Today's Rules could be more impactful than most--members vote on recommending big changes to public participation; hold literal future of Police Commission in their hands on reappointments; will consider legal rep for employees; & schedule big surveillance upgrade legislation

First off, not a very helpful notice here. Kind of struck by how literally untransparent this is

Here's the schedule. So I guess the meeting could start anywhere from now until 12:30 or even later. At this point, this reporter has to assume that lack of regard for the public in making meetings accessible is intentional.

I see some Rules members trickling in now, so I guess it will start soon

I already see some regulars from the Oakland Police Commission in the seating area, including staff members. This may prove interesting

Looks like Jenkins move on Farmer's reappointment to OPC is going to be pretty strongly contested. There have been only a few Black men appointed to the commission, so it's striking to have watched a nearly all white group be able to sway so significantly Farmer's reappointment.

At the Selection Panel meeting where Farmer was finally voted in again, there were about 15 people speaking in favor of Farmer, and that's quite a lot for a Selection Panel meeting

The meeting still has not started, nearly a half hour late. Given the delays, the community presence here for Farmer is even more striking.

Okay, meeting has started, 25 minutes late, accepting speakers cards until 11:05

They will be taking item 6, the selection panel reappointments first, before regular scheduling. Jenkins said "because of the number of speakers" they're limiting speakers to 1.5 minutes, said they may lose quorum

so OPC selection panel appointments first.

Jenkins immediately moved approval "waived" presentation.

So hastily trying to get out from under the screw up on this item, they were literally already voting before realizing they have to take public comment.

John Jones III noted that the Commission is already short on Commissioners, and would face difficulties on police chief selection...

Paula Hawthorne, who co-chaired with Farmer on the Measure Z oversight body, sang his praises and noted they shouldn't even be having this convo.

Wilson Riles, co-commissioner with Farmer, compares the current commission to previous, noting the composition of the current is far better; says "criticisms are bogus"

Speaker is one of the Selection Panel members, who notes that they had a rigorous process, and followed all the rules and requirements, and that any complaint should have been brough to Ethics, not Selection Panel. Very stern response here

Millie Cleveland says that this is clearly an attempt to impede the Police Commission

Speaker says that the complaints about reappointments are just "ongoing Trumpfication even locally"

John Lindsay Poland asks for the OCA to weigh in on when the clock started on Charter time limit for appointments

Ann Jenks reading a statement from the Chair of the Selection Panel, chastising the rebuttal to their appointment

Rajni Mandal is the only person to complain about Garcia Acosta and Farmer today. Mandal claims to represent "1000" residents, but is almost always alone at mtgs, and at best has brought about half a dozen community members. She's here alone again.

Mandal is appears to be the person who sent the letter to Jenkins asking him to send Farmer/Garcia Acosta slate back, as she just claimed

Fife said the item should go to consent "the selection panel has done what they're supposed to do...I suggest we have the debate now or move to consent" and also asked about when the 60 day clock began

City Attorney Richardson, reading the 60 day time limit in the charter. "the question is when does that clock start to run...when was the slate submitted to city council...the first day it appears on agenda that is the most fair point" this first appeared on September 25..."

Richardson noting that the item need only go to full council, Houston, who is not on committee, wants it to go non consent "I'd like to weigh in on this"...so now they have to adjourn into full meeting.

Houston: "I have a bunch to say about the Police Commission, about why the Chief resigned...I want to weigh in on this, I'd like this to go to non-consent"

Fife: "I have concerns about the legitimacy of the letter" sent to Council. She says its not up to the council to get in the way of the Selection Panel "the issue being raised today about the OPC over all should not impact our decision on slate"

Fife: "If we have concerns about the role of the OPC, that's a separate item...I'd like to see this item on consent"

Jenkins voted for it to be on non-consent. Brown also voted for it to be non-consent. Fife voted against sending it to non-consent.

Despite Jenkins' insistence that item be discussed at Rules in a previous Rules meeting, Jenkins did not encourage any discussion and did not weigh in on the slate. There was no discussion, making the delay to put it on the consideration agenda for Rules appear obstructive only

Reading in the scheduling items. There are still three discussion items left after they run through normal scheduling, one of them is the new rules proposal, and the other OCA's proposal for legal protections for employees in performance of duty

Wang, who is not the author of the item, asked for the Flock surveillance camera item to bypass committee and go to full council on first reading. Remarkable. Committee did not accept the request, which Jenkins conveyed.

Speaker Rajni Mandal also wanted the surveillance item to go straight to council, in a comment that is becoming a pattern. The Oakland Report contributing author seems to put forth similar desires as some council people who have made their reputations as "public safety focused"

Houston's staffer just requested a special city council meeting for 10/27 for the EAP, even though its currently in the Public Safety Committee pending list. The number of attempts to short circuit public engagement on important issues...I've never seen anything like this

Fife says she has already requested the week off for travelling and won't be at the proposed meeting. OCA says that the scheduling request would be to take it off pending list to special meeting.

Ramachandran asked for the attendance issue to be considered...it's not going to be scheduled yet...but given what we've seen this only means is that the scheduling will be even less transparent.

Brown noting that there is already a schedule of council meetings..."my personal preference is if we would like the entire body to weigh in on the EAP, it should be scheduled to a time and date already noticed and public is expecting"

Jenkins claims that he's concerned about how long it would take to have the meeting instead..."I'll do my best to address everybody's concern and to make sure that it gets the urgency it deserves"

Houston's request would mean that there would be two council meetings back to back, a Monday and a Tuesday. But it looks like the date would not be set today.

Now on to the OCA's legal representation proposal. Staffer noting that Council will still have ultimate say about the representation; no guarantee of rep for any specific official...ac has to be in duty, good faith and without actual malice and in interest of city

Ramachandran says she trusts OCA to use the powers responsibly.

Fife asks if there is any potential to represent former officials. OCA could do that, "but it must meet the high bar under state law, must be interest of city, scope of duties, acted in good faith w/out actual malice" cases involving fraud, corruption would not meet criteria

Rules forwarded the item to Council, wild that they are sending this to consent but not the triple vetted selection panel reappointments.

Now on to Rules of Procedure item. It looks like they've struck the additional presiding officer portion

JR will give the presentation:

JR previously proposed amendments, but they did not look like this

JR is proposing this as something that will respect everyone's time, including public.

The changes would switch the non consent to the placement of consent, removes 5pm limitation on non consent; items would need majority vote to move to non consent, currently its just a motion and a second

Ceremonial items would no longer be held at Council as stand alone items with no ceremony. This has already been happening.

Would give Rules ultimate power over whether something goes to consent or non consent...that already exists. It basically means that a committee will no longer have an expectation that the will of the committee has any bearing in any case

the proposed order of business

Fife noting that this may not be the best day to have robust discussion and asks if there is urgency...and there is none, but Fife is travelling next week, Fife voices concerns, but feels rushed

Fife: questions around standing committee "what problem does it solve"; modifications of agenda..."I can't do this in this way...happy to have a full conversation. Substantive issues need to be worked out at committee level before they come to council

Jenkins said they're willing to go to full city council on November 4, but work on it before then. Worth noting, this meeting is going long because Jenkins scheduled the selection panel item for full discussion, then didn't discuss it.

Fife noted that the substantive changes haven't been available since last year as Ramachandran argued for expediting the changes, these were introduced a few weeks ago.

Its being continued to October 30 Rules, but also being scheduled directly to Council as well for November 4

The legislative calendar for next year isn't going to be very controversial. Jenkins gave Clerk Reed 45 seconds on timer. notes, coincides spring recesses of council and OUSD.

Calendar forwarded

Almost no criticism made today about Police Commission is actually accurate, and its provable. But Council is just going along with the pretense. There's an immense public response against this, while CMs pretend they can't see them and only a purported phantom email list