San Francisco Chronicle - (Sunday)
Oakland Police Commission needs to shape up
The Oakland Police Commission is supposed to be a national example of collaborative and effective civilianled law enforcement oversight, but lately, it hasn’t been.
Problems plaguing the commission go far beyond the leadership disputes that have derailed public meetings and captured the attention of local media.
The most recent and egregious gaffe by the commission was its management of the city’s crucial search for a police chief. The seven-member body sent a list of candidates to Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao last month that included a person Thao had previously fired and someone under investigation at their current job. This list was a waste of time, but it served as a sobering reminder of the commission’s questionable track record in making personnel decisions.
Now, with a complicated six-year body of work to look at, it’s time to have an honest conversation about how the Oakland Police Commission can better use its power.
“Police oversight is imperative, and while we’re still not getting it right, it is critical to have some form of accountability on power versus none,” said Rania Adwan, a Bay Area-based expert on police oversight bodies who has previously been consulted to support the operations of commissions throughout the country, including in San Francisco and Oakland. “At the end of the day, these oversight agencies are manned by members of the public voluntarily, with their own lives, jobs, stresses, families, commitments and constraints. That means these bodies are susceptible to the worst — and best — of human nature.”
The Oakland commission is composed of Oakland residents. They have public meetings on the second and fourth Thursday of each month, and they work with the city in a volunteer capacity.
These members are just regular people. But too often, it seems Oakland’s commission is letting the worst of human nature — playing politics and refusing to collaborate — get in the way of its vital, but unglamorous, work.
Oakland’s police commission was created through a ballot measure in 2016 that more than 83% of voters supported. At the time, the department was under intense scrutiny over some of the its members’ involvement in a sexual misconduct and exploitation scandal involving a teenager. The department was also caught up in a scandal involving racist text messages. In 2016, the department went through four police chiefs in nine days.
City leaders made sure the commission was as strong and independent as possible. They also gave it the authority to remove some oversight-related city employees, fire a police chief and take the lead in hiring new chiefs. It’s a big responsibility for the average person to bear, and the commission hasn’t always had an easy time handling it.
From 2018 to 2022, the commission fired two directors overseeing the Community Police Review Agency, the group’s investigative arm, without providing a public explanation. One of those firings resulted in the city having to pay a $40,592 settlement.
In 2019, the commission fired Oakland Police Chief Anne Kirkpatrick, who then won her wrongful termination lawsuit in 2022 and received a $1.5 million settlement. The jury found Kirkpatrick was fired in retaliation for pointing out alleged misconduct by the commission.
And in 2023, the Police Commission mishandled the high-profile search for a new police chief.
Thao fired the city’s former chief, LeRonne Armstrong, last February following a police misconduct scandal, and she made it clear she would not rehire him. Still, former Police Commission chair Tyfahra Milele held a town hall to determine whether to include Armstrong’s name on the list of finalists for the job.
Several members on the commission boycotted the town hall and future meetings until Milele and another commissioner
completed their terms in October. At the time, the decision to stay away conveyed a sort of solidarity with the mayor. However, in December, the mayor received a new list of candidates from the same boycotting commissioners that, oddly, still included Armstrong’s name.
Two other candidates were also on their list: Abdul Pridgen, the chief of police in San Leandro, who is currently on administrative leave as the city investigates him for policy violations; and Kevin Hall, the assistant chief of police in Tucson who reportedly sought the position of chief in Oakland in the past.
Thao rightfully rejected the list.
The commission members aren’t speaking to the news media, so their intent remains a mystery.
Whatever their reason, the outcome is the same — Oakland will have to restart its search for a police chief while the city struggles to deal with violent crime.
If the commission wants to
restore some of its credibility, it needs to concentrate on its strengths — like the review and revision of the police department’s policies and getting the community involved in public safety dialogues. It might also think about teaming with professionals who specialize in personnel management and oversight to ensure hiring and firing decisions are grounded in best practices and well-informed judgments. And, it should go without saying, the commission should be transparent about its decisions, including how it picks the finalists for Oakland’s next police chief, which will be announced in March. The commission is supposed to list at least three candidates.
Once the commission addresses its deficiencies, it can fulfill its potential as a national leader and not be what it has been lately: an embarrassing symbol of political dysfunction.