News
Jed York SF 49ers CEO Fires GM, Head Coach, Lacks Long Term Plan
Jed York, the San Francisco 49ers CEO and team owner, is someone I really like and enjoy talking to whenever and where-ever I see him: Hala Hizaji’s Professionals VIP event of a few years ago, NFL Owners Meetings, The Bay Lights Super Bowl 50 Ceremony last year, The bar at the Waldorf Astoria in New York in 2015 – the list goes on. He’s a gracious, thoughtful, smart, and engaging person to talk with. So, it’s in that sprit that I write this, rather than the attack-dog, insulting style of a certain SF Bay Area columnist. But I digress. Jed York has a problem. (For more on my take on Jed York, see the Zennie Abraham Zennie62 on YouTube video, above.)
If I were to walk into Mr. York’s office, say, next week, and asked to see his five-year to ten-year plan for the San Francisco 49ers, he couldn’t present it to me. Not because he didn’t want me to see it, but because he does not have one. That, even though he started with the 49ers in their office of strategic planning. As one who’s background is in urban planning, and thanks to a number of teachers and authors of great city planning and public administration books, I don’t need to see his office to know what is going on. There is no book. No understanding of football business dynamics. And no plan.
How else to explain this: four head coaches in four years? Working backward, as now former San Francisco 49ers Head Coaches we have whoever Jed’s going to hire next in 2017 (or his new general manager brings in), Chip Kelly in 2016, Jim Tomsula in 2015, and Jim Harbaugh in 2014. How can anyone claim to build anything that resembles organizational security with a track record like that? The Jed York-run SF 49ers organizationally look like The City of Alameda, California before my good friend John Russo was hired as city manager in 2011.
In order to avoid being one more person going out of a yearly revolving door of city managers, Russo asked for, and was given, a five year contract. While he served four years of that five-year contract, he had enough time to solve a number of key organizational problems and in the process install his own policies and approaches. Russo was able to walk away from that job and go down to Riverside as its new city manager in 2015 having left behind a long list of accomplishments and a better ran city. Russo had a plan; Jed York does not have a plan.
To York’s defense, he might defensively say that what he’s doing is called “incremental planning” but as one who is not a fan of that approach, my retort is that one needs a long term plan to know why and how they’re making a particular change in the organization at any given time.
Because Jed York lacks an overall plan, he and his charges will go into a search for a head coach and a general manager without any really good, robust checklist to find and then evaluate potential candidates. Unlike others in the media, I’m going to provide one. Here’s all that Jed York needs to consider not just in hiring a new general manager and a new head coach for the San Francisco 49ers, but for with respect to the future of the place that Bill Walsh built.
For the General Manager role and scored on a scale of 1 to 10:
1. Does the general manager candidate have NFL budget and business operations experience?
2. Does the general manager candidate understand or have experience with the salary cap and capology?
3. Does the general manager candidate have NFL (or managerial) contract negotiation experience?
4. Is the general manager candidate known to NFL players (which helps in drawing free agents and building a roster of players).
5. Is the general manager candidate known to NFL agents (which helps in drawing free agents and building a roster of players).
6. Does the general manager know who’s who in coaching and administration at the pro and college level (which helps in hiring coaches)?
7. Can the general manager actually draw-up and discuss a football play and talk about how football strategy has changed?
8. Can the general manager identify and discuss what innovations in football strategy have developed over the last 20 years?
The person that Jed York hires should be given a free-path to seek out and hire the head coach that fits a criteria which includes player relationships, football strategy innovation, game management experience, and roster movement experience. And one other note should be placed in the folder of the new general manager as that person searches for the 49ers next head coach: ‘doesn’t need to be known by the media or fans.’
That last point is critical if the new GM is expected to really be allowed to go out and get the best person for the job. Jed should also remember that the next GM can just as easily be a woman as a man, and black or Asian or Latino, as well as white – that’s right. Talented female NFL professionals like Amy Trask and Katie Blackburn have established that a woman can do the job of general manager, president, or Jed’s role, CEO, very well.
Jed York has to use the criteria, and be flexible where he thinks that someone has enough of a strength in one area to overcome a weakness in another – and also be aware that the person being considered knows what their own shortcomings are. Then pull the trigger and bring that person in for a five-year contract, and then work with that person, and the organization, to write an overall plan for the organization – and then stick to it. The Dallas Cowboys first owner, the late Clint Murchison, Jr., did just that – ok, something like that.
Clint Murchison, Jr knew that, in the young, innovative, head coach he hired Tom Landry, he had a person who formed a long term plan for the development of the Dallas Cowboys – he just needed time to make it work. So, when the Cowboys first year under Landry ended without a win, and the next five years without a winning season, in 1964, Murchison gave Landry a 10-year contract, then hired Tex Schramm to run the organization, and stepped out the way.
The rest is history. Your move, Jed. Good luck.
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.
Activism
Newsom, Pelosi Welcome Election of First American Pope; Call for Unity and Compassion
“In his first address, he reminded us that God loves each and every person,” said Newsom. “We trust that he will shepherd us through the best of the Church’s teachings: to respect human dignity, care for the poor, and wish for the common good of us all.” Newsom also expressed hope that the pontiff’s leadership would serve as a unifying force in a time of global instability.

By Bo Tefu, California Black Media
Gov. Gavin Newsom and First Partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom on May 8 issued a statement congratulating Pope Leo XIV on his historic election as the first American to lead the Catholic Church.
The announcement has drawn widespread reaction from U.S. leaders, including former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who called the moment spiritually significant and aligned with the values of service and social justice.
In their statement, the Newsoms expressed hope that the newly elected pope would guide the Church with a focus on compassion, dignity, and care for the most vulnerable. Newsom said he and the First Partner joined others around the world in celebrating the milestone and were encouraged by the pope’s first message.
“In his first address, he reminded us that God loves each and every person,” said Newsom. “We trust that he will shepherd us through the best of the Church’s teachings: to respect human dignity, care for the poor, and wish for the common good of us all.”
Newsom also expressed hope that the pontiff’s leadership would serve as a unifying force in a time of global instability.
“May he remind us that our better angels are not far away — they’re always within us, waiting to be heard,” he said.
Pelosi, a devout Catholic, also welcomed the pope’s election and noted his symbolic connection to earlier church leaders who championed workers’ rights and social equality.
“It is heartening that His Holiness continued the blessing that Pope Francis gave on Easter Sunday: ‘God loves everyone. Evil will not prevail,’” said Pelosi.
-
Activism4 weeks ago
AI Is Reshaping Black Healthcare: Promise, Peril, and the Push for Improved Results in California
-
Activism4 weeks ago
Barbara Lee Accepts Victory With “Responsibility, Humility and Love”
-
Activism4 weeks ago
ESSAY: Technology and Medicine, a Primary Care Point of View
-
Activism4 weeks ago
Faces Around the Bay: Author Karen Lewis Took the ‘Detour to Straight Street’
-
Activism4 weeks ago
Newsom Fights Back as AmeriCorps Shutdown Threatens Vital Services in Black Communities
-
Arts and Culture4 weeks ago
BOOK REVIEW: Love, Rita: An American Story of Sisterhood, Joy, Loss, and Legacy
-
#NNPA BlackPress4 weeks ago
The RESISTANCE – FREEDOM NOW
-
Alameda County4 weeks ago
OUSD Supt. Chief Kyla Johnson-Trammell to Step Down on July 1