Oakland Public Safety Committee Meeting – February 24, 2026
Oakland Public Safety Committee Meeting – February 24, 2026
The Public Safety Committee met on Tuesday, February 24, 2026, at 6:01 PM to consider several items including police department surveillance technology reports, the Skelly hearing backlog, and contracts for the fire department. The meeting was chaired by Councilmember Wong. All four voting members (Brown, Fife, Houston, Wong) were present for most votes, with Councilmember Houston absent for items 3 and 4. Significant progress was reported on reducing the Skelly backlog, and a discrepancy in case counts between OPD and CPRA was identified.
Consent Calendar
- Item 1 – Approval of Minutes (February 10, 2026): Approved 4-0.
- Item 2 – Determination of Schedule: Approved 4-0. Overtime item noted for Finance and Management Committee on March 10, 2026.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Rajni Mandal (District 4): Expressed support for OPD’s annual surveillance reports, stating oversight is working. Supported expanding drone program for first response and urged continuation of current technologies.
- Tuan Yo: Criticized the time spent by OPD on privacy commission reporting, arguing resources should focus on excessive force and racial profiling. Also noted the value of Flock cameras in public safety.
- Asada Olawala: Raised concerns about immigration enforcement and data from rent registry, but supported Flock cameras, citing 2,200 criminals removed daily and 99.5% of 5,000+ communities using the technology. Later, during open forum, thanked Councilmember Fife for allowing Director Lawson more time and urged impartiality in Skelly hearings.
- Pamela Drake (Item 6): Supported CPRA’s recommendation to move Skelly hearings outside OPD, citing impartiality and high costs of officers on administrative leave ($2.4 million annually for nine officers).
- Millie Cleveland (Item 6): Opposed outsourcing Skelly hearings, arguing OPD’s 73% backlog reduction (169 to 46 cases) was due to using sworn officers and technology, not civilian staff. Called the CPRA proposal a “power grab.”
Discussion Items
- Item 5 – OPD Surveillance Technology Annual Reports (2024): Accepted reports for seven technologies (ALPR, crime lab biometrics, FLIR, live stream transmitters, UAS/drones, forensic logic/trace systems, pen registers). Lieutenant Gabriel Urquiza described delays due to the priority on the Flock policy before PAC. OPD noted 51–52 agencies shared Flock data in 2024. Councilmembers asked about drone deployment results (29 missions in 2024, mostly for yard searches and barricaded suspects) and crime lab case processing (352 cases in 2024, 414 in 2025). A data strategy manager position is being developed. The resolution to continue use was forwarded to City Council (4-0).
- Item 6 – Informational Report on Skelly Hearing Backlog: Chief Beer and Captain Hubbard reported a reduction from 169 pending Skelly cases in October 2024 to 46 cases (involving 64 officers) as of January 2026 – a 73% decrease. Four officers are pending termination. Administrative leave was reduced from 38 to 14 (minus two on critical incident leave). Improvements included digital file management, expanded hearing officer training (18 trained, aiming for 30), and bi‑weekly executive review. CPRA Director Antonio Lawson disputed the count, stating 87 cases appeared on his weekly report (likely including individual officers, not cases). He recommended contracting outside hearing officers for impartiality and cost savings. Councilmembers noted the discrepancy and requested a follow-up report within two months. The item was received and filed (4-0).
- Items 3 and 4 – OFD Contracts (postponed then heard):
- Item 3 – Stryker Equipment Purchase: $3,409,389 over five years for advanced life support equipment (Lucas devices, cardiac monitors). Funded primarily by Measure IN. Waiver of competitive bidding due to staff recommendation. Approved (3-0, Houston absent) and forwarded to City Council.
- Item 4 – Image Trend RMS Software: $1,369,243 for a new emergency response information system to comply with NERIS standards. Waiver of competitive solicitation. Approved (3-0, Houston absent) and forwarded to City Council.
Key Outcomes
- Votes: All action items (1, 2, 5, 6, 3, 4) passed unanimously (4-0 or 3-0 with Houston excused).
- Referral: Items 3, 4, and 5 will appear on the March 3, 2026 City Council agenda (consent calendar).
- Follow-up: A new informational report on Skelly hearing progress is requested within two months (April 2026) to reconcile case counts and evaluate ongoing reforms.
- Personnel Announcement: Antonio Lawson confirmed as permanent Executive Director of CPRA.
Meeting Transcript
Good evening and welcome to the public safety committee meeting of Tuesday, February 24th, 2026. The time is now 6.01 pm, and this meeting may come to order. Sorry, before taking role, I will provide instructions on how to submit a speaker card for items on this agenda. If you're here with us in chamber, would like to submit a speaker card, please fill one out and turn one into myself or a clerk representative no later than ten 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. Houston? And Chair Wong. Chair, before we begin, do you have any announcements at this time? Uh no, I don't. Let's go ahead and proceed. Okay. Starting off with item one, approval of the draft minutes from the committee meeting held on Tuesday, February 10th, 2026. And we have no speakers at signed up. Okay. Councilmember Brown. I'll move approval of the minutes. Second. Thank you. We have a motion made by Councilmember Brown. Seconded by Councilmember Five to accept, sorry, to accept the draft minutes from February 10, 2026 on roll. Council members Brown. Aye. Five. Aye. Houston. Aye. And Chair Wong. Aye. Thank you. Item number one passes with four ayes to accept the draft minutes from February 10th, 2026. Reading in item two, determination of schedule about standing committee items. And we do have two speakers that signed up. Okay. We'll go to public comment. Calling in the names that signed up to speak on item number two, Rajni Mandal and Asada Olawala. I know that it is California law that every high school that has an athletic program must have at least one defibrillator and on the campus. My question is what is the mandate? I didn't find anything for governing bodies. A policy for defibrillators to be available at city facilities. Is there an existing policy? If not, would it be considered appropriate to put that on the agenda? I have to say that we have to have a report on how an individual got into this building, got up to the 11th floor on Friday, stayed the weekend Saturday and Sunday, and then and we don't know what that person was engaging in for four three and a half days, and on Monday, you know the that the car was stolen from the mayors and blah blah blah with this. How did that happen? We need to have a report, not for you, but for me. God help us if we have some situation where we had an individual came into this building with intent to do bodily home, which was not the case, but it could have been the case. So we need to do some reporting out immediately on securing not only this building, but all of our facilities. So there is a structural scale difference. The city auditors follow-up report shows multiple separate recommendations still partially implemented, and a new performance audit is forthcoming. So I'd request that the committee review the performance audit and a comparative capacity analysis before advancing any transition framework. Thank you.
openpublica.com