Oakland

Opinion: What Brown v. Brooks Means For Black Folk

Published

7 years ago

February 15, 2018

By J. Douglas Allen-Taylor

On the morning in the fall of 2015 when I heard about the argument and physical confrontation between former Black Panther chairperson Elaine Brown and Oakland City Councilmember Desley Brooks—two prominent Oakland African American women leaders—down near Jack London Square, I could only shake my head and say to myself that regardless of which one of the women got the blame and who was actually at fault, this was going to end up being bad for Black Folk in Oakland and the Bay Area as a whole. Nothing that has happened since then has
changed my opinion.

Let’s try to sort out as much as we can, in order to explain why I feel that way.

Two years ago, Ms. Brown was seeking public assistance for her Oakland and World Enterprises non-profit organization—including land from the City of Oakland—in creating an affordable housing complex in West Oakland dedicated to formerly-incarcerated persons. On October 30th of that year, by all accounts, Ms. Brown and Ms. Brooks got into a argument at Everett & Jones Restaurant near the Oakland waterfront after Ms. Brooks indicated that she would oppose the proposed land deal with Ms. Brown’s organization. The argument turned heated, and ended with Ms. Brooks pushing Ms. Brown, causing the former Panther leader to fall and sustain injuries. Ms. Brown says the pushing was unprovoked. Ms. Brown says she was defending herself from an attack by Ms. Brooks. Ms. Brown eventually sued both Ms. Brooks and the City of Oakland in civil court, winning a more than $4 million verdict that is mostly charged to the city.

Other than who was at fault in the shoving incident, all of these facts are uncontested by either side in the dispute.

As for who was at fault, who was right and who was wrong, I’m not going to get into that. The first reason is that I would only be guessing. The second—and most important—reason is that while the right and wrong of it are extremely important to the two women involved in the Everett & Jones confrontation, it’s what has happened and is happening surrounding that confrontation that are more important to the interests of Black Folk in the area.

Let’s start with Ms. Brooks.

The District 6 Councilmember has amassed a lot of enemies over the years, both political and personal, and one of the immediate effects of the Brown/Brooks confrontation is that these opponents wasted little time in using the civil jury verdict against the city and Ms. Brooks to attempt to strip the long-time East Oakland City Councilmember of most, if not all, of her political power.

For example, in a January 31st joint San Jose Mercury News/East Bay Times editorial, the newspapers editors said that “if Brooks refuses to do the right thing by resigning and then stands for re-election later this year,” then voters in her district 6 should should vote to remove the Councilmember from office in the November November (“Replace Oakland City Council Bully Desley Brooks” Mercury News/East Bay Times January 31, 2018).

But Ms. Brown and her proposed housing project did not come out untouched by local media and official agencies in the wake of her confrontation with Ms. Brooks.

“The Oakland City Council is scheduled to vote tonight on a deal to sell city-owned land near West Oakland’s BART station to a nonprofit that improperly obtained hundreds of thousands in county tax dollars, according to the Alameda County Grand Jury,” The East Bay Express reported in an article about Ms. Brown’s project in June of last year (“City of Oakland Poised to Give Public Land to Nonprofit that Improperly Received $710,000 in County Funds” East Bay Express June 20, 2017).

“The nonprofit, the Oakland and the World Enterprises,” the Express article continued, “was set up by former Black Panther Elaine Brown to build affordable housing and operate an urban farm in West Oakland. … [A]ccording to the Grand Jury, Brown’s group was given $710,000 by Alameda County Supervisor Keith Carson at the same time Brown was a paid staff member in Carson’s office. ‘[T]he dual role of the county employee in these transactions constituted both a failure of good governance practices by the county of Alameda and a conflict of interest,’ concluded the Grand Jury in their investigation, which was published yesterday.”

It’s not certain that local media would not have weighed in with criticism of the Brown affordable housing project funding even if the confrontation with Ms. Brown and Ms. Brooks had not taken place. But it can’t be doubted that the confrontation helped to put that housing project funding directly in the media spotlight.

At least for now, in any event, the Alameda County Grand Jury report did not appear to be having any immediate adverse effect on Ms. Brooks’ land deal with the City of Oakland or with other public money involving her West Oakland affordable housing project.

Meanwhile, however, the major blows were landing heaviest against Ms. Brooks.

While the News/Times editors said in their January “Replace Bully Brooks” editorial that Ms. Brooks’ “assault of former Black Panther leader Elaine Brown in a restaurant altercation that will cost Oakland taxpayers $3 million is the final straw,” they asserted that “for 15 years, the city has endured [Ms. Brooks’] self-centered behavior. … After all,” the editors continued, “this isn’t the first time the four-term councilwoman has abused her power.”

And what were Ms. Brooks’ “abuse[s] of power” were the editors alleging that should cause District 6 voters to turn her out of office? The Mercury News/East Bay Times editors were happy to provide them.

“For example,” they noted, “in 2013, the city auditor found that Brooks interfered with the construction of two city recreation centers, meddled in the contracting for demolition of an Oakland Army Base building and threatened a city employee’s work assignment.”

I’m sorry to have to backtrack a little again, but to understand—and rebut—what the News/Times editors were talking about here, we’re going to have to give a little history lesson to try to uncomplicate a four-year-old controversy as briefly and as simply as possible.

In the spring of 2013, citing the fact that while “the City of Oakland’s Charter has included a bold provision to ensure the appropriate separation of duties and functions and to shield City staff from City Councilmembers’ political interference and demands for special treatment,” then-Oakland City Auditor Courtney Ruby conducted a city audit supposedly to see if Oakland City Councilmembers were violating that “bold provision” by interfering with city staff in conducting city business.

“After interviewing more than 40 employees, reviewing 27 hotline reports, and examining thousands of Councilmembers’ and Council Aides’ emails and select phone records,” the City Auditor’s office eventually concluded, “this audit was able to substantiate 14 instances of Councilmembers or their Aides violating the City Charter, Section 218, Non-Interference in Administrative Affairs.” (Non‐Interference in Administrative Affairs Performance Audit FY 2009‐10 – FY 2011‐12)

Despite the fact that the City Audior had noted that “for many years there have been signs that problems exist with Councilmember interference” with city staff functions, the audit itself could only find violations involving two City Councilmembers: Larry Reid and Desley Brooks, with the heaviest criticisms falling on the office of Ms. Brooks. Mr. Reid and Ms. Brooks were the only African-Americans sitting on the Oakland City Council during the time period the city audit was examining. You can take that as coincidence or not. Your choice. Rightfully sensing in advance that this might cause the results of the audit to come into some question, the opening memo of the audit explained that “This audit was not designed to account for all occurrences of interference nor did it catch all instances of interference during the audit’s scope. Instead, it was aimed at confirming reported instances of interference that had occurred…”

The explanation did not help. The concentration by the audit on the only two African-American Councilmembers in a City Council notorious for cutting administrative corners led many observers at the time to charge that the city audit was either racially biased or a political hit-piece designed to try to turn Ms. Brooks’ District 6 voters against her when she ran for re-election in 2014.

If you’re interested in reading more about the details of the city audit’s findings against Ms. Brooks and Mr. Reid, one of which provides my own reporting on the substance of one of the findings (“Fight for Army Base Jobs Linked to Audit Issues” Oakland Post April 5, 2013 [http://content.postnewsgroup.com/2013/04/fight-army-base-jobs-linked-audit-issues/]), and the other which provides Ms. Brooks’ answer to one of the other findings (“Auditor: 2 on Oakland council broke law” San Francisco Chronicle June 5, 2014).

What is more important is what actually came out of the findings in the 2013 Oakland City Auditor’s Non-Interference Audit. The quick answer is: nothing.

The audit itself noted that ‘[t]his audit does not make any legal determinations; such matters will be properly referred to the appropriate law enforcement authorities. However, the City Charter is clear on the seriousness of Councilmember interference, stating that ‘violation of the provisions of this section by a member of the Council shall be a misdemeanor, conviction of which shall immediately forfeit the office of the convicted member.’ Conviction can only be determined in a court of law. What, if any, consequences related to these violations have yet to be determined by the appropriate parties.”

If any legal charges were ever brought against either Ms. Brooks or Mr. Reid regarding the incidents cited in the city’s 2013 Non-Interference Audit, I’m not aware of them.

Shortly after the city audit was issued, the Oakland City Council attempted to censure Ms. Brooks—though not Mr. Reid—over the findings. Nothing came of that attempt, either.

In July of 2013, what was then The Oakland Tribune (they have since abandoned the Oakland name and now call themselves the East Bay Times) published an editorial asking for that censure.

“The problem has reached crisis stage in Oakland where some, most notably Councilwoman Desley Brooks, have stepped way over the line,” the Tribune editors wrote. “After stinging criticism from the city administrator, city auditor and grand jury about Brooks’ meddling, it’s time for the council to act. Council President Pat Kernighan has called for censuring Brooks.

The action, to be considered at a special meeting July 25, would be symbolic because there would be no fine or other penalty. But it would send a long-overdue message. It’s time to assure city residents that council members will stop acting on their own to advance their personal agendas, bolster their pet projects or benefit their political backers. It’s time to assure city employees that individual council members cannot overrule their professional judgment. The long-standing ‘culture of interference,’ identified in City Auditor Courtney Ruby’s investigation, must end.” (“Oakland Tribune editorial: Oakland council should censure Desley Brooks for overstepping authority” Oakland Tribune July 18, 2013)

The Tribune editors also dismissed out of hand that the audit had only brought findings against the city’s two African-American Councilmembers.

“Some have claimed the auditor’s report is racially biased because it singles out Brooks and Reid, who are both African-American,” the Tribune editors continued. “We find that allegation offensive. Playing the race card here is inappropriate. An ‘everyone else does it’ defense claim is unacceptable.”

The Oakland City Council took up the issue of censuring Ms. Brooks in July of 2013. After sometimes-heated deliberations the motion was defeating, with not a single Councilmember voting for censure and even then-Council President Patricia Kernighan (who was the member who had brought forth the censure motion) abstaining.

A year and a half later, with the audit findings still recent history, voters in Oakland City Council District 6 re-elected Ms. Brooks as their Councilmember over three named opponents.

To recap, both local law enforcement officials, the Oakland City Council, and Oakland City Council District 6 voters all looked at the findings against Ms. Brooks in the 2013 Non-Interference city audit and found in it no cause for action against Ms. Brooks. The editors of the San Jose Mercury News/East Bay Times continue to think otherwise and, as we have seen, have resurrected them as part of their campaign to get Ms. Brooks out of office by resignation or defeat at the ballot box that was given new life by the findings by the Brown v. Brooks civil jury.

That was by no means the only actions coming out of that jury finding, none of which are good for Black Folk in Oakland and the Bay Area as a whole. But we’ll have to wait until we can gather together again to continue this discussion. Until then…

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Related Topics:desley brooks District 6 Elaine Brown Oakland Opinion poltiics

Up Next

Peralta Colleges Offer Best African American and Ethnic Studies Courses in the Country

Don't Miss

‘Blaxican’ History Lecture Exposes African Culture in Mexico

Oakland Post

Click to comment

Bay Area

Oakland Awarded $28 Million Grant from Governor Newsom to Sustain Long-Term Solutions Addressing Homelessness

Governor Gavin Newsom announced the City of Oakland has won a$28,446,565.83 grant as part of the Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention (HHAP) grant program. This program provides flexible grant funding to help communities support people experiencing homelessness by creating permanent housing, rental and move-in assistance, case management services, and rental subsidies, among other eligible uses.

Published

15 hours ago

November 4, 2024

Oakland Post

Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao

Governor Gavin Newsom announced the City of Oakland has won a$28,446,565.83 grant as part of the Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention (HHAP) grant program.

This program provides flexible grant funding to help communities support people experiencing homelessness by creating permanent housing, rental and move-in assistance, case management services, and rental subsidies, among other eligible uses.

Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao and the Oakland City Administrator’s Office staff held a press conference today to discuss the grant and the City’s successful implementing of the Mayor’s Executive Order on the Encampment Management Policy.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Bay Area

Pamela Price Appoints Deputy D.A. Jennifer Kassan as New Director of Community Support Bureau

On Monday, District Attorney Pamela Price announced Deputy District Attorney Jennifer Kassan as the new director of the Community Support Bureau. Kassan has over 25 years of experience as an attorney and advisor for mission-driven enterprises including benefit corporations, low-profit limited liability companies, nonprofits, cooperatives, hybrid organizations, investment funds, and purpose trusts.

Published

15 hours ago

November 4, 2024

Oakland Post

Alameda County Deputy District Attorney Jennifer Kassan. Courtesy photo.

Special to The Post

On Monday, District Attorney Pamela Price announced Deputy District Attorney Jennifer Kassan as the new director of the Community Support Bureau.

Kassan has over 25 years of experience as an attorney and advisor for mission-driven enterprises including benefit corporations, low-profit limited liability companies, nonprofits, cooperatives, hybrid organizations, investment funds, and purpose trusts.

Working in the DA’s new administration since 2023, Kassan was most recently assigned to the Organized Retail Theft Prosecution team.

Kassan has a master’s degree in City Planning from the University of California, Berkeley. She received a National Science Foundation Fellowship from Yale Law School, and graduated from Yale Law School in 1995. She earned her B.A. in Psychology with a minor emphasis in Ethnic Studies from UC Berkeley.

Kassan’s education, extensive legal background, list of notable accomplishments and impressive resume includes helping to found and lead multiple organizations to support community wealth building including:

Community Ventures, a nonprofit organization that promotes locally-based community economic development,
the Sustainable Economies Law Center, a nonprofit that provides legal information, training, and representation to support sustainable economies
the Force for Good Fund, a nonprofit impact investment fund
Crowdfund Main Street, a licensed portal for regulation crowdfunding
Opportunity Main Street, a place-based ecosystem building organization that supports under-represented entrepreneurs and provides education about community-based investing.

In addition, Kassan served as an elected member of the City Council of Fremont, California from 2018 to 2024, and on the Securities and Exchange Commission Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies.

In 2020 she was named to the list of World-Changing Women in Conscious Business by SOCAP Global.

“We are excited to see Jenny accept the role as the new leader for the Community Support Bureau,” said Price. “She brings a wealth of talent, experience, and a vision to expand our office’s engagement with community groups and residents, that will level-up our

outreach programs and partnerships with local organizations with the aim of promoting crime prevention.

“We thank Interim CSB Director Esther Lemus, who is now assigned to our office’s

Restitution Unit, for her hard work and a great job fostering positive relationships between the DAO and the community.”

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Bay Area

Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao’s Open Letter to Philip Dreyfuss, Recall Election’s Primary Funder

Oaklanders Defending Democracy, a group opposing the recall of Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao, shared an open letter she wrote to Philip Dreyfuss of Farallon Capital, a coal hedge fund. According to Thao’s supporters, “Dreyfuss is the primary funder of the recall effort to remove her from office. He has not explained his motivations or answered one question about why he’s funding the recall or what his agenda is for Oakland.

Published

16 hours ago

November 4, 2024

Oakland Post

Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao

Special to The Post

Publishers note: Oaklanders Defending Democracy, a group opposing the recall of Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao, shared an open letter she wrote to Philip Dreyfuss of Farallon Capital, a coal hedge fund.

According to Thao’s supporters, “Dreyfuss is the primary funder of the recall effort to remove her from office. He has not explained his motivations or answered one question about why he’s funding the recall or what his agenda is for Oakland.

“All we know about him is his firm has invested over $2 billion in coal since 2022. Farallon Capital is a global hedge fund with $39 billion capital under management, headquartered in San Francisco, the supporters say.

The effort to recall Mayor Sheng Thao was built on top of an argument about a crime wave, pinning the blame for it on a newly elected Mayor. Now that crime has dropped massively, recall proponents are left with no compelling argument.

Oct. 30

Dear Philip Dreyfuss,

We haven’t met. As you know, I’m the Mayor of Oakland, elected in 2022 to serve and protect this city. Since stepping into office, I’ve tackled rising crime, homelessness, and budget challenges head-on, working tirelessly for Oakland’s future.

You are a hedge-fund manager and coal investor who doesn’t live in Oakland who is trying to buy our city government. But the people didn’t elect you, they elected me to protect them from people like you.

Shortly after my term began, you launched a campaign to remove me from office, pouring in nearly $500,000 of your own wealth. We’ll know the outcome of your campaign on Nov. 6, but let’s be clear about what’s at stake.

Since I took office, crime has dropped over 30%—we’re on track for less than 100 homicides for the first time since 2019, with 15,000 fewer crimes overall.

We’ve invested hundreds of millions into affordable housing, modernized our 911 system, streamlined construction permitting, and are fighting to make Oakland a safer and cleaner city.

If your recall succeeds, Oakland will see four mayors in just five years, another election for mayor the following year and a whopping $10 million cost to taxpayers. In other words, chaos. None of this will impact you because you don’t live here.

Oaklanders deserve to know who you are. I looked into your record and found that the hedge fund you help manage, Farallon Capital, has invested over $2 billion in coal since 2022.

For years, Oakland has stood tall against coal money threatening the health of West Oakland, Chinatown, Jack London and downtown.

Did you know that life expectancy in West Oakland is 7.5 years lower than the County average? Or that our children suffer from asthma at a rate twice as high as the rest of the County?

Philip, instead of trying to use your wealth to hijack our democracy and create chaos in our city you could have put your money where your mouth is.

Instead of investing in coal you could have invested in our young people—created scholarships for our college-bound kids, funded apprenticeships for those who want to learn a trade or helped rid our schools of lead.

Instead, you chose to divide us while you try to buy us. But I’m here to tell you, Philip, on behalf of the 450,000 residents of my city that Oakland is not for sale. NO to coal. NO to chaos. And NO to your selfish and self-serving recall.

Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao, City Hall, Oakland