[04:34] Speaker 1: Good evening and welcome to the Finance and Management Committee meeting of Tuesday, March 24, 2026. The time is now 6:04pm and this meeting may come to order before taking roll. I will provide instructions on how to submit speaker cards for items on this agenda. If you're here with us in Chamber and would like to submit a speaker card, please fill one out and turn one into myself or a clerk representative no later than 10 minutes after the start of this meeting or before the item is read into record. Registering to speak via zoom is now due 24 hours prior to the start of this meeting time. This meeting came to order at 6:04pm and and speaker cards will no longer be accepted after 6:14pm we'll proceed with taking roll. Council members Brown,
[05:18] Speaker 2: five present.
[05:20] Speaker 1: And Houston Present. And Chair Wong Present. Thank you, Chair. Before we begin, do you have any announcements at this time?
[05:28] Speaker 3: I do not.
[05:29] Speaker 1: Okay, proceeding with item one, approval of the draft minutes from the committee meeting held on March 10th 10th, 2026. And there are no speakers on this item.
[05:39] Speaker 3: Okay. Council member Brown.
[05:44] Speaker 4: Thank you. I'll move approval.
[05:47] Speaker 3: I'll second that.
[05:50] Speaker 1: Thank you. We have a motion made by Council member Brown, seconded by Chair Wong to accept the draft minutes from the committee meeting held on March 10, 2026. On roll. Council members Brown.
[06:00] Speaker 4: Aye.
[06:01] Speaker 1: Aye.
[06:01] Speaker 5: Aye.
[06:01] Speaker 1: Houston, aye. And Chair Wong. I thank you. Item number one passes with four eyes to accept the draft minutes as is reading in item 2. Determination of schedule of outstanding committee items. And we have three speakers that signed up to speak.
[06:21] Speaker 3: Okay, let's go to public comment
[06:25] Speaker 1: calling in the names that signed up to speak on item number two. In no particular order. You can come up to the podium. State your name for the record before you begin. Mrs. Sara Olavala, Harold Bri, Harold Bryant and Rajni Mandal.
[06:48] Speaker 2: Rajni mundal. District 4. I'm asking the two oversight reports be scheduled for committee review. First, back in November, the Police Commission transmitted its recommendation regarding OPD's annual militarized equipment use report. Under Oakland's MEU Ordinance OMC 9.65 implementing AB 481, the governing body must review and determine whether to continue authorization for the equipment and its use policy. Since the Commission completed its review, the item should be agendized for public Safety Committee. Second, the recent audit by the City auditor notes the importance of regular reporting from the Community Police Review Agency. CIPRA OMC 2.45 requires periodic reporting by the CIPRA director to the Police Commission and City Council regarding investigations and operations. So I ask that a SIPRA report that was referenced in the audit Audit be scheduled so this committee can review that information publicly. Thank you. I respect this lady. We don't agree on a lot of stuff because she does her homework. But I have to tell you, Council Member Fife will tell you, unless you're doing public service in the community, that don't make no difference. Coming here and speaking, that's not enough. Okay, so you got to start doing some public work in the community. According to Fife Schedule a report on missing persons. I am really taken back by the volume of particularly young people who are being reported missing. And one week I saw three black young girls, the next week a black young man. But I looked at the numbers and the numbers are quite high. Traffic violations, moving violations. I understand we got need for some traffic tickets to be written with the speeding and other things that are going on. I need to understand from police officers a report on when they give citations and when they give warnings. Based on what criteria? Or is it that police officers have their own discretion? There has to be a method to when you give a citation and when you give a warning, because when you look at the stop data, which y' all haven't been doing, you continue to see certain groups of people, black people, getting higher numbers of citations and less warnings. We need to have a report, please, on the Bay case. It's been in the around you for this African American gentleman and his brother being murdered. Nobody's doing anything about it. The black police officer's grievance that's been thrown underwater. We need to come back and see what has been done to mediate that issue of promotions and whatever else is going on. The Sanctuary city ordinance enforcement. You need to bring that to the table. You need to have an opportunity to look at truancy and on the documentation for stop data. Truancy is a part of that.
[09:53] Speaker 1: Thank you for your comments, Mr. And
[09:55] Speaker 2: what are offices doing with students that they stop?
[10:11] Speaker 6: Hello.
[10:12] Speaker 7: Thank you for letting me address your board. My name is Harold Bryant. I live in on Dowling street in Oakland, California. And just last weekend I had to remove two tires and somebody's bike, motorcycle, bike right out in front of my house. I have to deal with illegal dumping right in front of my house almost on a weekly basis. And then I go up Bancroft Avenue. All the cans or. Or overfilled with people's trash bags. So we know these. A lot of this is. Is due to illegal vending. And I just got come. Came from the Alameda County Supervisor's Office. And I'm hoping that they could crack down on the illegal vending if you want to, Vin. I have no problem with that. Just get the. The right health certificates. Get the health certificates. And, you know, maybe we, the city of Oakland, could get a truck, a garbage truck. So maybe every weekend they could save their trash instead of dumping it on our street, they could give it to the city of Oakland or save us a lot of time. And then also make more vending opportunities for people that want a contract with the city. That would be great. Also, I'm just. I just recently retired, so I have a lot of time on my hands. I love Oakland. This is the most beautiful city in the world. I don't know if you guys recognize that, but it's so beautiful here. I love the weather. Can't nothing beat the weather. But anyway, thank you very much. Oh, and thanks to Ken Houston for cleaning up our park up there.
[12:22] Speaker 1: Thank you for your comments, Chair. That concludes all speakers on item number two.
[12:26] Speaker 3: Okay, thank you. Anything from my colleagues? Doesn't look like it. E.C. phillips,
[12:35] Speaker 1: through the chair.
[12:36] Speaker 8: No, ma'.
[12:36] Speaker 1: Am.
[12:36] Speaker 3: Okay. All right. Take a motion, Council member Brown.
[12:43] Speaker 4: All right, I'll make the motion to go ahead and move this item.
[12:47] Speaker 3: I'll second that.
[12:50] Speaker 1: Thank you. We have a motion made by council member Brown, seconded by chair Wong to accept the determination of schedule outstanding committee items as is on roll. Council members Brown.
[12:59] Speaker 3: Aye.
[13:00] Speaker 1: Bye.
[13:00] Speaker 9: Aye.
[13:01] Speaker 1: Houston.
[13:02] Speaker 5: Aye.
[13:02] Speaker 1: And chair Wong.
[13:03] Speaker 3: Aye.
[13:04] Speaker 1: Thank you. Item number two passes with four eyes to accept the penalty the the determination of schedule of outstanding committee items as is reading in item 3. Adopt a resolution authorizing the city administrator to enter into a two year contract with law Enforcement Technology Solutions for the period commencing upon contract signing in the amount of $11,124.76 and to extend the agreement for up to two additional years in an amount not to exceed $11,458.50 without returning to council for a total contract amount not to exceed $22,583.26. And waiving the competitive multi step solicitation process and the local small, local business enterprise requirements. And there is one speaker that signed up to speak.
[13:57] Speaker 3: Okay, great. We'll turn it over to the Oakland Police Department and you have up to five minutes.
[14:04] Speaker 5: Thank you, committee chairperson. My name is Sergeant Stephen Lorda of the Oakland Police Department tonight. Joining me is my colleague, Sergeant Ticket in. We're members of the Oakland Police Department hostage negotiating team. At this time we come before you on November 20, 2024, the Privacy Commission voted unanimously to adopt Department General Order I 29 and recommended that the City Council also adopt the Department General Order I29 and the accompanying impact report. On March 4, 2025, the Throw Phone Use Policy, CMS 90652, was approved by council. This evening. We are returning to you after doing our due diligence, and we have determined the vendor we would like to use. The vendor we have selected is Law Enforcement Technology Solutions, also known as. Let's. At this time, you guys have been provided a copy of the agenda report. And at this time, I open for any questions that you may have.
[15:09] Speaker 3: Okay. Anything I don't see with my colleagues. Can you just walk us through what the use of that technology looks like on the ground in a crisis situation? Like, is this, Is this. Why do you need it? Is it because you're contacting somebody and there needs to be this kind of different mobile technology? Can you just walk us through, like, a situation?
[15:39] Speaker 5: No problem. All right. Throw phone systems of this nature are standardized equipment for hostage negotiating teams. It's utilized to negotiate with a barricaded subject or a hostage taker. It's an application that we're able to use through a phone to establish communication. We give them the phone, we're able to have communication with them via text, video, or just chatting in general. This way it opens the doors as a communication tool, a de escalation tool that will allow us to be able to have a peaceful resolution and resolving the situation.
[16:19] Speaker 3: Oh, I see. So in layman's language, it's to communicate with the kidnapper or something like that.
[16:25] Speaker 5: So something like. Yes, with a barricaded subject or somebody that's holding somebody hostage or so.
[16:33] Speaker 3: Okay, interesting. Council member Brown,
[16:39] Speaker 4: excellent. Thank you so much for. Through the chair to the staff, thank you so much for the report. And I remember I was reading this and I was like, oh, I thought we did this already. And so you're right. March 4, 2025, it was already approved by council. And just at this point now, you all have selected the vendor, so I'm happy to make a motion to go ahead and move along with this item.
[17:03] Speaker 3: Okay, great. Let's move to vote. Public comment. Oh, we do have public comment.
[17:08] Speaker 1: Thank you. Calling in the name that signed up to speak on item number three, Ms. Sato Olala.
[17:19] Speaker 2: I. I don't understand. I know you know what you're doing. I just don't understand this point. You offer the phone to the individual, and what if they don't take the phone? That's all. And Then that's what I want to know. What's next if they don't take the phone? Okay. How do you get the phone to them? I don't know. There's just a lot of unknowns. Except the thing that concerns me, though. Extend contract for up to two years without returning to counsel. Now, whenever I see. Without returning to council. Whenever I see. Extending a contract without a performance evaluation of how much we've been able to use this tool. Is it with the issues of spending money in the police department? We have to scrutinize spending in the police department to the point where we understand. Yes. Is this a valuable tool? So if you use it in the past, how many times have you used it? Okay. All right. And then I just want to remind you we have some pressing issues that might need funding. Recruitment and retention. That's a crisis. Officer wellness and stress, lack of accountability. We're dealing with that. With the nsa, inadequate training for social issues. That's my perspective. We need to do more of that over policing and under policing. We've never brought that up under policing. What does that mean? I know what it means. Racial disparities and use of force. And you can approve this. But we got so many things on the agenda as it relates to policing that need fiscal support and we have to validate. Is this tool of such a necessity that we need to have to put the money in this area? I've never seen you before.
[19:16] Speaker 1: Thank you for your comments, Chair. That concludes all speakers on item number three. And we have a motion made by council member Brown, seconded by council member Houston to approve the recommendations of staff and to forward this item to the April 14, 2026 Special City Council agenda at 3:30pm on roll, council members Brown I. 5 Aye, Houston I and Chair Wong I. Thank you. Item number three passes with four eyes to forward this item to the April 14th special city council agenda on consent reading in item four, receive a biannual informational report from the police department on recruiting and police staffing levels. And we have four speakers that signed up to speak on this item.
[20:01] Speaker 3: All right. Would love to turn it over to our OPD counterparts and please take it away.
[20:12] Speaker 6: Thank you. Good evening, council members and committee. My name is Amber Fuller. I am the OPD Human Resources Manager. I'll be providing you with the high level updates to the biannual staffing report. The information that was provided to you has Data as of February 28th of 2026. And I'll be providing some updates as of Today's date, March 24th. So as of today our Swornfield staffing is at 6:14. The current monthly attrition rate is 6. The 196th Police Academy began on November 22nd 2nd currently with 18 PLTS scheduled to graduate in May. The total employees that are off on a long term leave we have on admin leave is 17 sworn and two professional staff. One sworn member is on military leave 62 sworn on medical leave and 14 professional staff. The employees on transitional assignment are 20 sworn and five professional staff staff. There's currently 231 field professional staff positions and I'll be providing some updates on those current recruitments. So the account clerk 2. There is one vacancy. There was an exam scheduled for March 9th that was recently held and we're waiting on the establishment of eligible list so we can begin interviewing candidates from that list. Administrative Analyst 2 There's currently two vacancies. Agencies will be having interviews this Thursday on March 26th. The Fleet Compliance Coordinator HRM is working with the department to establish the job description or finalize that for the position. The Grants Coordinator. There is one vacancy and that candidate is in the final stages of the background process. Intake Technicians There is one candidate that's in the background process and one that's tentatively scheduled to start in April. The police cadet. The job announcement is open there an Exam scheduled for April 29th. Police communications dispatcher. That's a continuous recruitment. We do have 14 vacancies. Interviews were recently held on the 19th and two candidates were referred to background checks and we just got referrals for additional candidates to set up some more interviews.
[22:40] Speaker 4: Our
[22:43] Speaker 6: police services our data manager position. So the hiring manager is working on the job announcement and description of those duties. And police record specialists. We have five vacancies. Three candidates were recently referred to backgrounds. That's basically the high level overview for the staffing report. And I'm now available for any questions you may have.
[23:09] Speaker 3: Council Member Brown. Excellent.
[23:12] Speaker 4: Thank you so much. I just had a really quick question just for clarity myself and Council Member Wong. We had a very robust conversation earlier
[23:20] Speaker 6: today
[23:23] Speaker 4: in Finance speaking with like our HR department and like the various vacancies and so I just wanted some clarity around. The report states that the Grants Coordinator it says candidate referred to backgrounds on October 22nd of 2025. And so I just wanted to check to see. So does that mean like where is that position in the process?
[23:48] Speaker 6: So that candidate is in the final stages of the background process. That person was referred to backgrounds in October but I believe there was a delay.
[23:58] Speaker 4: Oh, sorry. I Was just calculating the, oh, six months there.
[24:01] Speaker 6: Yeah, there was a delay in the candidates submitting some of the required paperwork to begin the actual background. I believe that they provided that information earlier this year.
[24:10] Speaker 4: I see. And so, you know, and I'm not sure if you can speak to this, but is it routine that it takes about six months to get folks hired or what's the standard?
[24:21] Speaker 6: No, typically if we refer to backgrounds, it should be about four to six weeks. Weeks. But that's contingent upon the candidates submitting all of the required paperwork for the investigators to begin the process. And if there's no, like, other delays as far as getting appointments scheduled, you have fingerprinting or different, I guess, scheduling that has to be done. But it's typically like four to six weeks.
[24:43] Speaker 4: I see. And so then who, like, who takes the lead in ensuring that. So when I read this note, candidate referred to Backgrounds, October of 2027. Second, who. Who plays that role of ensuring that the candidate knows that they are kind of like in the next step.
[25:02] Speaker 10: Good evening. My name is Sergeant Romans Row. I'm the sergeant of background and recruiting for the Oakland Police Department. Just to answer that question, this particular candidate was out of state. So many of the documents that he was requested to provide he could not provide within that timely fashion. So he was given extended time to provide that information with us. So normally, as manager Fuller stated, it usually takes between four to six weeks for. For that role to be. Or the lease of background to be completed. But it's been a little extensive because we've had to do a background check for a candidate that's out of state.
[25:35] Speaker 3: Okay.
[25:35] Speaker 4: All right, thank you for that Update.
[25:40] Speaker 3: Council Member 5.
[25:45] Speaker 8: I'm going to ask a question through the chair.
[25:47] Speaker 3: They're deliberating. Ah, okay.
[25:54] Speaker 8: I just had a. Did you want to share some additional information?
[25:58] Speaker 6: No, just going to share that. For the grants coordinator, there was a previous candidate who was in the background process and then they withdrew at that time. So we had to begin again with the eligible is to get someone else on.
[26:10] Speaker 5: So
[26:12] Speaker 8: I just have a question through the chair about the places where people are leaving and going to serve in places like Richmond, Antioch, San Francisco and all those other places. I wanted to know if you have drill down information about maybe bonuses that they may be offering. What is the difference and why are people leaving Oakland to go to other law enforcement agencies?
[26:34] Speaker 6: So some of them just with comprehensive the compensation packages, some of the initial starting salaries in addition to bonuses they could be offering and then also commute factors if it's somewhere closer to their residency.
[26:49] Speaker 8: Do you have, is that concrete or anecdotal information? Because I've heard that Albany was offering what, $15,000 bonus or maybe 50, and Alameda too. Is that accurate?
[27:05] Speaker 10: Yes. Alameda was offering $70,000.
[27:08] Speaker 9: $70,000?
[27:09] Speaker 7: Yes.
[27:10] Speaker 8: Signing bonus?
[27:11] Speaker 7: Yes.
[27:12] Speaker 8: On top of the salary.
[27:13] Speaker 10: Correct.
[27:13] Speaker 8: Which is higher than Oakland?
[27:15] Speaker 10: Yes.
[27:19] Speaker 3: Okay. I think it would be worthwhile, ACA Phillips, for us to schedule a comparative analysis. The same way that we did a salary study this morning. We saw one at Finance and Management that did a peer study of positions that were making under $25. Under, under the hour. We got a peer study of similar cities, and I think we need to do the same with our police department.
[27:48] Speaker 8: And the reason I'm asking is because in the supplemental it says that the trends suggest. So I just wanted to know if there's any more concrete data or is this actually true or is it just the belief or perception of why it is? Are they saying the reasons? And then I also saw that there was a reference to CalPERS. It seems like that would be a downside if an agency doesn't have CalPERS because it can't transfer.
[28:18] Speaker 6: So based on like some of the information or the way we get from like we do exit interviews or employee may put it on the separation memo if they're going to another agency. And just based off of that information, if they provided where they're going, we just did a kind of a spot check on some of those agencies that they may be going to and just seeing that they may be offering a higher bonus or beginning salary. We do have four, or, excuse me, two employees that were rehired. So even though and these were employees had left within the last two years, there's about four others that are still currently in the process. So even though some are resigning, going to other agencies, many of them are coming back and returning to the department.
[29:03] Speaker 8: Okay, so I want this on the record to be clear. People are leaving for compensation primarily. That's what I. I gather from compensation commute benefits.
[29:16] Speaker 6: No, that could be part of the reason. That's not necessarily the exact reason. It just depends on the individual of what they have.
[29:23] Speaker 8: So is there any way for us to find out?
[29:29] Speaker 9: So good evening through the chair, Deputy Director Kiana Suttle. For every swarm person personnel that voluntarily separates the department other than a retirement, they are required to participate in an exit interview. So the key thing to understand is that in that exit interview, although we ask specific questions, they don't always provide a specific response. And so we know when someone is leaving the department to go to an outside agency because that outside agency contacts us so that they can review the personnel file, background file, other information. But in the actual exit interview, the person separating does not always say that I'm leaving to go to another agency. And so that's why the supplemental question was worded the way it was. Because if they don't specifically tell us, oh, I'm leaving to go to an outside agency, we analyze other data to try to determine why they're leaving. So if we know that they were in the background process with another agency, and that agency has let us know that that person is being hired, even if they don't tell us in the exit interview, I'm leaving to go to Richmond PD or I'm leaving to go to Albany pd. We do have other data to be able to determine reasons for leaving. And so most of the time, what they do is they tell us we're leaving because of the commute, we're leaving because of family reasons. So we do try to drill down, but we have to go by what the exact information is that they provide us, as well as other data that we have access to in order to determine why they're leaving.
[31:12] Speaker 8: Yeah, thank you for sharing that. Because I remember that a few years ago, those being the top reasons people were citing, they were leaving. Commute, family. But this salary thing is new. And the 70,000. I don't know how Oakland can even be in an environment to compete with our budget challenges.
[31:29] Speaker 9: And I will like to add, although they may not cite salary as a specific reason for leaving, if we look at the outside agencies that have contacted the department to do a background check on a potential employee, and we compare their salary and benefits to the salary and benefits that OPD is offering. And so that's another way that we're able to determine without the employee specifically. Specifically telling us reasons why they are leaving the department. But as Manager Fuller said, I think it's key to acknowledge that I believe Since November of 2025, four out of the six people who have voluntarily separated to go to outside agencies have either returned to OPD or are in the process of returning to opd.
[32:23] Speaker 8: Do they say why? Did they tell you why?
[32:28] Speaker 9: I'm gonna. Sergeant Roman's role, who was a supervisor of the recruiting and background unit, he and his team, when they're doing the updated background, they do share some information with them about why they're returning. So I. So I'll turn it over to Sergeant Romans Row to provide some insight into that.
[32:45] Speaker 10: So at least out of the four individuals that we've been in contact with and started doing their background investigation, a lot of it is wanting to return back because of the culture, going into a different environment to be a police officer. Some individuals realize that that's not the way that they want to police. So they tell us that they want to return back to Oakland to some of the progressive approaches that we do in policing. Others are, you know, there's a culture shift. If you've been, if this has been your career, you started off in the police department, this was your first time in law enforcement. Sometimes you want to go back to
[33:20] Speaker 7: where you, where you learned.
[33:21] Speaker 10: So we are getting those type of responses. A lot of it is just, you know, I, I tested it out to see if it's something that I wanted to do, didn't like it, ready to come back.
[33:31] Speaker 8: Do you do you know, with the. Because it's only a handful of officers who've done that. Is there a time in their career as new officers or folks who've been with the.
[33:40] Speaker 10: So I believe when we did our research, our officers that usually leave the department, they were in that 14 to 24 month of being a career officer, and those are the ones that we're finding that are coming back.
[33:55] Speaker 8: Is that inside the timeframe where they have to pay back their training fees?
[33:59] Speaker 10: I believe so, yes.
[34:00] Speaker 8: Do they still have to pay back their training, the cost if they come back?
[34:04] Speaker 9: So through the chair, yes. So if you voluntarily separate from the department before the completion of five years, yes, they do have to pay back a portion of their training costs up to $20,000. And I would also like to add that, as Sergeant Romans Row alluded to, the grass is not always greener on the other side. And I think that when some of these people leave opd, they quickly determine that. And I would also like to add that there Since November of 2025, at least 12 people who have voluntarily separated the department within the last two years have expressed interest in returning to opd. And so some of them may not have passed the updated background. Some of them express interest, but have not yet submitted an application. And for those who have expressed interest and have not yet submitted a re employment application, our executive team has reached out to them to encourage them to return and to find out to the extent possible why they initially left and what made them decide to at least inquire about returning to the Oakland Police Department.
[35:13] Speaker 8: Thank you. I'm complete.
[35:17] Speaker 3: Council member, Houston yes, due to Chair
[35:19] Speaker 5: Sergeant Rowe, can I ask you A question. How long you, how long you been sergeant?
[35:24] Speaker 10: For almost three years now.
[35:25] Speaker 5: Three years. So. So all the officers that I know, they love it, right? They love. They just said that some of them say because of the, the commute, because of the police commission, you know, because of some of the, the laws and the How. Yeah. How they enforce it. Are they scared to make move? Right, but the reason why I asked is, I was going to ask you, but you don't have to answer. What makes you stay, you know, because all the police that I speak to now, they love it. I mean, they say, man, I couldn't see myself working anywhere else except for the things that they just mentioned. So we do have a culture. Because I could see them wanting to come back because I asked Tedesco, I said, why don't you be the chief? He said, nah, nah, I love this, I love this city, but I want to be the chief. Chief. So anyway, I'm throwing him probably under the bus by saying that, right? But no, we need officers that love the city like yourself. You were you, are you from here?
[36:23] Speaker 10: Yes, I'm from Oakland.
[36:24] Speaker 5: See, that's what I'm talking about. You understand the culture, you understand us, you understand non verbal body language. What it might mean something that other people might miss. Misrepresented ass. But anyway, I just wanted to ask you those questions. But, but I appreciate you guys. I appreciate your hard work, man, and stay in the town with us, man, because you're from here. Stay here.
[36:45] Speaker 7: All right.
[36:45] Speaker 5: Don't go nowhere for that 70 racks.
[36:48] Speaker 10: Thank you.
[36:49] Speaker 3: Well, thank you, council member Houston. I do have some questions. I, you know, continue to be really deeply concerned with the levels that we're at. I. Let's start off with a couple of good things that I'll say. It looks like we are doing actually a pretty good job of hiring black women into both the sworn staff as well as the professional staff. I do have concerns. You know, I think we have 18 pots graduating right from this latest police academy. And I know that we have funded, you know, in this last budget cycle, five police academy academies. And one of the, our aims is that we were going to fill up those seats. And that in many ways has not happened. And I would love to just know, you know, what are some of the innovations that you all are thinking of? What can we do? And I would also encourage, you know, especially given that we are in an age where I hate social media myself, but I also recognize that young folks, the ages of 20, which is, you know, mid-20s, is really the target demographic that many of them need to see things on social media. And I've seen the OPD posts and I could, I think there's room for improvement, to be honest, where we just need to have catchier, you know, posts, things that really catch, you know, the young person's eye. And I'm wondering what thoughts you all have and whether in the next upcoming academies that you all anticipate that we're going to see higher numbers in our recruitment or if we really do need to look at, you know, what, what are our peer cities doing and really diving into those details, it's. It may not be enough just to fund the academies themselves and I'd like to know what thoughts you all have.
[38:46] Speaker 9: So thank you. I think it's important to acknowledge that the challenges that the Oakland Police Department department is experiences experiencing when it comes to recruitment, they're not unique to opd. So we have coordinated and collaborated with other local agencies to find out some of the challenges that they're experiencing and what they are doing to attract police officer trainees. But we have to remember that at the time that the academies were canceled, what is that about a year or two ago ago, November of 2024, we had over 40 people who are ready to start that academy. When that academy was cancelled, you had people who went through the background process. So their current employer at that time knew that they were in the process to leave to come to the Oakland Police Department. They passed up opportunities with other law enforcement agencies to come to Oakland. And so when that academy was canceled, it was devastating not only to them, but to the department. So when academies were funded again, we had to start the recruitment process all over again. And that is a very time consuming process. Our recruiting and background team has to go out to different events, go to colleges, link up with affinity based groups, churches, community groups to start that recruiting process all over again. And some of the people told us they were hesitant to come to the Oakland Police Department because they didn't want to make the commitment that they previously made and have it pulled from underneath them at the last minute. So it's important to acknowledge and recognize that. Also marketing. So we are very appreciative that the council approved a marketing budget for the Oakland Police Department. But that marketing budget was $120,000, which is not much. And in order to spend that money, we have to go through the city's procurement process, which can be time consuming. So although the $120,000 is there, we have to abide by city rules and regulations. In order to spend that money. So that's time consuming. And so our recruiting and background team, led by Sergeant Romans Road, they are out there several times a week recruiting in person, networking with other law enforcement agency, networking with law enforcement organizations to do what they can do to bring people in. But it's not, it's not an easy process. It's not a simple process and it is very time consuming. So I give kudos to our recruiting and background team because the academy that is slated to start on April, April 27th, right now there are 35 people ready to start that academy. We had 36, but one backed out. And we have at least two more character reviews where the executive team will vet these candidates before the academy begins. And we're hoping to have at least six more candidates who are ready to begin the academy. So that's an extraordinary effort to by our recruiting and background team to have 35 people right now slated to begin the academy that starts on April 27th.
[42:07] Speaker 3: So just to become more on that point, just around the council amendment, so we had amended the budget to include that amount that you just offered. And I understand what you're saying that it's not enough, but I guess I'm wondering, does not. Does the police department not have the power to add your own discretionary funds to that marketing dollars or you have to rely only on the council amendment.
[42:38] Speaker 9: So when the budget is approved, it's approved to be used for specific purposes. So the bulk of the money, as you know, goes towards salaries. Then we have O and M operations and maintenance, which is our contracts and our supplies. So there is very little, if any discretionary money to spend on things that the money was not already planned to be spent on.
[43:03] Speaker 3: Okay, and how much. Do you. Do you all have an estimation for how much is needed in order to. To.
[43:09] Speaker 9: Absolutely. So Sergeant Romans Row has done his due diligence by not only reaching out to other law enforcement agencies, agencies to see how much they paid for their marketing campaign, but he's also reached out to individual organizations. And when we initially got the $120,000, Sergeant Romans row, he's coming back to me and he was like, we can do this for 250,000, we can do this for 180,000. And it's like, we don't have 250,000 or 180,000, so we had to score, scale back. And so what you see and what you will see, it's going to be good. But we're not able to compete with San Francisco Police Department or other Police departments as it relates to their marketing campaigns, because they have more money to spend on a marketing campaign than we do. And as you know, the younger generation, they look. I mean, it's what attracts them, what's visually attractive to them. And our recruiting and background team has done a remarkable job with limited resources, and that's staffing resources and. And funds. And so we have finalized our recruitment landing page, which should be up and running soon. And it's very aesthetically pleasing for the limited resources that we have. And that's thanks to Sergeant Roman's role in the recruiting and background team.
[44:37] Speaker 3: Okay, yeah, I would love to see that analysis. Sergeant Roman's row and then also to some of the public comment, just to make sure that, you know, I think the term marketing sounds very vague and just what does that really mean and has it borne out the results that we need to see in other cities?
[44:56] Speaker 10: So I actually, I remember the number. It's 558,000. Is what a organization, our size, with our need to recruit not only at a local level, but at a national level, that's the minimum that we would need to see a complete ROI on what our recruiting efforts are. To what Deputy Director Soto stated, our website, a really robust website. I don't know if everyone, anyone has been to San Francisco website, a website like that at minimum cost, $250,000. I think a lot of times we're just looking at the website, but it's the analytics that are built into the website, the geofencing, the impressions that it pushes out that information is what we need in order to do targeting marketing. So for example, if we're noticing that we're getting a lot of hits to our website from the Chicago area area, we would then use that data to then come up with a recruiting plan to take our recruiting on the road, go to Chicago and actually have a targeted recruiting process. 70, I think the numbers was 70% of most individuals who are applying for any kind of job, not just law enforcement, they start their search online. And so without an online presence, we're already behind the ball. So what you're seeing in comments to your. To our website or not our website, to our social media, it's very minimal. But if we can build it out through a marketing, actual marketing consulting firm that we're working with, like a cps, they're able to craft it to where it's a little bit more impactful and we can get those necessary impressions to do target recruiting. Right now we're focused on our community first within Oakland we depend heavily on referral base from our community members, from council, from the city, city so that we can start recruiting at those functions as well. But we also know, just like Deputy Director Suttle stated, that we're now really scraping locally.
[46:53] Speaker 5: Right.
[46:53] Speaker 10: We're not just people are going to other states to become police officers. So we also should be doing the same thing. Stockton PD just went to the DMV area to do a big recruiting event, but it's because their website provided with the analytics to show that that's the area that they needed to go.
[47:11] Speaker 3: Okay, I would love to, if you could send that to me, I would love to see that. And then my final question, I see my colleagues have some questions is just I have this theory that we really need to be working with organizations that mentor young adults because it may be the young adult who doesn't think naturally about a career in law enforcement, who lives in Oakland, that we want to get into the police department. And I see while you all do like events at recruiting fairs, do you cultivate kind of long term relationships with these kind of again, youth serving, young adult serving mentoring organizations that could help to identify those young individuals that have the kind of high integrity that we want in the police department.
[47:58] Speaker 10: So, so the first step is that we are really putting a lot of energy into is going to be the cadet program. It's showing the biggest return on investment. You bring someone in straight out of high school that has a passion for law or at least an idea that they may want to be a police officer, and you walk them through the culture and through the training and get them into the path to become a police officer. We're also working with different organizations like the 100 Black Black Men of the Bay Area. We're going to be doing an event on April 18 with them where it's focusing on high school and junior college students to introduce them to the profession. I think as we all know right now, it's to sell a lifestyle. That's what we're trying to attract with this generation of applicants. So a lot of it is our, our, our investigators, our recruiting staff telling their testimony. I came from corporate America, I became a cop at 33 years old and being able to show my transferable skills in becoming a police officer. It attracts not only the youth, but it also attracts people that may be looking for a career path. AI is a big thing right now. We're trying to figure out our way to go to those technology companies to see if someone wants to be like me and transition into the law enforcement field. So there's a great opportunity out there. But the number one goal is going to be marketing. And until we really have all the tools to make that effective, we're going to still push, push along and try to get these academies filled. But any additional funding would help us out a lot.
[49:24] Speaker 3: Okay, Understood. Council member Houston.
[49:29] Speaker 5: Yeah, through the chair. That's what I've been talking about. We've been talking about marketing. Marketing. Marketing right here. He said $558,000 and we're only at 120. It's our responsibility as public safety chair, I mean public safety, to get them the money that they need for that smart community. If our city administrator can give $250,000 to somebody and then come back and give another 250, he can do it. We got to talk to the mayor. Let's get an outside agency. Let's get an outside agency that'll work directly with them to say to, to. To market. He just said it all. $558,000 for a city our size and we had 120. That's embarrassing. It's our responsibility, me, Fife Brown and you to go and speak.
[50:23] Speaker 3: And we have the budget process coming up.
[50:24] Speaker 5: We can get.
[50:25] Speaker 8: We.
[50:25] Speaker 5: We can get the money. We always look at this money that's. We find the money. We find it for everybody else. Is finding for my police officers. We find it for everybody else. It's marketing. It's very important. Then we gonna come back. We lost this life. We lost this officer. Why don't we have these officers? Why is this happening? Isn't it worth another 400 some thousand dollars to get marketing for our officers so they can get good people? Yeah. It's our responsibility right here to advocate for this money for outside marketing. And I spoke about it before. We got Carol H. Williams in our own backyard. Carol H. Williams, she did the easy way out for Southwest. She did Pillberry Doughboy. She did. What is that? Was the what strong enough for a man?
[51:15] Speaker 3: Army strong, yes. Oh, she did that.
[51:17] Speaker 5: You even know?
[51:18] Speaker 3: See, I do know what I'm saying.
[51:20] Speaker 5: Is she in our own backyard? Let's get that young lady to help out our city. Why does it so I'm just saying this fight for it is our duty as public safety to get that money for them.
[51:33] Speaker 3: And, and I will. And I agree. And we also need to pass balanced budgets. So we got to find a funding source. So that's the, that's the thing that I encourage all of us to, to look at. Council member Brown. Excellent.
[51:46] Speaker 4: Thank you so much. And I guess kind of as mentioned,
[51:50] Speaker 9: and I don't know if, I don't
[51:51] Speaker 4: know if it was the first time that this happened in the budget, but, you know, I know that we, we work really hard to try to find some funds to set aside for marketing, but it is important that we have the full picture now. We have the full picture of how much it costs to actually run a full marketing campaign. And I think the only thing I just wanted to add to the conversation is ensuring that there is a digital media strategy. When I attended the Golden State Valkyries games multiple times last year, and there were two key things that I saw, you know, at one event, and these were sold out crowds, over 15,000 people. Two things that I saw on multiple occasions, there were recruitment for the county of San Francisco, CHP set up tables.
[52:43] Speaker 6: Right.
[52:43] Speaker 4: And there was actually a line of folks waiting to, to engage during the halftime.
[52:48] Speaker 9: Right.
[52:48] Speaker 4: So that was one thing. So I hope that maybe I'm happy to do an email introduction to the folks over at the Golden State Valkyries. And also while you're watching the game, there were digital ads that were actually right next to the scoreboard saying workforce San Francisco PD or something like that. And so I bring that up to say that I think that the, the, you know, idea around how we're improving the website, but there are also other tools in that digital space that we could utilize as well. And so I'm always happy to be a thought partner around some of those things. And then as you mentioned, we now know how much it really costs to actually put forth a full marketing campaign. And so we're, I'm grateful for that information and insight and would love to have any more information that you were able to find on that.
[53:37] Speaker 3: So thank you, Council Member Fife.
[53:40] Speaker 8: Yeah, I'm concerned with the way this conversation is going. Like marketing is going to somehow bring people to the police departments when overall, and I've said this ad nauseam, for the last six years, at least since the pandemic, that public sector jobs, not just police departments, but military, every branch of the US Military, all government jobs. And we're seeing part of the challenges at the federal level where folks are getting laid off and just are not making money. But every public sector job has struggled since the pandemic. So I think having this conversation is essential, but in isolation. It doesn't give us the total picture of what's happening in this country around how young people see policing. So I think it has to be in the full context of young people are not seeing policing is the same type of career that folks did in the 50s, 60s, 70s, women, gender, pay equity, a lot of things. These young people are different. They're just different in, in, in this era. And I think I would like to have a professional like, I think that is what Council member Houston is saying as well, a professional analysis about the conditions that we're facing, in addition to what other jurisdictions are offering, as well as. Is this a field that people want to go into anymore? I think we're going to have to rethink policing altogether over the next five to ten years, unfortunately, and lean on some other things because again, a lot of younger people are saying they, this is really dangerous. It's a dangerous profession. We can't ignore that. I had an uncle that was killed in the line of duty as a police officer. And I think this deserves a more robust conversation than to say, let's just throw money at it. Because that's not always the answer, especially when our academies don't necessarily yield the number of cadets that justify the expense. So this is an important conversation. But I think there are other pieces of the conversation that need to accompany how we are utilizing very limited dollars, particularly since unfunded liabilities in the city of Oakland that are creating the condition where we are not able to balance our budgets are going to continue until 2033. So we're going to see an escalation in the amount that we have to pay because of the commitments we made years ago that put stressors on our budget today. So that's the only statement that I'm making. And I know with an iPhone they film pretty good. I saw atl, they did a fan dance. I don't know if opa, OPD wants to do that, but I got. They got a lot of hits on their social media page by recruiting people talking about where them fans at. I'm just saying, that's all.
[56:34] Speaker 3: Yeah, I, well, look, I don't. I don't disagree. I think when we don't market, when we don't do the marketing, then we don't even have a shot at all. But I will say that I think we need to be. I am pushing. We collectively, I think, should be pushing to do really innovative stuff. I know that Carol Williams, for example, through her approach, she really was able
[56:58] Speaker 6: to
[57:00] Speaker 3: create a new light in terms of reaching out to mothers to convince that, you know, a job in the army was going to be new opportunities. It's got to be something that is not just, you know, a standard campaign. And so if we do spend the money, I think it's got to be evidence based. We've got to pair it with the peer to peer studies to see what beyond marketing is what we need. But also we need to, I think the marketing needs to be able to speak to something sort of deeper to inspire people more than just, you know, and that's also why I'm really wanting to push on this idea of are, is there, is there something to be said about working with these mentorship organizations, you know, to reach those young people that goes beyond just, you know, it's a flyer. A flyer is not going to convince anybody to become a police. Police officer. Right. We really have to inspire people, but we'll continue to work on that. Yeah.
[58:00] Speaker 8: Council Member 5 We also need to factor the cost of living. I, I, you mentioned something, Sergeant, about Stockton. Yes, I mean, I would prefer to live in Oakland, but it's a lot more expensive.
[58:14] Speaker 6: Right.
[58:15] Speaker 8: And so even though, you know, the, the salaries are competitive, if I can go be an officer in a location where with a lower cost of living, maybe even be able to buy a house and you know, have money left over at the end of the day, that might be a more attractive. I'm saying again, just to be redundant, this conversation about marketing needs to be, needs to happen in a larger context that factors in all of the challenges that we're facing right now.
[58:47] Speaker 3: I will entertain a motion. Unless, actually, before we do that, I have one final question. I had noticed that in the patrol assignments that Area 6 and Councilmember Houston, that's your area, has the least number of officers assigned. And I'm just curious because I'm struck by how much folks in deep East Oakland really want more responsive police response times. They're, I think, if, I think they're more than any other part of the city desperate for, you know, assemblance of public safety. So I found that curious.
[59:30] Speaker 9: So through the chair, that's more of an operational question that we're not prepared to provide a response to tonight.
[59:37] Speaker 3: Okay.
[59:38] Speaker 8: Okay, sounds good.
[59:40] Speaker 3: I will entertain a motion. Oh, thank you for the reminder. We'll go to public comment calling in
[59:46] Speaker 1: the names that signed up to speak on item number four. If you're here with us in chamber would like to speak. You can come up to the podium or if you're on zoom, please raise your hand to be easily identified. Asado Olabala, David Boatwright, Jennifer Finley and Rajni Mandal.
[60:03] Speaker 7: David Boatwright, District 4. I probably missed it, but I can't leave a meeting talking about staffing, about the police department without hearing out loud the new net active officer count. I heard a 617, but I think it's lower than that.
[60:22] Speaker 9: 614.
[60:23] Speaker 7: 14. That's after the people that are on medical leave and everything that is including
[60:30] Speaker 9: those who are off on medical leave, admin leave, military leave. If you subtract them out, we're probably at about 497.
[60:42] Speaker 7: We're not covering the ground before 97. The other thing you brought up, council member Fife, and that is bringing people from Chicago to California would be a lot of shock. And I think the cost difference even in comparing Chicago to Oakland would be a shock for them. So something to think about. Some of that money we spent, we spend chasing those people might be better spent chasing people elsewhere in California. Just a comment. Thank you.
[61:21] Speaker 2: Well, I'm surprised Fife got all these questions because she works with the anti police department terrorist project with Cat Brooks. So she's not interested in police department. I'm really proud of this young man, to see him. I haven't seen a black person from the police department in a long time. So thank you for being here. The discussion on why people are leaving the Oakland Police Department, one of the reasons could be the nsa. The NSA puts a lot of extra stuff that is not the normal process of work that has to be done. We're doing a lot of paperwork. People are threatening, feel threatened that if I'm going to get caught if I don't do this right according to excessive force or racial profiling. It is a lot of stress on officers dealing with the NSA. I did see in the report that authorized lieutenant, 28, but we have 29 filled. Is there some reason why we're doing this? I am concerned that we have 17 officers in the training division. In the last Academy we had 15 students. Internal affairs, we have 23. I just don't understand and maybe there's a justification for all these people. Ceasefire. We have 46 special operations, 18 traffic operations, 16, let's see, special victim sections, 31 offices. I'd just like to have some clarity on these numbers, high numbers and what is actually going on related to their work as it relates to the people who are on leave. You have some people are on leave, on duty and off duty. Could that be broken down? Of the 67 on duty means that they still are doing something in the department. Then you have time on leave. Two plus years is the report. What's the maximum number of people we have on leave? How many years?
[63:29] Speaker 1: Thank you for your comments. Ms. Assad, switching to Zoom User Rajni, you can unmute yourself and begin your comments.
[63:37] Speaker 2: Hi, Roshni Mondel, District 4. There's one thing I noticed in the report. We have a retention problem. We lost about 78 officers last year. And many, as we have discussed, are leaving for other agencies. But exit interviews in the report point to working conditions, including discipline and the impact of NSA oversight. So the same time, even with new academies, staffing is projected to keep going down. So we are budgeting for officers we are not on track to keep. So to be clear, crime going down does not mean we need fewer officers. It means we have a chance to stabilize. So the question is, what do we do differently? First, align the budget with Reality Fund to achievable staffing, not authorized strength. Second, focus on retention, not just recruitment. And third, ensure our oversight system supports timely, fair and predictable discipline so it strengthens and not undermines staffing and constitutional policing. If we don't address the root issues, more spending on academies or overtime won't fix this. Thank you.
[64:42] Speaker 1: Thank you for your comments, Chair. That concludes all speakers on this item.
[64:45] Speaker 3: Okay. All right, Councilmember Houston. And then I would love to wrap this item up.
[64:49] Speaker 5: Yeah, we can wrap it up. So. But let me share this with you. Correct me if I'm wrong about this part on testing. Testing or officers. Why do our officers have to go online and pay for testing? And why do they have to go outside of Oakland to test? And San Francisco allows them to come and do tests and Alameda county allows them to go test. We're not welcoming that. Correct me if I'm wrong. Tell me about the testing piece of that, please. And who could correct that if I'm right?
[65:22] Speaker 9: So through the chair, the city of Oakland does not offer in person testing. So therefore, candidates, they can go to another agency and you can select multiple departments that you want your test results to be forwarded to or they. So that's basically what it boils down to. Right now, the city does not offer in person testing for the police officer trainee position.
[65:50] Speaker 5: Thank you. So listen to this. That's not welcoming. Alameda County Sheriff, they come in and test. San Francisco, they come in and test. We got to go online or go to another agency to take the test. Why don't we change that so we're more welcoming. Come and take the test in the town. Right? Just like Alameda Sheriff, like San Francisco. That's where our people going, right? So what I'm saying is this. Well, come in, come and take this test.
[66:18] Speaker 3: Do, do we offer it online. The test.
[66:21] Speaker 5: Yes, online, do.
[66:22] Speaker 3: Okay.
[66:22] Speaker 5: San Francisco allows them to come in. When you go online, you got to pay for it. San Francisco allows them to come. Alameda county sheriff come on in and take the test. You meet people, shake their hand. It's personal.
[66:35] Speaker 9: What are we?
[66:36] Speaker 3: Yeah, that. And I will say that I think our in person locations are actually very far away. I got a list of the locations and it was like, this is. This is a barrier.
[66:47] Speaker 4: So.
[66:48] Speaker 5: But what's far away? Council member can do.
[66:51] Speaker 3: You know, I think I saw San
[66:51] Speaker 5: Mateo, San Jose area.
[66:54] Speaker 3: Okay.
[66:54] Speaker 9: San.
[66:55] Speaker 5: Why can't we come to Oakland and test? You know, they do the testing. They come.
[67:01] Speaker 3: Do you all want to take that?
[67:02] Speaker 5: They do the written test.
[67:04] Speaker 9: So through the chair, part of it is staffing. So it's not only finding a location that is big enough to accommodate the test. You also have to have not only OPD staff, but staff from the human resources management department as well. So that's another barrier that exists that prevents the city from offering in person testing at this time.
[67:26] Speaker 5: And through the chair. That's not towards you. That's not towards you. I'm saying what we doing wrong and hurting you. We should be doing more for you. We complain why we got people leaving, why we're not in person. Why, why, why did. Come on. It's right in front of us.
[67:42] Speaker 3: Something that we found that we got a report on in this morning's finance and management committee is how deeply understaffed
[67:49] Speaker 8: the human resources we making through the chair.
[67:52] Speaker 5: I'm done. We make simple things difficult. Yeah, we make simple things difficult. They said it's 558, 000 other people spend and we. We spend 120, 000 and we complaining. Oh, why do we lose them? Oh, why aren't they coming? Come on.
[68:08] Speaker 2: Yeah.
[68:09] Speaker 3: Are you going to make a motion? Council member Houston.
[68:11] Speaker 5: Motion to accept it.
[68:16] Speaker 3: Okay, I'll second that.
[68:21] Speaker 1: Thank you. We have a motion made by council member Houston, seconded by chair Wong to approve the recommendations of staff and to receive and file this in committee on roll. Council members Brown.
[68:31] Speaker 9: Aye.
[68:32] Speaker 8: Aye.
[68:33] Speaker 1: Houston.
[68:33] Speaker 5: Aye.
[68:34] Speaker 1: And chair Wong, I thank you. Item number four passes with four eyes to receive and file this informational report and committee item reading in item 5. Adopt a resolution approving the Oakland Police Department vehicle GPS tracker surveillance use policy and surveillance impact report. And we have three speakers that signed up to speak on this item.
[68:57] Speaker 7: Evening, council. I'm sergeant Yan Zao. I work for the homicide section of the Oakland Police Department. I'm here to, you know, introduce the OPD's vehicle GPS tracker surveillance use policy and the impact report policy. I33 the policy has been reviewed by PAC last month and passed unanimously. It governs OPD's use of GPS tracker in criminal investigations. It starts and any of these use pretty much starts or ends with a search warrant. And that's the kind of oversight we want in terms of this. I have to the reports here. So at that point I will move on to questions from the council.
[69:40] Speaker 3: Okay. And just as a comment to my colleagues, one of the things that I have been trying to schedule is the use of GPS tracking technology in the police cars themselves. Because we know that is going to be key to reducing our nine call times. I've been working with ACA Phillips to get that scheduled. That is not what this is about. If that wasn't clear in the in the staff report as well as the written report questions, colleagues, was there a public comment? Let's move to that.
[70:16] Speaker 1: Calling in the names that sign up to speak on item five. Assada Olavala, David Peters and Jennifer Finley. If you're here with us in chamber, you can come up to the podium or if you are on zoom, please raise your hand to be easily identified.
[70:37] Speaker 2: This report reveals that the Privacy Commission incorporated revisions into the final draft. It is my position that the Privacy Commission is overbearing the police department. So I would have liked to have seen what were the revisions that they put into this final draft of policy. I have been to Privacy Commission meetings and you have the ability to recognize that the Police Commission is overbearing or overstepping in many ways. But I say the Privacy Commission has too much to do with policing. And I think that is a problem. You can't say it. I know you wish you could, but we need to step into the arena to check the Privacy Commission on how they are and it says recommend. So did their recommendations have to be put in or who has the ability to say the Privacy Commission recommendations will not be accepted? I think when they make a recommendation, that's it. They don't have the right to do that. So somebody step up and check the Privacy Commission like you are willing to check the Police Commission.
[72:08] Speaker 1: Thank you for your comments, Chair. All names have been called at this time.
[72:12] Speaker 3: Okay, great. So it's my understanding that what this is doing is that we already have this technology in place, but that our use policy was being updated to conform to some of the state laws or the state standards. I couldn't quite understand in the report. What exactly were Modified trying to conform. Can you just explain that we did
[72:36] Speaker 7: not have a policy before this. This established a use policy and basically the tracking requirement and reporting requirement of OPD's use of this technology at criminal investigations. So established that at the program and the annual reporting requirement. So that kind of qualified reading that the municipal code wants OPD to do in terms of user surveillance that they technology.
[72:59] Speaker 3: Okay, gotcha. And then to follow up on the Mississata's question was were there any modifications this following the Privacy Advisory Commission.
[73:09] Speaker 5: Yes, ma'.
[73:10] Speaker 3: Am.
[73:10] Speaker 7: Very minor in this case. What they wanted was to add a line in that says if we had an exigent use of GPS tracker and a judge denies the warrant to this extra use, they would like to be a advise at the next meeting, which OBD agree with.
[73:27] Speaker 3: I see. And then just practically speaking, to understand how this technology is used, especially in an exigent situation. That was noted in the report. Is it. Sorry to sound silly about it, but does an officer just go up and like put in the tracker, sneak it in and then is that how that works or they put it under the hood or how does that. That work?
[73:52] Speaker 7: Well, it's in use. Well, I don't. I don't want to give you the exact how it's done in that sense, but it. It is something we install onto a vehicle. But in this. In the. But we're not like taking a chainsaw through a vehicle and like cutting open stuff and putting it. It is somewhere we try to install in the vehicle without notice.
[74:15] Speaker 3: Okay. And I. And it's discreet. I assume soon. Okay. Council Member Houston.
[74:21] Speaker 5: So in my. My morning briefing, Trinity and myself was looking. Is this tracking suspects or is this tracking police officers? I couldn't find it.
[74:32] Speaker 7: It's tracking suspects with the use of a search warrant. Okay. Or in most cases, except for exigency. So it's for criminal investigations and we're tracking suspects or somehow.
[74:43] Speaker 5: Right.
[74:43] Speaker 7: Okay, whatever.
[74:44] Speaker 5: Got it. Thank you so much.
[74:48] Speaker 3: Okay, great. And yes, Council Member Brown.
[74:52] Speaker 4: Excellent. And then just for clarity, it. The new policy will now basically state that for these kind of extreme circumstances where this tech is being used without the. Without the use of a warrant, there will now be reporting of that.
[75:11] Speaker 3: Is that correct?
[75:14] Speaker 7: We never had reporting of trackers, GPS trackers by the police department. This will start that.
[75:19] Speaker 9: I see. Okay, perfect.
[75:21] Speaker 4: Thank you.
[75:24] Speaker 3: Okay. And then I think how many devices are we. This is also not a contract. Right. This is just the use policy. But how many devices do we have at the police department?
[75:37] Speaker 7: I believe we have Probably a dozen or maybe less. They're exploring right now in which vendor they want to stick with. So, therefore, we are passing the policy and the reporting requirement while they try to figure out what vendor to go with.
[75:50] Speaker 3: Okay. And these are reusable, I assume. Are they often recovered, or do you find that, you know, frequently these trackers get destroyed or, you know, because of they were in a car chase, things like that.
[76:06] Speaker 7: They're recoverable and reusable, but it kind of just like it. It's by luck, a sheer chance where, like, someone finds it or they break. They tend to last a relatively decent amount of time. But that's, you know, I could have just jinxed it. And we're going to lose all of them tomorrow.
[76:20] Speaker 3: Okay. And separately, you will all be coming back to council for a. For a contract?
[76:26] Speaker 7: That's correct, ma'.
[76:27] Speaker 8: Am. Right.
[76:27] Speaker 3: Okay, great. I will.
[76:30] Speaker 8: Oh, Council Member Fife, this is just an overarching statement that right now at the federal level, we're dealing with some really serious issues of violation of people's privacy where Palantir and there is big. Well, the point is we should be very concerned about how and who is behind buying access to all of our privacy. And even though it's limited, in many cases, we do need some safeguards to make sure folks are protected, because particularly with this federal government, people's civil rights are being violated on a regular basis, and it's only a matter of time before people who have dissenting opinions. We're watching journalists being attacked by this federal government. They're trying to access massive data stores to get people's information. And we've seen historically what happens in these situations. So while it may seem uncomfortable, I'm grateful for the individuals who are still concerned with civil liberties and how to protect people as much as possible around our privacy. It matters. I just wanted to say that for the record.
[77:44] Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you, Council Member 5. I will entertain a motion. Fine. I will make a motion to adopt the staff recommendation.
[77:57] Speaker 1: Thank you. We have a motion made by Chair Wong, seconded by council member Houston, to approve the recommendations of staff and to forward this item to the April 14, 2026, special city council agenda at 3:30pm p.m. on roll, council members Brown.
[78:10] Speaker 8: Hi.
[78:11] Speaker 1: 5, aye, Houston. And chair Wong.
[78:15] Speaker 3: Aye.
[78:16] Speaker 1: Thank you. Item number five passes with four eyes to forward this item to the April 14, 2026,. Special city council agenda at 3:30pm on consent. Moving to open forum, calling in the names that signed up to speak. Ms. Sada Olabala, David Boatwright, Jennifer Finley, and Rajni Mandal.
[78:40] Speaker 2: They know I'm telling the truth about that privacy commission. All right, anyone sitting at this podium, don't come in my face and talk about my health like Fife did. That's none of your business. I have a health condition. And you don't say that. I'm incompetent because I have a health problem. Don't say that. And don't talk to me anymore except on that mic. Besides that, stay away from me and I'll stay away from you. Fife. Mrs. Hobson, there is. What's the matter, Precious?
[79:12] Speaker 3: I. If you have an issue, I ask. Stop the clock.
[79:16] Speaker 2: It was on 32.
[79:19] Speaker 9: Okay, you wanna.
[79:20] Speaker 2: You wanna say something? Put my time back to 32 and say whatever you have to say.
[79:25] Speaker 3: Just. If you have an issue with someone, please talk with them privately.
[79:30] Speaker 2: No, no, I don't follow that rule. I say what I have to say. Public.
[79:34] Speaker 3: Okay.
[79:37] Speaker 2: Visas are one of the main reasons why we have people in this country illegally. 40 to 60% of the people came here on visas and overstayed. We think it's people coming into the country. In this city of Oakland, we have a substantial number. Most of them are Mexicans, 30 something percent. Then there's the Chinese with 18%. We have to look at visas. And are you going to protect people who have overstayed their visas with the sanctuary city ordinance?
[80:11] Speaker 1: Thank you for your comments, Mr. Boatwright. Do you still wish to speak? Okay, switching to Zoom user. Rajni, you can unmute yourself and begin your comment. Rajni. Last call for Rajni Mondal. I see your hand raised. I've allowed you to permission to unmute yourself. Okay, Chair. At this time, all names have been called.
[80:54] Speaker 3: Okay. All right. Well, this meeting is adjourned. Thanks, everyone.
[81:10] Speaker 2: Sa.