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]
I request that the “exigent circumstances” clause in subparagraph (b)5 of the Measure LL clean up draft be deleted by the City Council, before the measure is sent to the ballot. Police cannot be given blanket permission to injure people without compensation or recourse for justice.
I am a resident of District 4 and oppose this primarily on the basis of 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.
As a tax payer concerned about Police Commission level of competency. OPD's Chief and Interim Chief as appointed by the Mayor and as a paid competent professional should have final say in Oakland citizen safety and policing. The Police Commissions incompetency is most recently demonstrated by the many short falls from meeting its obligations as identified in the Oakland City audit. The Police Commission is not able to meet obligations to be a functioning body.
I want the “exigent circumstances” clause in subparagraph (b)5 of the Measure LL clean up draft be deleted by the City Council, before the measure is sent to the ballot. OPD has run rampant in this city far too long, and should not be allowed any way to expand its power for any reason.
I am a long-term resident of District 1. I oppose this measure solely for the "exigent circumstances" clause which based on the history of the department is more than likely to e mis-used and mis-applied from the Oakland Police Department. City council should draft more appropriate language that will protect our community from those hypothetical "exigent circumstances" without providing unilateral power to the police chief.
I am a District 2 resident also 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 exactly the opposite of what we need. We need systemic change in Oakland that involves reimagining ways to keep communities safe. OPD has proven time and time again they are incapable of doing so.
I support OPD. A restructure, so the main work of community protection from the lawless can be done more efficiently by spinning off the social work currently being done bu OPD as well as homeless interface, mental health issues called in by the community members. OPD does great work and the few bad apples within should be dealt with rather than always firing Chiefs that seem to not be the most expeditious. I'm sure people in West and East Oakland want OPD to be there on the scene when things go bad. Listening to social media is not always representative of the real reality.
I understand the process to develop this ballot measure has been long and detailed. Much has been accomplished. 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. How does this language build trust, protect public safety? It's a radical step backwards. Delete!
I am an Oakland resident who lives in Council District 5 and a mother and grandmother to those most likely to be harmed by the police for having the wrong skin color. I demand that the “exigent circumstances” clause in subparagraph (b)5 of the Measure LL clean up draft be deleted by the City Council, before the measure is sent to the ballot. This clause which was never in any of the previous drafts gives the police power they have never had before. It defies logic that this power would even be considered in light of the 17 years that OPD has been under Federal Oversight for their failure to comply with nationally recognized standards of proper police conduct and the over $74 million the City of Oakland has paid to settle complaints of misconduct. I know that Officer Donelan spins a good tale about how they don't have enough police to answer calls. The truth is (as any Oakland resident in the flatlands can tell you) there are enough. They just don't go to certain neighborhoods (I know because I used to live in one they would go to and now I live in a poorer one where you would die before the help arrived). We don't need martial law in Oakland.
The exigency clause in Section 604 (b) 5 is extremely dangerous to the rights and safety of Oakland residents and must be stricken.
I request that the “exigent circumstances” clause in subparagraph (b)5 of the Measure LL clean up draft be deleted by the City Council, before the measure is sent to the ballot. Police cannot be given blanket permission to injure people without compensation or recourse for justice.
I am a resident of District 4 and oppose this primarily on the basis of 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.
As a tax payer concerned about Police Commission level of competency. OPD's Chief and Interim Chief as appointed by the Mayor and as a paid competent professional should have final say in Oakland citizen safety and policing. The Police Commissions incompetency is most recently demonstrated by the many short falls from meeting its obligations as identified in the Oakland City audit. The Police Commission is not able to meet obligations to be a functioning body.
As a member of District 1, I strongly opposed this resolution.
I want the “exigent circumstances” clause in subparagraph (b)5 of the Measure LL clean up draft be deleted by the City Council, before the measure is sent to the ballot. OPD has run rampant in this city far too long, and should not be allowed any way to expand its power for any reason.
Please do not pass this until the Police Commission has responded appropriately to the City Audit.
I am a long-term resident of District 1. I oppose this measure solely for the "exigent circumstances" clause which based on the history of the department is more than likely to e mis-used and mis-applied from the Oakland Police Department. City council should draft more appropriate language that will protect our community from those hypothetical "exigent circumstances" without providing unilateral power to the police chief.
Strongly oppose.
I am a District 2 resident also 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 exactly the opposite of what we need. We need systemic change in Oakland that involves reimagining ways to keep communities safe. OPD has proven time and time again they are incapable of doing so.
I support OPD. A restructure, so the main work of community protection from the lawless can be done more efficiently by spinning off the social work currently being done bu OPD as well as homeless interface, mental health issues called in by the community members. OPD does great work and the few bad apples within should be dealt with rather than always firing Chiefs that seem to not be the most expeditious. I'm sure people in West and East Oakland want OPD to be there on the scene when things go bad. Listening to social media is not always representative of the real reality.
I understand the process to develop this ballot measure has been long and detailed. Much has been accomplished. 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. How does this language build trust, protect public safety? It's a radical step backwards. Delete!
Strongly oppose.
I am an Oakland resident who lives in Council District 5 and a mother and grandmother to those most likely to be harmed by the police for having the wrong skin color. I demand that the “exigent circumstances” clause in subparagraph (b)5 of the Measure LL clean up draft be deleted by the City Council, before the measure is sent to the ballot. This clause which was never in any of the previous drafts gives the police power they have never had before. It defies logic that this power would even be considered in light of the 17 years that OPD has been under Federal Oversight for their failure to comply with nationally recognized standards of proper police conduct and the over $74 million the City of Oakland has paid to settle complaints of misconduct. I know that Officer Donelan spins a good tale about how they don't have enough police to answer calls. The truth is (as any Oakland resident in the flatlands can tell you) there are enough. They just don't go to certain neighborhoods (I know because I used to live in one they would go to and now I live in a poorer one where you would die before the help arrived). We don't need martial law in Oakland.