The online Comment window has expired

Agenda Item

7 20-0140 Subject: Ballot Measure Amending Powers Of The Police Commission From: Council President Kaplan And Pro Tem Kalb Recommendation: Adopt A Resolution On The City Council's Own Motion Submitting To The Voters For The November 3, 2020 Statewide General Election Proposed Amendments To City Charter Section 604 To Strengthen The Independence Of The Oakland Police Commission By Modifying The Powers, Duties, And Staffing Of The Oakland Police Commission And The Community Police Review Agency, And Creating An Office Of Inspector General; And Directing The City Clerk To Fix The Date For Submission Of Arguments And Provide For Notice And Publication, And To Take Any And All Other Actions Necessary Under Law To Prepare For And Conduct The November 3, 2020 General Municipal Election [TITLE CHANGE]

  • Default_avatar
    Holly Hawkins over 3 years ago

    Very opposed to the "exigent circumstances" clause. The police have proven to be unreliable (to say the LEAST) in determining what is safe or dangerous and this gives them far too much power. They must be held accountable and not left to their own devices.

  • Default_avatar
    Amar Lal over 3 years ago

    Resident of District 3, and I strongly oppose

  • 10221776818425364
    Amy Cook over 3 years ago

    I strongly oppose the exigency clause. If the intent of this measure is to increase the oversight powers of the police commission, then the exigency clause must be removed. This is not the time to decrease oversight but a time for increased accountability and transparency.

  • Default_avatar
    Ashleigh Halverstadt over 3 years ago

    As a resident of District 3, I strongly oppose the inclusion of the "exigent circumstances" clause. It is an unacceptable loophole that allows for unchecked expansion of police power and is counterproductive to the very purpose of the legislation, which I thought was to strengthen police oversight.

  • 2932699260161258
    Terri McWilliams over 3 years ago

    I strongly oppose this amendment to Measure LL as written speaking to the oversight of the policies and procedures governing the OPD - including officer misconduct. The "exigency clause" allows officers to harm Oakland residents with impunity knowing there would be No disciplinary consequences as a result of their actions. Given that OPD is STILL under Federal oversight, those officers with the "your life doesn't matter mentality" will only escalate situations. Additionally, if support from other police agencies occurs, no accountability for their actions will also go unpunished which is a greater problem. I am not ignorant of the fact that exigent situations will occur, but allowing this language into the City Charter is cover for saying BLACK LIVES DON'T MATTER!!! iJust say NO to the measure that includes ANY reference to the "exigency clause" language. This not what the founders of the City Charter had in mind. Please delete this clause from the draft.

  • Default_avatar
    Marcus Johnson over 3 years ago

    All progress is precarious, and the solution of one problem brings us face to face with another problem. Martin Luther King, Jr.

    This commission should address the issues found by the recent audit before proceeding and obtaining more powers.

    I oppose strongly

  • Default_avatar
    Daniel Drexler over 3 years ago

    Allowing the police to respond to exigent circumstances is a foreseeable and reasonable desire, but eliminating the oversight board from that process is not desirable. I recommend requiring approval from the council for exigent modifications (subject to ability to meet) and / or allowing the council to revert any such change at will.

  • Default_avatar
    Christoph Neyer over 3 years ago

    I strongly oppose the exigency clause. If the intent of this measure is to increase the oversight powers of the police commission, then the exigency clause must be removed. This is a back door providing the police chief unmitigated power to make policy decisions that are supposed to be overseen by the commission.

  • Default_avatar
    Melanie Letendre over 3 years ago

    I strongly oppose. This exigency clause is a free-for-all that will allow police to do whatever they want. Please remove it. We can clearly see what you're trying to do.

  • Default_avatar
    Allene Warren over 3 years ago

    Purpose of Measure LL is to oversee the policies and procedures governing the OPD - including officer misconduct. The "exigency clause" would essentially allow officers to harm Oakland residents with impunity knowing there would be No disciplinary consequences as a result of their actions. Please delete this clause from the draft.

  • 10157778471514412
    Aima Paule over 3 years ago

    Resident of D1. I do not support the addition of the "exigent circumstances" clause in section 610 (b) 5 of this legislation. We are trying to increase oversight of the police, who continue to abuse the power they have by bending and breaking the rules put in place to protect the safety and civil rights of people in Oakland. In doing so, it would be a grave step backward to give OPD permission to change the rules whenever it suits them. How can we hold them accountable if they can just change the rules?

  • 10110919594661573
    Ashley Davidson over 3 years ago

    Strongly oppose. The exigency clause in Section 604 (b) 5 is dangerous to Oakland residents.

  • Default_avatar
    miles crist over 3 years ago

    The addition of "exigent circumstances" allows an out for the police to behave as they wish, an option they have shown themselves to violent to handle. This is the opposite of oversight.

  • Default_avatar
    Bruce Schmiechen over 3 years ago

    The intent was to strengthen the Police Commission. But the draft contains a “poison pill” that undermines the entire effort. You must delete it.
    The so-called “exigency clause” (at the end of (b)5) is an unacceptable expansion of police power. “Exigent circumstances” could mean almost anything. Large protests, certainly, but much more than that. This is a potentially dramatic expansion of police power that has never before been considered necessary in Oakland. Why is it necessary now?

    The Coalition for Police Accountability has worked for years to establish civilian oversight of the Oakland Police Department. The Measure LL clean up effort which we initiated and labored on for the past two years was meant to remedy some of the shortcomings of the initial measure. This effort was intended to enhance civilian oversight.

    The “exigency clause” does the opposite. It carves out a critical area of policing and removes it from oversight.. A ballot measure that contains the “exigency clause” is one that becomes a “Police Empowerment Measure.” If the Council deletes this clause, the Coalition for Police Accountability, of which my organization Faith In Action East Bay is a part, will support the measure and work hard for its passage. If, however, the Council retains this “poison pill” the Coalition will oppose the measure and work to defeat it Council members that vote for it will have to answer this simple question—“Why did you vote for the police and against the community?”

  • Transportation_modes_updated
    Anne Spevack over 3 years ago

    I do not support the addition of the "exigent circumstances" clause in section 610 (b) 5 of this legislation. We are trying to increase oversight of the police, who continue to abuse the power they have by bending and breaking the rules put in place to protect the safety and civil rights of people in Oakland. In doing so, it would be a grave step backward to give OPD permission to change the rules whenever it suits them. How can we hold them accountable if they can just change the rules?

  • Default_avatar
    Jessi Barber over 3 years ago

    I oppose this due to the “exigent circumstances” clause in subparagraph (b)5 of the Measure LL.

  • Default_avatar
    Ellen Smrekar over 3 years ago

    The exigency clause in Section 604 (b) 5 is extremely dangerous to the rights and safety of Oakland residents and must be stricken.

  • Default_avatar
    Allegra MedinaSmith over 3 years ago

    Like most others have stated I am extremely concerned about the "exigent circumstances" clause, Section 604 (b) 5, that allows the Council to grant the Police Chief authority to unilaterally change polices, procedures, customs and general orders for up to 14 days. This is absolutely not what our community needs, OPD is not trustworthy or capable of making good choices for this community.

  • Default_avatar
    Kyle Kubas over 3 years ago

    I am very concerned about the "exigent circumstances" clause, Section 604 (b) 5, that allows the Council to grant the Police Chief authority to unilaterally change polices, procedures, customs and general orders for up to 14 days. Please remove this.

  • Default_avatar
    Fi Fi over 3 years ago

    I oppose the extremely concerning "exigent circumstances" clause, Section 604 (b) 5. In no way is it appropriate for City Council to grant a police chief the unilateral right to change policies and procedures for any amount of time. There is too great a likelihood this will be misused and / or abused.
    We have all put too much time and effort into this
    to disrespect that process by passing a measure that leaves such a blatant loop hole for ill will to squeeze through. We aren't stupid and we only ask that you not be either.
    Thanks.