City Government
Will an Independent Police Oversight Commission Make the November Ballot in Oakland?
The Oakland City Council, operating under the cloud of a continuing police child sex abuse scandal, is set to decide July 19 whether to place a measure on the November ballot to create a civilian police oversight commission.
At issue is not only whether the measure will go on the ballot but also whether the ballot proposal will create a commission that will be sufficiently independent of the influence of the police union and the city administration, which have been accused of undermining police discipline and accountability for many years.
In a letter to city officials, the Coalition for Police Accountability urged the council to create an independent police commission.
“The community is especially committed to the core principle that the commission must be independent,” said Larry White, who signed the letter for the coalition.
“There is a universal perception that if commissioners are directly appointed by elected officials, they will owe allegiance to and be susceptible to influence from those who appointed them, and to that extent, they will not function independently.”
In addition, the coalition wants the commission to be separate from the City Attorney’s Office, which has repeatedly lost police discipline hearings, resulting in the rehiring of officers who had been fired.
“We are … convinced that the commission must be served by legal counsel that is not part of the City Attorney’s office, as is the case currently with our Citizens’ Police Review Board,” according to the letter.
A major question will be how members of the commission will be selected. A compromise proposal would allow the mayor to appoint three of seven members of the commission.
However, the coalition is arguing that in the wake of the present police scandal, such as compromise is not necessary.
The coalition’s proposal is that the mayor and council members would appoint a selection panel, which in turn would interview and select a diverse commission.
“No individual would be appointed directly by a councilmember or the mayor and would have no allegiance to any of them—that is the way to have a commission that is independent,” said Rashidah Grinage of the coalition.
In a following issue, the Post will feature Councilmember Dan Kalb’s promise to the community to support an oversight commission.
Activism
Oakland Post: Week of December 31, 2025 – January 6, 2026
The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of – December 31, 2025 – January 6, 2026
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
Oakland Post: Week of December 24 – 30, 2025
The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of – December 24 – 30, 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.
Alameda County
Oakland Council Expands Citywide Security Cameras Despite Major Opposition
In a 7-1 vote in favor of the contract, with only District 3 Councilmember Carroll Fife voting no, the Council agreed to maintain its existing network of 291 cameras and add 40 new “pan-tilt-zoom cameras.”
By Post Staff
The Oakland City Council this week approved a $2.25 million contract with Flock Safety for a mass surveillance network of hundreds of security cameras to track vehicles in the city.
In a 7-1 vote in favor of the contract, with only District 3 Councilmember Carroll Fife voting no, the Council agreed to maintain its existing network of 291 cameras and add 40 new “pan-tilt-zoom cameras.”
In recent weeks hundreds of local residents have spoken against the camera system, raising concerns that data will be shared with immigration authorities and other federal agencies at a time when mass surveillance is growing across the country with little regard for individual rights.
The Flock network, supported by the Oakland Police Department, has the backing of residents and councilmembers who see it as an important tool to protect public safety.
“This system makes the Department more efficient as it allows for information related to disruptive/violent criminal activities to be captured … and allows for precise and focused enforcement,” OPD wrote in its proposal to City Council.
According to OPD, police made 232 arrests using data from Flock cameras between July 2024 and November of this year.
Based on the data, police say they recovered 68 guns, and utilizing the countywide system, they have found 1,100 stolen vehicles.
However, Flock’s cameras cast a wide net. The company’s cameras in Oakland last month captured license plate numbers and other information from about 1.4 million vehicles.
Speaking at Tuesday’s Council meeting, Fife was critical of her colleagues for signing a contract with a company that has been in the national spotlight for sharing data with federal agencies.
Flock’s cameras – which are automated license plate readers – have been used in tracking people who have had abortions, monitoring protesters, and aiding in deportation roundups.
“I don’t know how we get up and have several press conferences talking about how we are supportive of a sanctuary city status but then use a vendor that has been shown to have a direct relationship with (the U.S.) Border Control,” she said. “It doesn’t make sense to me.”
Several councilmembers who voted in favor of the contract said they supported the deal as long as some safeguards were written into the Council’s resolution.
“We’re not aiming for perfection,” said District 1 Councilmember Zac Unger. “This is not Orwellian facial recognition technology — that’s prohibited in Oakland. The road forward here is to add as many amendments as we can.”
Amendments passed by the Council prohibit OPD from sharing camera data with any other agencies for the purpose of “criminalizing reproductive or gender affirming healthcare” or for federal immigration enforcement. California state law also prohibits the sharing of license plate reader data with the federal government, and because Oakland’s sanctuary city status, OPD is not allowed to cooperate with immigration authorities.
A former member of Oakland’s Privacy Advisory Commission has sued OPD, alleging that it has violated its own rules around data sharing.
So far, OPD has shared Flock data with 50 other law enforcement agencies.
-
Activism4 weeks agoDesmond Gumbs — Visionary Founder, Mentor, and Builder of Opportunity
-
Activism4 weeks agoFamilies Across the U.S. Are Facing an ‘Affordability Crisis,’ Says United Way Bay Area
-
Alameda County4 weeks agoOakland Council Expands Citywide Security Cameras Despite Major Opposition
-
Alameda County4 weeks agoBling It On: Holiday Lights Brighten Dark Nights All Around the Bay
-
Activism4 weeks agoBlack Arts Movement Business District Named New Cultural District in California
-
Activism4 weeks agoLu Lu’s House is Not Just Toying Around with the Community
-
Activism4 weeks agoOakland Post: Week of December 17 – 23, 2025
-
Black History3 weeks agoAlfred Cralle: Inventor of the Ice Cream Scoop




