Police Commission appointment was discussed behind closed doors with no advance notification to the public

The Oakland Police Commission (OPC) has appointed ‘holdover,’ alternate commission member Omar Farmer to a full seat on the commission, in apparent violation of California’s sunshine laws and the will of Oakland city council.

• Farmer’s reappointment to the OPC was previously rejected by city council on Oct. 21, 2025 and again on January 20, 2026.

• However, Farmer continued to serve on the OPC in a ‘holdover status’ due to there being no one nominated to replace him.

• Following a closed-door session out of view of the public on March 26, the OPC announced that it had elevated Farmer to a full commissioner seat to fill a vacancy.1

• The posted agenda for the March 26 OPC meeting included no public notice that a commission member appointment would be discussed or decided.

• By bypassing the city council’s double rejection of Farmer, the OPC appears to be acting in open defiance of the council.

Thank you for reading Oakland Report. Subscribe to receive new articles in your inbox.

Subscribe now

‘Cure and correct’ demand: Police Commission violated the Brown Act

In plain terms, the Brown Act is a state law that says the government’s business, including commissions must be done in public. The law is designed to require open meetings, posted agendas, and meaningful opportunities for citizens to see, hear, review, and speak to government decision-makers before discussions are held or votes are cast.

A formal “cure and correct” demand for the March 26 appointment has been filed under the Brown Act by Oakland resident Rajni Mandal.

Mandal notified the city council, city attorney and OPC about the violation in emails obtained by Oakland Report:

Cure and Correct Demand – Brown Act Compliance (Gov. Code 54960.1)

198KB ∙ PDF file

Download

March 31, 2026. To the Oakland Police Commission: Pursuant to California Government Code section 54960.1, I am writing to request that the Oakland Police Commission cure and correct an action taken at its March 26, 2026 regular meeting that appears inconsistent with the Brown Act’s open meeting requirements.

Download

The core of the alleged Brown Act violation is that OPC’s action to select and elevate a Police Commissioner was not listed on the public agenda, and thus violated a core provision of state law.

The cure-and-correct demand calls for the OPC to either void the action or defend its legality.2

California Government Code § 54960.1 provides a specific legal process for addressing alleged Brown Act violations. An interested party may submit a written demand requiring the offending party, in this case the OPC, to “cure and correct” an alleged violation.3

The OPC has 30 days from receipt of the demand to cure or correct the challenged action. If the legislative body takes no action within the 30-day period, the demanding party has 15 days to commence a lawsuit to render the action null and void.

A power struggle in Oakland’s police oversight

For months, City Hall has been locked in a struggle between a commission determined to assert its independence and a city council wary of losing its grip on police oversight.

Farmer’s reappointment to the OPC was previously rejected by city council on Oct. 21, 2025 and again on January 20, 2026.

However, Farmer continued to serve on the OPC in a ‘holdover status’ due to there being no one nominated to replace him. Per state law and a December 2025 city attorney opinion, termed-out commission members may continue serving in ‘holdover status’ until a replacement is seated.4

Despite his position in a ‘holdover,’ alternate commission seat, and being twice rejected for reappointment by city council, Farmer is currently the chair of the OPC’s Negotiated Settlement Agreement (NSA) Ad Hoc Committee and co-chair of the Mental Health Ad Hoc Committee, placing him at the center of some of Oakland’s most sensitive policing reforms.

See this related article:

Can a twice-rejected nominee be appointed anyway?

In theory, the police commission selection process is designed to engage community expertise in police oversight while filtering out unqualified or unproductive candidates.

In practice, this “complex selection process” is a source of administrative bottlenecks, as city council president Kevin Jenkins warned in May 2024. In his proposal to restructure the police commission through a ballot measure (which was not taken up), Jenkins characterized the current system as inefficient, citing potential biases and “fraught” recruitment environments that lead to prolonged vacancies in the commission and the Office of the Chief of Police.5

According to Jenkins, these procedural tensions manifested in a “fragile state” of governance, where the commission makes use of alternate members to fulfill essential committee functions.

The standard path to commission appointments vs. the current ‘fragile state’

Standard path (Charter section 604):

• Step 1: Nine-person Selection Panel recruits/screens candidates.

• Step 2: Candidates recommended to City Council.

• Step 3: City Council confirms four regular commissioners and one alternate; the mayor appoints three regular commissioners and one alternate

• Step 4: Regular commissioners chair key ad hoc committees (NSA, Policy, etc.).

Current ‘fragile state’:

• Step 1: “Complex selection process” leads to recruitment delays.

• Step 2: Vacancies persist in regular commissioner seats.

• Step 3: Alternate commissioners (e.g., Farmer) are elevated to chair critical committees to maintain basic oversight functions.

• Step 4: Potential dilution of oversight intensity and increased legal risk due to perceived lack of permanent, confirmed leadership.

The city council’s rejections of Omar Farmer were for reappointment nominations originating from the Selection Panel.6

However, City Charter Section 604(d)(8) states: “For vacancies occurring for reasons other than the expiration of a regular member’s term, the Commission shall select one of the Alternate Commissioners to replace the regular member for that regular member’s remaining term of office.”7

This language grants the OPC the discretionary authority to select which alternate fills a mid-term vacancy in a full commission seat. Once elevated, Farmer assumes the remainder of the vacated seat’s term. A new vacancy is then created for the alternate position, which must be backfilled by the original appointing authority (the Selection Panel, subject to council confirmation).

Oversight in the balance

The makeup of the citizen-led police commission is of material significance to Oakland’s efforts to exit over two decades of federal oversight.

The Negotiated Settlement Agreement governs the current federal oversight of the Oakland Police Department (OPD). The NSA is a 2003 federal court-ordered reform program established to oversee OPD following the “Riders” scandal in the 1990s, where officers were accused of misconduct. The NSA requires OPD to implement 51 specific tasks regarding officer behavior, including use-of-force and internal investigations.

By not following policies and procedures and undermining its credibility – and creating further conflict and rift with the rest of the city - OPC is jeopardizing Oakland’s compliance with the NSA. The judge and monitor have repeatedly said that leadership and collaboration are key factors to achieve compliance.

The NSA “Scorecard” for OPD reveals a department close to, but not quite past the finish line to exit federal oversight.

OPD oversight ‘Scorecard’ (February 2026 data):

• Staffing crisis: Only 614 sworn positions are filled out of an authorized 678. More concerning still, the police department’s operational strength is down to 495 officers.

• Administrative leaves: 17 officers are on administrative leave. Just seven of those officers, now off for 1–2 years, are burning through $2,112,588 annually in salary and benefits while doing zero police work.

• Misconduct investigations: The Community Police Review Agency (CPRA) completed 15 investigations and administratively closed five more in February 2026. Allegations ranged from “Use of Force” to “Truthfulness.”

• Compliance gaps: The department is in “Partial compliance” with Task 45 (Discipline Policy) and “Not in compliance” with Task 5 (Internal Affairs Bureau Complaint Procedures).

The irony is notable: Omar Farmer, whom the council apparently tried to block from continuing to serve on the commission, now chairs a significant ad hoc committee reviewing NSA compliance, including Task 5 and Task 45.

Furthermore, the NSA ad hoc committee’s activities appear to go beyond its charter-defined scope: in its strategic plan, the ad hoc committee has assigned itself various tasks aimed at achieving NSA compliance.8 However, their charter-defined role is to maintain a structure to provide oversight and compliance once Oakland exits the NSA.

In his role as committee chair, Farmer has repeatedly demanded information and reports for this out-of-scope activity, including as recently as March 26 — duplicating work and introducing confusion about which body is responsible for reforms. This out-of-scope activity has created conflict with OPC, OPD and city administration, and risks undermining the city’s progress toward the reforms required by the NSA.

In this respect, the success of Oakland’s exit from federal oversight now partly rests in the hands of the very man the city’s leadership twice tried to exclude.

See this related article:

BY OAKLAND REPORT AND LOCUNITY

March 25, 2026 – Oakland school board director Mike Hutchinson publicly called for interim superintendent Denise Saddler to resign, calling Saddler’s performance “not good enough.”

• The interim superintendent delivered a mostly verbal summary financial and attendance report to the board on March 25, but offered no written documentation to back up her financial updates.

• Hutchinson then sharply criticized Saddler for failing to provide written financials, and for being unresponsive to his emailed questions about the district’s finances and cutting their recent one-to-one meeting short.

• In her own defense, Saddler stated that she cut the one-to-one call short and did not respond to Hutchinson’s emails because she was called away by a family medical emergency over the weekend.

• Board president Jennifer Brouhard and vice-president Valarie Bachelor defended Saddler by stating that she is responsive to their inquiries. Board member VanCedric Williams defended Saddler by emphasizing her 40 years of experience working for Oakland Unified School District (OUSD).

• Board member Patrice Berry recommended that Saddler place financial updates on every board agenda and include written materials going forward.

• Saddler, who is said to be interested in the permanent job, reports directly to the seven-member school board. She was appointed to the interim role in July 2025 after the board fired long-time superintendent Kyla Trammell-Johnson.

Video clip 1. OUSD board member Mike Hutchinson sharply criticizes interim superintendent Denise Saddler and calls on her to resign. (Source: OUSD)

‘This isn’t good enough’

“Unfortunately, because of this poor performance and we still don’t have a fiscal solvency plan, I firmly believe, Dr. Saddler, that you should resign.”

– Oakland school board director Mike Hutchinson, Mar. 25, 2026

OUSD is facing an unfilled $50 million-plus budget deficit, with a potential state takeover deadline looming.

If OUSD cannot pass a balanced budget by July 1, Alameda County Superintendent Alysse Castro could be forced to recommend that the state take control of the district again — less than a year after the district emerged from 22 years of state receivership.

Returning to state receivership would again strip the elected OUSD board of most of its authority and put decisions about schools, staff, and spending in the hands of a state-appointed administrator.

In her verbal presentation to the board, interim superintendent Saddler reported approximately $65 million in savings from ‘Phase 2’ budget reductions and described a new process in which she personally reviews all contracts above $25,000. She warned that achieving budget savings is more urgent than ever.

But board member Mike Hutchinson rejected those assurances, noting that the board has never received written documentation supporting the $65 million figure. He pointed out that the district’s chief business officer (CBO) role has been vacant for several months, and that the fiscal consultant contract with Hazard, Young & Attea was set to increase to $865,000 — roughly three times the cost of a permanent CBO. (Later in the meeting, the board deferred action on renewing the contract until April 22.)

“Where do I send my resolution to get a fiscal impact analysis? Because I know the truth of the matter is there’s nobody currently in the district who can even do it.”

– Oakland school board director Mike Hutchinson

Hutchinson also expressed frustration that he had sent 17 questions to the interim superintendent a few days earlier, but received no response. Saddler responded that she was dealing with an unexpected family medical emergency.

Hutchison then read his 17 questions into the public record (see below), including a demand for detailed accounting of the claimed savings, clarity on policies governing staffing decisions, and whether the superintendent will certify that OUSD can afford its tentative agreement with the Oakland Education Association (OEA).

He warned that if the OEA tentative agreement is approved, the deficit will exceed $100 million.

Hutchinson’s call for Saddler’s resignation carries no procedural force on its own, but it signals a deep fracture on the seven-member board over the district’s fiscal direction, and raises questions about the district’s transparency with respect to its precarious financial condition.

Interim superintendent Saddler’s presentation

Hutchinson’s remarks followed an approximately 30-minute verbal presentation from the interim superintendent, illustrated with slides.

Video clip 2. Interim superintendent Denise Saddler delivers a mostly verbal presentation to the school board on March 25, 2026. (Source: OUSD)

Transcript of Hutchinson’s remarks calling for Saddler to resign

“That was a very disappointing report. In the printed version, the PowerPoint that’s handed out that everyone has to take with them – all it has is stuff about the summer and highlighting some schools. Yet you proceed to just rattle off all of this other information without a document to show it or to prove it – including everything about facilities, everything about the finances.

“One of the reasons why we’re facing claims and lawsuits of antisemitism and people really upset that it hasn’t been addressed, is instead of putting your statement in writing where everyone could see, you just read it off here.

“This isn’t good enough. Not good enough at all. And the fact that there’s no financial person here to make a presentation tonight? You know, again, you mentioned that the $65 million that’s been identified against our deficit. Fine, I’ll take your number, even though we’ve seen no document to prove it, but that means we still have an over $50 million deficit for next year. There’s no moving into budget adoption when there’s a deficit that we have no way to be able to fill.

“I’m really disappointed about what happened at our last board meeting, the exchange that was allowed to happen with the consultants, and it wasn’t addressed. And I’ll talk to you privately about how upset I was in our one-on-one meeting that I only had you there for a few minutes.

“It’s just not acceptable. It’s just not good enough.

“I sent you a list of 17 questions over the weekend asking for answers. Everything from how much savings are being achieved to some of the staffing cuts that we’ve seen listed, the policy that directed those decisions, and even most importantly, where do I send my resolution to get a fiscal impact analysis? Because I know the truth of the matter is there’s nobody currently in the district who can even do it.

“You haven’t taken any actions to hire a new chief business officer, yet on today’s agenda, you’re going to be spending another $450,000 to extend the contract of the consultants who were unvetted, have an awful reputation and are giving extremely poor advice? That’ll bring their total contract to $865,000 – three times what it would have cost to keep paying a chief business officer. This is unacceptable.

“When we get to these questions later, I hope there’s somebody here from the finance department to answer the many questions that I have, and I hope you’re prepared to answer questions that I have about the extension and the contract with HYA explicitly. Because I now know that there are some real shenanigans going on and I’m going to keep saying it as long as I have to – and just so I can clearly say it before my time is up here:

“Unfortunately, because of this poor performance and we still don’t have a fiscal solvency plan, I firmly believe, Dr. Saddler, that you should resign. I’m really troubled by your tone of conversation where you make it seem like you’re going to apply for this long-term job after what’s happened in your eight months as interim superintendent.

“Nobody else has ever had a year where we got out of receivership and we’re now going to go back in, in the same calendar year. This is not the kind of history that we should be making here in OUSD. Thank you.”

– Oakland school board director Mike Hutchinson

Transcript of Hutchinson reading 17 questions into the record

“One of the reasons I was so upset about not an answer is, of the questions that I sent, there should have been easy answers, actually, for all of those questions. This is not something that took any work, if we were doing things the right way.

“So what I’m going to do is I’m going to make sure I read my 17 questions here into the record so everyone can hear what I’m talking about. And again, this is the first time in my five years on the board that I’ve ever had to email the superintendent questions because I couldn’t get an answer from anyone.

1. “What supports are available for me to hold a town hall?

2. “Where do I send my resolution for a fiscal impact analysis?

3. “How many and which schools are being left with zero TSAs [Teachers on Special Assignments] in 26-27?

4. “What is the policy governing how TSAs are distributed across OUSD?

5. “How much savings did cutting TSAs achieve?

6. “What is the policy on which schools get community school managers?

7. “What is the savings from the cut in community school managers?

8. “Are community school managers still on 11-month contracts in 25-26 and 26-27?

9. “Are some teachers and TSAs still on 11-month contracts in 25-26, 26-27?

10. “What policy is there to cut middle school electives?

11. “What is the cost savings from cutting middle school electives?

12. “Have outside partners in philanthropy been asked to help fund OAL [Oakland Athletic League] staff positions?

13. “What is the total savings from the two approved RIFs – Reduction in Forces – how much of that is in the unrestricted?

14. “I need a detailed accounting of the 65 million that has been identified to address the budgetary shortfalls in 25-26 and 26-27.

15. “How are the savings achieved, and in which funds? Are dollars being taken from Measure N, Measures H and G1 to address the deficit?

16. “Is the superintendent going to sign off declaring that OUSD can afford the OEA tentative agreement?

17. “And lastly, how are you going to present a balanced budget for the board to adopt when OUSD still has a $50 million deficit for 26-27 even before the OEA tentative agreement, and if the tentative agreement is approved, the deficit will be over 100 million?

“Most of those questions should be able to be answered off the top of people’s heads – and the rest of them, all it should take is a senior staff being put in touch with me, and they could pull this information up quickly. But what I fear most of all is going on is, there’s no answer to these questions because nobody knows and nobody thought about it – which means there is no policy governing our financial decisions and we don’t have a financial person here to even be able to explain it.

“This is a complete failure and at this point I take it very personally because I also represent 50,000 constituents, and the people in District 4 deserve the same sort of treatment that everyone else seems to be giving to themselves and seem to be receiving from you. Thank you.”

– Oakland school board director Mike Hutchinson

Scheduled closed-door board discussion about the interim superintendent’s employment apparently did not take place

Earlier in the meeting, the board convened behind closed doors to discuss the interim superintendent’s employment contract, but after returning from closed session, board president Brouhard reported that “the board did not discuss this matter.”

Interim superintendent Saddler’s current contract with OUSD awards her a salary of $357,054 per year plus benefits.1

The next meeting of the OUSD budget and finance committee is scheduled on April 2.2

A triumph of community self-reliance

Located at 933 Broadway in the Old Oakland district, The Bookmark bookstore stands as a symbol of Oakland’s beauty, history, and community resilience.

In a landscape often dominated by headlines of government malfeasance, incompetence and service gaps, The Bookmark is an example of the power of people and the private sector to create a sophisticated synthesis of historic preservation and modern civic action despite the chronic dysfunction of Oakland’s government.

The Bookmark is not merely a feel-good story of a successful nonprofit and retail cornerstone of Oakland’s most cherished historic district — it is a triumph of community-driven self-reliance over the systemic failures of municipal fiscal management: a community engine that converts private action into public power, and brings a private solution to a self-inflicted public funding gap.

A powerful engine of volunteerism

To understand the success of The Bookmark is to behold a machine of volunteer efficiency that thrives where Oakland’s local government routinely falters.

The bookstore’s enduring success is built on a “volunteer-first” labor model, a crucial factor in its ability to maintain the low-overhead, high-impact operations required in the modern nonprofit sector.1 Its retail operation is powered by a corps of over 100 dedicated volunteers, directed by three professional staff members: full-time manager Erin Rivero and two part-time staff. Together, they process an inventory exceeding 17,000 items ranging from rare collectibles to affordable paperbacks.2

The Bookmark’s volunteer-driven model allows the bookstore to bypass many of the traditional burdens of a commercial business by leveraging the community’s passion for books, reading and rewarding retail experiences to generate a diversified and reliable revenue stream. By minimizing personnel costs, the percentage of revenue directed to supporting Oakland’s public libraries is maximized to impressive results.

The efficiency and effectiveness of this model is evident in The Bookmark’s multi-channel approach to sales. Although foot traffic and retail floor sales anchor the Broadway storefront, the organization also leverages online sales through eBay, Amazon, Bookshop.org and other platforms. Approximately half of its sales revenue is generated this way, and the proceeds can be substantial — for example, the sale of a rare set of The Wizard of Oz classic book series online generated as much revenue as a week of retail floor sales.

The lifecycle of a donated book

The path from donated books to financial support for Oakland’s public libraries follows an orderly operational flow managed by the store’s parent nonprofit, Friends of Oakland Public Library (FOPL):

• Arrival at the 10th Street shop: Donors deliver gently used books and related materials to The Bookmark on Fridays and Saturdays between 12:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. The operation benefits from high visibility in Oakland’s 18 public library locations, which redirect offers of book donations to The Bookmark.

• The sorting process: Volunteers evaluate and sort the donated materials under the supervision of professional staff. Items compromised by mold or structural damage are culled, while viable media are evaluated for market demand and condition.

• Curation and retail displays: High-quality, affordable finds — typically priced between $3 and $7 — are deployed to the sales floor at 933 Broadway. The retail space is clean, well-organized, and quirky like other popular independent bookstores, featuring a wide variety of items to engage shoppers through curated displays of books, DVDs, vinyl records, board games, puzzles, and related media indicated by handmade signs.

• Online sales: Rare or valuable items — such as an 1878 History of San Francisco — are listed on digital marketplaces to extract maximum resale value.

• Affordability and “upcycling”: By maintaining an affordable price point for sales floor items, enabled by zero-cost inventory and donated labor, The Bookmark provides essential community access to affordable books. (Studies have shown that children who have access to books at home have higher educational attainment later in life.)3 The residual cash value of discarded objects — used books — is recaptured and reinvested into a fundamental civic institution that also provides affordable access to books: the public library. Items that remain unsold or surplus are re-donated to other bookstores or liquidated in monthly deep-discount sales. Truly unsaleable items are either recycled or sent to nonprofit organizations that specialize in shipping used books to communities in need around the world.

Friends of Oakland Public Library: a case study in fiscal independence

The Bookmark retail operation is a community asset that generates its own momentum without direct taxpayer subsidies. As a result, the shop helps the FOPL nonprofit retain its total financial independence from the City of Oakland.

FOPL is a case study in the power of a fully autonomous, self-supporting independent nonprofit. Founded in 1950 and recently celebrating its 75th anniversary, the FOPL has consistently maintained a clear organizational separation from municipal government, and receives no funding from the city.

This independence is not merely symbolic; it is the foundation of the nonprofit’s ability to provide consistent advocacy and funding for the city’s public library system regardless of the city’s fluctuating economic health or political winds.

History justifies this guarded independence. In the early 1990s, decimated city revenues led to the closure of eight library branches and a 31 percent drop in the book acquisitions budget.4

Meanwhile, FOPL has maintained a 75-year upward trajectory, reaching an all-time high of 1,400 members in 2025, and has granted over $4.5 million to Oakland’s public libraries since 1993, including $415,000 in the current fiscal year:

• Special Library Projects ($155,000): Funds a new Outreach Bike Fleet and the Main Library’s 75th Anniversary celebration.

• Branch Services and the African-American Museum and Library of Oakland ($86,000): Covers localized programming, facility improvements, and the seeds for OPL’s popular seed libraries.

• Adult Services & Outreach ($50,500): Supports digital literacy classes and author honoraria.

• Teen Services ($48,300): Finances the Oakland Youth Poet Laureate program and after-school programs.

• OPL Administration ($48,000): Provides staff training and scholarships for Master’s degrees in Library Science.

• Community Relations ($17,200): Supports graphic design and volunteer appreciation efforts.

• Children’s Services ($10,000): Core funding for Summer Reading and Winter Bingo community literacy programs.

FOPL consistently steps in to innovate and create community-driven solutions to community needs

FOPL’s autonomy from the city is key to its ability to innovate where the government cannot or will not. While the city struggles with basic services like safety, infrastructure and cleanliness (not to mention libraries), FOPL consistently funds library improvements, professional development, and popular community programs like the Oakland Youth Poet Laureate, Seed Libraries and “Bike Fix” clinics in East Oakland. These programs are not mere perks; they are valuable community services essential to sustain a thriving city, delivered with a speed and flexibility that Oakland’s municipal bureaucracy rarely matches.

The takeaway: some community institutions can and do thrive when they are decoupled from the city of Oakland’s fiscal instability and mismanagement. As long as the city stays out of their way, FOPL can provide the stability that the municipal government has repeatedly failed to deliver.

This financial resilience stands in contrast to the complex, redundant web of public taxation that currently serves as the library’s fragile lifeline. Unfortunately, while the bookstore flourishes through private enthusiasm and operational agility, the municipal library system it supports remains precariously tethered to a web of special taxes and general fund deficits.

Parcel taxes and the “double-dipping” dilemma

To fully grasp the challenging landscape of library funding in Oakland, one must first understand the role of parcel taxes in Oakland’s financial picture. These targeted property assessments — of which there are many — are a symptom of a struggling General Fund and the city government’s frequent mismanagement of it.

When the city fails to cover fundamental services — like public libraries — that the citizenry expects to receive through the baseline taxes residents and businesses already pay into their municipal budget, the city routinely asks voters to approve additional taxes to fill the city’s self-inflicted financial void. This has contributed to the city’s decades-long reliance on tax measures to sustain basic services like public library operations.

The complex funding of Oakland’s libraries is a paradox that borders on a fiduciary shell game. As voters are asked to approve more special parcel taxes to “save” their library branches (a consistently winning electoral message), the city’s inclination to provide funding for its public libraries from the General Fund tends to recede.

This paradox has become a point of recurring friction. Residents are effectively taxed twice — once through general property and business taxes and again through specific assessments — to sustain a single service. This “double-dipping” effectively allows the city to use parcel taxes as a mechanism to siphon General Fund support away from its public libraries.

In anticipation of this, minimum funding requirements were baked into the language of library parcel tax measures to prevent the city from diverting General Fund dollars away from public libraries.

Nevertheless, the history of these parcel tax measures shows a city increasingly reliant on supplemental taxation rather than fiscal responsibility:

• 1994 (Measure O): A $29 parcel tax established to halt the library branch closures of the early 1990s.5

• 2004 (Measure Q): A 20-year extension that established a $9 million General Fund “floor” to prevent the tax from simply replacing city spending.6

• 2018 (Measure D): Added $75 per single-family parcel tax, and established a $12,992,267 General Fund floor.7

• 2022 (Measure C): A 30-year extension to generate approximately $18 million annually, and raising the General Fund floor to $14.5 million.8

By fiscal year 2022–23, the cumulative weight of Measures Q, D, and C saw total tax revenue climb to $32.8 million.9 Despite this windfall, the city’s financial situation continued to be characterized by chronic mismanagement.

A 2024 City Auditor’s report found that Oakland fell short of its Measure C General Fund appropriation requirement by $62,406 in fiscal year 2022–23.10

This was more than a mere accounting error; it effectively was a breach of the social and legal contract in the measure itself. According to the legal language of Measure C, if the city fails to meet the minimum General Fund floor specified in the measure, the parcel tax may not be collected. The $62,406 shortfall technically invalidated the city’s authorization to collect up to $18 million in taxes from the voters—a substantial legal, financial and political liability.

In response, the Oakland City Council adopted a resolution declaring a “Severe and Unanticipated Financial Event.” This declaration allowed the city to bypass the mandatory Maintenance of Effort (MOE) for library funding — a tactic city leaders have used to evade minimum requirements in other parcel tax measures like Measure NN, which required a minimum of 700 sworn police officers — a level the city has failed to achieve since the measure passed in 2024.11

As noted by prominent local government think-tank SPUR, Oakland has become overly reliant on special taxes for basic services that should be funded by the General Fund.12

To avoid a “double-dipping” scenario in which the city used parcel taxes to replace General Fund dollars — a practice known as “supplanting”— the measures mandated a minimum General Fund appropriation floor. Under Measure D, this floor was set at nearly $13 million. With the passage of Measure C in 2022, the city’s obligation escalated to a $14.5 million minimum.

Audit data revealed a persistent “administrative inertia” to meeting the measures’ requirements. As noted above, in the very first year of Measure C, the city fell short of the required General Fund funding floor by over $62,000. Furthermore, the city’s Finance Department mistakenly collected $112,000 in taxes from 300 property owners who should have been exempt. The city claimed that these errors occurred because staff were unaware of the new Measure C rules and continued to use outdated Measure Q procedures.

Architectural legacy: 933 Broadway and the historic Old Oakland district

Fortunately, while the city’s fiscal foundation strains under the historic weight of its government’s administrative shortcomings, the physical edifices of the library system find strength in a different kind of history.

The relocation of The Bookmark to 933 Broadway in 2024 was in part a strategic maneuver to anchor neighborhood revitalization efforts in a historic landmark. By occupying an 1880s building at the corner of Broadway and 10th, the FOPL nonprofit created a cherished retail touchstone that serves as a bridge between Old Oakland’s architectural heritage and its modern civic life.

Located across the street from the Oakland Convention Center, the Bookmark retail space is a model of aesthetic and functional integration, featuring a savvy display sensibility and large windows that invite the community into an engaging and affordable retail environment.

The relocation of The Bookmark to Old Oakland was more than a business move; it was a metaphor for institutional resilience. In its relatively new location in Old Oakland, the store has found a home that reflects a commitment to the city’s architectural and cultural soul. By transforming a 19th-century relic into a successful retail anchor, the project demonstrates that “place” remains a vital component of community identity.

The interior’s welcoming, old-is-new-again atmosphere is achieved through adaptive reuse, from the building itself to the furnishings and used books for sale inside. This use of recycled materials reinforces the theme of the organization’s philanthropy.

According to The Bookmark’s store manager, the move from a previous location described as “dark and off the beaten path” to this high-visibility historic site has catalyzed a “new beginning,” significantly increasing foot traffic and transforming the store into a prized landmark.

Crucially, this preservation was not achieved via city heritage grants, but through the same community spirit that drives the store’s daily operations. The historic beauty and visibility of the physical space now serve as an advertisement for the power of private initiative over government inertia.

The community as the ultimate service provider

The enduring success of The Bookmark and FOPL is a demonstration that private, community-led initiatives possess a transformative power that flourishes when the local government fails to deliver. The success of these organizations proves that the most effective public services are often those originated and maintained by the citizens themselves, bypassing the dysfunction of Oakland’s government bureaucracy and mismanagement.

This is evident in the impact of services the FOPL provides. According to the FOPL website, when one patron at the Elmhurst Branch used the “Cell Phone Fix-it Clinic” — a program funded by a FOPL grant — they weren’t just getting a technical repair; they were recovering irreplaceable photos of a deceased family member. This human heart of service, alongside programs like the aforementioned “Bike Fix” project and citywide Seed Libraries, represents a level of community care and innovation that standardized government programs rarely achieve.

The Bookmark is a masterclass in a retail model where community waste — used books — is systematically reclaimed and converted into civic capital. While traditional municipal services rely on the heavy hand of public mandate, this operation thrives on the voluntary redistribution of private property — a community-led ecosystem where the value of discarded objects are recaptured and reinvested into the institution that fosters Oakland’s literacy: the public library.

In this respect, The Bookmark is more than a bookstore; it is a monument to the power of community resiliency and the enduring value of the uniquely American spirit of innovation and independence.

As Oakland navigates fiscal uncertainty and chronic financial shortfalls, the Bookmark and FOPL are a testament to the fact that when a community takes ownership of its cultural resources, it creates a model that is not only sustainable but superior.

The Bookmark is, in a way, a living rebuttal to bureaucratic mismanagement: a private, community-led solution to a public funding gap, existing entirely outside the municipal ledger. Now imagine if in addition to this, the city of Oakland were to provide the funding levels required to achieve its public library system’s full potential.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Sean S. Reinhart is a former library director, now retired after 26 years in local government. He served as library and community services director for the cities of Hayward and Menlo Park for a combined 16 years, where he helped build Hayward’s new main library and Menlo Park’s new multi-service community center. His post-retirement endeavors include serving as the managing editor of Oakland Report.

Sean and his family have lived in Oakland for 15 years. He grew up in nearby Hayward. Sean enjoys exploring California’s world-renowned coastline, valleys, deserts and mountains. His creative pursuits include writing, printmaking, carpentry, music and visual arts. He enjoys meeting new people, reading, hiking, gardening, and spending time with his family.

OAKLAND REPORT

WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT

We rely on you, our readers, to donate to Oakland Report to financially support our work. Please join us as a subscribing member by signing up with a monthly or one-time donation.

Donate

We are a 501(c)(3) charitable nonprofit based in beautiful Oakland, California. Our mission is to make truth more accessible to all Oakland residents. Your donation is tax-deductible.

Learn more

EDITOR’S NOTE: Oakland Report’s charter reform series is exploring Oakland’s city charter and how it potentially could change — a question that Oakland voters may be asked on the ballot in 2026. This installment is focused on the city council’s consideration of increasing its own pay through the charter reform ballot measure. The next installment will focus on ranked-choice voting and its effects on candidate quality and elections – a topic the Mayor’s Working Group on Charter Reform did not address. See all seven Charter Reform series articles published to date.

Council seeks an up to 125% salary increase

Today, the city council rules and legislative committee is set to propose up to 125% pay raises for themselves through a charter reform ballot measure that would require voter approval.1

Oakland Report readers will remember that City Council recently awarded cash bonuses and “triggered” pay raises to its public employee unions,2 even after they previously awarded unions cumulative 79% raises over ten years, increasing their pay 2.5 times higher than inflation during that same period.3

Those same unions are now campaigning for a new parcel tax on Oakland homes and businesses to extract even more tax revenue from Oaklanders — already among the highest-taxed in the state.4

Meanwhile, the city council has continued to declare a state of “extreme fiscal necessity” for the past two years running, and the city’s finance department has forecast a structural budget shortfall of $115 million to $135 million annually through 2030.5

Councilmembers could receive salary and benefits far above the area median income

The new proposal from the Mayor Barbara Lee’s Working Group on Charter Reform recommends amending the City Charter to make city council positions full-time, prohibit outside employment, and set compensation through a benchmark survey of other “strong-mayor” cities such as Los Angeles and San Diego.

• Oakland’s current city council salary is $108,803, and is set to rise to $114,678.34 on July 1, 2026.6

• By comparison, the median household income in Oakland is approximately $102,000.7

• San Diego pays its council members a salary of $183,545,8 and Los Angeles pays $244,727.9

• If the proposed Oakland city councilmember raises are approved by voters in a charter amendment, city councilmembers’ salaries would increase up to 68.7% if matched to San Diego councilmembers’ pay, and up to 124.9% if matched to Los Angeles council pay.

• Los Angeles city councilmembers are among the highest-paid municipal lawmakers in the nation.10 This high pay is largely due to a long-standing policy linking their salaries to those of municipal judges, resulting in salaries exceeding peers in cities like New York and San Francisco.

With full-time benefits, councilmember total compensation could exceed $300,000 per year

If voters approve the proposal to designate Oakland city councilmembers as full-time employees, Oakland would pay health premiums up to the Bay Area Kaiser rate ($3,039 per month for family coverage), plus CalPERS pension contributions, insurances, and payroll taxes.11

Including full-time benefits at current costs, Oakland city councilmembers could receive up to $318,145 per year in total compensation, if the charter amendment is set to the Los Angeles benchmark and is approved by voters.

City of Oakland employee benefits are generous, including lifetime defined-benefit pension payouts for members and their beneficiaries

If the charter amendment is approved by voters and city councilmembers become eligible as full-time employees, councilmembers would become eligible to receive the city’s standard benefits package, increasing total compensation substantially.

As of July 2024, the annual base salary for Oakland city councilmembers currently is $108,803, which is higher than the area median income of $102,000.12 Councilmember salary currently is governed by the Public Ethics Commission (PEC), and is adjusted bi-annually based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the preceding two years, with a maximum increase of 5% per year.13

The City of Oakland pays its full-time employees 100% of the monthly premium up to the Bay Area Kaiser rate, which for 2026 is a maximum of $3,039.04 per month for family coverage.14

Additionally as full-time employees, councilmembers would participate in the state retirement system, CalPERS, which offers lifetime defined-benefit pension plans. The city makes substantial employer contributions to its employees’ pension plans, calculated as a percentage of payroll — a long-term financial liability to taxpayers. Employee contribution rates vary by tier, such as 13% for Tier III in the city’s 2026 Benefits Matrix.15

Help us reach our goal of 10,000 subscribers

Subscribe now

Additionally, full-time status would entail participation in the city’s life and accidental death and dismemberment (AD&D) insurance equal to 100% of the employee’s annual base salary, and access to a voluntary 457(b) deferred compensation plan. The city also pays for vision coverage (maximum monthly family rate of $19.75 for 2026), and short-term and long-term disability plans.

There currently are 12-year term limits for Oakland city councilmembers, which enables incumbents to continue to seek re-election (and thus accumulate more years of service toward their CalPERS pensions) for over a decade – thus increasing the amount of their lifetime monthly retirement payouts.

Prohibition on outside employment could make councilmembers more beholden to special interests and campaign donors

The proposal to substantially increase councilmembers’ pay also seeks to prohibit councilmembers from accepting any other outside employment while in office.

Proponents argue that a full-time council can dedicate more time to legislative duties, policy development, budget analysis, and oversight of city departments.16 These proponents argue that by providing market-aligned compensation, the proposal would eliminate the need for outside employment, directly mitigating conflicts of interest.17

Proponents also claim that higher pay reduces financial barriers to running for office, potentially broadening the candidate pool to include those who are not independently wealthy.18

Conversely, governance scholarship suggests that full-time, highly-paid legislative positions can foster a “professional political class,” increasing incumbency advantages and potentially distancing representatives from constituents.19 The Mayor’s Working Group itself notes that prohibiting outside employment could reduce councilmembers’ direct engagement with professional sectors and community networks.20

Banning outside employment ostensibly mitigates direct conflicts of interest but entails a potential risk: if councilmembers become solely reliant on their city salary and benefits, their financial security becomes directly tied to re-election.21 Research suggests that this dynamic could make them more beholden to special interests and campaign donors.

Become a supporting member of Oakland Report. We rely on our readers to provide financial support to continue our nonprofit work.

Learn more

Studies of U.S. state legislatures found that pay increases were associated with legislators spending more time on fundraising and constituent services, rather than direct lawmaking. As the financial stakes of holding office rise, so does the effort required to secure the campaign funding necessary to retain it.22

Designating councilmembers as full-time employees also raises the question as to whether they would then seek additional paid staff support on the assumption – not stated in the charter reform amendment – that council members would then have more time to focus on council work and thus desire more paid staff to help them carry out that extra work. For example, San Diego individual council district offices have staffing levels ranging from 15.00 to 17.50 Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs).

Fiscal impact to Oakland taxpayers

If the charter reform is approved and salaries are benchmarked to other large cities, the total annual employer cost per Oakland councilmember will increase significantly. Assuming an 8-member council, the total fiscal impact varies based on the chosen benchmark:

Other elements of the proposed charter reform amendment

Oakland Report has extensively covered the other elements of the proposed charter amendment through our Charter Reform series. The three main components of the Mayor’s Working Group’s proposal are:

Build Legislative Capacity: Create permanent Legislative & Budget Analyst office to provide analysis of budgets, fiscal impacts, policy interactions, and staffing implications and give the Council enhanced oversight authority.

Return the Council to an odd number to prevent ties: Phase out the at-large seat to create a seven-member council, an odd number that eliminates the need for mayoral tie-breaking and thereby maintains clear separation between legislative and executive functions.

Clarify the Role and Compensation of the City Council: Full-time service is generally assumed to clarify this, and align salaries and rules on outside employment accordingly.

— from Mayor’s Working Group on Charter Reform proposal

Why are councilmember pay raises included in the charter reform proposal?

Taken in the context of Oakland’s long history of corruption, for example the recent indictment of former Mayor Sheng Thao on federal corruption charges, the proposal to increase councilmembers’ compensation raises a number of ethical questions:

If city councilmembers’ livelihoods depend on re-election, does that incentivize them to be even more susceptible to influence by special interests that can help them keep their lucrative jobs and accrue more benefits, not to mention the political powers of their office?

How will the prohibition against outside employment be monitored and enforced? What if they take outside work anyway – who would take the action to enforce violations? If councilmembers break the rule, would Oaklanders just have to wait until the next election, or try to mount an expensive recall campaign? Would their council pay be suspended? Would city councilmembers take action against their council colleagues? Or would literally nothing happen?

Is giving councilmembers substantial pay raises really just a political play to prevent the councilmembers from actively opposing the charter reform proposal’s key element of giving the mayor more power and the city council less power, by promising the councilmembers a big financial payday?

22

Ibid. Hoffman and Lyons.

---

Correction: The original version of this article erroneously stated that there currently are no term limits for Oakland city councilmembers. The article has been corrected to reflect that city councilmembers currently have 12-year term limits.

---

OAKLAND REPORT

WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT

We rely on you, our readers, to donate to Oakland Report to financially support our work. Please join us as a subscribing member by signing up with a monthly or one-time donation.

Donate

We are a 501(c)(3) charitable nonprofit based in beautiful Oakland, California. Our mission is to make truth more accessible to all Oakland residents. Your donation is tax-deductible.

Learn more

BY EMMET GARDNER

EDITOR’S NOTE: Oakland Report is launching a new series featuring analyses and commentaries by Oakland youth writers ages 13-24. We invite submissions from other youth voices in Oakland. Do you have something to say on this issue or others? Visit our About page for more information.

UC’s decision to eliminate standardized testing from admissions was counterproductive

How do you evaluate the future of 200,000 people? This is the difficult problem that the University of California (UC) admissions system faces every year when high school students from around the country apply to the UC undergraduate system.

According to the UC undergraduate admissions summary, over 200,000 applicants have applied to the UC system each year since 2021, with an acceptance rate of around 70 percent. The top schools – Berkeley and Los Angeles – have acceptance rates as low as 9–10 percent.1

UC admissions officers use a variety of metrics and considerations to make these admissions decisions, including high school grade point average (GPA), extracurricular activities, personal essays, and other factors.

However, one specific metric has come under significant scrutiny since 2020: standardized testing.

The SAT and ACT are the two primary tests used in admissions by U.S. colleges. In response to a lawsuit claiming the tests are discriminatory, UC dropped the tests from its admission process in 2020.

Based on an analysis of multiple empirical studies on the subject of standardized testing and its effects on university admissions,2 the evidence suggests that the decision by UC was counterproductive:

• Eliminating test results from admissions took away an important tool that helped admissions officers identify high-achieving students from disadvantaged backgrounds who otherwise might have been overlooked. Including a high SAT score raised admission chances for disadvantaged students by 7.3 percent (absolute), while the comparable effect for advantaged students was only about a 3.7 percent.

• SAT math scores are especially valuable as an indicator of quantitative readiness for STEM curriculum, helping to identify students who are likely to excel in the curriculum, and those who are likely to struggle.

• Importantly, removing standardized testing eliminated all of these benefits without eliminating socioeconomic bias. It simply shifted the socioeconomic inequalities into other parts of the students’ applications.

• Evidence shows that 74.5 percent of the Black–White test score gap is due to unequal access to resources and opportunities, and is not due to an inherently racially-flawed exam. These unequal access factors shape not only standardized test scores, but GPA, extracurricular activities, and virtually all other aspects of college applications.

• Removing test scores from the admissions process weakened UC’s ability to evaluate academic readiness while ignoring the real causes of racial disparity.

If UC’s admissions goal is fairness and accurate prediction of student success, the most logical decision is a test-optional policy that strengthens merit-based evaluations, not pretending that a test-free policy is a replacement for the deeper systemic reforms that achieving equity actually requires.

Lawsuit claimed racial and economic bias

On May 21, 2020, the UC Board of Regents voted to remove standardized testing from admissions consideration for the 2020–2021 admissions cycle and onward. The primary factors accelerating UC’s policy shift away from standardized testing were claims of racial and economic bias, including a lawsuit.3

Supporters of standardized tests argue that the SAT/ACT provides admissions officers with additional data that helps them identify high-achieving students across socioeconomic backgrounds. For example, Yale’s admissions dean stated that test scores, “gave them a better sense of whether students had excelled in their circumstances and were ready for the university’s academic rigor” when used alongside other application components.4

The University of California justifies its decision to remove standardized testing by claiming it hurts diversity and equity goals. However, its decision is unsupported by evidence: by removing standardized tests, UC also removed an accurate predictor of college success and weakened its ability to identify standout students.

UC argues that eliminating standardized testing was necessary because current tests contain an inherent racial bias.

When first deciding to move away from standardized tests, the University of California Academic Senate created a standardized testing task force with the purpose of evaluating and advising the UC Senate and Board of Regents on whether standardized tests served a valid role in admissions.5

In their 2020 final report, the task force found that the average SAT score by race is:

• 1356 for Asians

• 1338 for Whites

• 1166 for African Americans

• 1122 for Hispanics.

According to the task force report, the discrepancy amongst African American and Hispanic applicants can be attributed to unequal access to testing resources, such as quality of K-12 schooling, test prep and tutoring, and the time and money required to retake the test. Since underrepresented minorities are more likely to face economic disadvantages, standardized tests are thus a measurement of racial inequalities as much as academic readiness.

As a result, UC has argued that relying on standardized testing reinforces societal inequalities by rewarding those who have access to greater financial and institutional support.

Additionally, uncompensated SAT score differences between African-Americans and Hispanics versus Asians (the highest scorers) decreased only by 16 and 4 percent, respectively, after admission.6

UC said that these small changes in the gap after admission indicate that admissions officers must actively compensate for score differences across demographic groups through their process of comprehensive review. Therefore, they argue, it demonstrates that test scores work against UC’s stated goal of equity.7

Racial differences in test scores are a consequence of socioeconomic disparities, not an indication of inherent racial bias

At first glance, the racial score differences presented by the standardized testing task force appear very striking. While it is true that minority students score lower on standardized tests than White and Asian students on average, critics of such gaps fail to consider the root causes of test bias.

To better understand what these racial gaps actually reflect, a 2018 large-scale meta-regression analyzed 165 peer-reviewed studies on racial standardized testing score gaps. The researchers found, “socioeconomic status, including factors such as income, wealth indicators, parental education, as a whole explains 74.5% of the gap”.8

The findings suggest that racial differences in test scores are a consequence of socioeconomic disparities, not an indication of inherent racial bias. Thus, claiming an inherent racial bias is a correlation-causation fallacy.

Instead, what this evidence suggests is that the racial score gap is actually a reflection of a systemic issue created by unequal access to resources, academic preparation, and educational opportunities–factors that fall under socioeconomic status.

Additionally, the bias that these socioeconomic factors create isn’t unique to standardized tests; it materializes in GPA, extracurricular activities, and other educational opportunities.9

Removing standardized tests does not eliminate inequity

Since these other components of college applications also reflect socioeconomic bias, removing standardized tests does not eliminate inequity—it only shifts the emphasis onto other, similarly biased factors.

Furthermore, demographic data from the UC’s reported undergraduate admissions summary suggests that removing standardized test requirements resulted in no significant demographic shift in the admitted student population.10

There is a clear shift in the 2019–2020 admission cycle, before the change in no-test policy went into effect, but no further shift after the policy change. In the 2019-2020 admission cycle, the acceptance rates for Black and Hispanic students rose around twelve percent when comparing five-year period means (Figure 3) 11

This increase was significant (p-value < 0.001) indicating statistical significance , but in the years following the policy change there was no significant shift (p-value 0.324) in admissions demographics (Figure 4).

Because the demographic increase precedes the policy change, it cannot be caused by it. Therefore, the claim that eliminating standardized tests improved diversity and equity is not supported by the timing of the data.

High school GPA is a stronger predictor of college graduation than ACT scores

Regardless of whether these standardized testing bias concerns are substantiated or not, critics of tests still claim that high school GPA should be used as an alternative assessment of student quality due to it being a better predictor of sustained effort and long-term success through college, as measured by graduation rates.

• In predictive models examining college graduation rates, high school GPA was found to be a much stronger predictor of whether students graduated from college than ACT scores.12

• A one–standard deviation increase in high school GPA more than doubled the likelihood of graduating compared to not graduating (coefficient = 0.708; odds ratio = 2.03), even after controlling for ACT scores and institutional characteristics.

• By contrast, in the combined GPA and ACT model, the ACT coefficient was statistically insignificant (–0.016), indicating that ACT scores added little independent predictive value beyond GPA.

• Similar patterns appear in the four-year graduation model, where GPA remained strongly significant (odds ratio = 1.95), while ACT showed only a small positive association (odds ratio = 1.11).13

The difference in predictive strength between GPA and ACT supports UC’s position that high school GPA is a more meaningful indicator of long-term performance than a standardized exam. Potential explanations for this discrepancy may be that, unlike standardized tests, which are measured at a single point in time, GPA reflects sustained performance over multiple years, which may materialize in college success and graduation, more so than standardized tests.

College GPA is closely correlated with standardized test scores

Even though standardized tests add little value when predicting graduation rates, this does not prove they are useless in their entirety and thus should be removed. In fact, graduation rates, although a useful metric for colleges, do not show the full extent of students’ college success. An important piece of context that is overlooked, when only focusing on graduation rates, is how students perform in college, not just if they met the requirements to graduate.

Help us reach our goal of 10,000 subscribers.

Subscribe now

Instead, a more direct metric of college performance is college GPA, a metric that is correlated with standardized test scores.

In the UC’s standardized testing task force report, they found that across all students, GPA-only predictive models explain only 16 percent of the variation of first-year college GPA. In comparison, SAT-only models explain 21 percent of the variance in first-year college GPA.14

This discrepancy matters because it shows that standardized tests capture academic information that high school GPA alone does not, making them a valuable metric for predicting college success.

This is not to fully discredit GPA as a predictive metric for college GPA. In fact, the most important finding of the task force’s report is that in GPA + SAT combined models, the percent of first-year GPA variance explained rises to 26 percent, showing the importance of having both measures.15

These findings show that standardized tests serve as a valid academic metric that improves the UC’s ability to distinguish between applicants based on their academic potential, and that they should be reinstated into college admissions to improve on its goal of predicting students’ collegiate success.

Standardized tests help identify high-achieving students from disadvantaged backgrounds

Standardized tests help identify high-achieving students from disadvantaged backgrounds and are especially useful for identifying high-achieving STEM majors.

• According to a 2025 working paper, reporting a high SAT score at or above 1420 during test-optional policies raised admission chances for disadvantaged students from 2.9 percent to 10.2 percent, a 7.3 percentage point increase, while the comparable effect for advantaged students was only about a 3.7 percentage point increase.16

• For disadvantaged students, the significantly larger percentage point increase compared to advantaged students shows how admissions officers don’t evaluate test scores in a vacuum. Instead, they interpret scores in context, meaning a high SAT score carries more weight when it comes from a student whose background offers fewer academic advantages.

• On the other hand, advantaged applicants often have better access to stronger high school course offerings and academic extracurricular activities, making their academic strengths visible through other parts of their application.

• For some students from disadvantaged backgrounds, those same context clues are weaker or not present at all, making high standardized test scores one of the few ways to demonstrate academic readiness.

Effectively, standardized tests help admissions officers recognize high academic achievement in places where it otherwise might have been overlooked.

Standardized tests help identify potential standouts not just in high school, but also at the college level

Standardized tests are not only useful in identifying standouts at the high school level, but also in identifying potential standouts at the college level.

Studies have shown that for physics and math majors in particular, not a single student with a SAT math section score below 600 achieved a college GPA above 3.5, the minimum threshold for admission into graduate school.

Additionally, the researchers found that “only for [SAT math scores] well above 700 do students have more than a 50 percent chance of obtaining GPA > 3.5”.17

Such a clear SAT math cutoff for a 3.5 college GPA, an indicator of subject mastery, demonstrates the usefulness of standardized testing for identifying core proficiency and therefore the likelihood of success with STEM curriculum.

Become a supporting member of Oakland Report. We rely on our readers to provide financial support to continue our nonprofit work.

Learn more

The high probability of students who score higher than 700 in achieving a 3.5 college GPA not only signals potential high achievers, but also the potential high achievers with the strongest likelihood of excelling in the curriculum. Therefore, standardized testing is especially useful in UC admissions for distinguishing applicants who are most likely to thrive in STEM majors, where math competency is a core requirement for success.

Together, the data on disadvantaged students and STEM majors demonstrate that reinstating optional standardized tests would strengthen UC admissions by revealing high-achieving disadvantaged students and more accurately identifying high-achieving students in STEM majors.

Standardized tests have been proven to give consistent, reliable results.

In addition to improving the predictive accuracy of college GPA, standardized tests have been proven to give consistent, reliable results.

A 2010 research paper on standardized tests found that retaking the SAT or ACT only improved scores an average of 20 points per section, noting that, “The use of average vs. peak SAT score has little impact on our subsequent analysis.”18

These findings show that standardized tests aren’t easily “gamed” through repeated attempts, but instead produce a reliable score output that reflects consistent academic ability. This reliability is especially valuable in college admissions, where other measures, such as GPA, are drastically affected by differences such as grading standards and course access that vary significantly across high schools.

Essentially, standardized tests provide UC campuses with an academic metric that is predictive of college GPA, as well as being consistent and reliable across applicants.

The University of California’s decision to remove standardized testing was meant to eliminate racial and socioeconomic bias, but the evidence shows it instead sacrificed a valuable admissions tool without actually addressing the inequities it seeks to eliminate.

The views expressed in our Commentaries do not necessarily reflect the editorial views of Oakland Report or its contributing writers

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Emmet Gardner is a student-leader at Bishop O’Dowd High School with a strong focus on youth STEM education and peer mentorship. Over the past three years, he has worked closely with Kids Teach Tech, an organization dedicated to providing technology and engineering education to underserved youth, and is a teacher at their UC Berkeley Programming Summer Camps.

Building on this experience, Emmet is currently focused on expanding Kids Teach Tech’s reach into Oakland, aiming to bring hands-on STEM opportunities to the local community. He believes in using education as a tool for opportunity and the power of student-led initiatives to drive meaningful change.

18

Ibid. Hsu and Schombert.

---

OAKLAND REPORT

WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT

We rely on you, our readers, to donate to Oakland Report to financially support our work. Please join us as a subscribing member by signing up with a monthly or one-time donation.

Donate

We are a 501(c)(3) charitable nonprofit based in beautiful Oakland, California. Our mission is to make truth more accessible to all Oakland residents. Your donation is tax-deductible.

Learn more

BY LOREN TAYLOR

Editor’s note: This commentary was originally published by Black Action Alliance on March 18, 2026 under the title, “What the data actually says about Oakland’s Black community.” We are publishing it with citations added for Oakland Report readers to review and comment on.

We invite counterpoint commentaries from other leading voices in Oakland. Do you have something to say on this issue or others? Visit our About page for more information.

What new polling data says about Oakland’s Black community

Every few months, a poll drops in Oakland and the conversation immediately turns to who’s winning or losing politically.

At the Black Action Alliance, we read poll data differently. We read it as a community report card — a measure of whether Black Oakland is being heard, whether its needs are being met, and whether the systems meant to serve our community are actually doing their jobs.

This month, the East Bay Polling Institute released its Q1 2026 Survey of Oakland voters, conducted February 12–18, 2026 by EMC Research (n=700).1 Embedded in that survey is a cross-tabulation data set that allows us to isolate the views of Black and African-American respondents who reflect the lived reality of our community.2

What they told pollsters is striking, sobering, and in some ways clarifying.

This is not a partisan analysis. It is not an endorsement of any candidate or ballot measure. It is a community accountability document — a clear-eyed look at what Black Oakland said, what it means, and what it demands of the institutions, leaders, and systems that claim to serve us.

A community feeling the full weight of Oakland’s failures

The clearest finding in this data is that Black Oakland is carrying a disproportionate burden from the city’s dysfunction. Across virtually every issue tested in the survey, Black respondents expressed higher alarm than the city’s overall voter population — not marginally higher, but significantly so.

When asked to rate how “extremely concerning” various issues were, the Black community separated itself from the broader electorate on issue after issue. The chart below tells the story:

The Black community registered significantly higher alarm on cost of living (+19.5 percentage points above the citywide average), school quality (+14.4 points), housing affordability (+14.3 points), illegal dumping and blight (+12.1 points), and homelessness (+10.1 points). This is not the voice of a community that has given up. It is the voice of a community that is paying attention, feeling the consequences, and demanding better.

On virtually every issue tested, Black Oakland registers higher urgency than the city at large. They are not disengaged — they are acutely aware that things are not working.

It is also a rebuke of the false narrative that Black residents are politically passive or difficult to engage. In fact, 78% of Black respondents say they follow the Oakland city government closely — 4.7 points higher than the overall electorate. They are engaged. And they are frustrated.

Displacement is the defining crisis

Perhaps no finding in this data set is more urgent than this: 38.4% of Black respondents said they are likely to leave Oakland, compared to 33.8% of the overall electorate. And when asked why they would move, the top reason for Black residents diverged sharply from everyone else.

• The overall electorate cited crime and public safety as the top reason to leave (35.7%).

• For Black respondents, crime was still cited (32.7%) — but it was essentially tied with cost of living and affordability, cited by 30.2% of Black respondents. That is 16 percentage points higher than the citywide average of 14.2%.

What keeps Black Oaklanders here: homeownership and housing stability (20.9%) and personal history and roots (11.1%). These are people rooted in this city by choice and by legacy. But the economic ground beneath that rootedness is eroding in real time. An anti-displacement strategy is not a nice-to-have. It is the single highest-urgency issue the data reveals for the Black community.

A crisis of trust that precedes any conversation about revenue

Oakland is currently considering asking voters to approve additional taxes to fund city services.3 Before that conversation can meaningfully proceed, any honest observer must reckon with what this poll reveals about trust.

73.6% of Black respondents disagree that the City of Oakland can be trusted to spend their tax dollars responsibly. 75.4% say the taxes they currently pay are not worth it. And 67.5% rate the city’s financial management as “Poor,” with 84% rating the city’s overall fiscal health as negative.

75% of Black Oakland says their taxes are not worth it. That is not opposition to public investment. It is a demand that accountability come before new asks.

It is worth stating plainly: this is not reflexive anti-tax sentiment. This is a community with a long memory of paying taxes into systems that have not served them — and a clear-eyed assessment of whether current leadership has earned the right to ask for more. The data suggests the answer, right now, is no.

The Black Action Alliance has long held that accountability must precede investment. Commitments without dollar amounts are not commitments. Timelines without enforcement mechanisms are not timelines. The community data affirms this principle. Any new revenue proposal must include specific, measurable, enforceable accountability conditions. Full stop.

Oakland’s schools are failing the community that needs them most

The survey data on public education is among the most striking in the entire poll, and speaks directly to the intersection of institutional failure, fiscal crisis, and community trust that defines the current moment in Oakland.

Black respondents rated OUSD poorly across every dimension tested.

• 74.6% view the school board unfavorably.

• 73.4% give OUSD leadership an overall negative rating.

• 76.6% rate the quality of education in Oakland public schools as negative.

• 78.1% rate OUSD’s financial management as negative, with 80.3% expressing no confidence in OUSD’s ability to resolve its budget challenges.

For Black Oakland, which has more children enrolled in OUSD public schools than any other group (42.7% of Black respondents with children), these numbers are not abstract. They are a daily reality: parents watching schools struggle with overcrowded classrooms, teacher turnover, and a district administration that cannot manage its own finances.

The survey also asked a forced-choice question: Is it better to keep neighborhood schools open, or consolidate them to improve district finances and educational quality? Black Oakland was more divided than the overall electorate on this question — 46.3% for consolidation, 43.1% for keeping schools open, with 10.6% undecided.

That ambivalence is instructive. This community is not opposed to hard decisions. It is waiting for leadership that makes those decisions honestly, transparently, and in genuine partnership with the families most affected.

Black Oakland has not given up on public education. It has lost confidence in the specific leaders currently running the system. Those are very different problems with very different solutions.

Safety: what the Black community actually wants

The data on public safety offers a nuanced portrait that defies easy political categorization. 92.1% of Black respondents said crime and public safety are “concerning” — the highest concern level of any group for any issue. Nearly one in three (32%) personally knows someone who was a victim of violent crime in the last 12 months.

• On policing levels, 71.2% of Black respondents said policing should be increased.

• On surveillance technology to address crime, 66.1% said they support it.

• 88.9% agreed that homeless encampments should be cleared from public parks and sidewalks — 10 percentage points higher than the citywide average.

These numbers push back against narratives that suggest Black Oakland is uniformly opposed to law enforcement investment. The community wants safety.

What the data makes clear is that it also wants accountability, transparency, and assurance that those investments will be managed competently and equitably.

There is a wide gap between what the Black community is asking for and what it is receiving. Closing that gap requires leadership that is willing to be honest about how wide it is.

What the data demands of our institutions

A poll is only as valuable as the use to which it is put. The Black Action Alliance is committed to using data like this not as political ammunition, but as a community accountability tool — a mirror held up to the systems and leaders that claim to represent and serve Black Oakland.

What this mirror shows is a community that is:

• More financially stressed and at risk of displacement than any other group in the city.

• More alarmed about the failures of city government, the school district, and quality of life.

• Deeply skeptical that existing leadership will manage resources responsibly.

• More politically engaged and attentive than the city’s overall electorate.

• Clear about what it wants — safety, stability, accountability, and schools that actually work.

What this community deserves — and what the Black Action Alliance will continue to demand — is leadership and institutions that meet that urgency with equivalent seriousness. Not rhetoric. Not vague commitments. Specific plans, dollar amounts, timelines, and accountability mechanisms.

That is the standard we hold ourselves to. That is the standard we hold our elected officials to. And that is the standard the data in this poll confirms Black Oakland is ready to demand.

Read the complete survey results and cross-tabs:

East Bay Polling Institute - Complete Survey Data

773KB ∙ XLSX file

Download

The poll of 700 registered Oakland voters, fielded Feb. 12–18, finds that while 55% of respondents believe Oakland is off on the wrong track and 53% rate the city's overall quality of life negatively, residents are not giving up on their city. When asked about their future, only 34% say they are likely to move out of Oakland, with respondents citing a sense of community, belonging, and homeownership as their top reasons to stay.

Download

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Loren Taylor is a third-generation Oaklander who brings his background as an engineer, management consultant, and community leader to improve outcomes in communities across the country. He served on the Oakland City Council representing District 6 from 2019-2023, and is an elected delegate to the Alameda County Democratic Central Committee.

Loren founded Empower Oakland, a civic engagement and community empowerment organization, and currently leads Custom Taylored Solutions, LLC, a social impact consulting firm where he guides mission-driven for-profits, nonprofits, and government agencies in better delivering on their visions for social change.

The views expressed in our Commentaries do not necessarily reflect the editorial views of Oakland Report or its contributing writers

3

Reinhart, Sean S. “Oakland: $34 million property tax increase appears headed for June ballot.” Oakland Report, Mar. 3, 2026. https://www.oaklandreport.org/p/20260303-34-million-property-tax-increase

---

OAKLAND REPORT

WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT

We rely on you, our readers, to donate to Oakland Report to financially support our work. Please join us as a subscribing member by signing up with a monthly or one-time donation.

Donate

We are a 501(c)(3) charitable nonprofit based in beautiful Oakland, California. Our mission is to make truth more accessible to all Oakland residents. Your donation is tax-deductible.

Learn more

Oakland Agenda Watch provides short summaries of key items on public meeting agendas that catch our attention. Today we take a look at the 2026 Anti-Displacement Strategic Action Plan presented to city council on March 16, 2026.

Oakland’s homeless population is growing by 1,000 people per year

City Council meeting, Mar. 16, 2026, agenda item 6.16

According to a new Anti-Displacement Strategic Action Plan produced by the city’s housing and community development department, over 2,500 people in the city become newly unhoused every year. Oakland’s system facilitates approximately 1,500 exits from homelessness annually, resulting in a net increase of over 1,000 homeless individuals per year.1

According to the anti-displacement plan, the actual figures on new incidences of homelessness are likely higher:

“These estimates neither include those who return to homelessness (as opposed to becoming newly unhoused for the first time) nor do they include those who become unhoused but do not enter a shelter program. Thus, while 2,550 is the estimate of new homelessness using current data, it is unfortunately an undercount.”

– from City of Oakland 2026 Anti-Displacement Strategic Action Plan

Alameda County’s homeless population decreased 3%. Oakland’s went up 9%

Oakland has grappled with a difficult and growing problem for the past several years: the more money the city spends to alleviate homelessness, the worse the problem appears to become.

With hundreds of millions of dollars spent regionally on homelessness programs, Oakland’s unhoused population has continued to swell.

According to the anti-displacement plan, the total homeless population in the city grew by 9% between 2022 and 2024, reaching 5,485 individuals.

The number of unsheltered individuals in Oakland—those living on the streets, in tents, or in vehicles—grew by 10% to 3,659 people.

Meanwhile, the homeless population in Alameda County declined 3% during the same period.

Oakland’s total population of 444,000 is approximately 27% of Alameda County’s total population of 1.64 million.23

By comparison, Oakland has 58% of Alameda County’s homeless population.4

A new Point-in-Time homeless count for 2026 is scheduled to be released this spring, followed by a comprehensive report this fall.5

The anti-displacement plan notes that among racial groups, Black residents have the highest relative rate of homelessness. Black residents make up approximately 22% of Oakland’s general population, but account for 52.5% of the total unhoused population, 47.9% of the unsheltered population, and 59% of all new entries into homelessness.

The plan cites a legacy of historic redlining,6 predatory lending practices, and systemic disinvestment in Black communities as primary drivers of the racial disparity.

Evictions since Oakland’s three-year moratorium was lifted

Most evictions were paused for over three years by the City of Oakland’s emergency eviction moratorium during the COVID-19 pandemic. Once the moratorium was lifted on July 14, 2023, evictions began again, and at higher numbers than in pre-pandemic years. Between October 2023 and September 2024, landlords filed an average of 223 evictions per month in Oakland, a 59% increase compared to the pre-pandemic year.7

According to the anti-displacement plan, Oakland eviction filings represented approximately 43% of all eviction filings in Alameda County in calendar years 2019 and 2024. The eviction moratorium appears not to have resulted in a relative change in that aspect.

The plan says that according to 2020 Census data, 23% of Alameda County households are renters, and 38% of all tenant households in the county live in Oakland. Therefore, the Oakland eviction filing rate appears to be relatively high.

Oakland plans to spend $1.06 billion to cut homelessness 50% in five years – and it isn’t enough

Despite substantial levels of investment and effort, the net count of unhoused individuals in Oakland continues to climb.

An analysis of the city’s anti-displacement budget suggests that Oakland and Alameda County’s financial commitments fall well short of what is required to achieve the city’s goal of reducing homelessness 50% in five years and eliminating homelessness entirely in ten years.

The city has quantified the cost of its 50% homelessness reduction goal, and the result is $1.06 billion.

The anti-displacement report further states that “if homelessness prevention is not adequately scaled,” $202.3 million more would be needed per year – an additional $1.01 billion over five years:

“According to the model, if homelessness prevention is not adequately scaled, Oakland’s overall homelessness solution system will increase in cost by over $200 million in 5 years. While preventing homelessness for a household costs the City approximately $10,000, providing housing for that same household once they become unhoused, could cost the City over $230,000 in capital housing development investments alone.”

– from City of Oakland 2026 Anti-Displacement Strategic Action Plan

At the current annual spending level of $122 million per year to facilitate 1,500 exits from homelessness, the current cost per household facilitated to a successful exit is $81,333. That average does not include the capital and ongoing costs of housing.

The focus of the anti-displacement plan is on the city’s non-capital funding sources and activities, meaning it does not cover housing production and preservation activities. (These activities were discussed in the city’s 2023-2027 Strategic Action Plan.)8

Given the significant gap between the total cost and the actual resources available, the result is a goal that the current budget cannot meet:

• Current annual funding: $122 million (Measure Q parcel tax, Oakland General Fund, Alameda County).

• Estimated required investment to achieve homelessness reduction goals: $406 million annually.

• Annual funding gap: $284.3 million.

• 10-year outlook: A total estimated cost of $3.2 billion to end unsheltered homelessness in Oakland.

Oakland relies heavily on a network of community-based organizations, but outcomes are vague

The city’s portfolio of anti-displacement programs appears comprehensive on paper, but its lack of coordination, scale, and accountability are deficiencies in practice.

Oakland relies heavily on a network of community-based organizations and legal clinics to execute (practice) the city’s anti-displacement strategy in exchange for funding support from the city.

Unfortunately, many of these partners operate with constrained finances, and some do not consistently track outcomes.

A city audit in 2022 showed9 that Oakland spent $70 million on similar homelessness programs between 2019 and 2021, but the organizations that received the funds neglected to track outcomes to assess how effectively that money was spent.10

See this related article:

‘The system is designed to exhaust you’

The city’s commission on homelessness identified “system exhaustion” as a primary driver of homelessness, where the barrier to remaining housed is not just financial, but bureaucratic.11

Comments from focus group participants illustrate this aspect of Oakland’s system failure:

“If you called the [resource hotline] or they give you all these resources and other numbers to call. There is none. They put you back in the line of calls and they send you here, they send you there. But nobody has the right information for the right guidance of where you need [to go] – who is the person you need to speak to and how can I get the help... It was ridiculous to a point you give up. You give up.”

“The system is designed to exhaust you.”

– from Commission on Homelessness focus groups. Feb. 25, 2026.

A contributing factor to this shortcoming appears to be extreme staffing shortages. According to a report from the city’s human resources department, the city’s employee vacancy rate was approximately 22% as of April 2025, with the Workplace and Employment Standards department seeing a 36% vacancy rate.12

The anti-displacement plan provides additional data and covers several other areas of concern, including rent burden, overcrowding and doubling-up, housing stock age and habitability, and foreclosures.

The plan also outlines implementation strategies, such as targeted prevention, encampment outreach, coordination between service providers, more shelter beds, deeply affordable housing, and ongoing rent subsidies.

Read the full plan here:

Anti Displacement Strategic Action Plan 2026

2.6MB ∙ PDF file

Download

The City of Oakland (City) Housing and Community Development Department’s (Oakland HCD) Anti-Displacement Strategic Action Plan (Plan) describes the approach the department will take to increase housing stability and prevent further displacement and homelessness for Oakland residents.

Download

Other notable agenda items

• Forever emergencies. As usual, the March 16 city council agenda included resolutions to renew three local emergency declarations, some of which have been in place for decades. This now-routine practice continues these formal states of emergency with no substantive review:

  • HIV/AIDS public health crisis. Agenda item #6.1

  • Medical cannabis. Agenda item #6.2

  • Homelessness crisis. Agenda item #6.3

  
  One could fairly argue that homelessness is a real and present crisis in this city, and that a declaration that the city is in a homelessness “state of emergency” is justified. But cannabis is now legal and available for medicinal and recreational use. And while HIV/AIDS remains a serious condition, it is now considered a manageable chronic disease.
  
  Ostensibly, these emergency declarations allow the city to access certain funds or streamline procedures in response to a crisis. But the city council’s perpetual renewal of emergency declarations with no review, no clear goals or measurements, and no sunset criteria has turned them into permanent policy fixtures divorced from the present, rather than temporary crisis-response tools. This reflects poorly on the city council’s credibility and seriousness with respect to what it qualifies as an emergency, and its rationale for making and renewing emergency declarations.
  

• Gender-affirming care. Council members Zac Unger, Rowena Brown and Charlene Wang sponsored a resolution:

  • “Reaffirming Oakland’s commitment to the right of its transgender, gender-nonconforming, intersex and two-spirit (TGNCI2S) residents and employees to obtain gender-affirming care without discrimination; and demanding healthcare providers and insurance carriers operating within the city to adhere to state and local laws mandating access to medically necessary healthcare, including gender-affirming care.” Agenda item #6.6.
    

• Council members and staff travel to Philadelphia on taxpayers’ dime. Council members Kevin Jenkins and Zac Unger seek to reimburse council member Jenkins, his deputy chief of staff, and council member Unger’s deputy policy analyst up to $2,500 per person for their travel expenses while attending the National Forum for Black Public Administrators in Philadelphia. Agenda item #6.11.
  

• Posey Tube improvements. The city of Oakland and Caltrans seek to amend an existing agreement between the two agencies to facilitate the start of construction on Caltrans’ Oakland-Alameda Access Project (OAAP) – a 3-year, $175 million upgrade to improve connectivity and safety at Posey Tube. The project will involve major traffic disruptions, including 8 full weekend closures and 20–25 nighttime closures of Posey Tube, the nearly mile-long, underwater connection between Oakland and Alameda. Agenda item #6.13.

Oakland Report is by no means comprehensive in our coverage of public agendas in Oakland. The scope and frequency of public meetings are far more than we can presently cover.

You can see the full Oakland City Council agenda and meeting materials at the city’s meeting calendar page.

BECOME A SUPPORTING MEMBER

We rely on our readers’ financial support to continue our work.

Your contributions are tax-deductible.

Become a supporting member

We are a 501(c)(3) charitable nonprofit based in beautiful Oakland, California. Our mission is to make truth more accessible to all Oakland residents.

Learn more

Editor’s note:

This commentary originally appeared in video podcast format in Gotham Oakland on Feb. 18, 2026.1 We are publishing this revised version in article format with citations for Oakland Report readers to review and comment on.

We invite counterpoint commentaries from other leading voices in Oakland. Do you have something to say on this issue or others? Visit our About page for more information.

About us

BY SENECA SCOTT

“Baby, I know I wasted the last tax increase, but this time will be different!”
— Oakland city government, probably

They stole the Mayor’s car

This morning, Gotham Oakland broke the story – hours before the San Francisco Chronicle – that Oakland Mayor Barbara “Blah Blah” Lee’s city vehicle was stolen from City Hall.2

Not from a dark side street in the Lower Bottoms; not from some forgotten corner in deep East Oakland. From City Hall. The Mayor’s whip.

Now remember: Oakland, California has one of the country’s highest rates of auto theft, with over 10,000 stolen vehicles in 2023, according to Oakland Police Department (OPD) data.3 In 2023, one out of 30 vehicles in Oakland were stolen, leading the nation.4

According to multiple sources, a thief camped out in City Hall on President’s Day and entered multiple offices – including the mayor’s office – took her keys and drove off in the city-owned SUV. The vehicle, a Ford Expedition, was quickly tracked and later recovered in Vallejo using license plate reader technology.5

Overtime abuse; gas-guzzling Ford Expeditions; use of Flock cameras to catch criminals? Rules for thee, but not for Lee.

Let’s pause here for a moment. This is the exact same leadership that assures us that crime is trending down; the same City Hall that insists that public safety is improving.

Yet, inside the building that is supposed to symbolize order and authority, someone just walked in, grabbed the mayor’s car keys off of her desk and simply drove away.

They can’t even keep their home base safe.

Forgive my institutional memory, but wasn’t it just a short while ago that former mayor Sheng Thao’s vehicle nearly faced repossession because the city forgot to pay for it?6

There’s a pattern of weaponized incompetence and voter abuse in Oakland City Hall.7 So why do voters tolerate it? Why does a city as proud and resilient as Oakland, California keep tolerating dysfunction as if it’s simply the weather now?

Battered voter syndrome

I call it battered voter syndrome. And just like battered spouse syndrome,8 it’s what happens when citizens endure cycle after cycle of mismanagement, scandal, apology, promise and repeat. The tension builds, the crisis erupts, officials apologize, they blame, they love-bomb “structural issues,” and promise reform. And for maybe a brief moment, there’s calm – and then it happens again.

Over time, we internalize it. We lower our expectations and we tell ourselves this is just how Oakland works. We become hyper-vigilant but disengaged. We become angry but exhausted. We become hopeful but cautious.

That’s more than apathy. That’s trauma. That’s battered voter syndrome.

Another example: I and other Oaklanders warned for years that former mayor Thao was corrupt and compromised, and lacked integrity. Many of the people still in power today – like Carroll Fife, Barbara Lee, Zac Unger, Barbara Leslie and others – defended Sheng Tao and told us she was trustworthy.

Now, where did they all go?

They didn’t go anywhere. They’re still in power. You see, they memory-hole their support for Thao while continuing the same destructive agenda – and we just accept that.

That’s battered voter syndrome.

The city and the unions that run city hall are now expecting taxpayers to approve even more taxes. This is after the last two ballot measures and tax increases were essentially sold to us under false pretense, only for the city to declare a fiscal emergency – which they did, allowing them to spend the money as they pleased.9

Oakland voters were probably tuned out. We’re probably going to approve that new tax. What is that? That is battered voter syndrome.

Oakland’s approach to homeless encampments? More of the same.

Oakland City Council unanimously passed an encampment management policy back in 2020, creating a list of do’s and don’ts for public camping in a detailed plan to support and clean encampments compassionately.10

The policy was never truly implemented and the problem continued to explode. I sued to compel the city to follow their own policy.11 And the very expensive result was learning that Oakland has no mandatory duty to follow its own policies.

Now, six years later, Oakland is covered in graffiti and covered in RVs – well, at least in the flatlands, not the hills. And the vast majority of these RV encampments are open-air drug markets. It looks like The Walking Dead. Encampments have dramatically harmed property values, public safety; and created a situation where we have open-air drug use, widespread illegal dumping, and very little rule of law.12

The RVs leak oil and sewage into the streets and into the bay.13 Many are Breaking Bad-style RVs, cooking meth and other drugs. Some are brothels where children are exploited and sexually trafficked.

Finally, after years of no action, City Council member Ken Houston stood up and created a new policy that would make these RVs and open-air drug markets illegal, just like San Francisco’s mayor recently did.14

This is an 80/20 issue with nearly every affected person wanting something done about it, including local businesses, churches, elders, and everyday Oakland residents.15

But what is Barbara Lee’s plan instead? Do more of the same. More nice words, more “compassion” – whatever that means. It’s basically saying that we’re going to do more of nothing, just like that media stunt about illegal dumping in January at Allen Temple Baptist Church that everyone already forgot about.16

Oakland is not weak and not fully broken – yet

Battered voter syndrome: why do we keep taking this? When public officials fail, when standards erode, when accountability disappears, this isn’t faith. It is a choice. And these choices can be confronted.

Oakland is not weak and Oakland is not fully broken yet. But we are being tested. And this may be our final test before a full-blown collapse. And the question is not whether City Hall can protect the car. They clearly cannot.

The question is whether we, the voters, are willing to protect our city from complacency, from fear, from the quiet normalization of the chaos. Because you do not get what you deserve in politics or in life. You get what you demand. And demands come with consequences. So let’s begin.

Be practical

“If you use drugs on our streets, we will arrest you. But with this new resource, we will also give those suffering from addiction a real chance to choose recovery.”
— San Francisco mayor Daniel Lurie17

“I think morally, ethically speaking, it is an atrocity that in a country this wealthy, we have people just on the streets. And we should have a… we should insist on policies that recognize their full humanity – people who are houseless – and be able to provide them the help and resources that they need. But we should also recognize that the average person, you know, doesn’t want to have to navigate around a tent city in the middle of downtown. That doesn’t mean that we care less about those folks. It means if we really care about them, then we gotta try to figure out: how do we gain majority support and be practical in terms of what we can get through at this moment in time?”
— former president Barack Obama18

Barack Obama knows. San Francisco’s mayor Daniel Lurie knows. But does our mayor know? For today’s presentation, we’re going to be talking about Oakland Mayor Barbara Lee’s new approach to homelessness. We’re also going to be unpacking what I mean by battered voter syndrome; and most importantly, how do we get out of it.

San Francisco is making a comeback with real estate prices stabilizing and investments returning to the city. Meanwhile, the city of Oakland is backtracking because our leaders’ loyalty lies with their political ideology and their political agenda, Oaklanders be damned. I say this because the vast majority of us want to see what San Francisco is doing, but we can’t get that done.19

“Be practical,” former president Barack Obama says. Democrats need to change their approach on homelessness.

“The average person doesn’t want to have to navigate around a tent city and the party won’t have enough support to tackle the problem if they can’t build a working majority.”
— USA Today, Feb. 15, 2026

I guess they got some polling numbers that are worrying them a little bit. Maybe Barbara Lee needs to look at these polling numbers. But nope, that is not what “Blah Blah” Lee is doing. Our mayor seeks to scale back homeless encampment sweeps as others push crackdowns.20

“Lee is famous for charting her own path in Congress. She wants to soften Oakland’s aggressive treatment of encampments, bucking national trends and some council members.”
— The Mercury News, Feb. 15, 2026

That council member being Ken Houston. Now at a glance, it may look like Oakland’s Mayor Lee is following the trends, but she’s not – or the nation.

“The icon amongst progressives has cleared homelessness faster than her predecessor since taking office in 2025, evoking ongoing sweeps in San Jose and San Francisco.”
— The Mercury News, Feb. 15, 2026

Whack-a-mole, but yes, they have been more aggressive. But behind closed doors, Lee is planning a new course. The mayor and a top official want to remove fewer camps and improve sanitation around them. They said in the above-noted interview with The Mercury News – “a recognition that people will continue to live beneath underpasses and on sidewalks in a city with diminishing resources to provide shelter.”

Not diminishing resources: more homeless people are coming. Our homeless problem is exploding, so that means that “resources are diminishing.” With every city around us cracking down on the open-air drug use that Lee refuses to talk about, more people are going to be coming here.21

Instead of hurrying to break up tents and scatter RVs, Lee said Oakland’s interim homeless chief, Sasha Hauswald – yet another homeless chief – wants city workers to focus on minimizing trash and human waste.

It’s going to come back the next day. Lee is also exploring paying homeless people to pick up litter, inspired by a program in Portland, Oregon.22 (Portland is not turning the right way on homelessness, either.23)

“The strategy [Mayor Lee] expects to unveil in March appears to be radically different from neighboring leaders.24 And with Oakland City Council’s own vision for homelessness, its members are pushing legislation to accelerate encampment sweeps and eliminate a long standing local requirement that the city offers shelter to residents when forcing them to move.25”
— The Mercury News, Feb. 15, 2026 (citations added)

We can’t have drug tourism and encourage it with more shelter with our diminishing resources and a city seemingly going bankrupt.26 That’s not the common-sense way to do things.

So let’s talk about fixing battered voter syndrome.

A cycle of civic dysfunction

First, let’s talk about what it is. Battered voter syndrome is a cycle of civic dysfunction. So when you’re talking about battered spouse syndrome, it’s essentially the same thing. It’s what happens with an abuser and the abused and the trauma bond that it creates. And it’s very difficult to escape.

“Eat the cake, Anna Mae. Eat the cake.”
— Ike Turner to Tina Turner in What’s Love Got to Do with It?27

First we have unmatched civic needs and unrevolved structural issues. (Sounds like Oakland.) Then rising anxiety, insecurity, and distrust of city government. Then seeking hope in a candidate or movement: (“Progressives!”), followed by temporary relief: this time it will be different. But then the leadership becomes ineffective, ideological and/or unaccountable.

Then more rising anxiety, insecurity and distrust. There are calls for unity and reconciliation – “give it more time,” “come together,” like Barbara Lee says.

Then things appear to go back to normal, but the underlying issues remain unresolved. And then we get back to our unmet civic needs and abuse and structural issues.

Wash, rinse and repeat. How do we break it?

Part 1. Immediate civic recovery

Immediate civic recovery: going from chaos to clarity. We can fix battered voter syndrome by first creating a civic clarity plan. What are the power dynamics? Who are the decision makers over the policies that are currently afflicting you?

We have to break the information cycle. Our current media – as you know, if you watch Gotham Oakland – is nothing but dog-walked public relations for a failing administration and ideology that seeks to destroy Oakland. That’s just my opinion. If you’re here, you’re here for that opinion. I back it up with facts.

We need to rebuild real community connections: neighbors together Oakland. We need to demand transparency from City Hall. That’s why we made Gotham Oakland: to get transparency from people who are hell-bent on hiding as much information as they can because they’re stealing from us.28

Part 2. Reframing and accountability

We have to reframe accountability. We have to challenge learned helplessness; understand how the political cycle works. When is the best time to strike? I believe in off-cycle organizing. If you’re waiting until election year, which is this year, to launch whatever idea you have, guess what? It’s too late. You’re probably going to lose.

You need to start on off-cycles and you need to measure outcomes of your elected leaders, not their rhetoric. The meeting is not the work. The rhetoric is not the work.

Outcomes happen from changing behavior, not continuing the same behavior as Oakland seems hell-bent on doing because again, their ideology depends on it.

Part 3. Long-term civic empowerment

This is how you go from isolation to collective power. All of this, if you’re paying attention, is what we did when we recalled the mayor and district attorney.29 Unfortunately we weren’t able to finish the job entirely for a lot of reasons I’m not going to get into today, but I’ve talked about it in past episodes of Gotham Oakland.

We need to reclaim political independence and achieve post-partisanship. We need to build local coalitions. It’s all about local – if you can’t tell me the trees in your backyard and front yard; the names of your neighbors to the left, right, and front or across the street from you; the names of your school board member or your city council person – you need to go learn those things and get tapped into local politics.

We need to strengthen civic resilience – political resilience. That means being knowledgeable, and actually taking the time to gain new knowledge. But first you have to have information sources that are factual, timely, relevant, and give you the information you need to restore your agency.

Oakland Report is a charitable nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization.

We rely on your financial support. Please donate today.

Donate

Thank you.

That is how you get out of this dysfunction; this abuse. And we are abused as voters. We are battered and weary as voters. Stop letting these people take advantage of you.

Anyway, peace, y’all. I love you. Take it easy. Don’t take no crap from these politicians. Get in the political arena. Get involved.

We can save the city, but only if you don’t just click, like, comment, subscribe and share. (We need those, too, to raise awareness.)

Come to city council meetings. Make public comments. Do not let these people continue to abuse us. I love you. I will continue to fight for Oakland and I hope you will, too.

Peace, y’all.

“Yo, I swear it’s only up from here.”
— Cavalier / 7th Ward Spyboy, Up from Here

The views expressed in our Commentaries do not necessarily reflect the editorial views of Oakland Report or its contributing writers.

Learn more

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Seneca Scott is a political strategist, writer, and organizer working at the intersection of media, power, and civic reform. Based in Oakland and Nashville, he has become a prominent voice on municipal governance and institutional accountability in America’s cities.

A national CBS contributor, Scott has appeared in local, national, and international outlets analyzing public-sector politics, urban decline, and political realignment. He is best known for his leadership role in the successful recall of Oakland’s former mayor — a grassroots effort that placed government accountability at the center of public debate.

Scott previously served as East Bay Director for SEIU Local 1021, representing thousands of public-sector workers and leading major contract campaigns and labor actions. As an organizing director for multiple unions across California, he built worker-led coalitions and negotiated complex agreements in highly charged political environments.

His writing has appeared in Newsweek, Compact Magazine, City Journal, and The Free Press, where he focuses on governance, fiscal policy, and the future of American cities.

A graduate of Cornell University’s School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Scott ran for mayor of Oakland in 2022 on a charter reform platform advocating a stronger mayoral system, drawing on SPUR’s 2021 report, Making Government Work. During the recall effort, he founded Gotham Oakland, an independent media platform dedicated to exposing municipal corruption and challenging local political dysfunction.

Through consulting, media, and organizing, he works to advance transparency, fiscal discipline, and institutional reform at the local level.

Audit finds systemic issues with Oakland’s police oversight system continue, nearly six years after similar findings

A new report from City Auditor Michael Houston examines Oakland’s police oversight system and finds ongoing staffing and operational issues in all three entities charged with oversight.1

The new report follows a previous review released in 2020 that also identified structural and operational challenges across the oversight system, and illustrated the complicated, often overlapping relationships among these entities.2

Subscribe to Oakland Report today.

Subscribe now

Oakland voters have created one of the most extensive civilian police oversight systems in the country.3 Three entities divide responsibility for that work: the Oakland Police Commission (OPC), the Community Police Review Agency (CPRA), and the Office of the Inspector General (OIG).

Houston’s report maps the structure and reporting relationships among the three entities. The report raises a number of governance questions, including how oversight audits are structured, how staffing and administrative authority over oversight agencies are handled within city government, and whether CPRA is meeting its required reporting obligations.

City officials sought to move the Office of the Inspector General to the City Auditor’s office

OIG is responsible for auditing police policies and compliance with oversight reforms. According to Houston’s report, the OIG currently operates with limited internal staffing. To supplement that capacity, the city entered into a one-year contract valued at $122,500 with consulting firm MGT Impact Solutions to conduct police performance auditing work.4

In a letter attached to the report, Houston responds to an informal proposal from City officials to house OIG within the City Auditor’s office. While stating that he is neutral on the merits of the proposal, Houston explains that moving the OIG into his office would raise several structural issues, including reporting relationships, staffing needs, and the City Auditor’s inability to audit its own operations due to the conflict of interest that would create. Houston noted that his office already conducts government performance audits and maintains a professional audit staff.

Houston’s report does not recommend eliminating the OIG. However, the discussion highlights broader policy questions about how auditing responsibilities are organized within Oakland’s police oversight system and whether multiple audit functions within city government may overlap.

A dispute over who should conduct an oversight staffing study

The audit’s primary recommendation is to conduct a staffing study of Oakland’s police oversight agencies. The City Attorney, City Auditor, and City Administrator agree that the study should be administered by the City Attorney’s office, which would oversee contracting for the study if authorized and funded by the City Council.

OPC leadership, which is composed of civilian political appointees, has proposed a different approach: hiring its own consultant to conduct the study. In their response to Houston’s report, OPC leadership claims that, “No basis exists to conclude that the City Attorney possesses information superior to that of the Commission and its Agencies concerning their own staffing and resource requirements.”

City officials have raised concerns that allowing an entity like OPC to manage its own staffing study could create a conflict of interest. For example, the City Attorney wrote in response:

“To the extent the Police Commission believes that Oakland’s police oversight agencies should directly contract for and manage a staffing study that will potentially benefit their own agencies and further reasons that doing so would decrease potential conflicts of interest and increase public confidence, we respectfully disagree.“

– City Attorney Ryan Richardson

A similar situation arose when the Office of the Inspector General commissioned a staffing study of the Oakland Police Department (OPD), which the city withheld for several months and only produced after Oakland Report submitted a Public Records Act Request (which the city denied) and published an exposé on the city’s delay.5

Donate to Oakland Report today. We rely on your financial support.

Become a supporting member

OPD did not conduct the study itself; an outside consultant performed the analysis under OIG supervision to ensure independence.

The current debate raises the same question for Oakland’s oversight agencies: who should evaluate their staffing needs, and under what authority?

Oakland Police Commission has 12 ad hoc committees; several appear to function like standing committees (which would require City Council approval)

Houston’s report notes the large number of responsibilities assigned to the Oakland Police Commission (OPC). In addition to reviewing police discipline and policies, the OPC — a part-time, all-volunteer, citizen-run commission composed of political appointees — oversees both the CPRA and the OIG.

To manage this workload, the OPC relies heavily on multiple ad hoc working committees. These ad hoc committees are intended to allow commissioners to review complex policy issues in smaller groups before bringing recommendations to the full commission. Currently, there are 12 active ad hoc committees in the OPC.

Oakland Police Commission Ad Hoc Committee List 2025 2026

239KB ∙ XLSX file

Download

A list of 12 currently active and 8 currently inactive ad hoc OPC committees. Prepared by the Oakland Police Commission.

Download

This extensive committee structure reflects the broad scope of the OPC’s responsibilities. However, under California law, ad hoc committees are generally intended to be temporary in duration and limited in scope, typically focused on one-time, short-term projects or issues.6 Ad hoc committees do not require City Council authorization.

When committees continue to meet on a regular basis with no end date or sunset, or when committees oversee ongoing policy areas, they begin to function more like standing committees, which in Oakland typically involve consideration of staffing and resource allocations, and require City Council approval per the Oakland Municipal Code.7

Subscribe to receive new articles in your inbox.

Subscribe now

Some OPC ad hoc committees also include participation from members of the public and city department staff such as Oakland Police Department personnel, depending on the subject being reviewed. When committees include staff from multiple departments and address ongoing policy issues, the distinction between ad hoc and standing committees can become less clear within a municipal governance framework.

CPRA is not meeting its reporting obligations per the Oakland Municipal Code

Houston’s report also identifies operational challenges at the Community Police Review Agency (CPRA), which investigates complaints of police misconduct.

The report acknowledges that CPRA has made some progress since the 2020 audit, including standardizing investigation plans. However, it also highlights that several elements of the agency’s investigative infrastructure continue to remain under development — nearly six years after the 2020 audit identified similar issues — including formal policies, procedures, and training needed to support consistent casework.

CPRA has begun contracting outside attorneys to assist with investigations, training, and development of internal procedures.8 While outside expertise can provide support, the reliance on contractors reflects the agency’s continuing effort to build core investigative capacity. These capacity issues are significant because some policymakers have proposed transferring police misconduct investigations from the Oakland Police Department’s Internal Affairs Bureau to CPRA.9

Houston’s report also raises issues related to transparency and required reporting. Oakland Municipal Code requires CPRA to provide biannual reports to the City Council’s Public Safety Committee detailing investigations, case outcomes, and agency performance.10

Those reports have not been regularly presented to the City Council, and past reports have been incomplete. CPRA’s most recent annual report was released in October 2024, and did not include several of the reporting elements required by the ordinance.11

CPRA has reported reductions in its backlog, but an analysis of its monthly reports suggests that many case closures reflect administrative determinations rather than full misconduct investigations.12

Without consistent reporting to both the OPC and the City Council, it is difficult to fully assess the agency’s investigative performance.

Share Oakland Report. Help us reach our goal of 10,000 subscribers.

Share

Oakland’s complicated police oversight system creates structural tension with conflicting and overlapping duties

Other issues identified in Houston’s report involve technical matters such as staffing levels, committee structures, procedures, and reporting requirements. Taken together, however, they point to an apparent structural tension within Oakland’s police oversight system.

The OPC, CPRA, and OIG were created to operate independently from the Police Department. At the same time, they exist within Oakland’s municipal government and rely on the City Council, City Attorney, and City Administration for authority, funding, and administrative processes.

The audit illustrates how that arrangement – one of the most complex in the nation – can create friction between institutional independence and the city’s governance framework. This raises broader questions about how independent oversight agencies are structured and how they function within municipal government.

Addressing those questions and resolving conflicting and overlapping duties may ultimately require City Council to articulate a clearer vision for alignment of authority, accountability, and reporting responsibilities across Oakland’s police oversight system.

Donate to Oakland Report. We rely on your financial support.

Donate now

12

Publicly available CPRA monthly reports presented to the Police Commission between 2023 and 2025 show that a substantial share of cases categorized as “closed” were resolved through administrative determinations rather than full misconduct investigations. Administrative closures typically involve complaints that fall outside CPRA’s investigative mandate or are resolved through screening rather than a full investigative process. Based on publicly reported data, approximately 58% of closed cases in 2023 were administrative determinations, compared with about 45% in 2024 and roughly 40% in 2025 after the agency reported clearing much of its backlog. Because CPRA reporting combines administrative closures and completed investigations in a single “average time to closure” metric, the inclusion of shorter administrative determinations can reduce reported timelines even when full investigations require substantially more time.

Case tracker - Community Police Review Agency

16.3KB ∙ XLSX file

Download

The author prepared this spreadsheet tracking CPRA's cases from November 2023 through January 2026.

Download

---

Oakland police department overtime spending is over budget due to staffing shortfalls

Finance and management committee meeting, Mar. 10, 2026, agenda item #4.

The finance and management committee will review a report on the Oakland police department’s use of overtime.1 The report was prepared by interim police chief James Beere, and covers the six months from July 1, 2025 to December 31, 2025. The previous report was released on September 30, 2025 and covered the first six months of 2025.2

The overtime report comes after a media investigation reported that one officer earned over $879,000 in total compensation through prodigious use of overtime, and submitted time cards indicating that the officer had worked 23-hour workdays in some cases.3

Subscribe to receive Oakland Report in your inbox.

Subscribe now

The finance and management committee report does not list overtime usage by individual officers, but does present aggregate data indicating that the department was approximately $6.3 million over budget (net) in its overtime spending at the midpoint of the fiscal year. This figure was calculated by subtracting approximately $10.6 million in salary savings and reimbursements from the total $25.2 million in total overtime spending during the first six months of this fiscal year.

The department’s current fiscal year budget of $33.6 million for police overtime is an $11 million reduction, or 25 percent, compared to the previous fiscal year budget. This substantial budget cut by city council appears to have been implemented without a corresponding reduction in service mandates or an improvement in staffing realities.

The report projects that the department is likely to underspend its overtime budget by $8.0 million (net salary savings and reimbursements) at the end of the fiscal year.

Oakland police department continues to be dangerously understaffed, despite voter mandate

The report also provides updated staffing levels for the department, reaffirming that the police department continues to be dangerously understaffed. According to the overtime report, the police department currently has only 509 sworn officers on active duty. This is despite having budget for 678 sworn positions, and is far below the minimum level of 700 sworn positions required by Measure NN, which Oakland voters approved in 2024 along with substantial new tax funding for public safety services.4 City council has suspended that legal requirement by declaring a formal state of “extreme fiscal necessity” for nearly two years since the measure passed.

“As of the date of this report, OPD is authorized and budgeted for 678 sworn positions. Of those, 617 positions are filled, 61 fewer than budgeted. Of the 617 filled positions, 83 employees are totally off work due to medical, military, or administrative leave, and an additional 25 are assigned to modified duty and are unable to perform the full responsibilities of a police officer. In total, 108 sworn personnel, approximately 17% of filled sworn positions, are not fully deployable. This staffing gap directly impacts overtime utilization.”

– James Beere, interim police chief

The report goes on to provide breakdowns of overtime spending and salary savings and reimbursements by month, and more detailed breakdowns of overtime by organizational teams, and by “element,” meaning the reasons for the overtime.

Backfill and shift extensions reflect minimum staff mandates

Backfilling vacant positions and extending shifts to cover staffing gaps were the primary drivers of overtime expenses during the six-month reporting period. The two largest categories of expenditure were “Backfill” ($4.4 million) and “Extension of Shift” ($4.0 million). These are not discretionary choices, as they are required to meet minimum staffing levels for patrol and essential functions when the scheduled workforce falls short. Additionally, episodic events—such as large public gatherings, sideshows, and critical incidents requiring SWAT—create unpredictable spikes in demand that generate additional overtime expenses.

The five organizational units with the highest overspending were the Special Operations Division, Internal Affairs, “Special Resources BF01,” Ceasefire, and Robbery and Burglary.

The report provides brief descriptions of each of the various divisions with what they do — for example the SWAT team, Internal Affairs, and so on — and summary explanations of the overtime impacts for each.

The report ends with a brief overview of the department’s technology modernization efforts, with an integration project expected to begin this spring and take approximately a year to complete.

See this related article:

Other notable agenda items

• Informational report on Measure Q.5 This item is billed as, “Receive an informational report on Measure Q: 1) Why was “extreme fiscal necessity” declared without open discussion and what the timeline is for making changes to this practice; 2) Following the grand jury report, when can the biennial audit report be expected; 3) What will the process be defining “extreme fiscal necessity” with Measure Q and other stakeholders.”
  
  This agenda item contains no written materials, meaning that interested parties will need to attend the meeting or watch the video of the meeting in order to understand the nature of this discussion.

Oakland Report is by no means comprehensive in our coverage of public meetings in Oakland. The scope and frequency of public meetings are far more than we can presently cover. You can see the full finance and management committee agenda and meeting materials at the city’s agenda calendar.

BECOME A SUPPORTING MEMBER

We rely on our readers’ financial support to continue our work.

Your contributions are tax-deductible.

Become a supporting member

We are a 501(c)(3) charitable nonprofit based in beautiful Oakland, California. Our mission is to make truth more accessible to all Oakland residents.

Learn more

CORRECTION: The original version of this article misstated some of the financials by citing the first quarter (Q1) figures instead of the total of Q1 and Q2. The error was brought to our attention by an eagle-eyed reader. The figures have been corrected in the article. Our thanks and appreciation to the reader!

EDITOR’S NOTE: Oakland Report subscriber Victoria Wake wrote a letter to the editor objecting to the characterization of high-turnout voters in our March 2 commentary by the Oakland Charter Reform Project, “Oakland voters should reject the inadequate ‘strong-mayor’ proposal.” Here is the excerpt from the commentary:

“Unfortunately, instead of giving every community an equal voice as proposed by the Model City Charter, the Mayor’s Working Group’s reforms would instead empower only that subset of voters who show up in the midterm elections. These voters are not representative of Oakland residents overall: they are disproportionately residents of North Oakland and the Oakland Hills, which tend to be white, wealthy, college-educated homeowners. Based on geography alone, these highly engaged voters will likely skew the issues any citywide elected mayor hears about and feels compelled to address.”

— Steven Falk, Ben Gould and Nancy Falk, “Oakland voters should reject the inadequate ‘strong-mayor’ proposal.”

We invited the Oakland Charter Reform Project to respond to Victoria’s letter, and a dialog ensued. With everyone’s permission, we are publishing their exchange here for our readers to consider. We believe their discussion offers an on-ramp for Oaklanders to engage with this issue in a thoughtful manner. We encourage readers to continue to discussion in the comments section.

Victoria Wake

March 4, 2026, 5:15 p.m.

Thank you for your commentary on charter reform. With your explanation, I generally agree with the council/manager form that you are supporting. What throws me off, though, is your unnecessary disparaging of areas of Oakland that have higher rates of voter turnout. Jeez. What a screwy condemnation!

I am very active in my Dimond district community, and from what I see here and elsewhere, everyone in Oakland wants the very same thing: basic services that are delivered effectively and City staff who are accessible and accountable.

I don't hear anyone dismissing concerns of Oakland as a whole or any part of Oakland. For example, I'm pretty sure that every community in Oakland wants more police coverage. I'm also pretty sure that every community in Oakland wants more reliable garbage collection and illegal dumping prevention. Likewise, I don't think any community in Oakland is happy about homeless encampments. And I don't think anyone is pitching for an inequitable distribution of those services.

You are coming up with artificial distinctions—and kind of ludicrous stereotypes—and it manufactures a picture of serious divisiveness that isn't there. Your bias is really showing and it undercuts your arguments. You make me want to apologize for my excessive voting, something I hadn't thought of as a selfish act.

Nancy Falk (Oakland Charter Reform Project)

March 6, 2026, 2:14 p.m.

Thank you for reading our commentary, sharing your perspective, caring about Oakland and voting. Our comments were not intended to disparage anyone and certainly not highly-engaged residents in districts with high voter turnout. Indeed, we encourage voters in all districts across Oakland to vote every Election Day.

Our core argument in that specific section of the Commentary is that a Strong Mayor system of government is not obviously the best form of government to represent Oakland’s diversity and address current disparities. In recommending a Strong Mayor system the Mayor’s Working Group asserts, without compelling evidence, that a city-wide elected mayor would better “address racial, geographic and wealth disparities.”

In seeking to evaluate this specific assertion, we looked at the last two elections. Given the data on voter turnout and population by district, coupled with the pragmatic realities candidates and incumbents face when running for (re)election, we’re not convinced of the Working Group’s assertion. In fact, based on our analysis, we believe the evidence suggests it’s rather unlikely that a single, city-wide elected Mayor would better represent Oakland’s diverse needs (that is, better than a council-manager structure).

So that all Oaklanders may get the efficient and effective city services all deserve, we continue to advocate for the “third option” for charter reform: a powerful City Council that includes a powerful Mayor as chair with veto authority PLUS a professional Administrator who manages city operations and reports to the entire City Council (which now includes the Mayor).

Thanks, again, for engaging.

Victoria Wake

March 6, 2026, 2:23 p.m.

Thanks for responding. I agree with your perspective on strong mayor vs. strong council. How are we going to get a different proposal on the table? I couldn’t attend the Empower Oakland gathering last night, but I’m wondering if that group shares your perspective and if there will be a concerted effort to overcome the Mayor’s Working Group recommendations. If you have time to even briefly write back with your thoughts on this, I would appreciate it. I’ll contribute in any way I can to helping make it happen.

P.S. Thanks for your first paragraph below. I do just want to reiterate the importance of being careful with the language that you use and stay away from accusing any one segment of Oakland of not caring about the City as a whole.

Nancy Falk

March 6, 2026, 3:44 p.m.

Victoria, thanks for your offer to take further action. We’re suggesting concerned Oaklanders email their Councilmember to express their support for this Third Option in reforming the city charter. I’ll send you a follow up note with that info for your consideration.

Oakland Report

March 6, 2026, 5:52 p.m.

Thank you for your messages. The discussion is appreciated! We would like to publish both Victoria’s message and Nancy’s response in our next Letters column. Our editorial board would draft a brief cover paragraph introducing the contents. We would encourage additional debate in the comments section, if desired. Your discussion would be a good on-ramp for Oaklanders to engage with this issue in a thoughtful manner.

See this related article:

BECOME A SUPPORTING MEMBER

We rely on our readers’ financial support to continue our work.

Become a donating member

Your contributions are tax-deductible.

We are a 501(c)(3) charitable nonprofit based in beautiful Oakland, California. Our mission is to make truth more accessible to all Oakland residents. Learn more

Thank you!

Oakland property tax increase appears headed for June ballot

City council meeting, Mar. 3, 2026, agenda item #S6.9

As Oakland Report reported in February, the city and its public employee unions are preparing a $34 million parcel tax increase for the June 2 ballot.1

Oakland city council is set to take formal action at its March 3 meeting to accept the signatures and place the tax increase on the ballot in the June 2 municipal election.

If the measure is approved by Oakland voters, nearly half ($14.9 million) of the $34 million tax increase would go to union payouts in the first year, with that portion increasing if unions gain further raises in their future negotiations with the city council when the current contracts expire on June 30.2

Watch our video explainer and read our exposé on the proposed parcel tax increase here:

$14.9 million in raises is just the beginning

The March 3 action item was placed on the city council consent calendar, which is designed for the city council to vote on the parcel tax measure, with no public discussion, along with 18 other agenda items in one motion.

The parcel tax measure was previously listed on the February 26 council rules and legislation committee meeting agenda. That committee also approved the item and advanced it to the March 3 city council meeting with no public discussion.3

The increased cost to Oakland taxpayers wouldn’t land in just one fiscal year. If the city declares a surplus for the current fiscal year ending June 30 (more about the timing of that below), the “triggered” union pay raises would be paid and continue every year essentially into perpetuity.

The raises would amount to a cumulative total $134 million in added expense to taxpayers over the nine years until the tax sunsets — if not renewed.

City has set the stage to forecast a “surplus” before the fiscal year is completed

Per the September 2025 contract between the unions and the city, the raises are contingent on the city declaring a budget surplus based on a city-produced forecast at the third quarter of the fiscal year (i.e., later this spring), before the fiscal year is completed and before final financials are available.4

We note that accurate forecasting of budget outcomes is specious at best — particularly given that the city’s finance director, Bradley Johnson told Oakland Report in December that they had withheld last year’s financial reports for 8 months after the year ended because they were prioritizing “accuracy over speed.”5

Video clip 1. Finance director Bradley Johnson tells the council finance and management committee, “This year, given the great deal of focus that we’ve had around our finances… we wanted to deliver for you a fully baked, audited financial number that’s consistent with your ACFR [annual consolidated financial report]... to really represent that final year-end result.” Feb. 10, 2026. (Source: City of Oakland)6

Now the city plans to make a nearly $15 million decision to increase employee costs based on budget projections three months before the fiscal year has even ended.

Thus the declaration of surplus is merely a city decision, not one grounded in the actual budget outcomes. That decision is made more politically palatable if the city can demonstrate at least a hopeful basis for any surplus declaration. As such, the addition of a tax measure, and its more likely passage under a 50 percent + 1 voter approval threshold, gives the city more ammunition to make a preemptive declaration of a surplus months before the year-end financials are available.

By all appearances, this is why the unions are funding and leading the parcel tax campaign as a “citizen-led” initiative, which requires only a simple majority vote. The union-led parcel tax campaign will be well underway by the time the surplus declaration is set to be made this spring. And even if the parcel tax fails in June and true year-end financials show a deficit, it won’t matter. The city will have already declared a surplus and granted the raises. It will be too late to rescind the pay raises.

A precedent for financial maneuvering by the city has been established in the past few years as it raided restricted funds, overrode voter mandates, engineered interdepartmental transfers to free up more restricted funds, and leveraged one-time revenue sources to compensate for deficit spending — and even claimed a surplus announced last month. Meanwhile, the city’s own five-year forecast shows structural budget deficits between $115 million and $130 million over the next five years.7

The city could easily replicate this process when it forecasts the year-end financials in the next few months, with even more latitude than in the past since it will not even be based on year-end actuals data.

Thank you for reading Oakland Report. Subscribe to receive new articles in your inbox.

Subscribe now

See this related article:

Other notable agenda items on March 3, 2026

• Oakland police surveillance technology report. City council will receive annual reports on several police surveillance technology systems currently in use, including automated license plate readers (ALPRs, commonly known by the current vendor’s name, Flock Safety); unmanned aerial systems (UAS, also known as drones); crime lab biometrics and DNA analysis; forward-looking infrared; and other systems. Agenda item #S6.17

• Disparity in city contracting report. City council will receive a long-delayed study on city contracting practices as they relate to minority- and women-owned local businesses. The study was prepared by consulting firm Mason Tillman Associates, to whom the city awarded $600,000 in February 2022 to perform the study. Agenda item #5.2

• $860,000 legal settlement from Oakland Unified School District. The city sued the school district contending that the district did not reimburse the full costs to the city for administering the 2022 school board elections. City council will consider settlement terms in which the district will pay the city $860,000 and commit to fully funding its election costs in future elections. Like other Oakland elections, the school district’s ballots use ranked-choice voting, and the district also allows minors to cast votes, both of which increase election costs compared to the standard election processes used in most other cities. Agenda item #6.5

Oakland Report is by no means comprehensive in our coverage of public meetings in Oakland. The scope and frequency of public meetings are far more than we can presently cover. You can see the full March 3 city council agenda and meeting materials on the city’s meeting calendar.

BECOME A SUPPORTING MEMBER

We rely on our readers’ financial support to continue our work.

Your contributions are tax-deductible.

Become a supporting member

We are a 501(c)(3) charitable nonprofit based in beautiful Oakland, California. Our mission is to make truth more accessible to all Oakland residents.

Learn more

BY STEVEN FALK, BEN GOULD, AND NANCY FALK

Late last month, Mayor Barbara Lee’s Working Group on Charter Reform released its long-awaited set of recommendations.1 Not surprisingly, the Mayor’s hand-picked team of advisors2 recommends giving more power and authority to the Mayor.

In our previous commentary for Oakland Report, we explained why Oakland should return to the Model City Charter.3 This template for organizing city government is used by almost every city in California—because it delivers results. Compared to the strong-mayor system proposed by the Mayor’s Working Group, the Model City Charter is 57% less likely to have corruption4 and 10% more efficient.5 A 10% efficiency gain could save Oakland north of $100 million annually—virtually eliminating the City’s structural deficit.6

We also believe the Charter Reform Working Group’s methodology is seriously flawed. The report neglects key considerations and issues in its analysis (detailed below), and those omissions result in final recommendations that Oakland voters should reject.

A strong-mayor system can’t provide accountability without transparency and oversight

Voters want greater accountability from their city administration. But the “strong-mayor” system proposed by the Mayor’s Working Group would actually provide less accountability to voters than the Model City Charter, or even Oakland’s current flawed system.

Accountability is the obligation of the city administration to account for its actions and face consequences: whoever is in charge of the city must stand before voters (or their representatives), inform them of their past or future actions and decisions, justify those actions, and face consequences for poor performance.7

Under both the Model City Charter and Oakland’s current charter, the official responsible for overseeing city administration—the City Administrator/City Manager—is required to attend every City Council meeting. Every two weeks, they are accountable to the voters’ elected representatives. At any point during a meeting, any Councilmember can ask the City Administrator/Manager to explain or defend the City’s performance in full view of the public and the press. Under the Model City Charter, if the City Administrator/Manager’s performance is unsatisfactory, the City Council can remove them at any time.

By contrast, the Working Group’s proposed changes would leave the person responsible for overseeing the administration exempt from the obligation to attend council meetings and stand before the public. Unlike almost every other city in California, Oakland residents would rarely or never have the chance to hold their chief executive to account at regular meetings of the City Council.

This is directly at odds with what Oaklanders want. In the Working Group’s own survey of over 400 Oaklanders, 83% said they wanted the City Council to have more direct ways to hold the city administration accountable for performance.8 Instead, the Mayor’s Working Group effectively recommends reducing the City Council’s ability to hold the city administration accountable for performance, thus making it among the weakest in California.

City of Oakland community issues survey—charter reform.

471KB ∙ PDF file

Download

TOPLINE RESULTS ** Survey Sample Size: 433 Oakland Residents. October 29, 2025 – January 6, 2026. Language: English. Mode: Online

Download

The Model City Charter has another key advantage over the proposed strong-mayor system: if the head of the administration (the City Administrator/Manager) is not performing, Council can remove them—and many other cities have done so, including at least five Bay Area cities in the past five years.9

Legislative authority to remove government executives is common in many systems: in our federal government, Congress can remove the President from office, and in other countries, parliaments can hold votes of no confidence to replace their prime ministers. The Working Group’s proposal, however, provides no comparable mechanism for the Council to initiate the removal of its recommended chief executive—i.e., the Mayor. Instead, it would insulate a failing administration from meaningful consequences. Rather than strengthening the Council’s role in evaluating executive performance, the proposal weakens oversight and could allow a bad executive to harm the city for years.

As proposed, the Working Group’s strong-mayor system would reduce day-to-day accountability and transparency in city government. While voters would decide whether or not to elect a mayor for a second term (if the mayor chooses to run again), they would have little insight into the administration’s routine operations and have no practical remedy for poor performance short of a costly, multi-million-dollar recall campaign.

A strong-mayor system is not designed to represent Oakland’s diversity

As noted by the Mayor’s Working Group, Oakland has deep racial, wealth, and geographic inequities. These inequities are a major reason why Oakland moved to a district-based system in the 1980s.10 Oakland’s district-based elections are intended to ensure that disadvantaged communities with lower voter turnout still get equitable representation (because district boundaries are drawn by population). In a Model City Charter-style government, in which the City Council directly oversees the city administrator, each equal-population district has equal say in budget decisions, setting city policy, and overseeing the city administration.

Unfortunately, instead of giving every community an equal voice as proposed by the Model City Charter, the Mayor’s Working Group’s reforms would instead empower only that subset of voters who show up in the midterm elections. These voters are not representative of Oakland residents overall: they are disproportionately residents of North Oakland and the Oakland Hills, which tend to be white, wealthy, college-educated homeowners. Based on geography alone, these highly engaged voters will likely skew the issues any citywide elected mayor hears about and feels compelled to address.

For example, in the 2022 mayoral election, Districts 1 and 4 alone made up 45% of the vote, despite accounting for less than 30% of the population.

Oakland’s diversity and geography suggest that even moving the mayoral election to presidential election years—when turnout tends to be higher—wouldn’t be a panacea. In the 2024 election, Districts 1 and 4 still accounted for 41% of citywide votes. These wealthier districts have larger numbers of eligible voters, larger rates of voter registration, and higher voter turnout—even though their total populations are nearly identical to those of other districts.

These geographic voting disparities will inevitably drive disparities in the priorities and issues that the mayor hears about. Gun violence in West Oakland, sex trafficking on International Boulevard, and illegal dumping in East Oakland are serious issues, but the people who bear the brunt of those problems are the ones who live and do business in those neighborhoods. Meanwhile, nearly half of Oakland’s voters live in neighborhoods where the biggest local problem might instead be the installation of two traffic diverters,11 or whether a neighborhood peacock is a noise violation.12 Under the proposed strong-mayor system, an incumbent mayor seeking reelection will have an incentive to focus disproportionately on the concerns of the people who show up in greater numbers to vote—North Oaklanders—and be more likely to deprioritize the pressing health and safety issues of West and East Oakland.

It’s precisely because these issues are hyper-local that a district-based council-manager form of government, as recommended by the Model City Charter, is best suited to address them. Each neighborhood selects a district representative who is responsive to the community’s local needs, allowing for the priorities to be balanced—on a per-person basis—across the city.

Moving to the strong-mayor system proposed by the Mayor’s Working Group would be a step backwards for the decades of work aimed at achieving equity in Oakland.

Other gaps in the Working Group’s recommendations

These aren’t our only concerns about the proposed strong-mayor recommendations. Numerous other unanswered questions and issues remain, leaving us concerned that the report was produced without sufficient consideration for the details and complexities of Oakland’s government.

For instance, the Mayor’s Working Group recommends creating an independent legislative and budget analysts office to support the City Council. Presumably—though the report does not specify—this office would at least partially replace the current system in which each Council office employs two or three legislative staffers, often performing overlapping budget and policy analysis. We favor this more efficient, professionalized model—but it doesn’t require a charter change to make it happen. The Oakland City Charter already allows Council to set the city’s structure: they could create and fund this office when passing the June 2026 midcycle budget, without any action required by the voters.

Furthermore, the Mayor’s Working Group was silent on what the actual role of Council would be. If its recommendations are approved, the City Council would no longer be responsible for constituent services (that would fall under the Mayor’s purview) or for writing legislation (that would go to the legislative analysts’ office), while also denying them the ability to hold the city administration accountable. Yet, just as the proposal is stripping the City Council of these responsibilities, the Mayor’s Working Group proposes to change Councilmembers’ status to full-time and significantly increase councilmember pay. This makes no sense.

The proposal also fails to address several fundamental operational questions. It does not explain, for example, how department heads would be hired or fired—whether that authority would rest directly with the Mayor, remain with the City Administrator, or be delegated to other mayoral appointees. Nor does it clarify whether the City Council would retain any oversight role in department-level or deputy mayor appointments.

The proposal is similarly silent on whether the City Administrator (who, under the Working Group’s plan, would have limited oversight over a limited number of departments) would still be required to attend every Council meeting, and whether any deputy mayors would have a comparable obligation. It does not address how the Mayor’s office would manage the volume of constituent service requests that are currently handled across seven council districts. And it leaves unanswered what recourse, if any, the Council would have in the event of a “pocket veto,” where a Mayor declines or fails to implement policies or priorities adopted by the Council.

In short: the Mayor’s Working Group appears to have made a set of recommendations without fully considering or offering the all-important details. As it stands, the recommendations cannot be adopted as-is.

We still believe in the Model City Charter—because it delivers results

The Model City Charter, on the other hand, has had over 100 years of experience with these details, and real-world testing in thousands of cities across America. It addresses many of the issues that the Mayor’s Working Group identified as its priorities, and in many cases does so better than the proposed strong-mayor form of government.

The core feature of the Model City Charter is that the city administration is run by a professional city administrator/manager, appointed by the Council as a whole (which is chaired by the Mayor). The city administrator/manager is responsible for ensuring that service delivery is aligned with the majority of the Council. Their career and professional reputation is on the line, every day, to ensure operational success and accountability for Oaklanders.

In practice, the Council-wide oversight structure in the Model City Charter encourages Councilmembers and the Mayor to negotiate and compromise in order to establish a shared strategic direction for the City. This also insulates the administration from the push-and-pull of politics: city staff can focus on delivering excellent services without worrying about the shifting priorities of individual elected officials.

The Model City Charter also has the benefit of being flexible and customizable to meet the needs of the community. Building around the core system of a unified, directly-elected City Council, led by the Mayor, overseeing a professional city administrator/manager, Oakland has the option to adopt a modified version that incorporates many of the stated goals of the Mayor’s Working Group while still retaining the benefits of professional and non-political oversight of the administration:

• The Mayor can be given veto authority (like in Long Beach and other cities), which the Mayor’s Working Group believes would promote fiscal discipline.

• The City Council (including the Mayor) could benefit from a new, professional legislative and budget office to provide enhanced legislative capacities.

• The Mayor could be given primary responsibility for coordinating and responding efficiently to constituent service requests, working in partnership with the City Administrator’s office. Councilmembers, meanwhile, could focus primarily on developing policy and providing oversight.

This approach would meet the goals of the Mayor’s Working Group. It would better define the roles of elected officials by clarifying the distinction between the Mayor and Councilmembers. It would empower citywide leadership to address geographic disparities, provide visible executive accountability for service delivery, and simplify the administrative chain of command—while preserving professional management across city operations.

Oakland residents deserve an effective, efficient, and ethical city government. The record is clear: council-manager cities, based on the Model City Charter, are consistently found to be more efficient and responsive, have less internal conflict, and more transparency and accountability to voters than strong-mayor cities.1314

The City Council can still make a great choice that is right for Oakland. Let’s adopt a version of the Model City Charter that meets our community’s needs.

See these related articles about Charter Reform:

BECOME A DONATING MEMBER

We rely on our readers’ financial support to continue our work.

Become a donating member

Your contributions are tax-deductible.

We are a 501(c)(3) charitable nonprofit based in beautiful Oakland, California. Our mission is to make truth more accessible to all Oakland residents. Learn more

Thank you!

We invite you to check it out, and share your thoughts.

A full transcript of the video is also provided below.

Thank you.

— Oakland Report editorial board

You can read the full text and primary source evidence in our exposé here:

Video transcript

Welcome to the explainer.

Today we are digging into a really puzzling situation unfolding in Oakland, California. It’s a story about a city surplus that, well, might not be what it appears to be, and it involves a new tax that could hit every single homeowner.1

All right, let’s just jump right into the heart of the matter, because this is the paradox we need to unpack.

How on earth can the city of Oakland be telling its residents two completely opposite stories about its finances at the exact same time? It just doesn’t add up.

So on one side, you have this big announcement back in February of a $73.6 million surplus. Sounds great right?

But on the other side, the city is still operating under an official declaration of “extreme fiscal necessity.”

A surplus and a state of emergency at the same time? You have to ask yourself what is actually going on with the city’s money?

To really get this, we’ve got to go back a bit to the union contracts that were signed in September of 2025. This right here is where the whole thing kicks off.

So right out of the gate, those contracts handed out over $10 million in cash bonuses to union employees. And that money, it came directly from taxpayers. But believe me, that was just the start.

Now, here is the real kicker. An even more substantial amount of money. We’re talking almost $15 million in raises was also put on the table, but this one had a catch.

This payout was contingent. It would only get triggered if and only if the city officially declared a budget surplus at the end of the fiscal year on June 30th.

And that brings us right back to our big question: The city’s been forecasting deficits. So how did they suddenly conjure up a surplus just in time to maybe trigger these raises?

Well, the evidence in the public records suggests it’s not because the economy is booming. It’s because of some very clever financial engineering.

So take a look at this breakdown because it’s pretty revealing. This surplus wasn’t built on things like growing tax revenue. No, a full 60% of it came from one time cash infusions and another 31%? That came from raiding restricted funds, something the city is only allowed to do because it’s declared that state of “extreme fiscal necessity.”

You see, the emergency itself is what lets them move money around to create this surplus on paper.

This timeline really lays it all out, doesn’t it? You can see the dominoes falling one by one:

The contracts in September create the need for a surplus. The ongoing emergency gives them the tool to create it. Then boom! A new parcel tax campaign launches. And if that passes in June, it basically locks in the surplus and pulls the trigger on that $14.9 million in raises.2

So that leads to a pretty obvious question, right?

If the city needs more tax money, why are public employee unions spending their own money to get this tax measure on the ballot? Why wouldn’t the city just run the campaign itself? Well, the answer seems to be a very handy loophole in California law.

See, if the City Council puts a special tax on the ballot. It needs a two-thirds supermajority to pass. That’s a really high hurdle.

But if it’s run as a “citizen-sponsored” initiative, it only needs a simple majority: 50% plus one vote.

That is a much, much easier target to hit.

Okay, let’s do what you’re supposed to do in these situations: Let’s follow the money. We’ll start with who’s paying for all this, and then we’ll see who stands to profit.

First up, who is funding this “citizen-sponsored” tax campaign? The campaign finance records are crystal clear. Public employee unions have already poured over $400,000 into this thing. And who’s the biggest donor? SEIU Local 1021, which wrote a check for $200,000.

Now have a look at this.

This chart shows who gets the money if that surplus trigger is pulled. And would you look at that? SEIU Local 1021, the top donor to the tax campaign is also set to get the biggest pay raises, by far: $12.5 million in raises for its members.

You see the same pattern with the other major donors.

The campaign is also being pretty slick with its wording to sell this to voters. The ballot measure literally claims it will result in lower taxes for most homeowners. But text of the measure suggests a disingenuous rhetorical sleight of hand because even though it fiddles with an existing tax, the bottom line is still a major new property tax for homeowners.

So let’s cut to the chase. What’s the real cost here? If this whole thing passes in June, what’s the final price tag for the taxpayers in Oakland?

And here it is.

This is the bottom line: of the $34 million this new tax would bring in every year, almost half of it — we’re talking 44 cents of every single new tax dollar — would go straight to paying for those triggered union raises.

For the unions funding this campaign, I mean, it’s an absolutely incredible deal. They put up a bit over $400,000 to help get the tax passed and in return, their members get nearly 15 million in raises in just the first year.

That’s a 3,600% return on their investment.

So all of this leaves us with one last question to think about when a city’s surplus actually depends on a state of emergency to exist, and it can only be maintained by a new tax hike, which is bankrolled by the very people who stand to gain millions from it.

Is that really a sign of a city in good financial health? Or is it a masterful piece of financial engineering?

BY SENECA SCOTT

Nearly one out of every four members have stopped paying dues to SEIU Local 1021

Few politicians can get elected in Oakland without union support. In Oakland today, SEIU Local 1021 dominates local politics, representing over 2,000 City of Oakland workers and more than 60,000 members across Northern California. SEIU is arguably the single largest power broker inside city hall, and they are not shy about flexing their power to gain maximum benefit for themselves.1 Ditto in San Francisco, Los Angeles and most major cities in California.

But their power is not absolute. A substantial number of Oakland SEIU’s rank-and-file members are in open revolt and have been organizing a decertification election for over a year. Since 2021, nearly one out of every four members have left the union and stopped paying dues.

SEIU 1021 is the only bargaining unit in the city experiencing such a large number of withdrawals. Of the 2,031 listed City of Oakland SEIU members, 503 are no longer paying dues.

By comparison, every other city bargaining unit shows near-universal participation: In IFPTE Local 21, only seven of 945 eligible employees do not pay dues; in IAFF Local 55, only two of 440 do not pay dues; and in OPOA, only 11 of 695 do not pay dues. IBEW 1245 and OPMA have 100% participation.2

Some SEIU members who have withdrawn cite disillusionment with SEIU’s focus on political activities and lobbying, which SEIU spends millions of dollars on each year — money that could be spent on workers or lowering their dues.3 Now, former City of Oakland union members are seeking to decertify SEIU and form a new union in its place.

What is union decertification?

Decertification is the formal process by which workers remove an existing union as their exclusive bargaining representative and choose a different structure — either a new union or an independent association. It is a legal accountability mechanism workers can use when they have lost confidence in their current union and want to seek other representation.4

The Public Employees Relations Board (PERB) is the regulatory agency that oversees labor relations between public sector employers and employees. PERB decertification allows public sector employees to remove a union as their exclusive bargaining representative through a petition process followed by an election.5

Generally, a decertification petition may be filed any time there is no collective bargaining agreement in effect, except within one year after an employee organization has been recognized or after the results of a representation election have been certified. If a valid contract is in effect, no decertification petition may be filed during the term of that contract, except during a certain period, referred to as the “window period,” before the expiration of the contract.

For Oakland workers, that “window period” is between March 2 through March 31. During that window, SEIU 1021 members employed by the City of Oakland may legally petition to decertify the union. During this period, workers can sign cards calling for SEIU 1021 to be removed and replaced by new representation.

The rules under PERB:

1. 30 percent of the bargaining unit must sign a petition to trigger decertification.

2. If successful, a simple majority election by bargaining unit members will be scheduled by PERB within approximately 30 days to determine to have either no union, keep SEIU, or elect new representation.

If a decertification vote is successful, new representation would replace SEIU 1021 as the exclusive bargaining representative for city workers.

This wouldn’t be the first time a decertification has happened. For example, City of Fremont workers did the same thing in 2014 when they voted to leave SEIU 1021 and form the City of Fremont Employee Association.6

Oakland Workers United seeks to be the alternative to SEIU

“SEIU 1021 crossed the line when they moved over into politics & forgot about representing their members who pay the dues.”

– Al Marshall, Oakland Workers United founder and former SEIU 1021 Chapter President

Oakland Workers United is led by a group of former SEIU 1021 leaders, chapter presidents, vice presidents, and stewards — longtime Oakland city workers with decades of experience in labor contract negotiations and grievances.7

Today, they are sharply critical of SEIU, citing poor representation and frustration that the union has lost touch with its membership by spending large sums of money on political causes that many members opposed — for example, SEIU’s $50,000 contribution to help former mayor Sheng Thao fight her recall after the FBI raided her home.8

In case you missed it, Thao went on to be recalled by a supermajority of Oakland voters,9 then was indicted by the federal government, and is now facing up to 95 years in federal prison on corruption charges.10

OWU’s organizing effort began roughly a year ago, with leaders holding a rally and press conference on March 4, 2025.11 The press conference was attended by multiple Bay Area reporters, but no story was written about it — until now.

Full disclosure

In full disclosure, the founding members leading OWU are former colleagues of mine when I led SEIU 1021 in the East Bay. I am supporting their organizing efforts and providing advice, along with media and public relations support.

When I worked for SEIU 1021 as lead organizer for the East Bay region, we didn’t always see eye to eye. To be honest, back then I sometimes thought they were a pain in the ass — constantly demanding more transparency and stronger workplace representation from the local (imagine that!)

Union work on the city’s dime

It was former SEIU chapter president and now OWU leader Al Marshall who first negotiated for full “release time.” Common practice in larger public-sector unions, release time is when union stewards are released from their regular job duties and allowed to spend some or all of their paid time handling union matters.

You read that correctly — taxpayers currently pay for some employees to spend some, or all of their city-paid time on union representation work, instead of the jobs they were hired by the city to do.12

The history of Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 1021

For decades, Oakland city workers were represented by SEIU Local 790, a powerful, Oakland-centered local with deep roots and a focus on strong internal accountability.

That changed in 2007–08, when SEIU International dissolved Local 790 and merged ten locals into what became SEIU Local 1021 (“Ten Locals for the 21st Century”), a mega-local spanning dozens of jurisdictions across Northern California.13 Local 790 resisted the merger at first, but ultimately was the last to join SEIU 1021.14

The promise SEIU made to the rank-and-file workers was efficiency and power. Former Local 790 members were told that the new organization would lead to lower dues and no loss of local control. But for many of the former Local 790 members, Oakland workers went from running their own local to being just one constituency among many — outvoted, outnumbered, and often ignored.

For some former Local 790 members, the resentment never went away. The present decertification effort is in many ways the long echo of that moment.

Labor unions 101 — from representation, to organizing, to a social justice model

As the American economy changed over the years, so did unions.

For much of the 20th century, unions operated under a simple representational model. Members paid dues and their unions represented them. Success was measured in contracts negotiated, grievances won, wages raised, and job protections enforced. Political activities certainly took place, but it was largely secondary.

By the late 1980s and early 1990s, as private-sector union membership collapsed, many unions pivoted to an organizing model to increase membership. Growth replaced representation as the primary metric of success. Paid professional organizers displaced shop stewards (for many years, I was one of them). Internal democracy weakened as unions, especially public sector unions, increasingly evolved into permanent campaign organizations with a clear mandate handed down by union bosses: grow or die.15

By the mid-2000’s, large segments of labor transitioned again — this time into what I call the social justice model. Under this framework, unions became political actors advancing broad ideological agendas, sharing resources and tactics with an ever-increasing bevy of nonprofit and political advocacy organizations.16 Think Occupy Wall Street, the LGBTQIA+ movement and Black Lives Matter — all of which received millions in union contributions. Union coffers increasingly flowed toward electoral politics, issue campaigns, and nonprofit coalitions, while bread-and-butter workplace representation spending often receded.

Each shift moved unions farther from the shop floor and closer to the pursuit of political power — often seemingly for its own sake — and widened the gap between leadership and rank-and-file workers.17

That gap is where decertification efforts like the one now unfolding inside SEIU 1021 took hold.

How unions came to dominate Oakland politics

To understand why the SEIU 1021 member revolt matters, a history lesson will help gain insight. It’s important to understand how “The Unions” came to dominate local politics, and why, despite that apparent success, a substantial portion of SEIU 1021’s own members are now trying to leave and form their own union.

Prior to 2018, unions often struggled to consistently elect their preferred candidates in Oakland. Organized labor was influential, yes — but not as dominant as it is today.

Statewide, unions demonstrated their organizing and political muscle in a watershed moment in 2012, when they successfully defeated Proposition 32, a ballot measure that would have restricted the use of payroll deductions for political contributions.18

Another major inflection point in Oakland came slightly earlier, in 2010, when union-backed former SEIU employee Jean Quan19 was elected mayor in Oakland’s first mayoral election conducted under ranked-choice voting. Then in 2012, union-backed progressive Barbara Parker was elected city attorney,20 after having been appointed by city council in July 2011 to fill the vacancy created by former city attorney John Russo’s resignation.

What followed, however, was a setback for union and progressive ambitions: the eight-year tenure of moderate Democrat Libby Schaaf, who defeated union-backed candidate Dan Siegel21 and served as Oakland mayor from 2014 to 2022.

The political tides turned again in 2018, when union-backed progressives swept key races with the elections of Nikki Bas and Sheng Thao to city council, joining Rebecca Kaplan and Dan Kalb to form a dependable four-vote union/progressive bloc. Under Oakland’s hybrid form of government, that bloc effectively rendered Mayor Schaaf a lame-duck executive, unable to control her budget due to Oakland’s city charter which gives the city council the power to amend the mayor’s budget, but no substantive power for the mayor to exercise a veto.

In 2020, the election of Carroll Fife cemented the union/progressive control of the city council — and, with it, control over the city’s policy agenda and purse strings.22

Fife’s election, in particular, marked a new high-water mark of union/progressive spending on city council elections. Well over a half-million dollars was spent to help Fife get elected to her District 3 seat. SEIU Local 1021 contributed $235,000 to the effort.23

The union-backed political takeover of Oakland City Hall was completed in 2022 when Sheng Thao was elected mayor by a razor-thin margin, giving the unions/progressives total control of council decision-making for the first time in Oakland’s political history.24

Remote work persists in the City of Oakland, deepening the internal divide

There is also a growing divide between city public works employees who must report to work in person, and other city employees who continue to work remotely, six years after the COVID-19 pandemic began. Some in-person workers argue this creates inequity, especially as remote employees have additional flexibility and some are said to engage in outside work.

SEIU has resisted efforts to mandate broader return-to-office policies, and Mayor Barbara Lee has echoed similar talking points when pressed on the issue.25

SEIU’s membership has gone down while its political spending has gone up

Marshall and Glasper, the Oakland Workers United leaders seeking to decertify SEIU, argue that workplace representation has weakened while political activities and lobbying have intensified. As proof, they point to a telling data trend: SEIU 1021’s membership has declined in recent years,26 yet SEIU’s political spending has increased during the same period.27

Union political contributions and political action committee (PAC) activities are regulated. But beyond the required self-reported campaign filings, PACs are rarely subjected to deep independent scrutiny, much less enforcement of potential wrongdoing.

SEIU Local 1021’s PAC is called the Committee on Political Education (COPE), a legally separate and distinct entity from its general treasury.28 By law, union dues cannot be used for partisan political contributions; those must come from voluntary contributions to COPE. In theory, decision-making on political endorsements (and campaign donations) flow through member governance structures. In practice, some members contend that staff influence and hand-selected COPE committees dominate the endorsement process and silence the voices of dissenting rank-and-file workers.

The revolving door between union and city leadership

One example of the blurred line between union and city leadership is Zach Goldman, a current staff director for SEIU 1021 and former political director.29 He was appointed Chief of Policy and Legislative Affairs by former Mayor Sheng Thao immediately upon Thao taking office.

After Thao was recalled, Goldman returned to working for SEIU. He also serves on the Mayor’s Working Group on Charter Reform, appointed by Mayor Barbara Lee — another SEIU-endorsed candidate.30

If the unions are theoretically adversaries of the city to some degree, for example in labor contract negotiations and labor-management disputes, then why do union-endorsed city council candidates routinely hire senior union officials after winning office?

When the same individuals move back and forth between City Hall and union leadership, it is fair to ask whether negotiations are truly conducted at arm’s length. It is almost impossible to know, because labor contract negotiations are exclusively carried out in “closed sessions” of city council that take place out of public view.

This state of affairs also begs the question: in labor contract negotiations, is the city protecting the interests of the residents and businesses it only exists to serve, or is it functioning merely as an extension of the unions that financially contribute to helping city council members get elected and re-elected?

The parcel tax increase and “triggered”union pay raises

SEIU 1021 is currently leading a $400,000-plus campaign (to which SEIU has donated $200,000 to date) to support a $34 million parcel tax increase that the City Council has already built into the city’s budget. This adds a new question: why are unions funding a ballot initiative to raise taxes, rather than having the council place the tax increase directly on the ballot?

The answer, as noted by Oakland Report, appears to be that a “citizen-sponsored” initiative requires only simple-majority voter approval, whereas a council-led tax measure would require two-thirds approval. With Oakland’s electorate shifting and renters comprising a majority of voters, the lower approval threshold significantly improves the odds of passing a parcel tax — a political truism that is almost certainly not lost on SEIU or the city.

Oakland Report also reported yesterday that Oakland City Council approved multiple union contracts — including SEIU — in September 2025 that promise up to $14.9 million in “triggered” pay raises if the city ends the fiscal year with a budget surplus.31

The contracts also immediately awarded the unions cash bonuses up to $3,000 per employee, costing taxpayers a total of $10.2 million up front.

If the city’s desired parcel tax increase is not approved by voters, the city won’t achieve a budget surplus — and the unions won’t get the “triggered” raises promised in their contracts.

If Oakland city workers — in one of the most union-dominant cities in Northern California — vote to remove SEIU 1021, it will not just be a local labor dispute. It will be a referendum on the modern, big money political activism-based union model itself.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Seneca Scott is an Oakland- and Nashville-based political consultant, writer, and organizer working at the intersection of media, organizing and civic reform. A national CBS contributor, Scott’s writing and commentary have been published in Newsweek, Compact Magazine, City Journal, and The Free Press, where he focuses on government accountability, political realignment, and the future of American cities.

As an organizing director for multiple labor unions, Scott has built worker-led coalitions and negotiated complex agreements across California. He is a former East Bay Director for SEIU Local 1021, where he represented thousands of public-sector workers and led major contract campaigns and labor actions. He also is known for his leadership role in the successful recall of Oakland’s former mayor in 2024.

Scott holds a Bachelor of Science from Cornell University’s School of Industrial and Labor Relations. Through consulting, media production, and organizing, he works to advance transparency, fiscal responsibility, and institutional reform at the local level. He is the producer of the video channel Gotham Oakland.

BECOME A DONATING MEMBER

We rely on our readers’ financial support to continue our work.

Become a donating member

Your contributions are tax-deductible.

We are a 501(c)(3) charitable nonprofit based in beautiful Oakland, California. Our mission is to make truth more accessible to all Oakland residents. Learn more

Thank you!

City’s claimed budgetary surplus sets the stage for millions of dollars in pay raises for the unions

In their four-months overdue financial report on February 10, the City of Oakland claimed a $73.6 million budgetary surplus in the midst of “extreme fiscal necessity.”1

This comes after years of large structural budget deficits including a recently projected $55 million deficit.2 In the same report the city posted a surplus, they argued the need to continue the current declaration of “extreme fiscal necessity.”3

To the average person, this makes no sense. How can this city swing from $55 million negative to $73.6 million positive in four months? How can you have a large surplus and a state of fiscal emergency at the same time? If the finances are now so positive, why is the city claiming insufficient resources in multiple service areas, such as managing homeless encampments?4

The claimed surplus is essentially a mirage constructed by financial engineering and accounting gimmicks. 31% of the surplus was obtained by raiding restricted funds and overriding voter mandates — a practice that requires continued declaration of “fiscal necessity.” 60% of the surplus came from one-time revenue sources. Meanwhile, ongoing structural deficits are forecast to be $115 million to $130 million annually through 2030.5

Why would the city go to such absurd lengths to manufacture a surplus? It appears that city leaders want to satisfy public employee unions and incentivize them to help the city raise taxes — again. Oakland City Council approved multiple union contracts in September 2025 that promise up to $14.9 million in “triggered” pay raises if the city ends the fiscal year with a budget surplus.6

In addition, the new one-year contracts immediately awarded the unions cash bonuses up to $3,000 per employee, costing taxpayers a total of $10.2 million up front.

As Oakland Report reported last week, the city’s public employee unions are now spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to put a $34 million parcel tax increase on the June 2026 ballot and to campaign for Oakland voters to approve it.

The promised pay raises will consume 44% of the new parcel tax increase annually. And combined with the September bonuses, will consume 75% of the tax increase in year one.

If the city’s hoped-for parcel tax increase is not approved by voters, it is a near-certainty that the city won’t achieve a budget surplus at the end of this fiscal year — and the unions won’t get the “triggered” raises promised in their contracts.7

Unions are bankrolling a campaign to increase parcel taxes, and have donated over $400,000 to the effort so far

Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 1021 is the largest contributor to the “citizen-sponsored” campaign committee — called “Oaklanders for a Safe, Clean and Healthy City, Sponsored by Labor Organizations” — to put the parcel tax increase on the June 2026 ballot.8

• SEIU has contributed $200,000 to the campaign.

• The International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) Local 55 has contributed $150,000.

• The International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE) Local 21 has contributed $50,500.

• PG&E has contributed $50,000.

Campaign finance disclosure: Oaklanders For A Safe, Clean & Healthy City, Sponsored By Labor Organizations

102KB ∙ PDF file

Download

California Form 460. “Recipient Committee Campaign Statement.” Submitted by Oaklanders for a Safe, Clean & Healthy City, Sponsored by Labor Organizations, Feb. 2, 2026.

Download

The formal campaign statement submitted by the unions says that the parcel tax increase would collect approximately $34 million per year from Oakland property owners to, “maintain operations and support key systems such as 911 dispatch, IT infrastructure, and public safety.”

“Oakland Safety/ Cleanliness Measure. Shall the measure to prevent longer 911 response times; keep fire stations open; prevent cuts to fire protection, police patrols, crime prevention/ investigation; address homelessness, dumping, litter/trash by levying a parcel tax of $192 on single-family and other parcels as specified, resulting in lower taxes for most homeowners, with low-income exemptions, including seniors, raising approximately $34,000,000 annually for 9 years, public disclosure, citizen oversight, independent audits, be adopted?”

— from “Oakland Public Safety, Cleanliness and Community Accountability Act of 2026,” submitted by Oaklanders for a Safe, Clean & Healthy City, Sponsored by Labor Organizations

The union-led campaign aims to exploit Oaklanders’ concerns about public safety — the same strategy that the city identified in its plan for the tax increase,9 and it aims to collect roughly the same dollar amount the city council added to its budget for the new tax.10

Also, stating that the tax increase will “result in lower taxes for some homeowners,” while perhaps technically accurate, is a disingenuous rhetorical sleight-of-hand that seems intended to obscure the incontrovertible fact that taxes would, in fact, go up substantially.11

If the union succeeds in getting the measure passed, it will represent over 3600% one-year return on investment ($14.9 million returned on $400,000 invested) — a financial no-brainer that beats anything that the stock market, bitcoin, or private equity could ever dream of returning for its investors and power-players.

Proposed ballot measure: Oakland Public Safety, Cleanliness and Accountability Act of 2026

178KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Oakland Safety/ Cleanliness Measure. Shall the measure to prevent longer 911 response times; keep fire stations open; prevent cuts to fire protection, police patrols, crime prevention/ investigation; address homelessness, dumping, litter/trash by levying a parcel tax of $192 on single-family and other parcels as specified, resulting in lower taxes for most homeowners, with low-income exceptions, including seniors, raising approximately $34,000,000 annually for 9 years, public disclosure, citizen oversight, independent audits be adopted?

Download

Is the city coordinating with public employee unions to lower the voter approval threshold from two-thirds to a simple majority?

Why are the unions putting up hundreds of thousands of dollars to put a parcel tax increase on the June ballot — something which the city council has the power to do on its own and has already committed to making happen?

Notably, a “citizen-sponsored” ballot initiative such as the one the public unions are leading requires only a simple majority of Oakland voters (50% plus 1) to pass. If the new tax was placed on the ballot by the city council as a special tax as required by state law, the approval threshold would be much higher at two-thirds (66.67%).12

In addition, the two unions that have contributed the most to the campaign — SEIU Local 1021 and IFPTE Local 21 — stand to gain up to $13.8 million total in pay raises, on top of the $9.6 million in cash payouts they received upon signing the contracts in September, if the new tax passes and results in a budget surplus on June 30.13

Contract negotiations between public employee unions and the city take place in city council “closed sessions” that are held out of view of the public.

Taxpayers are effectively paying the unions to raise their own taxes

Unions receive nearly 1% of city employees’ salaries in the form of union dues that are automatically deducted from employees’ paychecks along with other withholdings such as health and retirement benefits. These union dues withholdings amount to about $6 million per year of taxpayer money.

Oakland-based public employee unions spend over $4 million per year on political activities. See here for a summary of financial filings; and for example the SEIU filing, here.

BECOME A DONATING MEMBER

We rely on our readers’ financial support to continue our work.

Become a donating member

Your contributions are tax-deductible.

We are a 501(c)(3) charitable nonprofit based in beautiful Oakland, California. Our mission is to make truth more accessible to all Oakland residents. Learn more

Thank you!

See these related articles:

BY BARBARA LEE

Our city charter was written for a different era — and it’s time to bring it into this one

As Mayor, my conviction is straightforward: Oakland’s city government must be as effective as possible for the people who live here. But effective government requires the right structures, the right systems, and the willingness to ask whether what we have today is truly built for the challenges ahead.

That question starts with our foundation. Oakland has dedicated public servants, but even the most committed people need modern systems to do their best work. Our city charter was written for a different era — and it’s time to bring it into this one.

That’s why one of my first acts as Mayor was to convene the Mayor’s Working Group on Charter Reform. Facilitated by the League of Women Voters of Oakland and SPUR, the group spent five months doing critical work: listening.

Read the charter reform working group’s full report:

Strengthening Oakland's Governance Structure

4.15MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Recommendations for a clearer, more accountable, and more effective city government. Submitted by the Mayor's Working Group on Charter Reform, January 29, 2026.

Download

More than 750 residents showed up to public meetings in every district. More than 400 submitted surveys. Current and former city staff weighed in. Governance models from across the country were studied. The result is a clear-eyed look at what it would take for Oakland to truly deliver for its residents.

The League of Women Voters of Oakland and SPUR also facilitated meetings with Working Group members who volunteered their time. The group worked independently to examine Charter Reform recommendations that could improve how City Hall functions to increase accountability and deliver effective results for Oaklanders.

I specifically requested that the Working Group focus on three areas that prioritized the issues I heard repeatedly from Oaklanders:

• Clear definition of the roles of elected officials

• Ways to better address responsible city financial planning

• Ways to improve government accountability and transparency.

Working Group’s key recommendations

1. Move to a “strong-mayor” form of government

The Working Group recommended a strong-mayor system of government where there is no ambiguity on who is ultimately accountable for City operations and service delivery to the community.

In a strong-mayor system, the Mayor serves as the city’s chief executive, responsible for running city operations and delivering services, while retaining a professional City Administrator to oversee core internal city functions. The City Council serves as the legislative branch, responsible for passing laws, approving the budget, and overseeing the Mayor’s administration.

This model creates a clearer separation of powers, so residents know who is responsible for results. Clarity about roles and responsibilities can not only cut through the confusion and set the stage for more effective and responsive government, but support the achievement of greater equity across Oakland’s neighborhoods.

2. Move to a full-time city council

The Working Group recommended streamlining the number of City Councilmembers and moving to a system of full-time councilmembers who are prohibited from outside employment, a model that other cities have — while noting that councilmember oversight powers should also be clearly articulated in the City Charter to allow for stronger powers of inquiry, including the ability to conduct legislative hearings.

3. Create a new budget and legislative analyst office

The Working Group recommended strengthening the City’s legislative branch, including a permanent, professional budget and legislative analyst office to provide unbiased, independent fiscal and policy analysis, similar to structures in Los Angeles, San Diego and the California Legislature.

4. Retain the elected city attorney and city auditor

There were no recommended changes to the directly-elected independent City Auditor or the directly-elected independent City Attorney.

These are just some of the many recommendations that could shape the future of our City for generations, if they are implemented. Any changes to the City Charter must be voted on by Oakland voters.

The Working Group continues to offer opportunities for Oaklanders to stay informed. The League of Women Voters of Oakland and SPUR held their first of two informational community sessions to present their report findings and respond directly to Oaklanders’ questions last Tuesday, Feb. 17 at OakStop. Their second community information session is coming up on Monday, Feb. 23 at 6:00 p.m. at Allen Temple.

I encourage Oaklanders to participate in the community session on on February 23 to learn more and read the full report at: mayorbarbaralee.com/charter-reform

To those of you who have already volunteered your time to provide your suggestions, thank you.

Working together, we will keep Oakland On the Move, and Oaklanders will decide how our city moves forward.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Barbara Lee was elected Mayor of Oakland in a special election conducted on April 15, 2025. Prior to her election, Mayor Lee represented the people of Oakland as California State Assembly Member, California State Senator, and U.S. Congressional representative for over three decades.

As Oakland’s Congresswoman, Mayor Lee secured billions of dollars to improve Oakland’s neighborhoods and quality of life — including funding for local police officers, firefighters, and community safety programs; money for safer and greener streets; resources to uplift small businesses; and hundreds of millions to expand and green the Port of Oakland. She is the first Black woman to be elected Mayor of Oakland.

Mayor Lee has been a strong advocate for ethics reform and budget accountability, creating good paying union jobs, common sense gun reform, the expansion of home ownership opportunities, and effective solutions to homelessness — experience she will use in her executive position as Oakland’s Mayor.

During her years as a graduate student, Mayor Lee founded the Community Health Alliance for Neighborhood Growth and Education (CHANGE), a community-based mental health center, and is also a former small business owner. A clinical social worker by profession, Mayor Lee received her Bachelor of Arts in Psychology from Mills College and her Masters in Social Welfare from the University of California, Berkeley.

Oakland City Council is aiming to collect $40 million from a new tax increase on Oakland properties.

The city council is already spending the money.

The city council has included the revenue in its operating budget for the current fiscal year, even though the new tax has not been put on the ballot for a vote yet.

As Oakland Report reported last week, the city’s public employee unions now are funding paid signature-gatherers to collect signatures to put a new parcel tax on the June 2026 ballot. Their proposed new tax would raise up to $40 million — the exact amount the city council budgeted.

Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 1021 appears to be leading the campaign committee — called “Oaklanders For A Safe, Clean & Healthy City, Sponsored By Labor Organizations” — to put the tax increase on the 2026 ballot.

SEIU has already contributed $200,000 to the campaign.

The campaign committee’s donors also include the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) Local 55 which contributed $150,000, and the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE) Local 21 which contributed $50,500. PG&E contributed $50,000.

Campaign finance disclosure: Oaklanders For A Safe, Clean & Healthy City, Sponsored By Labor Organizations

102KB ∙ PDF file

Download

California Form 460: Recipient Committee Campaign Statement. Submitted by "Oaklanders for a Safe, Clean & Healthy City, Sponsored by Labor Organizations," Feb. 2, 2026.

Download

Notably, with a “citizen-sponsored” ballot initiative such as the one the public unions are leading — even a parcel tax — the threshold for voter approval is a simple majority (50% plus 1). If the new tax is placed on the ballot by the city council, the approval threshold would be much higher at two-thirds (66.67%).

Based on the evidence in city documents, it is clear that the city council is aware of and has committed to placing a tax increase on the 2026 ballot to “generate an additional $40 million in ongoing revenues to maintain operations and support key systems such as 911 dispatch, IT infrastructure, and public safety.”

This is the exact same criteria, and the exact same dollar amount the public employee unions are now proposing in the parcel tax measure for which they are currently gathering signatures.

Proposed ballot measure: Oakland Public Safety, Cleanliness Accountability Act of 2026

2.86MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Oakland Safety/ Cleanliness Measure. Shall the measure to prevent longer 911 response times; keep fire stations open; prevent cuts to fire protection, police patrols, crime prevention/ investigation; address homelessness, dumping, litter/trash by levying a parcel tax of $192 on single-family and other parcels as specified, resulting in lower taxes for most homeowners, with low-income exceptions, including seniors, raising approximately $34,000,000 annually for 9 years, public disclosure, citizen oversight, independent audits be adopted?

Download

By all appearances, the city council and the public employee unions are coordinating in plain sight to increase taxes on Oaklanders by shifting the planned ballot measure from a city council-sponsored measure that requires a two-thirds vote to pass, to a “citizen-sponsored” initiative that only requires a simple majority.

See this related article:

Buy now, pay later

There are over 100 “payday loan” locations in Oakland and the immediate area.1 A payday loan is a short-term, high-interest, unsecured cash loan, designed to be paid by the borrower’s next paycheck. These loans are characterized by high fees (often with triple-digit Annual Percentage Rates), minimal creditworthiness requirements, and repayment usually due within two to four weeks. The loan comes due quickly, with steep interest, whether the borrower keeps their job or not.

The City of Oakland’s financial state is not unlike that of a typical payday loan borrower. Desperate to cover expenses and short of cash, yet unable or unwilling to make structural changes to an unsustainable financial condition, they consistently turn to desperate measures such as using one-time income (selling assets), borrowing against the future (spending income they don’t have yet), and asking their family, friends and neighbors (i.e. taxpayers) for yet more financial help.

City’s year-end financial reports show reliance on one-time money to cover ongoing expenses — again

Finance and management committee, Feb. 10, 2026, agenda items #4 and #5

The finance and management committee will review the overdue City of Oakland Fiscal Year (FY) 2024-25 Fourth Quarter Revenue and Expenditure Report, which comes more than seven months after the fiscal year ended on June 30, 2025.2 Also up for review is the Annual Consolidated Financial Report for FY 2024-25.3

Both reports highlight a budget surplus for the year. But the details paint a different picture.

According to the reports, the city’s General Purpose Fund (GPF) shows a year-end operating surplus of $73.6 million in FY 2024-25. However, this seemingly positive news was not driven by structural stability or recurring revenue growth. Rather, the surplus was manufactured through over $67 million in one-time revenues, including emergency interfund transfers, one-time tax income from a single large real estate transaction (the iconic 300 Lakeside Drive office tower Kaiser Permanente sold to Pacific Gas & Electric for $908 million last year), and aggressive, temporary austerity measures including a citywide hiring freeze.

See this related article:

The financial reports’ details show that beneath the headline surplus lies a precarious financial position: after accounting for carry-forward appropriations and encumbrances, the actual available year-end fund balance is a modest $16.9 million — which is primarily a surplus on paper that was only made possible by accounting transfers, one-time revenues, and significant and unsustainable one-time expenditure reductions.

One-time belt-tightening helped, but structural deficit remains unaddressed

Back in September, deputy city administrator Monica Davis reported to the finance and management committee that the prior fiscal year (July 1, 2024 to June 30, 2025) potentially ended with a General Purpose Fund (GPF) deficit of $55 million.4 The exact extent of the potential deficit was not known because the city had not released its fourth-quarter financial report yet.

To avert this dire outlook, the city had implemented aggressive austerity measures, including:

• Hiring freeze & vacancy management: A citywide freeze on non-sworn positions and “aggressive vacancy controls.”

• Spending moratoriums: Departments were instructed to curtail discretionary spending, delay contracts, and pause professional training requests.

• Cost deferrals: Savings were realized through the deferral of some costs into the current fiscal year 2025-26. City staff explicitly warned that these savings were temporary and will re-emerge as future obligations.

• Public safety reductions: $30 million in one-time public safety reduction measures, though these do not represent ongoing structural savings.

Thus, the savings were achieved largely through temporary delays in spending, rather than structural reductions. The deferral of costs into FY 2025-26 creates immediate pressure on the current and next budget cycle.

Put another way, while the austerity measures were effective at reducing cash outflows in the short term, they created a “bow wave” of deferred costs and liabilities that are likely to negatively impact the city’s finances for months and potentially years into the future.5

Fast-forward to the February 10 financial reports, and now finance director Bradley Johnson is presenting a $73.6 million surplus (only $16.9 million of which is realistically available).

This seems like good news, but city staff emphasizes that the city council still needs to extend its declaration of “extreme fiscal necessity” — which has been in effect nearly two years — in order to avoid losing voter-approved tax revenue due to failing to uphold voter-mandated minimum public safety staffing levels.6

According to the February 10 reports, public safety departments continue to significantly overspend due to high use of overtime — which is, in turn, driven by chronic staffing shortfalls and inability to recruit and retain personnel. Service levels continue to erode due to persistently high vacancy rates, currently at 13% across the city organization.

One-time revenues: a manufactured surplus

The reported FY 2024-25 surplus was heavily subsidized by over $67 million in non-recurring (one-time) revenues. These revenues will not exist in FY 2025-26, creating a fiscal cliff if baseline spending is not adjusted.

City is coordinating with public employee unions to increase property-based taxes

Finance and management committee, Feb. 10, 2026, agenda item #5

A significant component of the city’s budget-balancing strategy involves a hoped-for $40 million in annual revenue from a new tax increase on Oakland properties planned for the June 2026 ballot.

The city council is already spending the money. The city council has included the revenue in its FY 2025-26 operating budget, even though the new tax has not been put on the ballot for a vote yet.

As Oakland Report reported last week, the city’s public employee unions now are funding paid signature-gatherers to collect signatures to put a new parcel tax on the June 2026 ballot. Their proposed new tax would raise up to $40 million — the exact amount the city council budgeted.7

See this related article:

Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 1021 appears to be leading the campaign committee, “Oaklanders For A Safe, Clean & Healthy City, Sponsored By Labor Organizations,” to put the tax increase on the 2026 ballot. SEIU has already contributed $200,000 to the campaign.

The campaign committee’s donors also include the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) Local 55 which contributed $150,000, and the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE) Local 21 which contributed $50,500. PG&E contributed $50,000.8

Notably, with a “citizen-sponsored” ballot initiative such as the one the public unions are leading — even a parcel tax — the threshold for voter approval is a simple majority (50% plus 1). If the new tax was placed on the ballot by the city council, the approval threshold would be much higher at two-thirds (66.67%).

The city’s “roadmap to fiscal health” runs through Oaklanders’ pocketbooks

Finance and management committee, Feb. 10, 2026, agenda item #6

The finance and management committee will review the city administrator’s “Oakland Roadmap to Fiscal Health,” which outlines a five-year strategy to achieve compliance with staffing requirements set by previous voter-approved tax measures, and to resolve the city’s persistent structural deficit, which is currently projected at $115 million to $135 million annually through 2030.9

As the “roadmap” states, the most urgent risk is the city’s ongoing failure to comply with Measure NN, which mandates 700 sworn police officers by July 1, 2026. With current funding for only 678 officers and recruitment deemed “not feasible” to close the gap, the city risks the automatic suspension of the Measure NN parcel tax revenue unless the current “extreme fiscal necessity” declaration is extended.

According to the report, in order to navigate this crisis the city must pursue another tax increase to collect another $40 million annually from Oaklanders.

The city administrator’s report summarizes the city’s approach and is worth quoting at length here because it speaks for itself:

“Administration recently presented an informational report outlining possible revenue options to generate an additional $40 million in ongoing revenues to maintain operations and support key systems such as 911 dispatch, IT infrastructure, and public safety.

While that analysis addresses the broader fiscal deficit, it highlights the same structural issues existing in this context of the City’s revenue base not able to sustain existing services, much less fund all MOEs [maintenance of effort] and MOUs [memoranda of understanding with public employee unions]. The supplemental report provided additional detail on how those tools could be structured, their revenue potential, and associated legal or administrative considerations.

The revenue options identified in the earlier $40 million analysis remain applicable for consideration in this context. Those same strategies could be considered to generate the additional revenue needed.

Staff is happy to conduct additional research on potential revenue options that Council may wish to explore and refine further as this process continues.”

— Oakland city administrator Jestin D. Johnson10

Based on the evidence in this and other city documents, it is clear that the city council is aware of and has committed to placing a tax increase on the 2026 ballot to “generate an additional $40 million in ongoing revenues to maintain operations and support key systems such as 911 dispatch, IT infrastructure, and public safety.”

This is the exact same criteria the public employee unions are now proposing in the parcel tax measure for which they are currently gathering signatures.

By all appearances, the city council and the public employee unions are coordinating in plain sight to increase taxes on Oaklanders by shifting the planned ballot measure from a city council-sponsored measure that requires a two-thirds vote to pass, to a “citizen-sponsored” initiative that only requires a simple majority.

See this related article:

Oakland Report is by no means comprehensive in our coverage of public meetings in Oakland. The scope and frequency of public meetings are far more than we can presently cover.

You can see the full February 10 finance and management committee agenda and meeting materials on the city’s meeting calendar.

DONATE TO SUPPORT OUR WORK

We are a 501(c)(3) charitable nonprofit based in beautiful Oakland, California. Our mission is to make truth more accessible to all Oakland residents through investigative reporting and evidence-based analysis of local issues.

Donate to Oakland Report

Thank you.

Letters to the Editor is a curated selection of the thoughts, ideas, observations and questions we receive from Oakland Report readers. The selections are ones that we, the editors, find interesting, noteworthy, or otherwise worth elevating in a formal letters column.

Oakland school board members accept our invitation to break bread with each other

Re: “Dear Oakland school board: Dinner’s on us,” Dec. 14, 2025

Thank you for sharing and I would be happy to participate. I would pay for myself for reporting and ethics but appreciate the offer and thank you in the spirit this is offered. Warmly,
Rachel Latta
Oakland

I guess I’m in. Honestly, I have no desire to break bread with the board majority because they have been extremely nasty towards me for years. But I’m willing to again prove the point. I’m in, but I doubt any of the majority would ever agree to it.
Mike Hutchinson
Oakland

I appreciate the invitation to break bread and I would like to accept it. In community,
Jennifer Brouhard
Oakland

Thank you for reaching out! I spoke with one of your colleagues via email (Bob Borek), to let them know.
Patrice Berry
Oakland

We thank these board members for responding to our invitation. To date, four of the seven OUSD board members have accepted. Their willingness to take us up on our offer is a testament to their leadership qualities and their commitment to public service. Oakland Report is making arrangements for the dinner to take place, and our invitation remains open to the other three board members, who have yet to respond.

Turning the tides

Re: Oakland is beautiful and we deserve better, Dec. 28

I just made a donation. I want you to know how much I appreciate your publication. I’m so tired of the pandering and misleading information that is delivered every day in this city. Because of the nonprofit work I am doing, my cynicism has been validated by first hand experiences. We have a lot of work to do to turn the tides of a city that has grown accustomed to corruption and apathy to the point where it’s become an accepted culture. Thank you for fighting the good fight and keeping people informed.

Meg McAdam
Oakland

Meg, thank you so much for your kind words and for your support. It means a lot to us. With your help and that of other Oakland Report supporters, we believe that yes, we can turn the tides in The Town.

Council member Ramachandran spent officeholder money to hire company linked to her romantic partner

Re: Oakland city council tripled the allowed political contributions to its “officeholder funds.” Agenda Watch, Jan. 6

Thanks for writing about the officeholder accounts. I think you left out a key part of the story: how council member Janani Ramachandran spent so much more than others in a shady way. According to an August 14 Oaklandside article, “Ramachandran spent nearly $18,000, all of which went to a company linked to her romantic partner and her communications director.”

Seth Mazow
Oakland

“Democracy Dollars” apparently wasn’t enough money for city council members

Re: Oakland city council tripled the allowed political contributions to its “officeholder funds.” Agenda Watch, Jan. 6

The City Council encouraged Oakland voters to support publicly-funded “Democracy Dollars” to combat the role of money in politics. Then the city council increases contribution limits, increasing the role of money in politics. Go figure.

Justin Horner
Oakland

Charter reform seems like a good idea, but if you don’t address the broader flaws in our system, it might lead to a trap

Re: “Commentary: Oakland needs a council-manager government — or needs to eliminate ranked-choice voting,” Jan. 10

Loren, I really appreciate how you draw out the deeper dependencies in the governance system — particularly when you get a bad mayor in a strong mayor system.

Reform needs to consider all those linkages and possibilities in designing a future governance. Otherwise you might simply move the brick wall to a new spot, or open up a new trap.

Charter reform seems like a good idea, but if you don’t address the broader flaws in our system, it might lead to such a trap. These flaws amplify each other right now (in addition to our hybrid system and ranked-choice voting).

Few are willing to say it because of the fear of political or social backlash, but I’ll say it. It is my hope that these issues can also be tackled through a reform process.

1. Our city commission structure often places people without expertise, without sufficient time/resource, without accountability, and often with narrow or conflicted interests in positions of authority over our elected leaders through explicit veto power, or the power to delay decisions.

2. Closed-door negotiations between public unions and the city is a deep conflict of interest. Unions receive nearly 1-1.7% of the salaries of city employees (which amounts to more than $6 million a year of taxpayer money), some of which is used to elect the politicians that approve those salaries.

   • Over $4 million spent on political activity by these unions based in Oakland. (See here for filing docs summary: and for example the SEIU filing, here.)

   • Effectively, unions are a city contractor allowed to contribute to candidates and then negotiate with them behind closed doors. Greater transparency is critical.

3. There is no state or other external requirement for the fiscal transparency that is essential to good governance. As we have seen recently, the city can delay financial reporting (or skip it) at will — leaving the council in the dark and with limited options when things get tough.

4. There seems to be a notion that a city job is lifetime employment, regardless of employee performance, or of city needs. There are some amazing talents in the City of Oakland, and some deeply committed employees. But like every private or public organization ever, there are employees who don’t perform.

   • If talented folks are not advanced based on merit, or if their every effort at service improvement is crushed by others’ apathy, they get frustrated and leave. A merit based culture starts at the top — and “the top” is selected and held accountable by the system of governance.

   • If the city cannot contract its workforce when needs change for finances change, we are doomed to wasteful, unsustainable governance.

5. There is a lack of any real accountability for long-term decisions — e.g. spending decisions on contracts or pensions that won’t impact current elected officials, but could sink the city years in the future. Whether it be road repairs (and millions of dollars in lawsuit payments for the lack thereof), or pensions, or broken contracts leading to decades-long lawsuits, we’ve seen those decisions play out repeatedly over the past 20 years. Unclear how to solve this, but those past decisions by electeds — who never felt their impact — are a large part of our current problems.

Tim Gardner
Oakland

See this related article:

The long-term damage that a bad strong-mayor can foist onto the city is too great

Re: “Commentary: Oakland needs a council-manager government — or needs to eliminate ranked-choice voting,” Jan. 10

It’s great to see Loren Taylor reconsider his earlier preference for a strong-mayor system and now support a council-manager program for Oakland. We at the Oakland Charter Reform Project agree — but for different, almost opposite, reasons.

For us, the bad outcomes that arrive and derive from concentrated executive power in the hands of an unqualified, corrupt, incompetent, or immoral mayor are obvious and inevitable, regardless of whether the mayor is elected via ranked choice voting or straight-away. The long-term damage that a bad strong-mayor can foist onto the city is too great; the recall bar is too high; and four years is too long to wait when change is necessary. Witness our current federal President.

The beauty of the council-manager system is that, if the city manager is doing a poor or unacceptable job — if the potholes aren’t being filled, if the graffiti isn’t being abated, if the 911 calls are delayed — the city council can turn on a dime, terminate that person, and bring in a new and better administrator within months, not years.

In that way, the council-manager system best evinces representative democracy: your directly-elected council is responsible for and capable of overseeing city operations, and if a majority of councilmembers believe that change is necessary, then they can make it so. That is not the case in a strong-mayor system.

This is why 99 out of 101 Bay Area cities have chosen the council-manager model, and Oakland should, too.

Steven Falk
Oakland

Biased toward a “strong mayor” system after working in Atlanta

Re: “Give Oaklanders what they want and need: a strong mayor,” Jan. 22

As one of only two two-term mayors in this millennium, I think former mayor Schaaf has an important perspective in this discussion. I will always be biased toward a strong-mayor system because I worked for such an amazing mayor in Atlanta (Keisha Lance Bottoms). I would be curious and grateful to learn more about how a strong-mayor system might have changed or impacted former mayor Schaaf’s two terms as mayor. From my experience, it was most helpful as a department head to know beyond any doubt that the boss was the mayor. I worked for an excellent administration and would be most happy to return to that type of professional environment.

Josh Rowan
Oakland

Any charter amendment that does not eliminate ranked-choice voting is a waste of time

Re: “Give Oaklanders what they want and need: a strong mayor,” Jan. 22

Libby did a great job here of basically regurgitating the SPUR report on this topic. No shade, I did the exact same thing as it’s just the best body of work out there, in my opinion.

Basically what I have been saying for nearly four years now and ran on for mayor in 2022 and everyone jeered or ignored me? Cool story. It’s hard being years ahead all the time.

Any charter amendment that does not eliminate ranked-choice voting (RCV) is a waste of time. RCV has demonstrably harmed local voting turnout, confidence, etc. Especially in communities of color and the working class. It’s tantamount to voter suppression and it’s extremely insidious how these blatant facts and data points are ignored in a city obsessed with “equity”.

We need to talk about it more. END RCV.

Seneca Scott
Oakland

Seneca, thank you for your comment. Former mayor Schaaf’s commentary is focused on Oakland’s form of governance-- an important and relevant current topic of debate. It sounds like you agree with her main point, which is that Oakland will function better with a strong-mayor form of government. With respect to ranked-choice voting, there is room in the charter reform conversation for other potential changes. It does not have to be limited to just one thing. Oakland Report is open to publishing other commentaries about charter reform, with ranked-choice voting being a particularly relevant aspect, and we invite you to submit your perspective on the topic. Thanks again for your support and for the good discussion.

“We own the streets now.” Open prostitution has exploded since loitering was decriminalized

Re: Oakland prostitution enforcement and support services up for revisions, Jan. 26

Reporting on the loitering question would benefit from comparing it to the time loitering law was actually active, until a few years ago, when now State Senator Scott Wiener proposed and successfully passed a law decriminalizing loitering, which led to the pimps openly claiming “we own the streets now” on social media, and an unprecedented increase in open child prostitution. So while I appreciate the concerns about over-enforcement of loitering, the evidence in the past is clear that this hasn’t happened when the law was on the books — it was just another tool police had to enforce prostitution. Currently what you need to demonstrate to lead to a charge on prostitution is actual money changing hands. This is a very high bar. Loitering is much lower and it’s a critical tool to combat prostitution for that reason!

Many residents complain about the explosion of open prostitution since the loitering law was decriminalized. This could be reversed, and increase quality of life in these neighborhoods, and reduce some of the prostitution but probably not all. The average age to start prostitution on International Boulevard is 12 years old according to OPD, so this is also something to consider as the risks of potential over-enforcement are weighed against the protection of victims, which include children. “But what if someone is profiled” is a lower concern than that to me, particularly since over-enforcement of the law at the DA level is not taking place in Oakland and if someone is pulled off the streets will likely be out soon after.

I enjoy your reporting and am always amazed at what’s going on in Oakland, but it’s probably over here too just no one covers it like you do. Expand to Contra Costa please!

Julia Schaletsky
El Cerrito

Julia, thank you for your letter. Oakland Report published a counterpoint written by council member Charlene Wang’s policy director, Bridget Ruiz Rivezzo, that reiterated and expanded on the council member’s justifications for the new ordinance. The full city council approved the ordinance on February 3.

And who knows? – perhaps Oakland Report will expand to Contra Costa County someday. In the meantime, let us know if there are specific issues in CoCo County you think deserve a closer look.

See this related article:

The bad guys looking to abuse minor girls know who they are

Re: “Counterpoint: Oakland prostitution enforcement and support services up for revisions,” Jan. 27

As a former reporter at both the San Francisco Examiner and San Francisco Chronicle who investigated prostitution in San Francisco, I can attest that the response by Bridget Ruiz Rivezzo is right on the money. The concern must be for the young victims of sex trafficking, and not to protect or shield the abusers. As she writes: “Instead of penalizing those being trafficked, the ordinance shifts the burden to where it belongs: on the buyers, traffickers, and nuisance businesses that facilitate this industry.”

The bad guys in business and in their cars looking to abuse or profit off minor girls know who they are. Good for Oakland for taking this important step to protect the girls.

At one point, SF cops, with the help of nonprofits, started what they called a “John’s School,’‘ requiring men who solicited to take a class in which they heard from the victims themselves -- and were schooled on the health issues like STDs that came with soliciting prostitution. It also appeared to be effective: one look at a genital warts slide, and a lot of the Johns said they were never coming back. Oakland might consider this also.

Carla Marinucci
Oakland

Carla, thank you for your comment, and for reading Oakland Report – it means a lot to us. We agree that the “bad guys know who they are,” and we agree that human trafficking is extremely bad and harmful and it should be stopped.

One of the points of our article was that the city’s new ordinance includes language that appears to encourage appearance-based profiling by police based on their subjective observations of people’s income levels, physical attributes and demographics, and places of residence alone. As our article noted, this form of appearance-based profiling by law enforcement is often criticized, rightly, by civil rights advocates when it is directed at some groups – yet here those concerns seem not to apply.

The salient point is that the ordinance potentially has a flaw that undermines its stated intent to catch bad actors with charges that hold up in court. As noted in our article, the vague definition of the “loitering with intent” offense and the potential for appearance-based profiling “could potentially leave the door open to legal challenges and increased risk to the city by defendants (or more precisely, their attorneys) who, under these definitions, potentially could argue that they were illegally stopped and prosecuted merely for circling the block in the ‘wrong’ neighborhood while appearing to fit a certain profile in the eyes of the arresting officer.”

OUSD should come up with a plan for school closures that shows thought, not panic

Re: “Commentary: Why I changed my mind about Oakland school closures,” Jan. 20

I am an OUSD parent with two teens in the system, at Claremont and Oakland Tech. I am not opposed to closing schools, but I’ve noticed that the plan to close schools is always presented as an immediate and urgent need.

I’m wondering why OUSD can’t come up with a multi-year, staged plan (like, 3-5 years, rather than 1-1.5 years) for closures and consolidations that would actually lay out these savings in a way that shows thought, not panic. Can you tell me why these are never pursued?

Also, can we look back on what we’ve learned from prior recent closures? What savings were recognized from the painful closure of Kaiser and consolidation with Sankofa? If the answer is that it was nominal or nonexistent, perhaps that should come into account.

Lastly, I’m not sure what you mean regarding charter schools. It seems to me as if charters have historically taken enrollment from OUSD, and have also taken over sites that were deemed budget-encroaching from OUSD. Are you saying that this has now stabilized and that enrollments across the board are going down in Oakland?

Ian C.
Oakland

These are excellent questions. As much as Director Mike Hutchinson and I have had strong disagreements over the years, your idea of a multi-year staged plan that frames the need as being based on long-term demographic change (due to lower birth rates and the impact of gentrification and displacement) rather than immediate fiscal crisis, was exactly what he was proposing in his “3Rs” resolution of 2024. That was also the direction that former Supt. Kyla Johnson-Trammell was proposing to Board members in 1-1 conversations that same year.

As far as charters, it has been hard to name the exact savings because there are so many variables at play. Specifically for Kaiser/Sankofa, opposition to the merger created a lot of negative feelings that made it less successful than it otherwise could have been. However, CCPA, Frick, Lockwood, and Elmhurst are currently much stronger school communities than they were pre-merger. I agree with you that OUSD has not focused on the success of those mergers sufficiently, but absolutely should.

Finally, yes, enrollments are going down across the board at both charter and district. (This year, the decline in OUSD was masked by an increase in Transitional Kindergarten due to the eligibility window expanding.) In 2012, some of the schools that were closed converted to charters. However, that was a much charter-friendlier time. None of the sites that had mergers or closures in 2018-2020 turned into charters. Over the last 18 months, 4 charter schools closed (NOCCS, Urban Montessori, OCHS and Aurum), and for the first time, many of those students chose to come back into OUSD.

– Sam Davis, former OUSD board president and author of our January 20 commentary, “Why I changed my mind about Oakland school closures”

More property tax is not a progressive vs. MAGA issue

Re: “New taxes: Oakland public employee unions collecting signatures for a new parcel tax,” Feb. 3

I have been a proud union member my entire working life. Still am. But let’s all stop for a minute and consider this from a logical ­– not ideological – perspective.

This is not a MAGA vs. Progressive issue. This is flat-out a special interest group trying to get still more money from working Oaklanders to pay for still higher city salaries and pensions in a town that already has one of the highest tax rates in the state (which means the entire nation) but has among the fewest vital services.

A “parcel” tax is a straight-up property tax – but easier to market to those who don’t really know this is an ongoing strategy for a handful of politicians, their consultants and their financial puppet masters to get around Prop. 13.

In the long term, everyone including home owners, small business owners – and eventually renters – have to fork out still more so this special interest group profits. There has to be some rational accountability for feeding this insatiable beast.

Roland De Wolk
Oakland

Bottomless potholes, multiple taxes

Re: “New taxes: Oakland public employee unions collecting signatures for a new parcel tax,” Feb. 3

I will be happy to pay a little more tax after they start fixing the potholes. If Orinda can do it, we can too. Good challenge for Barbara Lee’s governance. Fixing roads are a strong signal that we have pride in our city.

Josh Bersin
Oakland

Josh - Thank you for your comment. With respect to potholes, you may find these two facts interesting:

1. Oaklanders already have authorized the City of Oakland to increase taxes -- twice -- since 2016 to fix potholes and other road maintenance needs, by financing the issuance of a total $1.45 billion in infrastructure bonds, with $640 million dedicated to transportation projects including street repaving.

2. Despite these 9-figure investments by Oakland taxpayers toward basic infrastructure like road repairs, Oakland’s Pavement Condition Index (PCI) in 2023 was rated at 57 -- in the “At Risk” range. Meanwhile, neighboring Orinda’s PCI rating was a dismal 48 in 2012 -- in the “Poor” range -- but a decade later in 2023, Orinda’s PCI rating had improved to 84 -- in the “Good” range -- after that city’s voters approved sales tax and property tax increases to fix Orinda’s public roads.

If Orinda can do it, why can’t Oakland? It can’t just be the difference in median income and tax revenue between the two cities. The City of Orinda’s operating budget is a fraction of Oakland’s. Orinda’s total operating expenditures in FY 2023-24 were a paltry $27.9 million compared to Oakland’s $1.66 billion.

Thank you, everyone for your comments; the discussion is appreciated.

Editors’ note

We recognize and love that Oakland is a complex city of nearly half a million people with so many unique lived experiences and perspectives. It’s what makes Oakland so beautiful. In that spirit, we don’t need to agree with every viewpoint we share in Letters. However, we also don’t have the time, space, or inclination to publish letters that are not helpful or that don’t meet our standards.

We appreciate readers’ comments on the topics we cover in Oakland Report, and observations about Oakland politics and governance in general. We welcome letters that are grounded in reason and evidence that can be rationally examined. We may respond to some letters. We may reject some letters. We may fact-check some letters. Other letters we may let speak for themselves. Write to us at letters@citizensoakland.org.

DONATE TO SUPPORT OUR WORK

We are a 501(c)(3) charitable nonprofit based in beautiful Oakland, California. Our mission is to make truth more accessible to all Oakland residents through investigative reporting and evidence-based analysis of local issues.

Donate to Oakland Report

Thank you.