June 9, 2026
Please contact us
with corrections
or breaking news
Please contact us
with corrections
or breaking news
What I Learned Watching Oakland This Year
by Rajni Mandal
Dr. Mandal, working as a 'wound doctor' in West Oakland nursing homes. photo: R. Mandal cineSOURCE usually does an Oakland survey article in April of every year, see last year's here, though we sometimes run a tad late.
SPEND ENOUGH EVENINGS IN OAKLAND
public meetings and strange things begin to happen. You start out trying to understand what an issue such as police reform, a budget measure, or a commission appointment is about. Eventually, you realize everyone is arguing about something else entirely: Who actually runs the city?
I started attending meetings because of public safety concerns on my own street in 2022. A neighbor was shot at by the thieves he interrupted stealing his catalytic converter. Somewhere along the way the story changed into a search for accountability within Oakland’s government.
A few years ago, I read the "Making Oakland Safe and its Economy Strong" report that tied Oakland’s public safety issues to dysfunctional oversight of our police department.
One line jumped out at me: “[T]he multiple layers of oversight of OPD create a patchwork accountability system that is spread across too many actors to be effective at implementing policing best practices.” That inspired me to spend the last few years trying to understand that accountability system, and have come away with a few observations, which I’ll share with you below.
Oakland’s Long Horror Movie Nears its Final Act
Oakland has lived under Federal Police oversight for roughly a quarter century—long enough that many residents barely remember the city before it. It started after a major police misconduct scandal in the early 2000s known as the "Riders" case [and was re-ignited by the "Cops Fall in Love with Teen Prostitute" affair of 2016]. A lawsuit led to a long-term agreement requiring reforms to improve police accountability, investigations and practices. Oakland has now spent roughly twenty-five years under federal oversight, making it one of the longest-running police reform efforts in the country.
In the past year, under the leadership of Mayor Barbara Lee, Oakland has taken great strides towards finally ending federal oversight of its police department. The judge has praised Lee and stated that he is “very optimistic about the future” under her leadership. One of the most important steps she has taken was to create a new role of Constitutional Policing Administrator, whose role is to be embedded within OPD and create a direct link between City Administration and the police department.
It's this collaboration that has led to huge steps in fulfilling the mandates of the court agreement. This year there were signs that the long movie may finally be nearing its ending.
Dr. Mandal on her way to another meetings to express her 'public safety concerns' in Oakland City Hall. photo: R. Mandal The Spotlight Moves Towards Civilian Oversight
There are over 40 civilian boards and commissions in the City, all composed of appointed volunteers. There is only one which has the accolade of being the most powerful in the nation: the Police Commission.
Oakland's Police Commission was created by Oakland voters in 2016 through Measure LL, which passed with more than 83% support. The measure was pushed by community advocates and city leaders who wanted stronger civilian oversight after years of police misconduct scandals and federal oversight.
This commission has the power to fire the Police Chief—the only such body in the nation. It also has authority over many police policies, including the investigation of police misconduct and selecting police chief candidates for the Mayor’s approval. This concentrates power in a body that is outside of other accountability structures. In Oakland's effort to build one of the strongest civilian oversight systems in the country, we may have swung the pendulum too far. Independence is important. But independence without accountability creates its own problems. This was seen more recently when the commission rebuffed a legal opinion from the City Attorney about not following laws regarding commissioner appointments.
The Commission itself has led to not just dysfunction but long-ranging effects on public safety and effectiveness of the police department:
“It also limits the Chief of Police’s power to make and implement recommendations to improve public safety in Oakland—which creates high turnover in that role as well. In the past 15 years, Oakland has had six different police chiefs head OPD (not including interim or acting chiefs), none of whom stayed in the role for more than four years. By comparison, San Francisco has had just three police chiefs in that same period,” according to "Making Oakland Safe and its Economy Strong".
And now, yet again, the Commission is searching for another police chief, and is taking over nine months to come up with candidates for Mayoral approval, which is expected in July.
Too Many Cooks or Committees Spoil the Broth
The Police Commission isn’t the only organization that police must seek approval from for policies—the list includes the Privacy Advisory Commission. This commission was created in 2019 by advocates who wanted more civilian input in surveillance policies. It is one of the most influential such civilian bodies in the nation, as it requires review of all surveillance technologies prior to Council approval. That means that OPD must present to this commission and address its recommendations before seeking approval for funding from City Council.
As an illustration, I’ve tracked the discussion of drone technology and automatic license-plate reader technology through the many boards and commissions this past year. OPD has had to present these policies and adopt input from: Office of Inspector General, Police Commission, Privacy Advisory Commission, and Oakland Public Safety and Oversight Commission (Measure NN). This is all prior to City Council review and approval.
Oakland loves commissions, working groups, task forces and advisory bodies. And I love that about Oakland. Residents here care enough to show up and spend six hours arguing over policy details. But that's rare.
More often, everyone ends up standing in the kitchen holding the same spoon. Indeed, participation can slowly become bureaucracy, and bureaucracy can start working against outcomes everyone says they want.
What’s Next? Let’s Fix the System
This past year, there have been many discussions about changing the structure of Oakland’s government to improve effectiveness and accountability. This fall, there may be a ballot measure regarding changing the administration’s structure to the “strong mayor” approach, which concentrates power in the Mayor’s office.
But in Oakland, public safety may be affected as much by the systems around policing as policing itself. With current strides, federal oversight may end by the end of the year. But my concern is that Oakland's civilian oversight structure still needs work.
Earlier this year there was a proposal to reconsider some of Oakland Police Commission’s powers, including police chief selection and certain oversight responsibilities, but that effort appears to have stalled.
The only way to change these structures is through ballot measures and voter intent. People increasingly seem to agree that the machinery itself may need a tune-up, but how and when those fixes may come is yet to be seen.
And that will depend on those Oaklanders who show up and speak up. The city has artists, entrepreneurs, activists, immigrants, stubborn neighborhood volunteers and people who simply want a seat at the table. My main goal has been to improve awareness and participation of these regular Oaklanders.
So, as I look to the next year, I’m hoping to see more participation and engagement, because meaningful change only happens when regular Oaklanders show up, speak up and stay involved.
I’ll continue to be that cheerleader, because cheerleading doesn't mean pretending problems don't exist. It means believing something is worth improving.
["Cheerleading for Oakland" was what cineSOURCE titled its August 2025 interview with Dr. Mandal, see it here.]
Posted on May 27, 2026 - 07:58 AM
by Rajni Mandal
Dr. Mandal, working as a 'wound doctor' in West Oakland nursing homes. photo: R. Mandal SPEND ENOUGH EVENINGS IN OAKLAND
public meetings and strange things begin to happen. You start out trying to understand what an issue such as police reform, a budget measure, or a commission appointment is about. Eventually, you realize everyone is arguing about something else entirely: Who actually runs the city?
I started attending meetings because of public safety concerns on my own street in 2022. A neighbor was shot at by the thieves he interrupted stealing his catalytic converter. Somewhere along the way the story changed into a search for accountability within Oakland’s government.
A few years ago, I read the "Making Oakland Safe and its Economy Strong" report that tied Oakland’s public safety issues to dysfunctional oversight of our police department.
One line jumped out at me: “[T]he multiple layers of oversight of OPD create a patchwork accountability system that is spread across too many actors to be effective at implementing policing best practices.” That inspired me to spend the last few years trying to understand that accountability system, and have come away with a few observations, which I’ll share with you below.
Oakland’s Long Horror Movie Nears its Final Act
Oakland has lived under Federal Police oversight for roughly a quarter century—long enough that many residents barely remember the city before it. It started after a major police misconduct scandal in the early 2000s known as the "Riders" case [and was re-ignited by the "Cops Fall in Love with Teen Prostitute" affair of 2016]. A lawsuit led to a long-term agreement requiring reforms to improve police accountability, investigations and practices. Oakland has now spent roughly twenty-five years under federal oversight, making it one of the longest-running police reform efforts in the country.
In the past year, under the leadership of Mayor Barbara Lee, Oakland has taken great strides towards finally ending federal oversight of its police department. The judge has praised Lee and stated that he is “very optimistic about the future” under her leadership. One of the most important steps she has taken was to create a new role of Constitutional Policing Administrator, whose role is to be embedded within OPD and create a direct link between City Administration and the police department.
It's this collaboration that has led to huge steps in fulfilling the mandates of the court agreement. This year there were signs that the long movie may finally be nearing its ending.
Dr. Mandal on her way to another meetings to express her 'public safety concerns' in Oakland City Hall. photo: R. Mandal There are over 40 civilian boards and commissions in the City, all composed of appointed volunteers. There is only one which has the accolade of being the most powerful in the nation: the Police Commission.
Oakland's Police Commission was created by Oakland voters in 2016 through Measure LL, which passed with more than 83% support. The measure was pushed by community advocates and city leaders who wanted stronger civilian oversight after years of police misconduct scandals and federal oversight.
This commission has the power to fire the Police Chief—the only such body in the nation. It also has authority over many police policies, including the investigation of police misconduct and selecting police chief candidates for the Mayor’s approval. This concentrates power in a body that is outside of other accountability structures. In Oakland's effort to build one of the strongest civilian oversight systems in the country, we may have swung the pendulum too far. Independence is important. But independence without accountability creates its own problems. This was seen more recently when the commission rebuffed a legal opinion from the City Attorney about not following laws regarding commissioner appointments.
The Commission itself has led to not just dysfunction but long-ranging effects on public safety and effectiveness of the police department:
“It also limits the Chief of Police’s power to make and implement recommendations to improve public safety in Oakland—which creates high turnover in that role as well. In the past 15 years, Oakland has had six different police chiefs head OPD (not including interim or acting chiefs), none of whom stayed in the role for more than four years. By comparison, San Francisco has had just three police chiefs in that same period,” according to "Making Oakland Safe and its Economy Strong".
And now, yet again, the Commission is searching for another police chief, and is taking over nine months to come up with candidates for Mayoral approval, which is expected in July.
Too Many Cooks or Committees Spoil the Broth
The Police Commission isn’t the only organization that police must seek approval from for policies—the list includes the Privacy Advisory Commission. This commission was created in 2019 by advocates who wanted more civilian input in surveillance policies. It is one of the most influential such civilian bodies in the nation, as it requires review of all surveillance technologies prior to Council approval. That means that OPD must present to this commission and address its recommendations before seeking approval for funding from City Council.
As an illustration, I’ve tracked the discussion of drone technology and automatic license-plate reader technology through the many boards and commissions this past year. OPD has had to present these policies and adopt input from: Office of Inspector General, Police Commission, Privacy Advisory Commission, and Oakland Public Safety and Oversight Commission (Measure NN). This is all prior to City Council review and approval.
Oakland loves commissions, working groups, task forces and advisory bodies. And I love that about Oakland. Residents here care enough to show up and spend six hours arguing over policy details. But that's rare.
More often, everyone ends up standing in the kitchen holding the same spoon. Indeed, participation can slowly become bureaucracy, and bureaucracy can start working against outcomes everyone says they want.
What’s Next? Let’s Fix the System
This past year, there have been many discussions about changing the structure of Oakland’s government to improve effectiveness and accountability. This fall, there may be a ballot measure regarding changing the administration’s structure to the “strong mayor” approach, which concentrates power in the Mayor’s office.
But in Oakland, public safety may be affected as much by the systems around policing as policing itself. With current strides, federal oversight may end by the end of the year. But my concern is that Oakland's civilian oversight structure still needs work.
Earlier this year there was a proposal to reconsider some of Oakland Police Commission’s powers, including police chief selection and certain oversight responsibilities, but that effort appears to have stalled.
The only way to change these structures is through ballot measures and voter intent. People increasingly seem to agree that the machinery itself may need a tune-up, but how and when those fixes may come is yet to be seen.
And that will depend on those Oaklanders who show up and speak up. The city has artists, entrepreneurs, activists, immigrants, stubborn neighborhood volunteers and people who simply want a seat at the table. My main goal has been to improve awareness and participation of these regular Oaklanders.
So, as I look to the next year, I’m hoping to see more participation and engagement, because meaningful change only happens when regular Oaklanders show up, speak up and stay involved.
I’ll continue to be that cheerleader, because cheerleading doesn't mean pretending problems don't exist. It means believing something is worth improving.
["Cheerleading for Oakland" was what cineSOURCE titled its August 2025 interview with Dr. Mandal, see it here.]
Posted on May 27, 2026 - 07:58 AM
