Occupy Oakland Provides a Lens into the Deep Dysfunction at OPD
Beleaguered and depleted, Oakland Police Department faces possible takeover by feds
On the afternoon of Jan. 28, as the police grappled with Occupy Oakland protesters, dispatchers received a flurry of 911 calls from people at the Port of Oakland who reported something strange swaying in the wind. Was it a leftover Halloween prop? An Occupy ploy?
When the police finally arrived, they discovered it was the body of a San Leandro murder suspect, a man who the authorities said had stabbed to death the 15-year-old mother of his child, then fled and hid for a night before he hanged himself at the Port.
With the Oakland police and neighboring agencies busy arresting about 400 protesters, it would be 12 hours before the man’s body would be cut down, according to police investigators.
The calls about the swaying body were among the 1,700 the police received over the course of 24 hours on the weekend of Jan. 28 while dealing with the largest showdown to date with Occupy Oakland protesters. The movement has, since its inception, provided a lens less into the hypocrisy of the 1 percent than into the deep dysfunction of the beleaguered and depleted Oakland Police Department. While police were trying to control the Occupy movement over that weekend, police responded to at least five murders and more than 450 calls were made to 911.
As the department faces the impending possibility of a federal takeover — the result of several missed deadlines in a nine-year court-ordered reform effort — showdowns with protesters have consumed the diminished force, leaving crime scenes and emergency calls unattended, protesters and agitators emboldened and a federal judge increasingly exasperated.
“Between the court and Occupy and the chain of command and with the crime — having four, actually five homicides — you take any one of those events and give it to a city of equal size and they would be running frazzled,” said Sgt. Chris Bolton, the Oakland Police Department’s chief of staff. “For us, that’s just day to day.”
In interviews, city leaders said Occupy protests gave the police department little choice but to leave the rest of the city unprotected.
“It’s terrible,” said Ignacio De La Fuente, a city councilman who joined Mayor Jean Quan and top police officials at a downtown command center on the night of Jan. 28. But “when you have hundreds if not thousands of people, and you never know if they are going to break windows or vandalize businesses, you have to respond.” Protesters broke into City Hall that night, smashing display cases, painting graffiti and burning an American flag.
De La Fuente said the Occupy protesters had also pushed Oakland to the financial brink, costing the city millions of dollars in overtime pay for police officers even as officials tried to cope with the loss of $28 million in state redevelopment money.
The violent clashes have also placed Oakland under nationwide scrutiny, renewed concerns about excessive force and solidified the city’s soiled reputation as a place where protesters and criminals, and even sometimes the police, run amok.
Since the department’s eviction of Occupy Oakland from Frank H. Ogawa Plaza on Oct. 25, it has received hundreds of complaints about police misconduct, including accusations of excessive force and concealed name badges.
The department is still investigating the case of Scott Olsen, an Iraq War veteran whose skull was fractured on Oct. 25 after he was hit by a projectile allegedly fired by the police at the Occupy encampment. Some other accusations of misconduct have prompted lawsuits.
“A lot of these things would be obviated if they followed their own policies,” said Bobbie Stein, a lawyer affiliated with the National Lawyers Guild who helped draft Oakland’s crowd control policy in 2005. The guidelines were developed under federal court supervision after the police fired wooden bullets and shot-filled beanbags at antiwar demonstrators at the Port of Oakland in 2003.
On Jan. 28, Stein said, the police repeatedly gave dispersal orders before they had evidence that demonstrators had acted aggressively. She said they fired tear gas canisters unnecessarily, and “corralled people into places where they had no means to escape.”
The department is hurrying to complete a series of changes ordered by a federal judge nearly nine years ago after the Riders case, in which a group of officers were accused of planting evidence, using excessive force and falsifying police reports. Last month, Judge Thelton E. Henderson of the United States District Court in San Francisco, expressed concern about the department’s slow progress.
Michael Boyd
Ouch,
Looks like more pro-City of Oakland propaganda to me. Sorry you can do better than that I know.
So that's the side of Oakland City government and OPD talking about all the bad things the protestors did, but what about the rogue City of Oakland government?
On November 20, 2011 I filed a Notice to Correct or Cure violation of a central provision of the Ralph M. Brown Act, California Codes Government Code Section 54950-54963, in that proper written notice was not provided to a regular meeting of the City Council of Oakland on November 9, 2011.
According to a November 9, 2011 Oakland Tribune article “Occupy Oakland protesters hijacked a news conference at Lake Merritt.” According to the article a quorum of the Oakland City Council conducted an un-noticed meeting of the City Council to take action.
"At one point, the business leaders and [5]council members, who along with Reid included Libby Schaaf, Desley Brooks, Patricia Kernighan and Ignacio De La Fuente, shouted back: "Occupy Oakland must go!"
According to this same article Oakland Mayor Quan then authorized this unlawful "Occupy Oakland must go!" action.
As far as protestors breaking in to City Hall goes and Occupy Oakland trying another location to lawfully assemble goes the City government brought that on them selves too. It's because of their arrogance and self aggrandizement this all happened.
There was less costly options to what happened last Saturday I provided by e-mail to the City government on December 9, 2011 that would have prevented all of this but the City wouldn't even give me a hearing and your publication wouldn't cover their Brown Open Meeting Act violation on November 9, 2011. WHY?
"In my observation the City has incurred a high cost to bring in riot police to contain the purported risk to "health and safety" without making clear whose health and safety is at risk. Is the City Council's health and safety at risk? Is City Hall at risk? Is the surrounding community at risk? Maybe it is the occupants of the Occupy Oakland protestor? If this is the case there are clearly less costly methods to contain the risk to "health and safety". For example the City could assign both a male and female police officer [without the riot gear] 24/7 at the Occupy Oakland encampment and 2 each City maintenance workers to deal with
all these so-called risks without the need to confront the lawful protestors with riot police which costs much more and creates greater animosity between all involved. And how about opening up the rest rooms to the Occupy Oakland protestors and assigning
security staff to keep an eye on City Hall 24/7? I am sure there are many talented folks in City Hall that have their own creative ideas in this regard."
Below is the text of the e-mail I sent the Oakland City government:
Re: Final Response to Public Records Request #7551 NOT TO: Notice to Correct or Cure Violations of the Brown Open Meeting Act by the Oakland City Council and Mayor on November 9 to take the following unlawfully noticed action ”Occupy Oakland must go!”
Friday, December 9, 2011 8:20 PM
From: "Michael Boyd"
To: "KarenBoyd" <KBoyd@oaklandnet.com>
Cc: "ArletteFlores-Medina" <AFlores@oaklandcityattorney.org>, " Vicki (CAO)Laden" <vladen@oaklandnet.com>, occupyoakland@googlegroups.com, meshairizarry@gmail.com, facilitation@occupyoakland.org, LCohen@oaklandnet.com,
officeofthemayor@oaklandnet.com, RKaplan@oaklandnet.com,
LReid@oaklandnet.com, DBrooks@oaklandnet.com, IDelafuente@oaklandnet.com, LSchaaf@oaklandnet.com, NNadel@oaklandnet.com, PKernigan@oaklandnet.com,
JBrunner@oaklandnet.com, JRusso@oaklandcityattorney.org, swalter@baycitizen.org,
Karen,
This appears to be a response to the records act request not a response to my Notice to Correct or Cure Violations of the Brown Act. If you are denying the City violated the Brown Act you need to tell me in writting that is the City's Final Response and under
what statutory authority you can make such a response in the place of the City of Oakland Council or Mayor who I copied on this notice. I am asking for a meeting before the City where the City rescinds its November 9 , 2011 unlawful action, and subsequent actions taken in violation Occupy Oakland protestors' Constitutional rights under color state law, in this case the Brown Open Meeting Act.
I do not seek to repay evil with evil but to give thought to what is noble in the sight of all. I don't see this as anything more than an opportunity to balance the scales of justice and I am concerned that come Monday with the 12/12/11 port shutdown the City will confront protestors with riot police; compounding the City's violations of federal civil rights under color of state law.
In the internal e-mails I received in response to my CPRA request I sense that the City Council is supportive but at the same time afraid of Occupy Oakland. I am here to tell you that fear is your biggest enemy; not Occupy Oakland.
What I see as your biggest fear is people camping out with tents. Why is this; is it because the First Amendment of the US Constitution says you can not assemble in tents when you are between the hours of 10 PM to 6 AM? Once again this is because of fear; in this case the fear is of the homeless. Why do you fear the homeless? Is it because the homeless sleep outside in violation of state law? Did you know the right to sleep is a
fundamental right protected under international law and UN Declarations? So my conclusion is you are denying protestors lawful rights to assemble in tents during the hours of 10 PM to 6 AM under color state law to violate their federal civil rights,
because you fear the homeless, and you violated the Brown Act.
My degree is in Physics and I am an engineer by profession. To assess the risk associated with any failure mode you are best to always error on the side of precaution. This is what is called the precautionary principal in risk assessment. In my observation
the City has incurred a high cost to bring in riot police to contain the purported risk to "health and safety" without making clear whose health and safety is at risk. Is the City Council's health and safety at risk? Is City Hall at risk? Is the surrounding community at risk? Maybe it is the occupants of the Occupy Oakland protestor? If this is the case there are clearly less costly methods to contain the risk to "health and safety". For example the City could assign both a male and female police officer [without the riot gear] 24/7 at the Occupy Oakland encampment and 2 each City maintenance workers to deal with
all these so-called risks without the need to confront the lawful protestors with riot police which costs much more and creates greater animosity between all involved. And how about opening up the rest rooms to the Occupy Oakland protestors and assigning
security staff to keep an eye on City Hall 24/7? I am sure there are many talented folks in City Hall that have their own creative ideas in this regard.
So now lets talk a little about the City's response to Occupy Oakland. Following the unlawful meeting of November 9, 2011 the City brought in a phalanx of riot police to clear out Oscar Grant Plaza of Occupy Oakland protestors and their tents.
I do not live in Oakland and I haven't been to Occupy Oakland ever. I read about the unlawful meeting on November 9, 2011 in the Oakland Tribune. No member of the City Council denied they had participated as reported in the newspaper to my CPRA request
in the meeting.
Finally you stated that "Press conferences are exempt from the Brown Act under 54952.2 (c)2, and therefore there is no agenda." I am not challenging any ones right to call a press conference or issue any type of press release. I am challenging the action taken by the five members who constituted a quorum of the City Council who took unlawful action by voting 5-0-0 that "Occupy Oakland Must Go". It is the action taken which we would have required the 72 hours notice and and agenda not the press
conference itself. If the City had just held the Press Conference [with just the 4 members listed on the press release] with out taking any action as a quorum of the City Council there wouldn't have been any issue with violation of the Brown Act.
Finally I want to make clear to you and the Council and the Mayor that I come in peace not to destroy you but to save you from your fears. You must not be afraid since that makes you act irrationally. My mother used to always tell me when I screwed something up as I made excuses for what I did wrong "honey you know your just digging yourselves in deeper". So please do not fight me but admit that you are human and we all make mistakes. That's how we learn and get better. Often times you have to screw it up first that's all.
Respectfully,
Michael E. Boyd President
CAlifornians for Renewable Energy, Inc.
(CARE)
R T
Seriously, it was one press conference. Was a vote taken? Was any other action taken? Nope. Get over it and grow up
Michael Boyd
By the way Karen Boyd is not related.
M L
Oakland Police are about as much the problem here as the straws were at a 1970's cocaine party.
Don't blame the straws. Blame the coke.
Or something like that. But you know what I mean.
I mean... its Oakland, right?
Its occupied because the checkout line for "occupy the city of your choice" was the shortest in Oakland.
U Ragazzu
"I mean...it's Oakland, right?"
That shows the intellectual bankruptcy of your argument.
Diana Sylvestre
C'mon, to blame the Occupy movement for Oakland Police Dept's unresponsiveness is ludicrous - they have been unresponsive for years. OPD's routine failure to respond to calls about nonviolent crimes like theft long predates Occupy, and most of us have learned not to waste our time by calling. For years, even assaults haven't gotten their attention: we once had to flag down a CA Highway Patrol car for help and when they summoned OPD, the officers couldn't take a report because it was break time!
Let's keep the blame where it belongs, and not scapegoat the Occupy protesters.
Mike Ferro
I cannot understand the lack of information and shortsightedness in this article. OPD is a part of the municipal government of the city of Oakland. It isn't some rogue agency or something that arrived from outer space.
The failures of departmental reform over the past many years and the public safety policy failures are the fundamental responsibility of Oakland's elected officials, the Council and the Mayor. Period.
Many community groups and individuals have been trying for many years to change the culture at OPD and in City Hall. Oakland's elected officials are simply not competent to perform the functions of their offices and, perhaps more important, are, for the most part not ethically not qualified to be public servants. Many Councilmembers have been in office for more than ten years and the public record shows clearly their inability to understand, much less solve, the complex problems of this city. Oakland's mayor has been around for a very long time and has never left any previous elected position otherwise than in total disarray and failure.
If Oakland had only a single reporter with some knowledge and insight into our longstanding civic problems, citizens of this city would be well-served. As it is, we are not and we all suffer from the result.
Mike McGuire
There was indeed a choice to be made, and Oakland's police and politicians made it: go after demonstrators and complainers first, criminals second if time permits. They're not all that different from the police forces in, say, Cairo and Damascus in this regard. First things first!
Given a choice between actual criminals and peaceful protestors, cops will always go after the latter first. Arresting criminals and preventing crime is a job, which many police do diligently, but punishing demonstrators, civil or not, is an outright passion for all too many police officers and the politicians employing them. To a politician, pretending to fight crime will keep them in office, and preserve their access to taxpayer-funded goodies to hand out to family and friends, but large crowds saying they're in office mostly to hand out goodies to family and friends -- simply can't be tolerated!
It's safer, by the way, for police to punish peaceful demonstrators than violent ones, so that's who gets punished disproportionately often.
Remember back to the anti- (Iraq) war protests by trade unionists at the port for historical, but not too historical, evidence of what the OPD considers the "real" crime they're out to fight. It's uncannily similar to "the right of citizens to assemble to redress grievances." It's those people with grievances who are the politicians' main enemies, and the police are instructed accordingly.
I'm all for the police doing their job. But their primary job is not busting up demonstrations, and the politicians need to remind them of this, not egg them on.
Windy
Well said. Over 400 protesters and at least 6 journalists arrested and detained overnight at taxpayer expense but only 12 actually charged. Meanwhile murders are ignored.
The statements by Oakland Police Department about the number of protesters from outside Oakland are misleading. Nearly all those arrested were from nearby Bay Area cities including Piedmont, Alameda, Emeryville, Berkeley, Albany, El Cerrito, Richmond, and San Francisco. Blame it on BART service, not outside agitators.
Michelle Soto-Teall
"Nearly all those arrested were from nearby Bay Area cities including Piedmont, Alameda, Emeryville, Berkeley, Albany, El Cerrito, Richmond, and San Francisco. Blame it on BART service, not outside agitators."
WHAT??? These people are NOT from Oakland. If you want to break stuff and damage a city and burn a flag, go do it in YOUR town, do not come into Oakland. Go do it in YOUR towns; Piedmont (right!), Alameda, Emeryville, Berkeley, Albany, El Cerrito, Richmond and San Francisco. The majority of Oaklanders DO NOT WANT YOU HERE.
R T
I am sorry but I disagree. The fact is that Oakland protests have a history of spiraling out of control. Please recall the previous Occupy protests as well as the Oscar Grant Protests. The cops are faced with a no win situation have a bunch of cops present so it doesn't become a full fledge riot or not enough cops and cover the rest of the city and a real mess breaks out.
Michael Boyd
RT "Seriously, it was one press conference. Was a vote taken? Was any other action taken? Nope. Get over it and grow up...."
MB "My mother used to always tell me when I screwed something up as I made excuses for what I did wrong "honey you know your just digging yourselves in deeper". So please do not fight me but admit that you are human and we all make mistakes. That's how we learn and get better. Often times you have to screw it up first that's all."
RT is correct we all need to "grow-up" especially the City Council and Mayor of Oakland though.
Ambierce Brose
Frankly I don't know what OO has to do with the Oakland PD's problems, other than that the OPD is not able to effectively deal with the problem, per usual. But OO is also irrelevant at this point; no matter what they say no one is going to take them seriously. So I don't see they are a "lens" for anything; the OPD problems have been going on since before they were born. Literally.
I've worked with police in many jurisdictions in the Bay Area and I must say the OPD is the rudest and most incompetent I've encountered. I think they have some great individuals there, and I appreciate they have a hard job, but they do not have the support of the community. And I'm saying that as a middle aged white guy in North Oakland. Look, Richmond had a PD that was even worse, and they've made tremendous strides both in community support, reduction of complaints, and the catching of bad guys. And it's not always the number of cops (check Zimring's analysis of NY's crime reduction, for example); it's how they're used. And the mayor and council and police brass can't seem to figure out how to do that.
Receivership is probably inevitable. Perhaps we should consider disbanding them and contracting with the Alameda SO instead.
M. Mouse
Oakland was chosen by the Occupy movement because the OPD has a very long history of over-reacting to situations by violent and illegal means. They essentially brought this upon themselves.
The Occupy movement expected the OPD to show up at what was then a peaceful, and legal, demonstration in full riot gear, and the OPD did not disappoint.
While it's very unfortunate that this is costing the city millions, maybe this time, finally, the city and the OPD may possibly understand the underlying causes of the problem. And it ain't Occupy.
Ambierce Brose
Gee, I thought the Occupy movement started with people in the 99% who had a beef with Wall Street.
There are a few groups who have had a beef with the OPD over time and have taken it to the streets, and they have coopted the OO movement here. It now has nothing to do with Wall Street, and they aren't making any more progress with the OPD situation than they were in the past. In point of fact they're not only pushing out valid criticism of the cops, but they are also earning those guys boat loads of extra $$.
Oakland has a relatively progressive city government, issues with the police notwithstanding. OO's actions have made it more difficult for the more progressive board members to do anythiing, and have pushed issues like federal oversight out of the public eye. Is that progress?
And somehow I can't feel that much sympathy for a few people who choose to get tear gassed or even clubbed when so many others are dying of violence in Oakland. It's a matter of perspective. If people truly want to change things they've got to change tactics; this isn't working.
Michelle Soto-Teall
Thank you for speaking the truth. OO doesn't give a damn about the 99%, they are just S&^# disturbers who crave martyrdom and want to be on the news.
R T
OPD is the 1%? I thought that was the whole point of tthe Occupy movement.
M. Mouse
When a police department begins caring more about protecting buildings and windows than they do about firing tear gas canisters at the heads of protesters, then, yes, they become the 1%.
When the police start marching down Wall Street, arresting those who stole billions of dollars from law-abiding citizens, instead of attacking those who protest against that theft, I'll start respecting our system again.
Until that happens, I'll continue to support the Occupy movement, even when they step outside the law themselves.
To hold one side accountable, and not the other, is hypocrisy.
R T
I do hold both sides accountable- OPD has a lot to answer for their tactics and decisions. OO also has a lot to answer for their decisions. The fact is that they have gotten far away from the original intent of the movement- protesting Wall street. First- Why occupy a public plaza? How about in front of the only large corporation in Town- Clorox? Dumb. OO has made this more about them and their ego than the issues
MR Kaczorowski@gmail.com
I wish all that energy can be put into re-habing homes and buildings and caring for and planting trees along the streets!
s c
Wanna hear a good one? Last Sunday, KRCB, Ch 22.1 (broadcast) about 9:40 AM there was council woman (Santa Rosa?) explaining everything under control per One Bay Area plan (google it-it's for all counties). She explains the planners have used algorithms to determine future distribution of population and the "highest concentrations will be in Oakland...."
Honest to God. You can't make this stuff up. Yes, indeedy. That should work. Pack and stack added population in stressed city with dysfunctional police department and what do you get? Population control, Agenda 21. They kill each other off. They're already doing it. Man, these planners do it right. Bring out those algorithms. Central planning/social engineering at its best.
Becky Young
Our Occupy Movement here, is doing good work in helping people of foreclosures and other important things in our city. They have not been disrespectful and are not run by the mob mentality. They have been organized since day one. Too bad some of these other Occupy movements couldn't take notes. As far as Oakland government goes....it has been dysfunctional for a good many years now. A complete overhaul is the only thing that might help plus help out the disadvantaged, low income and the schools in those areas.