Activism
Dysfunction Plagues Oakland’s Top Cop Search While Crime Rates Rise
Though she has already allocated funds to pay for the search, Mayor Thao said in her KTVU interview that the commission has not agreed on hiring an executive search consultant and has therefore not yet begun the search process. “I am pushing and pressuring them to actually finally agree on a consultant,” she said. “We are waiting for the police commission to actually go and sign with the consultant.”

Thao seeks to boost crime reduction and hire a new chief.
By Ken Epstein
The City of Oakland’s leadership is seeking to beef up police presence in affected neighborhoods as Oakland, along with many other cities across the country, experiences a rising crime wave. Meanwhile, resources are drying up as federal pandemic funding comes to an end.
The city is already increasing enforcement and is moving toward placing more officers and crime prevention personnel on city streets, strengthening the respected Ceasefire crime reduction program, and providing six police academies to bring more officers into the department, according to Mayor Sheng Thao.

Assistant Chief Darren Allison.
In an interview this week with KTVU2, Thao said she is working closely with the Oakland Police Department under the seasoned leadership of 25-year veteran Assistant Chief Darren Allison, while the city searches for a new police chief to replace LeRonne Armstrong, who was fired in February by the mayor.
However, a national search for a new chief is hampered by dysfunction on the city’s powerful Oakland Police Commission, according to many observers.

Mayor Sheng Thao
Though she has already allocated funds to pay for the search, Mayor Thao said in her KTVU interview that the commission has not agreed on hiring an executive search consultant and has therefore not yet begun the search process.
“I am pushing and pressuring them to actually finally agree on a consultant,” she said. “We are waiting for the police commission to actually go and sign with the consultant.”
Critics are saying the failure to hire a search consultant and a variety of other issues undermining the functioning of the commission are the responsibility of the commission’s chair, Tyfahra Milele, who they want to step to down.
“I wouldn’t know why they haven’t found a consultant, except that they are inept,” said Rashidah Grinage, a member of the Coalition for Police Accountability, which helped establish and now monitors police commission activities.

Coalition for Police Accountability logo.
In a letter this week to commissioners, Cathy Leonard, president of the Coalition for Police Accountability, detailed 10 concerns about Milele’s leadership.
“If she is allowed to remain as chair … the damage done … will be significant,” the letter said. “Losing the credibility and trust of the community, the city and the federal court may have the effect of prolonging the federal oversight over the police department.”
According to the letter, Milele attended an OPD retreat before Armstrong was fired but did not tell other commissioners.
The letter also stated that the commission did not have the standing to weigh in on the firing of the chief because Milele failed to subpoena records related to the handling and mishandling of an internal OPD case against Sgt. Michael Chung, which was connected to the chief’s firing.
Milele also interfered with the work of the commission’s Inspector General, resulting in an Ethics Commission complaint, the letter said.
According to KTVU, Milele wrote a response saying that the commission is “very actively involved in searching for a new police chief,” and said that “we worked diligently on this paramount assignment, as we have on multiple occasions.”
In a strongly worded press statement, Milele blasted KTVU’s news reporting and her critics, who include members of the Police Commission and police accountability activists, saying, “We are profoundly disappointed by a troubled local TV station’s (reporting) … that repeats inaccurate, malicious assertions and fails to take into account verifiable facts that were made available to the writer of the … screed.”

former Alameda County Chief Assistant District Attorney Terry Wiley.
Backing Milele’s leadership, former Alameda County Chief Assistant District Attorney Terry Wiley, an unsuccessful candidate in November for Alameda County DA, supported her at a May 25 police commission meeting.
“From my viewpoint, I have a very positive view of this commission,” Wiley told the commission. “And I think that her leadership should continue.”
Regina Jackson, currently a member of the police commission and former three-time chair of the commission, wrote a letter to the City Council on June 5 adding her concerns about Milele’s leadership:
“Chair Milele arbitrarily has no responsibility to anyone but herself. The ‘Chair-driven’ protocol she has put in place does not treat commissioners as the code of conduct requires with fairness and equity, it is a clear abuse of power. It is also in direct violation of the very measures LL and S1 which Oakland voters supported.
“It is my professional opinion that Chair Milele has abused power, retaliated against commissioners and has not been accountable or transparent to commissioners or the community. Her chairmanship should be ended as soon as possible.”
In her response to the KTVU report and her critics, Milele wrote, “The extremist attack by an unelected, unaccountable, small group of politically ambitious zealots counters the will of the Oakland electorate and makes flagrantly false allegations. That a controversial local TV outlet, hoping to stop the erosion of its dwindling audience, would simply repeat the libels with a reckless disregard for the truth prompts this response.”
Denying that the commission has failed to move promptly to hire a search firm to find a new police chief, she submitted a detailed timeline of the commission’s efforts to initiate a search, adding that “A vigorous, ongoing search for a new Oakland police chief is and has been underway for months. We don’t understand why the mayor would have said the Commission is not searching for a consultant when as recently as [June 6] the Commission’s search committee met with the City’s HR Department and nominee search firm.”
Milele also accuses her critics of an attempt to seize power. “This is an attempted power grab by a small band of political extremists with a personal agenda that will make the Oakland Police Department still more difficult to reform and continue the seriously mounting crime issues plaguing the good people of Oakland.”
The Oakland Post will continue to follow this story and the response to these issues by city and community leaders.
Activism
Oakland Post: Week of May 21 – 27, 2025
The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of May 21 – 27, 2025

To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.
Activism
OPINION: Your Voice and Vote Impact the Quality of Your Health Care
One of the most dangerous developments we’re seeing now? Deep federal cuts are being proposed to Medicaid, the life-saving health insurance program that covers nearly 80 million lower-income individuals nationwide. That is approximately 15 million Californians and about 1 million of the state’s nearly 3 million Black Californians who are at risk of losing their healthcare.

By Rhonda M. Smith, Special to California Black Media Partners
Shortly after last year’s election, I hopped into a Lyft and struck up a conversation with the driver. As we talked, the topic inevitably turned to politics. He confidently told me that he didn’t vote — not because he supported Donald Trump, but because he didn’t like Kamala Harris’ résumé. When I asked what exactly he didn’t like, he couldn’t specifically articulate his dislike or point to anything specific. In his words, he “just didn’t like her résumé.”
That moment really hit hard for me. As a Black woman, I’ve lived through enough election cycles to recognize how often uncertainty, misinformation, or political apathy keep people from voting, especially Black voters whose voices are historically left out of the conversation and whose health, economic security, and opportunities are directly impacted by the individual elected to office, and the legislative branches and political parties that push forth their agenda.
That conversation with the Lyft driver reflects a troubling surge in fear-driven politics across our country. We’ve seen White House executive orders gut federal programs meant to help our most vulnerable populations and policies that systematically exclude or harm Black and underserved communities.
One of the most dangerous developments we’re seeing now? Deep federal cuts are being proposed to Medicaid, the life-saving health insurance program that covers nearly 80 million lower-income individuals nationwide. That is approximately 15 million Californians and about 1 million of the state’s nearly 3 million Black Californians who are at risk of losing their healthcare.
Medicaid, called Medi-Cal in California, doesn’t just cover care. It protects individuals and families from medical debt, keeps rural hospitals open, creates jobs, and helps our communities thrive. Simply put; Medicaid is a lifeline for 1 in 5 Black Americans. For many, it’s the only thing standing between them and a medical emergency they can’t afford, especially with the skyrocketing costs of health care. The proposed cuts mean up to 7.2 million Black Americans could lose their healthcare coverage, making it harder for them to receive timely, life-saving care. Cuts to Medicaid would also result in fewer prenatal visits, delayed cancer screenings, unfilled prescriptions, and closures of community clinics. When healthcare is inaccessible or unaffordable, it doesn’t just harm individuals, it weakens entire communities and widens inequities.
The reality is Black Americans already face disproportionately higher rates of poorer health outcomes. Our life expectancy is nearly five years shorter in comparison to White Americans. Black pregnant people are 3.6 times more likely to die during pregnancy or postpartum than their white counterparts.
These policies don’t happen in a vacuum. They are determined by who holds power and who shows up to vote. Showing up amplifies our voices. Taking action and exercising our right to vote is how we express our power.
I urge you to start today. Call your representatives, on both sides of the aisle, and demand they protect Medicaid (Medi-Cal), the Affordable Care Act (Covered CA), and access to food assistance programs, maternal health resources, mental health services, and protect our basic freedoms and human rights. Stay informed, talk to your neighbors and register to vote.
About the Author
Rhonda M. Smith is the Executive Director of the California Black Health Network, a statewide nonprofit dedicated to advancing health equity for all Black Californians.
Activism
OPINION: Supreme Court Case Highlights Clash Between Parental Rights and Progressive Indoctrination
At the center of this controversy are some parents from Montgomery County in Maryland, who assert a fundamental principle: the right to shield their children from exposure to sexual content that is inappropriate for their age, while also steering their moral and ethical upbringing in alignment with their faith. The local school board decided to introduce a curriculum that includes LGBTQ+ themes — often embracing controversial discussions of human sexuality and gender identity.

By Craig J. DeLuz, Special to California Black Media Partners
In America’s schools, the tension between parental rights and learning curricula has created a contentious battlefield.
In this debate, it is essential to recognize that parents are, first and foremost, their children’s primary educators. When they send their children to school — public or private — they do not surrender their rights or responsibilities. Yet, the education establishment has been increasingly encroaching on this vital paradigm.
A case recently argued before the Supreme Court regarding Maryland parents’ rights to opt out of lessons that infringe upon their religious beliefs epitomizes this growing conflict. This case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, is not simply about retreating from progressive educational mandates. It is fundamentally a defense of First Amendment rights, a defense of parents’ rights to be parents.
At the center of this controversy are some parents from Montgomery County in Maryland, who assert a fundamental principle: the right to shield their children from exposure to sexual content that is inappropriate for their age, while also steering their moral and ethical upbringing in alignment with their faith. The local school board decided to introduce a curriculum that includes LGBTQ+ themes, often embracing controversial discussions of human sexuality and gender identity. The parents argue that the subject matter is age-inappropriate, and the school board does not give parents the option to withdraw their children when those lessons are taught.
This case raises profound questions about the role of public education in a democratic society. In their fervent quest for inclusivity, some educators seem to have overlooked an essential truth: that the promotion of inclusivity should never infringe upon parental rights and the deeply held convictions that guide families of different faith backgrounds.
This matter goes well beyond mere exposure. It veers into indoctrination when children are repeatedly confronted with concepts that clash with their family values.
“I don’t think anybody can read that and say: well, this is just telling children that there are occasions when men marry other men,” noted Justice Samuel Alito. “It has a clear moral message, and it may be a good message. It’s just a message that a lot of religious people disagree with.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised a crucial point, noting that it is one thing to merely expose students to diverse ideas; it is quite another to present certain viewpoints as indisputable truths. By framing an ideology with the certainty of “this is the right view of the world,” educators risk indoctrination rather than enlightenment. This distinction is not merely academic; it speaks to the very essence of cultivating a truly informed citizenry.
Even Justice Elena Kagan expressed concern regarding the exposure of young children to certain materials in Montgomery County.
“I, too, was struck by these young kids’ picture books and, on matters concerning sexuality, I suspect there are a lot of non-religious parents who weren’t all that thrilled about this,” she said.
Justice John Roberts aptly questioned the practicality of expecting young children to compartmentalize their beliefs in the classroom.
“It is unreasonable to expect five-year-olds, still forming their worldviews, to reconcile lessons that conflict fundamentally with the teachings they receive at home,” he said.
As was noted in my previous commentary, “The Hidden Truth In The Battle Over Books In American Schools”, what lies at the heart of these debates is a moral disconnect between the values held by the majority of Americans and those promoted by the educational establishment. While the majority rightly argue that material containing controversial content of a sexual nature should have no place in our children’s classrooms, the education establishment continues to tout the necessity of exposing children to such content under the guise of inclusivity. This disregards the legitimate values held by the wider community.
Highlighted in this case that is before the Supreme Court is a crucial truth: parents must resolutely maintain their right to direct their children’s education, according to their values. This struggle is not simply a skirmish; it reflects a broader movement aimed at reshaping education by privileging a state-sanctioned narrative while marginalizing dissenting voices.
It is imperative that we assert, without hesitation, that parents are — and must remain — the primary educators of their children.
When parents enroll a child in a school, it should in no way be interpreted as a relinquishment of parental authority or the moral guidance essential to their upbringing. We must stand firm in defending parental rights against the encroaching ideologies of the education establishment.
About the Author
Craig J. DeLuz has almost 30 years of experience in public policy and advocacy. He has served as a member of The Robla School District Board of Trustees for over 20 years. He also currently hosts a daily news and commentary show called “The RUNDOWN.” You can follow him on X at @CraigDeLuz.
-
Activism4 weeks ago
AI Is Reshaping Black Healthcare: Promise, Peril, and the Push for Improved Results in California
-
Activism4 weeks ago
ESSAY: Technology and Medicine, a Primary Care Point of View
-
Activism4 weeks ago
Barbara Lee Accepts Victory With “Responsibility, Humility and Love”
-
Activism4 weeks ago
Faces Around the Bay: Author Karen Lewis Took the ‘Detour to Straight Street’
-
Arts and Culture4 weeks ago
BOOK REVIEW: Love, Rita: An American Story of Sisterhood, Joy, Loss, and Legacy
-
Activism4 weeks ago
Newsom Fights Back as AmeriCorps Shutdown Threatens Vital Services in Black Communities
-
#NNPA BlackPress3 weeks ago
MLK Bust Quietly Removed from Oval Office Under Trump
-
Activism4 weeks ago
Teachers’ Union Thanks Supt. Johnson-Trammell for Service to Schools and Community