The Oakland Observer@Oak_Observer
Nov 4, 2025
90 tweets
About to start a special 9 am city council mtg, ostensibly scheduled to not interfere with election day. But perhaps as also intended, there are no people in chamber as important legislation that changes Rules of Procedure, grants 1 MM/yr contract to ICE-contracting company is up
Meeting has started
5 CMs are present, three excused at start. Ramachandran is chairing.
CAO moves to pull the 27th complete streets and reschedule it to 12/2. Council votes to move the item, but worth noting, JR added to reschedule on consent, but it on non-consent on this agenda
Fife voted no on pulling rescheduling and Unger paused his vote to ask why its being pulled. OakDOT's Rowan says: "there was inappropriate effort to bid protest through committee last week...we're asking for time so that we can address this request properly and bring it back"
CMs were satisfied with the response, and Fife said she would change her vote after hearing the explanation. There was six votes on that, but I didn't catch who arrived aftre being logged as absent. Complete 27th Complete Streets goes to 12/2 on consent
There's several more people in chambers now. Houston has arrived, I believe the only missing CM is Jenkins, oddly, because the Rules of Procedure changes are co-written, he and JR.
A lot of the public speakers here to talk about a support resolution for state legislation "Polluters Pay Climate Superfund Act"
Speaker here to ask for reopening of West Oakland Senior Center.
If anyone was watching closely, they'd notice that the Council uses their own bias to give some speakers additional time.
Houston tried to extend time to speaker, but Ramachandran basically said he could not use his time this way.
Gene Hazard is back to having no favorites on Council asking why there's a meeting on election day "where is the urgency...this meeting is a bogus meeting and you knew there would be sparse attendance"
Several are here to speak out against the SABA grocers suit settlement, claiming the program has corruption and improper payments and card use.
Jennifer Findlay on Zoom: "it is really unfortunate to say the least that this meeting is being held at 9am..." and noting that 12 items did not go to committee before being placed on agenda "lack of transparency, and clear intent to avoid scrutiny from public" changing mtgs, etc
That's it for public speakers. Now CM comments.
I am not sure what Houston is talking about, but complaining about commentary vs him "I don't appreciate people saying things that aren't true to my staff", in reference to 27th complete streets. Not sure if this was public or private.
Pretty surprised the asphalt item didn't have any community complaints during this period.
Fife actually just logged a no vote on 5.14, the asphalt contract with ICE-contracting Martin Marietta. She says there's legislation coming that will impact it. Houston also voted no on it w/out explanation, on complete streets because of the issues he brought up earlier.
Now on to the General Plan extension request. Its a public hearing.
Gallo constantly claims that the Council only finds out about budget concerns after the fact, but the Finance Dept gives a quarterly update that he apparently does not read, because as he has said, he and all of his staffers are picking up trash instead.
Ramachandran requested a five minute recess because of audio issues...on return, new rules of procedure are up
Meeting is starting again.
My mistake, the next item is actually the 27th complete streets project...it was pulled, but public comment is still required.
Only one speaker there, and on to the Council Rules of Procedure. We'll see how this goes, it was meant to be discussed in full at Rules, twice, and both times the committee declined to speak on it.
Ramachandran is giving a presentation, its her legislation, tho Jenkins name is on it. JR began the changes over a year ago, they went dormant for almost a year before coming back
Ramachandran's timeline. In 2024, most of her amendments were unpopular and she stood down on them.
This is a big shift on consent, non-consent, meeting will begin with Non Consent at 3:30pm. But the way things end up on the calendars will change, and give inordinate discretion to the Rules Chair, not the committee
JR says that "we've received CM feedback to keep it status quo..." Jr says she's thus pulling this from the legislation.
Removing ceremonial items as standalone items
JR says that this is only clarifying that Rules has ultimate role of choosing what goes to non consent and consent, but removing the role of a unanimous decision is likely to have consequences.
Most members of the public will only be able to participate in non consent calendar in this iteration, but given that it takes about 15 minutes to read that in and vote, it's unlikely also.
Houston is following up on the new rule that would obviate the Committee's will. JR is couching this as it being the will of the committee, but ultimately its the choice of the Rules Committee, and actually the Chair.
The way the rule works right now, is that when there's no unanimity, it means its a controversial item. If there's unanimity, it's described as non-controversial, consent
CAO's Michael Branson explaining that the Rules Committee already has the discretion. But the change would hide the conflict between Rules and the individual committees when there's disparity.
JR is arguing that meetings go too late. I do think that people expect to stay up late when something is important, as opposed to not being able to do that at all.
Houston gives his comment thru prism of EAP: "the people that came to speak against it don't speak for us..." because it was too early.
There's only four speakers here, not surprisingly, it's a 9 am meeting. The irony can be served with cake utensils.
As a follower just pointed out, the City's own law says that meetings "should" be held in the evening, because its largely understood that despite the probability of going late, this is the best time for most public participation.
Given what I've seen when there is mostly quiet from CMs on an item, this is likely going to pass. We'll see if Fife's friendly amendment that keeps the times for Consent and Non Consent as current gets traction [if I've understood it accurately]
Brook Levin complains about the 24 hour notice for e comment or zoom, notes that it makes it hard to comment on special meetings "today's meeting, agenda was published Friday"..."having special mtgs popping up with irregular times is very hard for public to track"
Jennifer Findlay: "we need consistency and opportunity to speak, later meetings...now we've got twelve things that went to Consent with Rule 24...meant to go to committee...as JR said, this is effectively a yes vote"
Findlay says that its still confusing that EAP went to Public Safety..."there's just too many things going to consent...public gets limited time per item"
JR says that the special meetings and going thru committee wouldn't be changed with new rules.
Fife reiterates her friendly amendment keeping non consent as is, and after 5pm: "i've been coming to this body consistently for 11 years...sometimes we'd be here til 1 am...it allows the public to know that they can get off work, be here, speak..."
Fife: says she hears public "expressing concerns with how all these issues come together and limit ability of public to engage"...that's what a lot of people did, it's not just the changes, its that they exacerbate many ongoing issues.
Brown: "what my hope would be is that as we be more consistent" and not have early morning special meetings. Brown says she's interested in seeing how proposed changes impact flow of the meeting. Brown is supportive of the changes.
Wang says she's seconding Fife's amendment, says that people working a job. It's not typical to do this, but JR is disputing the logic behind her argument as she says this.
[I think that nation wide, the public expects to go to an all night city council meeting when things are important. Its imperfect, but its the model that feels most comfortable to people, and its literally in the City's laws that meetings should be in evening]
Giving JR the role of Chair tonight has allowed her to rebut every argument against her rules changes
"Today" it is morning after all
Wang says she's seen meetings not going very late, as JR argues the 2 am. "I haven't seen that play out"...I'm worried that this change could be reverse" of public participation.
Unger says there's no perfect solutions, some workers can come in early, some late. "I do know that am not at my best at midnight...I would rather it be earlier...i do acknowledge whatever we do, we're going to leave some people out...I appreciate comments about predictability"
Houston refers to 24 hour limit on zoom & asks if that can be changed. Clerk "we use a system that is outside of the city of Oakland for people to sign up to speak...when the council has regular meetings, members of public have 13 days to sign up..." special mtgs put that in flux
I am not sure what Wang's friendly amendment is, hopefully they'll read it in.
Fife asks Clerk if she recalls any time over the past year or so where the meeting has gone on to wee hours. Clerk answers that since 3:30 start time, its not happened. "I don't recall [late mtgs] in recent history"
Fife says she agrees that someone is not going to be happy, but she would err on side of giving public evening time: "consent has been extremely over-burdened, it forces people to condense on substantive matters" as well
Fife is calling the question on her amendment. "on Rule 7" which would keep consent, non consent as is
OCA gets into procedural issues, so Wang has seconded Fife's motion to keep consent, non consent in order as is, w/5pm start time for Non Consent. [or 4:30? confusing]
JR makes a substitute motion to changing start time to 4, with non consent first.
JR's substitute motion must be heard first, her proposal is a "compromise" keeping the changes where non consent is heard first, but at 4pm.
Fife's motion was to change the start time for non consent to be no earlier than 4:30pm, instead of 5pm; JR's substitute motion would be to have the meeting start at 4:30 with non consent first
That clarification was needed, there was a lot of not finishing sentences in both proposals.
Vote continues on JR's sub motion: brown, aye; fife, no; Gallo absent; Houston abstains; Unger yes; Wang, no; JR yes; the motion failed
JR wants to make another substitute motion [that does not seem right, but okay]. Fife "is there another substitute, substitute motion going on right now?"
Doesn't seem like that should be possible, but okay. Wang seconded it. It would move the start time to 4:15pm. Fife, my motion is to maintain the existing order...these games were playing right now..." JR snapped at her saying, "you've done it before, now I'm doing it"
Fife, no; Brown, aye; Houston, no; Unger, no; Wang, yes; JR, yes. Motion fails again. JR then makes another substitute motion, for the original proposal, her own proposal. Also doesn't seem like you should be able to do this.
This would be JR's third substitute motion. But I didn't hear a second on this.
Now Wang is confused about what she's voting on. [one of the most irresponsibly led meetings I've ever seen]
JR's third sub motion didn't get a second, and JR "removed" hers. Clerk said that it's becoming confusing, and "for clarity for public, so there's no confusion" asks Fife to restate her original motion.
Fife's motion: maintain status quo...on start times, and non consent, consent staying the same
Unger says he's for the original proposal, but wants to vote on Fife's motion first out of fairness to the process. But now they've lost quorum, Fife and Houston stepped off dais.
[IMO, three attempted substitute motions by one person was very irresponsible, and abuse of presiding role by JR which was not even voted on by full body]
That might be it for the meeting if they lost quorum for good? [jesus]
Okay, Houston and Fife returned...
Council nearly lost quorum after JR tried three substitute motions to prevent Fife's from even being heard. Her last substitute motion was moving her own original legislation with a minor difference. No one supported that.
OCA restates Fife's motion, to keep the consent, non consent, 5pm start time as is. But then Houston says "I want to skip over this and go on to grand jury"
Now CMs are confused. OCA explains, if Fife's motion passes, it will be what passes finally. If it fails, there can be another motion. All this to keep the motion from being heard.
Brown, no; fife, aye; Houston; abstain; Gallo, absent; Unger, no; Wang, aye; JR, no; Fife's motion fails with vote of two ayes, three noes, one abstention, one absence
Brown aye; Fife no; Gallo, absent; Houston, aye; Unger, yes; Wang; no; JR, yes. It's a tie vote because absence counts as no. Mayor will have to break the tie, and if she declines item would fail. It may or not happen at this meeting.
Now on to the 911 response. It's required, but it may not get much discussion
Just to be clearer, due to Measure X, Gallo and Jenkins absences both count as no votes for the sake of determining an effective tie.
My sense is that Lee will decline to weigh in, because of the reality its Council's Rules of Procedure.
We are on to the response to Grand Jury. Will have minimal reporting on this.
Good for Fife for bringing up the elephant in the room, who is the Grand Jury. They are just a bunch of people who apply, then decide what's important to investigate. "and do they report on other cities other than Oakland, it seems like we take up a lot of their attention"
Fife pushing back against the GJ's report recommendations that SLBE is a hindrance to infrastructure. Rowan says that asphalt is difficult due to high bar of investment, but concrete is different
OO has shown more than once that GJ opinions are often based on "facts" and assumptions that are factually incorrect.
Wang
said that the majority of the Grand Jury appears to be white.
We are going back to the report on the Caltrans Vision 980 feasibility study, Caltrans is giving the overview+ 580 truck access study
That's it for me at the meeting. Early, convoluted, weird. Headline, Rules of Procedure changes haven't changed, the vote tied. It's up to Mayor Lee to break it, if she chooses.
The Oakland Observer
@Oak_Observer
OO's Council & Commissions reporting & newsletter links as they are published. 1 time tips in lieu of subs: https://t.co/ZGsgBzBI3p
Missing some tweets in this thread? Or failed to load images or videos? You can try to .