Connect with us

Activism

Schaaf  Cuts Police Service But Blames Councilmembers Bas and Kaplan

At a recent town hall meeting in Chinatown to discuss an alarming increase in crime against Asian American elders, Schaaf attempted to blame Council President Nikki Fortunato Bas and Vice Mayor Rebecca Kaplan for making the cuts that in fact came from her administration.

Published

on

Libby Schaaf

 

Rebecca Kaplan

Nikki Fortunato Bas

Mayor Libby Schaaf set off a fire storm in December when she and her administration unilaterally made $29 million in cuts to the city’s budget, including reductions in fire department services and public safety services without discussing the cuts publicly with the City Council or impacted communities.

At a recent town hall meeting in Chinatown to discuss an alarming increase in crime against Asian American elders, Schaaf attempted to blame Council President Nikki Fortunato Bas and Vice Mayor Rebecca Kaplan for making the cuts that in fact came from her administration.

The Chinatown community was particularly upset about the elimination of a Chinese-speaking foot patrol that served the Chinatown area.

According to many community activists, those cuts put the community at risk, and those cuts, made by the mayor and her administration, include the cuts that Chinatown leaders had called their press conference about.

Among the administration’s cuts: closing fire stations, cutting the ceasefire program, which deals with gun violence, and cutting walking beat officers and community policing resources, including s the Chinatown Walking Beat Officers.

These cuts were announced in an Informational Memorandum, dated Dec. 20, 2020, from the Director of Finance to the City Administrator, making Schaaf’s position clear. ”The fiscal crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic requires immediate and impactful service cuts….Most of these cost-cutting measures will take effect immediately,” according to the memo.

The December memo justified making these cuts without a transparent public process.

“The Charter provides the City Council with the sole authority to appropriate funds; and the Charter provides the responsibility of the City Administrator to ‘control and administer the financial affairs of the city,’ which staff interprets to mean that the administration has the power to “reduce expenditures of appropriated funds to align with declining actual revenues” without consulting the City Council or the public.

Schaaf compounded the damage and inflamed passions by using the press conference to blame Bas and Kaplan for making the cuts that her administration made. According to community leaders who responded in anger, Schaaf had come into Chinatown and publicly attacked and demeaned the local Chinatown elected representative, and falsely claimed that the cuts to the Chinatown walking officers were the fault of Councilmembers Kaplan and Bas.

The mayor also stoked racial fears and community division, according to many community leaders.

In an interview with the Oakland Post, Bas, who had attended the Chinatown press conference, said, “ I was really shocked that she (the mayor) would take this press conference as a political platform  to attack me and Rebecca (Kaplan) and spreading misinformation.”

“It is extremely important for the public to know that the Mayor and City Administrator are able to make decisions behind closed doors without public input,” Bas said. “If this had come from the council,” it wouldn’t have passed, she said.

Agreeing with Bas, Kaplan, in a Tweet, criticized the mayor for making decisions in secret. “When councilmembers want to cut items from the budget, there must be a public meeting where input is taken before a public decision. That should be required for mayors’ cuts too. These cuts wouldn’t have passed if they had come publicly.”

In the fallout from the Chinatown press conference, Schaaf has been asked to apologize for fomenting racial divisions between Black and Asian communities.

The issue recently went national in a February 11 Newsweek article: “Oakland Mayor Blames Crime Wave Against Asians on Defunded Police; Black and Asian Activists Disagree.”

The magazine article quoted Bas as saying in a Tweet, “Across the nation, some electeds are seeding division among racial groups. I continue to be angered by what Mayor Schaaf did—taking a space for healing & safety (the Chinatown press conference) & using it to politically attack me.”

The article also quoted District 3 Councilmember Carroll Fife, who defended her colleagues.

“I’m saying this publicly because the disrespect was done publicly,” said Fife addressing the mayor. “You owe her, as well as Oakland’s Asian and Black communities an apology.”

“What we feel is important and what I felt in that moment was triggered by the image of a white woman using dog whistle tactics to create a fracture between the Asian community and the Black community,” Fife said.

To see the Newsweek article go to www.newsweek.com/black-asian-communities-fed-being pitted-against-each-other-city-officials-1568410

Activism

Oakland Post: Week of May 21 – 27, 2025

The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of May 21 – 27, 2025

Published

on

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.

Continue Reading

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. 

Published

on

Rhonda M. Smith.
Rhonda M. Smith.

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.

Continue Reading

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.

Published

on

Craig J. DeLuz. Courtesy of Craig J. DeLuz.
Craig J. DeLuz. Courtesy of Craig J. DeLuz.

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.

Continue Reading

Subscribe to receive news and updates from the Oakland Post

* indicates required

CHECK OUT THE LATEST ISSUE OF THE OAKLAND POST

ADVERTISEMENT

WORK FROM HOME

Home-based business with potential monthly income of $10K+ per month. A proven training system and website provided to maximize business effectiveness. Perfect job to earn side and primary income. Contact Lynne for more details: Lynne4npusa@gmail.com 800-334-0540

Facebook

Trending

Copyright ©2021 Post News Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.