Here’s what we don’t know:

1. His name.

2. Where he lived.

3. His ethnicity and age.

4. In what way he was a threat to public safety.

5. In what way he was a threat to police officers.

6. What de-escalation technicques did OPD use before they opened fire?

7. What less-than-lethal weapons were employed before they fired their guns?

8. What, if anything, did the deceased person say?

Chief Beere, we’re waiting for these answers, none of which will impede or interfere with your investigation.

When we see that elected officials, regardless of how they self-identify politically, choose to disregard obligations and principles of their governing documents, we are in real danger. What is so obvious on the national stage is no less insidious and dangerous when it is mirrored on the local level and result in a serious breach of trust in the social contract.

One clear example is the recent budget passed by the Oakland City Council which underfunds the civilian oversight body of the Police Department. This body is enshrined in the City Charter (chapter 604) as the result of two ballot measures passed by over 80% of Oakland voters. The will of the voters, to have a local independent entity as the successor agency to Federal oversight, has been severely undercut and compromised by the City’s refusal to adequately fund this body.

We should demand no less of our local elected officials in terms of their being responsive to the will of their constituents expressed in the governing documents than we should demand at the state and national level The ‘if we can keep it’ part is something we need to remind ourselves of and hold our electeds accountable for when they allow motivations other than fidelity to the will of the people to influence their decisions.

The ‘least of us” are our community members who are most often the victims of racial profiling, police abuse and incarceration. So you would imagine that self-described progressive elected officials would embrace opportunities to redress these inequities and abuses. But do their politics really match their rhetoric, or even their legacy?

In Oakland, after decades of well-documented police abuse resulting in over two decades of Federal oversight, Oakland residents overwhelmingly recognized that all of our Mayors, City Administrators and Police Chiefs were not able to transform the toxic culture of the police department. They voted to change the Charter of the City to install an independent Police Commission with professional investigators and auditors to oversee the police department. This body has the authority to hold it accountable for policing that serves and protected ‘the least of us’ and guard against the department backsliding on reforms that took decades to implement. But it cannot function without resources.

Despite its reputation as a ‘progressive’ city, and contrary to the will of over 80% of Oakland voters in 2016 and 2020, our so-called progressive City leaders, including Mayor Barbara Lee, have not found the wherewithal to fund this body adequately while at the same time allowing the police department to overspend their overtime budget by an average of $30 million a year!

No elected official can claim to be ‘progressive’… to serve ‘the least of us’ and protect them from abusive law enforcement behaviors while failing to provide adequate resources to the only entity within the City with the authority to investigate, monitor, audit and hold its police department accountable to a standard of equitable, Constitutional policing practices.

It’s time for rhetoric to match reality. Mayor Lee and members of the City Council and who all those who claim progressive values must provide the resources needed to enable the Police Commission, CPRA and the OIG to function as intended. After decades of Federal oversight costing many millions of dollars, the City cannot now turn its back on ‘the least of us, those who bear the brunt of police misconduct. and fail to hold its police department accountable for misconduct going forward.

But if the City were really in a ‘state of extreme fiscal necessity, would they be adding a brand-new position, a Constitutional Policing Administrator with a whopping salary of $425,000 when we already have a Police Commission which is chronically underfunded?

In an effort to be fiscally prudent, wouldn’t the City fund the Community Police Review Agency to subcontract Skelly hearings to third parties, rather than have OPD highly paid officers spend their time on these hearings instead of protecting and serving the public?

More to the point, wouldn’t holding these hearings more promptly save the city millions of dollars annually in payments to officers who are at home for months or even years waiting their hearings?

Aren’t there many other desk jobs that sworn OPD officers are doing that could be transferred to civilians, allowing these officers to do what they were trained to do: protect and serve Oakland residents and businesses?

A moral document is one that makes sure that every dollar budgeted serves the needs of Oakland residents rather than special interests. Can the proponents of the proposed budget claim that this goal has been met? Does the proposed budget make the wisest use of our limited resources, or does it duplicate roles and overlook obvious ways to make more efficient use of our most expensive resources, our sworn police officers?

Maybe a second look at the proposed budget is in order?

It seems clear that Measure E failed because voters do not believe that the city is a trusted steward of taxpayer money. They want our city council and mayor to get their priorities right and will resist giving them more money until that happens.

Take this example from the mayor’s proposed budget. She wants to have a full-time person be in charge of constitutional policing. And what is the proposed salary for that person? If you said $425,000 per year (a preposterous number, granted) you’d be right. The governor of California gets a salary of around $246,000 a year!

What makes this really hard to accept is the redundancy.

Oakland already has a robust system of independent police oversight—the Police Commission, the Community Police Review Agency, and the Office of Inspector General but the mayor’s budget significantly cuts funding for these. And while the constitutional policing position is a new creation, Oakland’ civilian police oversight was approved overwhelmingly by Oakland’s voters and established in the City Charter in 2016 and 2020.

It looks likely that we will finally, after 23 years, get out from under federal court oversight of Oakland’s police department. Our civilian oversight system was designed to make sure that the city’s police do not backslide into bad behavior. This system needs adequate funding, not short-changed because of a new and duplicative position.

Perhaps the mayor should be checking on the police as well. But should it cost nearly half a million dollars a year of our money for that?

The proposed Charter changes intended to ‘improve’ civilian oversight were not informed by the audit findings or his recommendations. Instead, they reflect displeasure with some of the events that have taken place and some individuals in recent history that didn’t sit well with the Council member who is authoring this proposed amendment to the City Charter.

To be clear: in its ten-year history, the Police Commission has faced hurdles, obstacles and dysfunction, at times. In some cases, the cause was personal animosities (like those found in any group trying to work together.). But in other cases, deficiencies resulted from a lack of support and resources from the City.

As the Auditor stated publicly, many of the areas that need improvement are dependent on the resources that are needed the Commission, the Community Police Review Agency (CPRA) and the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) to accomplish the mandated tasks described in the Charter.

But the Auditor also stressed the need for this oversight body to operate as an independent body, and it is precisely the independence of the Commission which will be compromised by CM Houston’s proposed Charter changes.

Removing the ability of Council chosen residents (Selection panel) to nominate candidates for the Commission, subject to final approval by the City Council and replacing that with direct Council appointing authority makes the process political. Commissioners must not be directly accountable to the City Council member who appointed him or her; rather, the Commissioners should be accountable to the residents of Oakland whose values and interests they represent, and that’s what the Selection Panel of Oakland residents represents. Many oversight bodies throughout the US have a similar appointment process.

Let’s not try to fix imaginary problems by turning everything upside down. Let’s address the issues identified by the City Auditor by updating the Enabling legislation which will be sponsored by CMs Gallo and Fife and providing the support the Commission needs to fulfil the madate supported by over 80% of Oakland voters in both 2016 and 2020.

Folks who self-identity as pragmatists who support ‘what works.” They claim to be realistic, practical, problem-solvers in contrast to “progressives” or “ideologues” who are impractical dreamers and visionaries who are not realistic. But let’s take a closer look.

What do these “pragmatists” mean when they call for cleaning up the streets? Or cracking down on crime? Or requiring anyone who drives a vehicle to pass an English language test? It’s just about being reasonable and practical, isn’t it?

A deeper look reveals that the “solutions” that are presented to deal with these societal problems have clear impacts: on race and class. What if being “pragmatic” is a disingenuous term that really means advocating for solutions that benefit one class and race (their own) at the expense of the others.

Public safety “solutions” have become synonymous with “by any means necessary” for law enforcement. But how many ‘pragmatists” have been at the wrong end of a police baton, pepper spray or a bullet? How many “pragmatists” who want a clean sweep of homeless encampments have watched their only possessions carried away in front of their eyes?

Let’s get real. Pragmatism is a thinly veiled mask for racial and class supremacy disguised as reason and practicality. Pragmatism masks support for policies that favor those with ‘agency’ and lacks empathy and compassion for those without it.

It’s time to unmask those in our community who purport to be pragmatic but who stand to gain influence and power at the expense of those whose interests and needs.. even rights… will continue to be in jeopardy.

Oakland’s Police Commission elevated an alternate member, Omar Farmer, to a full member in order to make up a quorum. This is what all boards and commissions do in similar situations. That’s why there are alternate members.

But, the Oakland Report thunders, it was done in closed session! A violation of the Brown Act! The City Attorney wrote a letter saying that since Farmer is a holdover who has been rejected twice by the city council his time as full commissioner must be limited. This is a bit like saying Oakland is named after a tree. Why, yes it is.

Oh, the City Attorney’s letter is a “significant setback” for the commission, the online publication intones. Let’s get the pitchforks out! The sky is about to fall.

The Oakland Police Commission is made up of volunteers from the community. They are in charge of overseeing the Community Police Review Agency, the Office of Inspector General and making sure the Police Department acts within constitutional bounds. The members get no pay and have to put in countless hours of often thankless work.

If they make a procedural mistake, people have every right to urge them to a do-over. But there are those in our city who want to get rid of civilian oversight and will use that innocuous mistake as a rhetorical club. Let’s not fall for that brand of disinformation.

So, you have a car……. You take a trip……you run out of gas……you don’t have any money….

What do you do? Why, re-design the car, of course!

So, you have a car….you take it for a spin…..you’ve never taken driving lessons…you crash.

What do you do? Why, re-design the car, of course!

When things are not running smoothly, some folks turn to ‘design flaws’ before looking at more obvious, more easily corrected factors.

Do we rip up the Constitution because of the incessant violations perpetrated by the incumbents? No… we use the inherent capacity of the ‘balance of power’ design to self-correct.

So, why do things fall apart?

1. Incompetence

Communication breakdown may have cost Oakland millions, report finds

2. Lack of accountability for outcomes

City unions urge Oakland to get police overtime spending under control

Are we going to expect more efficiency from a citizen-led commission than we do from our highly paid administrators and department heads? Or are we going to provide the Police Commission with the training and resources required by the City Charter that will enable them to fulfil their mandate

Let’s fill up the tank, have a credit card handy, and provide driving lessons before deciding that we need to design a new car!

Much of the assertion is simply untrue and overall it is certainly misleading. Neither the City Attorney, nor the mayor, nor the City Council nor the NSA (Negotiated Settlement Agreement) plaintiffs and counsel have much involvement in the routine operations of the police department. The federal monitor does have a great deal of authority, of course, but that will end once the NSA is completed. More on that later.

That leaves the City Administrator, who the chief reports to and who typically is not involved in OPD operations, and then there is the Police Commission. Made up of volunteers from the community, the powers of the Commission are strictly limited by the City Charter. Its policy making powers are limited essentially to those affecting use of force, racial profiling, and matters covered by the NSA. The Commission’s disciplinary powers are also very limited.

The Oakland Police Commission was designed to hold the police department accountable to the community but, unlike the San Francisco Police Commission, it has no power over the day to day operations of the department. The drafters of the ballot measures that created the OPC were well aware of the distractions that often engulf San Francisco—like the many hours that commission took trying to decide what to do with retired police horses. By contrast the OPC was designed to focus on policing issues that directly affect the community, especially the use of excessive force.

The article includes another chart purporting to show six other entities that interfere with the police chief’s job. There is the Privacy Advisory Commission, the Community Policing Advisory Board, and the Oakland Public Safety Planning and Oversight Commission. Again, the chart is misleading--all of these are purely advisory bodies with no actual power over the police chief.

Then there are the civilian oversight bodies, including the Police Commission (which has the distinction of being on both charts), the Office of Inspector General, and the Community Police Review Agency. The Oakland Report piece warns “Together, these layers of oversight form a structure that grants extraordinary authority to volunteer citizen appointees that is typically reserved for elected officials and high-level government executives.” That’s yet another misleading statement. The Office of Inspector General and the Community Police Review Agency are led and staffed by experienced professional employees of the City of Oakland.

So, in fact, the only entity having any authority over the OPD that is composed of volunteer citizen appointees is the Police Commission, whose powers are strictly limited.

Yes, the Police Commission can fire the police chief. But only, “for cause,” and after a hearing-- a very high bar. The Commission lost confidence in Anne Kirkpatrick and asked then Mayor Libby Schaaf to fire her. Schaaf did fire her without cause but then obfuscated her action by praising Kirkpatrick as she announced the action. There were solid reasons to fire Kirkpatrick, who was backsliding on NSA compliance, but only the mayor, not the Commission, can fire a chief without a finding of good cause.

Another recent Oakland Report article has the odd title “Oakland Police Department can’t escape oversight—one man stands in the way.” Leaving aside the implication that OPD shouldn’t be subject to oversight, let’s look at the man, Robert Warshaw, who is depicted in a cartoon sitting on a throne on top of a pile of cash. Is he singlehandedly keeping OPD in thrall to the NSA to make money for himself?

This is simply ridiculous. The NSA is an agreement the City of Oakland made with plaintiffs in the notorious Riders case, ceding a great deal of authority over the police department to a federal court. Judge William Orrick is the ultimate authority over the NSA and Warshaw is a contract employee and an agent of the court. The judge conducts quarterly status conferences and requires monthly reports from the monitor. Anyone who has been in his court room will have no doubt that it is he who has the final word. Those who would complain about the longevity of the NSA should “tell it to the judge.”

The fact is that after more than twenty years everyone associated with the NSA is sick of it and wants it to end. And it almost has several times. But each time the OPD is almost in full compliance the Department is consumed by a scandal that derails it.

There was the 2016 egregious sexual exploitation of minors by OPD officers, the 2018 incident when OPD officers shot and killed a homeless man who was asleep at the time, the 2021 revelation of racist and sexist social media posts by OPD officers, and then a 2023 incident where Sgt. Michael Chung caused a hit and run in a parking garage and later discharged his weapon in an elevator and subsequently threw the shell casings off the Bay Bridge (you can’t make this up).

Even worse was the 2023 case of Detective Phong Tran, who bribed witnesses in order to get criminal convictions, lied under oath, and suborned perjury. At least two homicide convictions were overturned as a result of his actions.

The common thread in the first three scandals is that the OPD’s Internal Affairs Division investigated and found either no misconduct or only very minor offenses. In the Chung case the OPD chief at the time, LeRonne Armstrong, suppressed IAD findings and attempted to exonerate the offending officer.

The subtext of the Oakland Report pieces is that the police should be “unleashed” to do their job. Civilian oversight, the writers complain, hampers cops and makes it harder, if not impossible, for them to find and apprehend criminals. Federal oversight has to end. We’re spending millions of our dollars for the court appointed monitor.

But these arguments totally ignore the other side of the coin—the tens of millions of dollars that the City of Oakland has spent to resolve police misconduct lawsuits. Between 2000 and 2016 it is estimated that Oakland spent $70 million for these. Since then, after the establishment of the Police Commission, the numbers have declined significantly, down to just under $16 million. That’s still too much, but a decided improvement. And we should never forget that behind the numbers is a human tragedy--the people who have been injured, maimed, or killed by police officers.

Oakland’s police were once notorious for abusing the city’s black and brown residents. The resulting mistrust between residents and police made effective policing far more difficult if not impossible in the very communities that needed it the most.

Although the crime rate in Oakland has declined significantly since the end of the pandemic, no one will deny that it should be lower and that more can be done to improve the work of the police. But those who say we need to weaken civilian oversight are misguided.

Civilian oversight does not impede policing or hinder public safety strategies. On the contrary, it builds community trust in the police and creates greater cooperation in preventing and solving crime. It is an asset and not a liability.

We have only to look at the national landscape to see what happens when law enforcement becomes lawless enforcement because there is no oversight. Holding law enforcement accountable does not prevent their ability to protect and serve nor does it render effective management impossible.

Civilian oversight is not the problem nor does it compromise public safety. On the contrary, it has been proven to reduce the decades of abuse and harm inflicted on mostly brown and black residents and improve the ability of police to engage with the community to make Oakland safer.

Yes, we need to end the NSA and it may well happen this year or next. But we also need to support and fully fund the civilian oversight bodies that will ensure constitutional policing is a permanent fixture in Oakland. The community can be a powerful force multiplier against crime but that will only happen if the police are seen as part of the community and not, as in the unlamented past, an occupying force. We must never return to the bad old days of a police force unaccountable to the people its officers are sworn to serve and protect.

About the author:

Larry C. White is a retired attorney who, as a volunteer with the Coalition for Police Accountability, was the principal author of Propositions LL and S1, which created the Oakland Police Commission, the Community Police Review Agency, and the Office of Inspector General. He is an Oakland resident and a former Senior Staff Counsel for the California Department of Insurance.

We’re not talking peanuts. Fiscal year 2023 to 2024 OPD overtime was $55 million, $31 of which was over budget. The City’s response? A reward! The City Council set aside $72 million for the next two years for police overtime!

The problem has gotten worse, not better, over the past few years. Oaklandside reported: “As Oakland’s budget crisis has deepened, forcing layoffs of civilian employees and spending freezes across city programs, police overtime has exploded. In 2021, 58 officers earned over $100,000 in overtime. By 2024, that number had nearly tripled to 169 officers.” One officer earned more than half a million dollars in overtime in a single year. And, contrary to accepted wisdom, it wasn’t because of understaffing because when staffing increased, overtime spending also increased”

Inefficiency and waste at the OPD are not confined to overtime. Take a look at the Skelly hearings. That’s a procedure required to make sure officers facing discipline get due process (most California public employees are entitled to this). An officer accused of misconduct who has been put on paid leave cannot get his or her case finalized until there has been a Skelly hearing.

The Oakland Police Department has a backlog of these. At a recent hearing before the City Council Finance Committee, Chief Beere said there were 47 cases pending. The next speaker was Antonio Lawson, the Director of the Civilian Police Review Agency (CPRA), who said there were actually 84. The chief then came back and said, no, it is actually 64. As if asleep, the committee members simply ignored the discrepancy. The officers sitting at home getting full time pay probably don’t care how long it takes to clear up the backlog, but shouldn’t the City? It’s unclear how many of those awaiting Skelly hearings fall into this category.

Let’s widen the focus to an even bigger issue—the Negotiated Settlement Agreement between the city and the plaintiffs in the Riders case that resulted in federal court oversight of the Oakland Police Department. Begun in 2003, it was supposed to last for five years and would end in 2008. It’s still going on 23 years later because the Oakland PD just can’t seem to comply with the agreed upon reforms. They’re almost in full compliance, and, seemingly, always will be. Oakland has funded this multi-million effort for fifteen years longer than was intended..

The NSA happened because of gross police misconduct that was uncovered because of the Riders case. Since then allegations of police misconduct have been investigated by the OPD’s Internal Affairs Bureau, IAB, which itself has been mired in scandal, seemingly every four years or so. It’s pretty obvious by now that the police cannot, should not, police themselves.

There is a common thread that links abuse of overtime, backlogged Skelly hearings, NSA compliance, and IAD scandals: the only time the City acknowledges the problem, let alone tries to solve it, is when the press or the federal monitor exposes it.

There is a bright side to this picture, though, and a reason for optimism. There are structures which do exist in Oakland and, if used properly, as they were intended, can shake off the City’s lethargy and get us out from under federal supervision.

Oakland’s voters overwhelmingly approved City Charter amendments in 2016 and 2020 that created a robust system of civilian oversight of the police including one of the most powerful Police Commissions in the country, a Civilian Police Review Agency (CPRA), and an Office of Inspector General (OIG). Included were specific provisions allowing the Commission and the OIG to continue to monitor the police department for the tasks required by the NSA. This was intended to be an “off ramp” from the NSA that would prevent the kind of backsliding that other cities’ police departments experienced when emerging from federal consent decrees.

The backlog in Skelly hearings can be solved by having them organized by CPRA, using outside impartial counsel. One possibility is to use the state’s Office of Administrative Hearings, which has contract administrative law judges that could do the job at a reasonable cost.

As for the historical unreliability of the police department’s Internal Affairs Bureau, it’s about time to recognize that the police should not police themselves. The city council recognized this a few years ago and commissioned a study to move all complaints of police misconduct to CPRA. The city administrator, the mayor, and the city council need to get this done.

Much of police overtime is due to sworn officers performing clerical work. Another instance of city leaders being asleep at the switch for years. Time to wake up and civilianize all OPD tasks that are appropriate for that. This would free up sworn officers to do the job they are paid for—public safety.

The “structures” that can guarantee police accountability as well as efficiency are waiting to be fully funded. What it will take is for the mayor, the city administrator, and the city council to take action? We shouldn’t have to wait for another scandal but we will unless the community makes a loud enough noise so that no one in city hall can ignore it.

So much misunderstanding in her analysis. First, the Oakland City Charter does not “promise independence” to the institutions of civilian oversight (the Police Commission, the Civilian Police Review Agency, and Office of the Inspector General). The Charter provides bright lines allowing independence in certain areas, with articulated limits on authority, and final say in others is given to the City Council. In the most important particular, the Council has the authority to reject nominees for the Police Commission.

Some of Mandal’s points are well taken. She thinks that cities should clarify record-access rights and align charter authority with state law. Unlike Berkeley, Oakland’s Charter does just that. The civilian oversight bodies are given the same right to records as the Police Department’s Internal Affairs Division. And all of the Charter provisions are consistent with state law.

But still, the problem, she says, is not political, it is structural. If only the governmental structure was set up correctly, there would be no conflicts.

And this is the naivete at the heart of her analysis. The conflict that arose over the rejection of the Police Commission candidates is political. No one is doubting that the Council had the power to do what it did; the Charter is crystal clear on that. But many are questioning the wisdom and the process (no reasoning given) for the rejection. This conflict, the clash between differing points of view, is not caused by structural design flaws. It is a natural function of democracy.

Larry White

To: President of the City Council  City Attorney  City Administrator  Selection Panel President  Police Commission  Cc: Mayor Barbara Lee City Council members  Michelle Phillips 

I am writing on behalf of the Coalition for Police Accountability to inform you that the submission of the slate of proposed police commissioners Ricardo Garcia-Acosta and Omar Farmer was fatally flawed because the Selection Panel did not do a background check in conjunction with the latest submission.  

When the Council believed subsequently that it had to act on the slate as originally submitted, it chose to reject the slate in a vote on October 21, 2025.  That vote was, however, a nullity because there had not been background checks on the nominees and therefore the slate was improperly before the Council.

City Charter Section 604(c)(3)c states, “If the City Council does not accept or reject the entire slate within sixty (60) days after the completion of the background checks and (emphasis added) submission by the Selection Panel, all designated replacements shall be deemed appointed.” 

It is striking that although the Selection Panel, the City Administrator, the City Attorney, and the City Council were aware of the submission of this slate, no one in Oakland’s government noticed that there were no background checks and that the Charter required them. Instead, the City Council proceeded as though it had received a valid submission. 

The apparent lack of familiarity with the Charter was  vividly illustrated on September 25 when Council President Jenkins stated at the Rules Committee that he was “sending back” the slate to the Selection Panel. No such procedure is permitted by the Charter.  See our attached letter of September 29.

A further important point is that the Selection Panel improperly submitted the slate only to the City Administrator, apparently expecting that he would submit the slate to the Council.

The Oakland City Charter states clearly that the Selection Panel shall “submit a slate of names of such designated persons to the City Council (emphasis added) for acceptance or rejection.”  Section 604(c)(3)c.  It does not say that the submission may or should go to the City Administrator. 

We are aware that the City Attorney has taken the position that the 60 time period for the Council to accept or reject a slate only begins when the Council has reasonable notice of the submission.  We agree. However, the 60 day period set forth in the Charter is meaningless if a submission by the Selection Panel of a slate is only made to the City  Administrator, who has no time limit for his submission to the Council.  The Charter may not be interpreted in a way that invalidates its clear language.

We understand that as a matter of administrative convenience the City Administrator should be aware of the submission and we see no legal obstacle to notifying him of the submission at the same time  the slate is submitted to the City Council. 

It cannot be denied that the matter of the Selection Panel’s slate of July 22, 2025 was mishandled by all bodies of Oakland’s government.  It is time to clear up the confusion and put the process of selecting commissioners for Oakland’s important Police Commission on a sounder footing.  We suggest a good start would be making the City Charter required reading for all involved.

Sincerely,

Larry C. White, Esq.

Millie Cleveland, Chair, CPA Steering Committee