Councilmember Ken Houston wants to dramatically scale back the independence and power of Oakland\u2019s police oversight board.<\/p>\n
His proposal<\/a>, made public last week, would eliminate a volunteer selection panel<\/a> that currently picks police commissioners. In place of that, each councilmember and the mayor would pick a commissioner. The District 7 representative\u2019s plan would also take away the commission\u2019s ability to appoint the inspector general<\/a> \u2014 a person responsible for auditing OPD\u2019s practices and policies and recommending improvements. And he wants to take away one of the commission\u2019s most important jobs: helping hire police chiefs. Under the current system, the police commission selects finalists and the mayor hires the chief from that batch.<\/p>\n Houston told The Oaklandside he is still working on his ballot measure\u2019s language, and that he accidentally left out a key provision in his legislation: eliminating the commission\u2019s power to fire the police chief.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cI missed it because I was trying to get [the proposal] in really fast,\u201d Houston said.<\/p>\n His plan to weaken civilian oversight of OPD caps years of criticism aimed at the police commission<\/a> by the Oakland Police Officers Association, pro-police activists<\/a>, and their allies in city government. Critics claim the commission is to blame for restraining officers\u2019 abilities to fight crime, demoralizing the department, driving away police chiefs<\/a>, OPD\u2019s understaffing, and other problems.<\/p>\n Supporters of Oakland\u2019s civilian oversight system say these claims are misguided and that the police commission is needed to ensure OPD continues to hold problem officers accountable and that the department keeps advancing meaningful reforms.<\/p>\n The Coalition for Police Accountability, a community group that helped establish the police commission in 2016, called Houston\u2019s plan an \u201cattack against police oversight\u201d in a recent email to its supporters and alleged that the councilmember\u2019s proposal was really drafted by the police union.<\/p>\n Supporters and opponents of the commission are rallying their sides to show up to the May 7 City Council Rules and Legislation Committee<\/a> meeting to weigh in on Houston\u2019s plan.<\/p>\n Any changes to the police commission\u2019s powers, whether it\u2019s Houston\u2019s proposal or some other offering, would have to be put before voters as a ballot measure because the commission is a branch of Oakland\u2019s government established in the City Charter.<\/p>\n 10 years ago, voters overwhelmingly chose to create a strong police commission<\/p>\n It\u2019s unclear whether Oaklanders will agree to civilian oversight of the police department. More than 83% of voters passed Measure LL<\/a> in 2016 to create the commission. In 2020, 81% of voters approved Measure S1, which gave the commission more authority and independence.\u00a0<\/p>\n Voters made those choices in the aftermath of a disastrous scandal<\/a> where multiple OPD officers were found to have sex trafficked a teenager and the police chief at the time was implicated in an effort to bury the abuse case and prevent the department\u2019s federal monitor and others from ever learning about it. Since then other police misconduct cases have rocked the department, including the 2018 fatal shooting<\/a> of a homeless man, a police sergeant\u2019s string of misconduct<\/a> that was mishandled by department leaders<\/a>, a detective\u2019s alleged perjury and bribery of a witness<\/a> and other wrongdoing that has overturned several convictions, including for murder, and again the mishandling of the detective\u2019s internal affairs case<\/a> by the former chief of police and other high-ranking officials.<\/p>\n However, in recent years, the commission has been beset by internal power struggles<\/a> and clashes<\/a> with the City Council. At the same time, new public safety advocates and groups have emerged, criticizing civilian oversight<\/a> of the police and attempting to portray the police commission as a board that pushes \u201cexcessive disciplinary measures<\/a>\u201d on officers, discouraging police from doing their jobs.<\/p>\n Houston acknowledged that his plan might be \u201ca pretty heavy lift\u201d for his colleagues, especially during a year when three are up for reelection, and when voters could be asked to weigh in on major overhauls to the City Charter<\/a>.<\/p>\n But Houston said he\u2019s received feedback from residents who are concerned about the commission. He also said Empower Oakland<\/a>, a political advocacy organization, recently surveyed residents, finding support for his measure. Empower published its survey<\/a> on Tuesday. <\/p>\n Conducted by Change Research, the poll of 1,200 likely Oakland voters in March found<\/a> that 60% of respondents want to keep the commission but \u201cmake significant changes to its structure and powers.\u201d The poll also found a strong plurality of respondents supported this idea across all council districts.\u00a0<\/p>\n According to Empower\u2019s poll, respondents favored removing the police commission\u2019s ability to hire and fire police chiefs \u201cby a very wide margin,\u201d and expanding eligibility rules so that former law enforcement officers can serve on the commission.\u00a0<\/p>\n According to Empower Oakland, respondents also supported removing the commission\u2019s \u201cfinal say\u201d over OPD policies. However, the commission doesn\u2019t have final say over all of OPD\u2019s policies. Most of the department\u2019s policies are determined by the police chief. The commission can only provide advice about most of OPD\u2019s policies, and the chief isn\u2019t obligated to go along with the commission\u2019s recommendations. The commission\u2019s ability to reject or approve policy changes, described in the City Charter<\/a>, is limited to those \u201cwhich govern use of force, use of force review boards, profiling based on any of the protected characteristics identified by Federal, State, or local law, or First Amendment assemblies,\u201d and matters having to do with federal court oversight.\u00a0When the commission does reject a proposed policy, the Oakland City Council gets to approve or reject that decision. <\/p>\n Houston wants the police commission to be an \u201cadvisory\u201d body<\/p>\n Before the police commission was established in 2017, Oakland had a Citizens\u2019 Police Review Board, which had the power to investigate complaints of police misconduct, but it could not impose discipline on officers. It could only make a recommendation to the city administrator, and its advice was often ignored<\/a>. Houston\u2019s plan would make the police commission more like the old review board.<\/p>\n He appeared to first float his proposal on April 5 in a social media post<\/a> where he asked, \u201cshould the Oakland Police Commission have Advisory or Authority over the Oakland Police Department \u2018OPD\u2019?\u201d<\/p>\n Some commenters supported the idea of the commission being more of an advisory body. One of the people who responded wrote that they believed the commission shouldn\u2019t have authority. Houston replied, \u201cI 100% agree!\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n At a council committee meeting in late April, Houston announced his intent to \u201cbring some charter changes forward\u201d based on a new city audit of the police commission, according to the Oakland Observer<\/a>, which has closely followed the police commission and City Council.\u00a0<\/p>\n Houston has had a contentious relationship with the commission. Much of this has had to do with a conflict over reappointments to the commission that have been vigorously opposed by pro-police activists<\/a>.<\/p>\n Last October, the City Council unanimously declined to renew<\/a> the appointments of two commissioners, Ricardo Garcia Acosta and Omar Farmer, who had been recommended by the selection panel. After a heated meeting, Houston upbraided the commissioners in a social media post<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u201cThe Disrespectful behavior and the total sense of false power by volunteers acting like they are elected or employees of the City of Oakland was shown to us yesterday!\u201d Houston wrote. \u201cNow this phase is OVER!\u201d\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n In speaking with The Oaklandside, Houston repeatedly argued that commissioners are not sworn officials like law enforcement officers, and that \u201cthey shouldn\u2019t have the authority to do what elected and sworn people do.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n While the commission has some unique powers, Oakland\u2019s city laws do not give authority to police commissioners to do what police officers or the City Council do.<\/p>\n Like elected officials, members of the Oakland Police Commission are required to take an oath of office<\/a> administered by the City Clerk before they can assume their roles. Similarly, they also have to file forms that disclose their economic interests and complete ethics training. As public officials, they are required to follow the same city laws as elected representatives, as well as state transparency laws, including the Brown Act and the California Public Records Act. Their official powers are also enumerated in the City Charter<\/a>, similar to the City Council\u2019s.<\/p>\n Houston also said he is concerned that commissioners don\u2019t represent every council district. He characterized the selection panel as \u201cdisorganized.\u201d And he said it takes Oakland too long to hire police chiefs.<\/p>\n He also told The Oaklandside that the commission shouldn\u2019t have the power to hire or fire the police chief because none of the members are elected officials.<\/p>\n Throughout most of Oakland\u2019s modern history, sworn officers and elected officials have not held the power to hire or fire police chiefs. That power was the city administrator\u2019s, an appointed bureaucrat chosen by the mayor. This changed in 2016 with the establishment of the police commission which actually handed the power of hiring and firing police chiefs to the elected mayor and police commission.<\/p>\n The exact wording of Houston\u2019s plan says the appointment of police chiefs should follow \u201cthe same processes used to appoint other department heads.\u201d All other department heads are currently hired and fired<\/a> by the non-elected city administrator.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s a feud\u201d<\/p>\n Rashidah Grinage, a member of the Coalition for Police Accountability<\/a> who was involved in the creation of the police commission, said she believes Houston\u2019s proposal is essentially an extension of his fight with members of the police commission.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s a feud,\u201d Grinage said. \u201cWe\u2019re seeing a personal feud turn into a policy proposal for changing the charter of this city. That does not make any sense.\u201d<\/p>\n Grinage noted that Houston\u2019s proposal could affect OPD\u2019s ability to exit federal oversight<\/a>. The commission is supposed to take over oversight duties after the monitorship ends, so weakening the commission could send \u201ca really unfortunate signal to the court\u201d that Oakland is turning away from oversight.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n Grinage also expressed confusion about how removing the commission from hiring the chief will speed up that process. She pointed out that Oakland typically hires an executive recruitment firm to do the headhunting, and that this takes many months. One role the commission does play in this process is soliciting input from the community, which Grinage said is important.<\/p>\n Grinage said she and other members of her organization are currently working with councilmembers Carroll Fife and Noel Gallo to craft legislation that would make some changes to the police commission\u2019s enabling ordinance that were previously introduced in 2024. The goal is to bring this legislation to the council in early June, which she hopes the council will embrace.<\/p>\n Other changes Houston wants to make<\/p>\n Houston\u2019s proposal would have the commission\u2019s inspector general appointed by the city auditor<\/a>, an elected position. In a report accompanying his proposal, Houston argues this would \u201cimprove impartiality and institutional independence\u201d of the position. Houston said the Inspector General may be \u201cfearful\u201d to push back against the commission on certain issues, and he wants this office to operate under an elected official.<\/p>\n A recent report<\/a> from the auditor, Michael Houston (no relation to the councilmember), found conflicting language in the city\u2019s rules that \u201chave significant implications on the independence of the Inspector General\u201d and the head of another agency that works under the commission. But the auditor didn\u2019t recommend placing the Inspector General under a different agency.\u00a0<\/p>\n Instead, the report observed that the City Council\u2019s failure to adequately fund the police commission and other oversight offices has prevented them from fully carrying out their duties. The auditor found that granting the commission and the OIG greater structural independence would help ensure that they have the resources to do their jobs. The auditor also noted that many of the inconsistencies in city rules could be addressed through revisions<\/a> to the municipal code.<\/p>\n A major gripe for Houston is the selection panel committee, which his measure would do away with. Under Houston\u2019s proposal, each councilmember and the mayor would select a commissioner, with no alternates. The proposal doesn\u2019t address how the commission would operate in the event that there are multiple vacancies.<\/p>\n Houston also appeared unconcerned about how this structure would make each commissioner beholden to the councilmember who appointed them, undermining the independence of the body.<\/p>\n \u201cIf I don\u2019t do what my constituents say, who put me in place, they give me the boot \u2014 what\u2019s the difference?\u201d Houston said. \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n “*” indicates required fields<\/p>\n \t