Note: The online Request to Speak window has expired.
The online Comment window has expired
Agenda Item
5 26-0624 Subject: Proposed Ballot Measure To Amend The City Charter To Improve Civilian Oversight Of OPD
From: Councilmember Houston
Recommendation: Adopt A Resolution Submitting To The Voters At The November 3, 2026 General Municipal Election A Measure That Would Amend City Charter Section 604 To, Among Other Things (1) Simplify The Process For Appointing Police Commissioners By Only Having Regular Police Commissioners That Are Appointed One Each By The Councilmembers And One By The Mayor; (2) Strengthen The Independence Of The Office Of Inspector General By Having The City Auditor, Rather Than The Police Commission, Appoint The Inspector General; (3) Streamline The Process For Appointing Police Chiefs By Using The Same Processes Used To Appoint Other Department Heads; And Directing The City Clerk To Take Any And All Actions Necessary Under The Law To Submit This Measure To The Voters At The November 3, 2026 General Municipal Election; And Making Appropriate California Environmental Quality Act Findings
You guys keep changing rules.
I want OPD so far away from City Govt.
So as when any of City Govt is "straying".
OPD deals with it. Thru the Commission,
the Public decides, Is not these rules that
were promised in Original Legislation in 2016?
I agree that the Police Commission is a problem and needs to be reformed. We need to do away with the structure of the Police Commission completley. To solve Oaklands problems we need a police advisory board that will actually work with the police. Simply giving the Mayor and citycouncil more power to select police commissioners and police chiefs is not a solution. Oakland needs a new relationship with the police department. For example, actually talking with the officers themselves. Only then will we have some real results. Mindy Pechenuk, candidate for Oakland Mayor 2026
Councilmember Houston is trying to destroy the independence of the Police Commission. We've tried letting politicians oversee the police. It didn't work. The Police Commission is actually making a difference, and that is why it is under attack.
Council members, we are watching to see if you will support independent oversight or bend to the will of the police union.
People try to say that police accountability interferes with public safety. It does not. Are we safer when a police officer bribes witnesses? Are we safer when innocent people are wrongly jailed? Are we safter when people who have committed crimes are freed because of mistrials? Are we safer when a police officer accidentally discharges his weapon in an elevator and then throws the weapon in a river to hide the evidence of his incompetence? Are we safer when OPD covers things up?
I'm just going back a few years. OPD can't seem to go 2 years without a scandal.
Oversight is not the problem. The problem is bad policing, cover-ups, and a lack of accountability. The Police Commission holds police officers accountable for their crimes, and it makes a difference. The number of fatal shootings has plummeted since the Police Commission was created.
This proposal would make things worse. Please vote no.
The title of the ballot measure is intentionally misleading, claiming to "improve civilian oversight of OPD" when in fact it does the opposite. The city administration and certain city council members are trying to take over the process of appointing commissioners to the Police Commission, currently the only body conducting relatively independent oversight of the Oakland Police Department. The same council members supporting this ballot measure have tried to pressure the oversight organization to be more sympathetic to the demands of the police union, who advocate that OPD should be allowed to police themselves. OPD has never earned that kind of trust, they have only shown over the years that they are more than happy to break the law with impunity and cover each others' tracks while they do so.
Allowing this ballot measure to pass would be equivalent to letting the foxes guard the hen house. It would be a lot more difficult to ensure that the oversight body remains independent and uncorrupted. Under the guise of "streamlining" the appointing processes for the Police Commission (oversight body), as well as the processes for appointing the Inspector General and Police Chief, it gives city council members an inordinate amount of power over what is supposed to be an independent oversight body. Taking shortcuts in the name of "efficiency" does NOT make for a better oversight system! It's rolling out the red carpet to entrench corruption even deeper than it already is.
Olivia Smartt, Kempton / Fairmount Neighborhood Watch Co-Captain
at May 05, 2026 at 8:08pm PDT
Fully support.
I am from Carol Fife’s district.
Please vote Yes on this.
Thank you for your service!
- Olivia Smartt — oakland home owner, small biz owner & coordinator of the
Oak Park neighbors coffee & conversation group
I strongly oppose this proposed ballot measure. While "simplifying" and "streamlining" processes, this City Charter amendment would radically undermine community input and influence on Oakland's police, and would thereby undermine community trust. The language is misleading and the intent regressive, Please do not vote this measure onto the November ballot.
The octopus of police oversight entities isn't serving anybody well. When everybody is in charge, nobody is in charge. And those being supervised don't know who they're working for. I'm glad someone is finally tackling this mess. The chief of police should report to a single elected official, their appointee, or an elected body that is responsible to citizens. End of story. Pick one. Anyone who has worked in any organization knows that dotted lines of reporting never work. Further, can we please have an *advisory* police commission that represents ALL of our interests, as citizens, in our police department? Constitutional policing, of course. But what about our interest in the effectiveness of our policing? The efficiency of our tax dollars? Our ability to recruit good employees to serve us well? Our use of technology? A citizens police commission should have a mandate to comment and advise on all of these things, with our elected officials providing a clear, uncomplicated chain of command from which priorities are set and accountability is demanded. Reform this mess is a key step to improving our public safety. Please go forward.
You guys keep changing rules.
I want OPD so far away from City Govt.
So as when any of City Govt is "straying".
OPD deals with it. Thru the Commission,
the Public decides, Is not these rules that
were promised in Original Legislation in 2016?
I agree that the Police Commission is a problem and needs to be reformed. We need to do away with the structure of the Police Commission completley. To solve Oaklands problems we need a police advisory board that will actually work with the police. Simply giving the Mayor and citycouncil more power to select police commissioners and police chiefs is not a solution. Oakland needs a new relationship with the police department. For example, actually talking with the officers themselves. Only then will we have some real results. Mindy Pechenuk, candidate for Oakland Mayor 2026
Councilmember Houston is trying to destroy the independence of the Police Commission. We've tried letting politicians oversee the police. It didn't work. The Police Commission is actually making a difference, and that is why it is under attack.
Council members, we are watching to see if you will support independent oversight or bend to the will of the police union.
People try to say that police accountability interferes with public safety. It does not. Are we safer when a police officer bribes witnesses? Are we safer when innocent people are wrongly jailed? Are we safter when people who have committed crimes are freed because of mistrials? Are we safer when a police officer accidentally discharges his weapon in an elevator and then throws the weapon in a river to hide the evidence of his incompetence? Are we safer when OPD covers things up?
I'm just going back a few years. OPD can't seem to go 2 years without a scandal.
Oversight is not the problem. The problem is bad policing, cover-ups, and a lack of accountability. The Police Commission holds police officers accountable for their crimes, and it makes a difference. The number of fatal shootings has plummeted since the Police Commission was created.
This proposal would make things worse. Please vote no.
The title of the ballot measure is intentionally misleading, claiming to "improve civilian oversight of OPD" when in fact it does the opposite. The city administration and certain city council members are trying to take over the process of appointing commissioners to the Police Commission, currently the only body conducting relatively independent oversight of the Oakland Police Department. The same council members supporting this ballot measure have tried to pressure the oversight organization to be more sympathetic to the demands of the police union, who advocate that OPD should be allowed to police themselves. OPD has never earned that kind of trust, they have only shown over the years that they are more than happy to break the law with impunity and cover each others' tracks while they do so.
Allowing this ballot measure to pass would be equivalent to letting the foxes guard the hen house. It would be a lot more difficult to ensure that the oversight body remains independent and uncorrupted. Under the guise of "streamlining" the appointing processes for the Police Commission (oversight body), as well as the processes for appointing the Inspector General and Police Chief, it gives city council members an inordinate amount of power over what is supposed to be an independent oversight body. Taking shortcuts in the name of "efficiency" does NOT make for a better oversight system! It's rolling out the red carpet to entrench corruption even deeper than it already is.
Fully support.
I am from Carol Fife’s district.
Please vote Yes on this.
Thank you for your service!
- Olivia Smartt — oakland home owner, small biz owner & coordinator of the
Oak Park neighbors coffee & conversation group
I strongly oppose this proposed ballot measure. While "simplifying" and "streamlining" processes, this City Charter amendment would radically undermine community input and influence on Oakland's police, and would thereby undermine community trust. The language is misleading and the intent regressive, Please do not vote this measure onto the November ballot.
The octopus of police oversight entities isn't serving anybody well. When everybody is in charge, nobody is in charge. And those being supervised don't know who they're working for. I'm glad someone is finally tackling this mess. The chief of police should report to a single elected official, their appointee, or an elected body that is responsible to citizens. End of story. Pick one. Anyone who has worked in any organization knows that dotted lines of reporting never work. Further, can we please have an *advisory* police commission that represents ALL of our interests, as citizens, in our police department? Constitutional policing, of course. But what about our interest in the effectiveness of our policing? The efficiency of our tax dollars? Our ability to recruit good employees to serve us well? Our use of technology? A citizens police commission should have a mandate to comment and advise on all of these things, with our elected officials providing a clear, uncomplicated chain of command from which priorities are set and accountability is demanded. Reform this mess is a key step to improving our public safety. Please go forward.