parents United for Public Schools contributors. “Website.” Parents United for Public Schools website, accessed Sept. 30, 2026. https://ousdparentsunited.com/; https://archive.is/M5M6L
Orenstein, Natalie, and Ashley McBride. “Why is a crypto industry leader pouring money into Oakland’s election?” The Oaklandside, Oct. 21, 2024. https://oaklandside.org/2024/10/21/crypto-coinbase-leader-money-oakland-election-2024/
McBride, Ashley. "The biggest donors and fundraisers in the OUSD school board races." The Oaklandside, Nov. 2, 2022. https://oaklandside.org/2022/11/02/the-biggest-donors-and-fundraisers-in-the-ousd-school-board-races/
McBride, Ashley. “Oakland school board races draw less spending by political groups this year.” The Oaklandside, Oct. 29, 2024. https://oaklandside.org/2024/10/29/oakland-school-board-races-draw-less-spending-by-political-groups-this-year/
Post News Group contributors “Misnamed ‘parent’ PAC seeks to influence Oakland school board elections.” The Oakland Post, Sept. 14, 2026. https://www.postnewsgroup.com/misnamed-parent-pac-seeks-to-influence-oakland-school-board-elections/
Price, Charlene. “Oakland’s teachers union backs Jennifer Brouhard — and her own party declined to. The Oaklandside’s profile mentions neither.” Oakland Report, Sept. 23, 2026. https://www.oaklandreport.org/p/oaklands-teachers-union-jennifer-brouhard-oaklandside
McBride, Ashley. "Oakland Unified school board’s new leadership faces a tumultuous year ahead." The Oaklandside, Jan. 7, 2025. https://oaklandside.org/2025/01/07/oakland-unified-school-board-2025-brouhard-bachelor/
Tucker, Jill. "Incident at Oakland high school sets off ugly battle pitting principals against teachers." San Francisco Chronicle, May 30, 2025. https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/oakland-principal-teacher-union-20337166.php; https://archive.is/pLw1k
DeBenedetti, Katie. “Oakland school board votes to remove superintendent, sparking worries of instability.” KQED, Apr. 24, 2025. https://www.kqed.org/news/12037315/oakland-school-board-votes-remove-superintendent-sparking-worries-instability
Reinhart, Sean S. “Commentary: When educators become school bullies.” Oakland Report, Dec. 7, 2025. https://www.oaklandreport.org/p/20251207-when-teachers-become-school-bullies
Tucker, Jill. “Oakland principals issue rare call to close schools, end leadership limbo amid fiscal crisis.” San Francisco Chronicle, Apr. 26, 2026. https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/oakland-schools-close-22224171.php; https://archive.ph/MYXQP
You will never hear about this in The Oaklandside. That’s because they are political operatives NOT journalists.
I firmly believe that the most important subject that should be taught in high schools, in particular, right now is "Corruption." If we teach Civics and Government and US History but fail to define Corruption and relate it to the history of attacks on democracy from political corruption, then we fail to prepare our citizens for participating in democracy. If our citizens want to understand the unique benefits of democracies, they need to understand the history of corrupt societies, including the dictatorships in the world today, such as Russia, Iran, North Korea, and China. It even helps explain why those dictatorships consider our democracies to be enemies, since our success threatens their systems and their control over their terrified citizens.
In relation to local and State elections, and unfortunately recent Federal elections, our citizens cannot sort out the corruption in plain sight without this basic education. Calling out wealthy developers for buying elections to benefit their bottom lines while ignoring public unions doing the same thing reflects profound ignorance of what corruption is.