Good morning.

Rules Committee.

We do need a quorum on the day, so we can begin.

Great.

Good morning and welcome to the rules and legislation committee meeting on this Thursday, March 26th.

The time is 1031, and this meeting shall come to order.

Before I call roll, I would like to give instructions on how to submit a speaker card on items listed on this agenda.

If you are here, uh a member of the audience here in chambers and would like to submit a speaker card, please fill out a speaker card and attorney to a clerk representative either 10 minutes after this meeting began or before the item is called into record.

Uh registration to speak via Zoom was due 24 hours before this meeting began, noting that there we will no longer take speaker cards for online um registration.

Once again, the meeting began at 10 31, and speaker cards will no longer be accepted 10 minutes after the meeting began, which is at that time will be 10 41.

With that, council president Jenkins.

Do you have any announcements before I begin with role?

Yes, because of the potential quorum issues, speaker time will be reduced to 90 seconds as opposed to two minutes.

With that, thank you so much.

I will begin with roll on roll for this meeting.

We have council member Brown.

Trying to present.

Thank you.

Um Council Member Fife is excused.

Yes.

Thank you.

Councilmember Ramachandrin.

Aye.

And Chair President, Council President Chair Jenkins.

Aye.

We have three members present, one excused.

Now moving on to item number two, approval of the draft minutes for the committee meetings of February 26th, 2026, March 5th, 2026, and March 12th, 2026.

Move approval.

Second.

I have a motion by Councilmember Brown, seconded about Council Member Rama Chandran to approve the minutes, all three of them as is on that.

Aye.

Council member five is excused.

Council Member Rama Chandrin.

And Council President Jenkins.

Aye.

Three ayes, one excused for item number two, approval of draft minutes.

Now moving to new scheduling.

Starting with item 3.1.

Receive an information report on the Oakland Children's Initiative and its partners, organizations, Oakland Promise and First Five Alamedo County.

Um and this item is being requested to be scheduled on the April 13th, 2026.

I'm sorry.

Oh my apologies.

It should be Alameda County first five.

Thank you.

So noted, thank you for that.

Moving to item 3.2.

It is an oral report from the director of public works, Liam Garland, regarding the illegal dumping mitigation year school campuses, and this is also being requested to be scheduled for the April 13th special education partnership committee agenda.

I believe we don't have a quorum on the dais.

Okay, thank you for that.

Moving to item 3.3.

Receive an information report from the Oakland Youth Commission, and this is being requested to be scheduled for April 13th special education partnership committee agenda.

Item 3.4 is an informational report from the Oakland Unified School District OUSD regarding current school safety protocols, funding structures, and strategic safety updates.

This is also being requested to be scheduled to the special April 13th Education Partnership Committee Agenda.

Item 3.5 is from the auditor's office and informational report listing all professional services contracts authorized by the city auditor during fiscal year 24 through 25.

And this is being requested to be scheduled for the April 14th, 2026 special city council agenda on consent.

I will now read in the rule 24.

OMC states that the city auditor shall present to the city council on an annual basis, a report listing all professional service contracts authorized by the city auditor during the prior year.

Moving to item 3.6, which is also an informational report from the city auditor on the audit recommendation follow-up report as of December 31st, 2025.

This is being requested to be scheduled for April 14th, special city council agenda on non-consent.

The rule 24 for this item is that the city charter states that it is the responsibility of the city auditor to submit a semi-annual report to the council and public on the extent of implementation of recommendations for the corrective actions made in the city auditors report.

Moving to item 3.7 uh resolution reappointing uh Lisa Rasler as the City Oakland's trustee to the Alameda County um excuse me mosquito abatement district board and this is being requested to be scheduled for April 14th, uh special city council agenda on consent and I apologize.

Does this require a rule 24?

Yes, any items that are bypassing uh committee and going straight to council require uh um the body to state or reason per year rules.

Thank you.

Yeah, typically these items uh bypass committee and go straight to council on consent.

Thank you for that.

Moving on to item 3.8.

Item 3.8 is an information report from the city administrator on the status of implementing policy directives passed by the city council on the April 21st and being requested to be scheduled, excuse me, on April 21st, 2026 Finance and Management Committee Agenda.

Pardon.

I do see a hand.

Sorry.

Uh through the chair, uh the administration would like to request to move this to the May 2012 meeting because the agenda is fairly impacted, and staff will make themselves available to do one-on-ones with the committee members and ensure the information is made public in advance of the publication deadline for the May 12th meeting.

Thank you for that.

So noted so item 3.8, the status of the implementation of the council policy directives will now be scheduled to the May 12th Finance and Management Committee agenda.

Thank you for that.

Moving to item 3.9, adopt an ordinance authorizing the city administrator to negotiate and execute an agreement to purchase an easement for public right-of-way to purchase an ease, excuse me, to purchase an easement for public right-of-way streets and utility purposes over a portion of the real property located at 260 Oak Street from Vucasin Family Limited Partnership in the amount not two weeks amount of 255,000 dollars and adopting California Environmental Quality Act findings.

This is being requested to be scheduled for the April 21st public works and transportation committee agenda.

Item 310 is an ordinance appealing ordinance number 12960 and replacing it with the addition of uh OMC Charter 15.80 and re uh referenced flood hazard maps authorizing the city administrator to to designate a flood plan administrator to administer and develop regulations in support of the charter, adopting appropriate appropriate California Environmental Quality Act findings, and this is being requested to be scheduled for April 21st, 2026 Public Works and Transportation Committee agenda.

It is also noted to go to the April 28th special city council agenda as a public hearing, but I believe staff has to make a correction on that.

Thank you.

My apologies.

Can you speak closer to the mic so we can make sure that we can hear you and capture you?

I'm sorry.

Is the micro okay?

We're good.

Okay, thank you.

Um yes, through the chair.

If I may request that we move the meeting to the May 5th Public Works and Transportation Committee, as there's a special joint uh public safety meetings already scheduled on the 28th.

So noted, thank you for that.

And just to clarify.

I believe um the item would go continue to go to the public works and transportation committee meeting on April 21st, but the public hearing would be on the regular May 5th City Council meeting.

That's correct.

Thank you.

Yes.

So noted.

Thank you for that.

Thank you.

Moving on to item 311.

This is from the public works and uh public works department, and it is a resolution amending resolution 88379 to increase the professional services agreement for architectural and engineering um design services with K2A Mary McGrath, associate architects for the Fire Station 29 project by an amount not to exceed 700,000, bringing the total contract amount from 1,800,000 to 2,500,000 dollars, waiving the request for proposal competitive selection requirements and adopting CEQA findings.

And this is being requested to be scheduled for the May 21st public works and transportation committee agenda.

Item 312 is a resolution authorizing the city administrator to negotiate and execute a new exclusive negotiation agreement with the Museum of Jazz and Art for developing a museum and art facility on the city owned property located at 310 Oak Street for eight months conditioned on payment of a 10 10,500 exclusive negotiating payment with one additional six month administrative extension conditioned on payment of an additional three hundred three thousand five hundred dollars extension payment and adopting California Environmental Quality Act findings.

This is being requested to be scheduled for the April 21st Community and Economic Development Committee agenda.

Item 313 is coming from the human services department, and it's a resolution accepting the planning oversight committee recommendations to one award nine grants with the youth summer jobs mayor summer youth employment program funding strategy totaling an amount not to exceed 1,480,253.60 cents for a for two summer program services term grant cycles June 1, 2026 through September 30th, 2026, and June 1st, 27th through September 30th, 2027, contingent upon funding availability and program performance to award 12 grants across four funding strategies, totaling amount not to exceed 1 million seven hundred twelve thousand dollars, twelve thousand five hundred and fifty-eight dollars for two summer through the chair.

Thank you, Candace.

I'm so sorry.

This is Robin Levinson with the Children Youth Services Division and Human Services Department.

Through that section, you haven't even got to the change yet.

A very small change in the title.

Um should I read out that section or do I have to do that?

Please, yeah, you would have to read that the sorry that's all right.

Uh staff recommends that the city council adopt a resolution accepting the planning and oversight committee recommendation to one award nine grants within the youth summer jobs, mayor's summer youth employment program funding strategy totaling an amount not to exceed 1,480,253 and 60 cents for two summer program service term grant cycles, June 1st, 2026 through September 30th, 2020, and June 1st, 2027 through September 30th, 2027, contingent upon funding availability and program performance, and two award 12 grants across four funding strategies, elementary school-based expanded learning, middle school-based expanded learning, youth development and leadership, and career access and employment, totaling an amount not to exceed 1,712,558 for two summer program service term grant cycles.

June 1st, 2026 through September 30th, 2026, and June 1st, 2027 through September 30th, 2027.

Contingent upon funding availability and program performance.

The thousand was in the wrong place previously.

Thank you.

I'm so sorry, thank you.

No worries.

Thank you, Ralph.

Moving to item 314.

This is an information report from the city auditor on audits of the Oakland Police Oversight Agencies, the Oakland Police Commission, the Community Police Review Agency, and Office of the Inspector General.

This is being requested to be scheduled for the April 21st public safety committee agenda.

Item 315 is an information report from the Oakland Police Department Federal Law Enforcement Agency Task Force Annual Report.

And this is also being requested to be scheduled for the April 21st public safety committee agenda.

Item 316 is a resolution authorizing the city administrator to enter into a professional services agreement with uh cellular Inc.

for provisions of universal forensic extraction devices and related services for the Oakland Police Department for a contract amount not to exceed 140,000 for the period of July 1st, 2026 to June 30th, 27, waiving the competitive multi-step solicitation process and local small local business enterprise program requirements, and three accepting the 2024 Cell Ubride annual report and making determinations regarding whether the city should continue using this technology.

This is being requested to be scheduled for the April 21st public safety committee agenda.

Item 317 is an ordinance amending OMC 10.74 authorizing the city administrator city to administratively assess fines on side shows, spectators, promoters, and facilitators exempting law enforcement and members of the media engaged in their duties and non-participating members of public.

And this is being requested to be scheduled for April 21st, 2026 Public Safety Committee Agenda.

I do see staff.

Are you approaching for item 317?

Administration, we would like to move this item to the pending list.

And will that be to the public safety committee pending list?

Yes.

Yes.

Okay, so noted.

And item 317 is an oral information report on the Oakland Police Department's automatic resource locator policy.

And this is being requested to be scheduled for April 21st public safety committee agenda.

And the administration would also request that this item be moved to pending the pending list no date specific for the public safety committee.

So noted that items 317, the Oakland Side Show Ordinance, and item 318 will be the informational report on the Oakland Police Department's automatic re automatic resource locator policy is both being requested to be scheduled to public safety pending list no date specific.

Yes, please.

Correct.

Thank you so much.

Item 319 is a resolution authorizing the sale of former Oakland fired boat known as the Seawolf to Azul Marin Group Inc.

for 25 25,000 and finding the sale is the best interest of the city pursuant to OMC and this is being requested to be scheduled for the May 5th City Council agenda on consent and the Rule 24 for bypassing committee is due to the impacted April 21st meeting agendas.

Now moving to the committees from March 24th, starting with the Finance and Management Committee.

Item 3.20.

I'll be reading in the short titles is amend amendment to the ordinance number 12187 CMS, the salary ordinance for various classifications and exemptions.

And the committee consists of four pieces of legislation.

The first piece of legislation, the resolution was withdrawn with no new date.

Items two and three of this legislation of the resolutions.

Along with the fourth item to the April 14th special city council agenda at 330 on consent and the fourth of item again scheduled for the April requesting to be scheduled for the April 14th special 330 council meeting on consent had an amendment in part four updating the title of the ordinance to strike part A that says add the full-time classification of parking administrator in the body of the ordinance on page one to strike section two that says the following classification is added in ordinance number 12187 in the unit UK2 pay grade table to read as follows classification title class number step salary parking administration details updating the related attachment A to remove the parking administrator on page 118 moving to item 3.21 the information report on the citywide staffing February 2026.

The committee approved that this item be scheduled to the April 14th special city council agenda at 330 as a public hearing.

Item 322, the salary survey results.

This item was also required was excuse me, was continued to the April 21st, 2026 Finance and Management Committee Agenda.

Item 3.23 is the Oakland's Peeper's investment portfolio and actual evaluation report.

This item was received and filed in committee.

And item 3.24, the fiscal year 25 through 26, second quarter revenue and expenditures report.

This item was also received and filed in the finance and management committee.

Moving to recommendations from the uh March 24th Public Works and Transportation Committee starting with item 3.25.

It's the 2023-2025 progress implementation implementing the 2030 Equitable Climate Action Plan.

And this was received and filed in committee.

Item 3.26, the 2025 B PAC annual report.

This was also received and filed in committee.

Item 3.27, the resolution in support of the California Senate Bill 1218.

This item was requested by committee to be forwarded to the April 26th special city council agenda at 330 on consent.

Item 3.28.

This was the commemorative street renaming in collaboration with BB Memorial Cathedral Church.

This item was requested by committee to be forwarded to the April 14th special city council agenda at 330 on consent.

Item 3.29, the ordinance to strengthen illegal dumping enforcement.

The committee approved as amended the recommendations of staff to be forwarded to the April 14th Special City Council agenda at 330 on consent with the following amendments to page 7 of the ordinance section 5 for time calculations for assessment of penalties, adding a new section A, whereas the dumping constituents and commercial quality contains harmful waste matter is a mattress, upholstered furniture, appliances, furniture, or electronic waste, additional daily civil penalties of up to 1,000 per day may be assessed.

And to the new section B.

They have stricken the administrative citation and to the new section C, they have stricken the administrative fines or penalties.

Moving to item 3.30, the resolution to authorize Arabitz Inc.

pilot program to strengthen illegal dumping remedies, remedations and remediations.

My apologies, and this is being requested to be or the committee approved to schedule this item to the April 14th special city council agenda on consent at 330.

Now moving to the recommendations from the March 24th CED committee.

Item 3.32, which consists of two pieces of legislation is an amendment to the rent adjustment ordinance and regulations.

The committee approved a requested to withdraw the scheduling of this item to the CE committee and move to the CED committee pending list, no date specific both pieces.

Item now moving to the recommendations from the March 24th life enrichment committee agenda.

Item 334, the citywide cooperative agreement.

The uh committee approved as amended that the recommendations of staff and to be forwarded to the April 14th City Council agenda at 330.

On non-consent, the amendments were to the first resolve clause of the legislation, adding as referenced in the agenda report and accompanying attachment.

So I spoke with the chair on this one.

This one will go straight to consent.

So noted.

Thank you for that, Chair Jenkins.

Moving to item 3.35.

This is the purchase of real property at 3105 San Pablo Avenue for Hoover Library, and the committee approved the recommendations of staff to be forwarded to the April 14th Special City Council agenda at 330 on consent.

Now moving to recommendations from the March 24th Public Safety Committee agenda.

Item 3.36.

This is the let's throw phone contract, and the committee approved staff recommendations to be forwarded to April 14th Special City Council agenda at 330 on consent.

Item 3.37, the OPD staffing report.

The committee received and filed this item in committee.

And item 3.38, the OPD GPS tracker policy.

The committee's proof staff's recommendations to be forwarded to the April 14th Special City Council agenda at 3 30 on consent.

And that concludes your item threes.

And we have three oops, excuse me, we have three speakers for this item.

That was a lot.

Thank you, Clerk.

Let's hear the speakers.

Thank you for that.

And uh calling those speakers who are here in person or online.

If you are online, please rehand so I can easily recognize you.

Um I have Rajani Mandal, Kevin Daly, and Blair Beekman in any order.

And please state your name for the record.

Hi, this is Kevin Dally.

I've a nitpicky question on 3.20 on the salary ordinances.

Uh as you mentioned, salary four was amended to remove the part for the parking administrator.

Was the intent of the committee to remove it and place it on the pending list along with section one, or was it to strike it completely?

I know the city administrator can add it back in at a later date, but it might make sense to have it attached to part one, which is the other part discussing the city administrator.

The item as amended.

Oh, I guess.

Sorry.

Typically, we don't respond, but I can talk to you offline.

Sure.

Yeah.

Okay, thanks.

Rajni Mundal District 4.

I uh want to connect three items on your agenda today because they point to the same underlying issue, governance clarity.

First, 3.14, the city auditor's report on police oversight.

The most important takeaway is not just staffing, it is structure.

The report identifies overlapping roles, unclear authority, and gaps in accountability across oversight bodies.

Before adding resources, I would urge council to consider a combined structural and performance review.

So we are not reinforcing a system that lacks clear lines of responsibility.

Second, item 3.18, the OPD automatic resource locator policy.

The city auditor specifically recommended enabling GPS location capability in patrol vehicles so dispatchers can identify and send the closest available unit.

That is a practical operational improvement that can help reduce response times without additional staffing.

But we have not seen movement since a PAC discussion in 2024.

We're also seeing policy drift.

This technology was introduced as a dispatch tool, but discussions have expanded into questions of discipline and personnel monitoring.

The Oakland Fire Department appears to have already implemented a GPS enabled dispatch pilot without council approval.

Could staff explain how that program moved forward operationally while the OPD policy remains pending?

Third, 3.15 Federal Task Force Agreements.

Under OMC 9.72010, the privacy advisory commission must review and publicly discuss MOUs between OPD and federal agencies before they are executed.

That gives that body significant influence over complex intergovernmental law enforcement agreements.

But PAC is a privacy body.

It is not a law enforcement body.

It does not have operational public safety or investigative expertise.

That creates a mismatch.

Oversight is essential, but oversight has to be aligned with expertise and scope.

Right now, authority is unclear.

Scope is expanding, and decisions are stalling.

If we want accountability, we need to fix the structure.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

And our last speaker who signed up for item number three is Blair Beekman.

You are unmuted.

Please unmute yourself and you may begin.

Hi, thank you.

Blair Beekman.

First time I've been around for a while.

Good to see everyone.

I wanted to speak on about five items.

Uh I wanted I can combine items 3.14 and 3.15, and then combine items 3.26 to 3.30 uh in a few uh moments.

Um I guess I'll need the full three minutes, however, uh, thank you.

Uh to to speak to items 3.14 and 3.15.

Um thank you for oversight uh um police commission items for 3.14.

I'm still hopeful there can be some ways to try to bring back uh the former uh police commissioners who've been uh retired, uh who I felt were doing uh um an incredible service and an important job.

And I feel that you know, as we have made a shift in Oakland towards a more uh conservative approach to address our um uh city issues.

I you know, I I think uh the previous commissioners they offered a progressive approach that's needed for the process and offered an important balance in what we're trying to work towards is uh to find the middle ground of uh conservative and progressive values uh for Oakland.

So good luck that you can continue the efforts to consider the good work of the previous commissioners.

Their thinking is truly needed in how we uh move forward together.

Uh good luck on those efforts about the federal task force things.

It's important to me that um the the PAC did an incredibly important service of oversight that can't be denied.

I understand what the previous public comment said.

Um they probably provide an incredibly important job of oversight that we have to certainly find another uh city department to offer that oversight.

We can't just drop it.

And uh I hope they can continue the good work of the PAC.

They did incredibly important work uh of oversight for the federal task force agencies.

We have to continue those efforts.

Good luck how we find that.

And to go on to the cleaning items, um uh you you have a lot of new ordinances about uh illegal dumping.

I was always from the point of view if you offer really good tech accountability for all the tech around illegal dumping, that creates kind of a community effort towards positiveness that I hope can't be forgetting forgotten at such a time.

And with your BPAC issues, uh 3.26, uh, your yearly review.

Uh an important reminder that uh tech accountability again, uh in the importance of what BPAC tries to work towards.

I hope they they understand the importance of working towards tech accountability as well.

An inclusive effort from everyone is how our community future is built, and that's what they're going for too.

Good luck how we do that together.

Um thanks for your time.

Thank you for that, and that concludes your speakers for item three thank you.

It's everybody who came out to speak.

Thank you to the clerk for reading all of that.

So noting 3.1 title change to 3.7, rule 24, 3.8 rule to May 12th, Finance and Management Committee 3.10 dates gonna be changed to a public hearing on May 5th, 3.13.

Noting the title change 3.17, move to public safety committee pinning list, no date specific 3.18 move to public safety committee pending list, no date specific and 3.34 move to consent.

I'll entertain a motion as amended.

Move approval.

Second, and that was a motion by council member Brown, seconded by council member John and uh Ramachandran to approve item three as amended, including the um as amended on roll for this is Councilmember Brown.

Aye, Rama Chandrin, aye and Chair Jenkins.

I excuse me, and council member five is excused.

Item number three approved as amended with three eyes, one excuse council member five.

That now takes us to item number four.

Item number four is the review of the draft agenda's pending list and the uh council agenda meetings, um, the council and committee meetings.

As we know, um, we are about to come up on a break, so at this time it's a short list of the April 2nd rules agenda, uh rules agenda uh and the pending list for committees.

And I have two speakers.

Councilmember Ramachandra.

Thank you.

Um, I'd like to request to make the um April 21st Finance Committee meeting, a special meeting, moving it 30 minutes up to 9 a.m.

instead of 9 30, as we have an impacted agenda and don't want to set the entire day of meetings to be delayed.

Um, I believe we do have we have confirmed with staff of other council members that we'll have quorum.

Can you state the date of the meeting and the time again?

April 21st finance committee currently at 9 30.

Um hope would like to start it at 9 o'clock.

Thank you.

Trinity.

Uh Trinity Hall from the Office of the South of Oakland, Ken Houston, District 7 Council member.

Um, I am making a request on behalf of the council member to schedule the encampment abatement policy for the special city council meeting on April 14th at 9 30 a.m.

on non-consent.

Thank you.

Um, being that this is an important item.

My request would be that you guys get the work with clerk's items to get the items um posted as soon as possible so that the council members have a chance to digest the changes as well as the public uh possible uh with the clerk's office 10 days before that'd be great.

Thank you.

Thank you for that, and if I can just really quickly, just for the public's um knowledge, the item that just was stated to be scheduled for the special um 9 a.m.

meeting on April 14th, it's on the um life enrichment committee pending lists, um, no dates specific under item number two.

So for clarity, thank you.

The administration also has a few changes to the pending lists for the now special finance and management committee.

The item under April 21st, item number three.

Uh, we'd like to request, and that's the informational report for the city administrator in response to the city auditor's recommendations and the substantiated whistleblower investigation regarding the city of Oakland uses unauthorized formulas for calculating overtime that differ from FLSA guidelines to move that to the May 12th Finance and Management Committee meeting just because it's so impacted, and then moving on to the life enrichment pending list.

We like to move item one under the April 21st uh pending list, the OFCY 2024-2025 final year end independent annual evaluation report to the May 12th meeting, and then finally moving on to the rules pending list.

Um item number four under the pending no date specific.

Uh we're requesting to schedule the reorganizing of the parking division recommendation for May 5th at the city council meeting, and noting that the parking administrator piece may come around then or later.

Thank you.

And if I may um you said May 5th on consent or not on non-consent, thank you.

Thank you.

Seems like that's it.

Any public commenters?

Yes, I have Kevin Daly and Barrier Blair Beekman.

Please you raise your hand if you are on Zoom, and I will take the in-person public commenters first.

Um Kevin and Mr.

Daly is passing on his speaker, so we do have Blair Bigman in the queue.

You are unmuted.

Please unmute yourself and you may begin.

Hi, uh, Blair Beekman.

Uh, I think I'll be uh I'll do the same as Kevin has, and I'll pass also.

Thank you.

Thank you for that.

We have no more speakers for this item.

Thank you.

No more speakers.

So noting 421 Finance and Management Committee will be a special meeting at 9 a.m.

Item 4 on the pending list 421 FMC item number three move to the May 12 LEC item one move to May 12th and rules item number four move to May 5th, City Council meeting.

Or no.

So noting LEC item number one, move to May 12.

With uh I will take a as amended, I'll take a motion as amended.

Move approval.

Second.

And that was a motion by Councilmember Ramachandran, seconded by Council Member Brown to approve item four as amended on roll.

Councilmember Brown.

Aye.

Councilmember Ramachandran.

Aye.

And Chair Jenkins.

Aye.

And Councilmember Fife is excused.

So that makes three eyes, one excuse as amended.

Um item number four is approved.

Thank you so much.

That now takes us to our discussion item, item number five.

It is an information report from the mayor charter reform working group, and I have several speakers for the 32, I believe, speakers for this item.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you for everybody that's come out to participate.

I think it's in the public interest that we discussed this item when the mayor was elected.

She came on and wanted to embark upon reviewing the charter and seeing what kind of charter changes the people of Oakland wanted to see done.

There's been immense public interest in this.

Thank you.

Just echoing council president Jenkins.

Um I'm grateful to the mayor's office for spearheading and starting this process about a year ago, um, almost a year ago, and I look forward to discussing the recommendations and hearing the input of our residents.

Spur League of Women Voters.

Okay, good morning.

Thank you very much.

Council President, Council members, uh, staff, and members of the public.

There's a presentation that's done.

Yes, could we please have our presentation PTA?

Thank you.

My name is Gail Wallace.

I'm here on behalf of the League of Women Voters, and I'm here with Nicole Nedich from Spur.

We were the co-facilitators for the mayor's working group.

Uh next slide, please.

The oh no, this one's perfect.

The mayor gave us uh and it the working group a very targeted assignment.

It was to look at charter changes that could better define the role of elected officials that would help address more responsible city financial planning, and that would improve government accountability and transparency.

Next slide.

There was a process from last September until this January that included uh as well as the deliberations of the working group month after month, a great deal of community outreach that included in-person meetings in every council district.

Thank you for those of you who gave us some assistance on standing those up.

There were also 60 interviews with people extremely connected to city government, past and present.

There was a survey put out, and all of that input was um brought into the working group's deliberations.

Nicole.

Just a little bit of background context.

Um we spoke with a number of people, as Gail mentioned, and there were kind of four key themes that kept surfacing.

Um, and everybody stated that uh Oakland's charter can't really be changed without the broader city context.

So those were the severe fiscal distress that um Oakland is under, the deep racial wealth and geographic inequities that Oakland experiences across neighborhoods, the lack of sufficient authority to lead decisively over time, and a highly engaged um civic culture uh in Oakland where people want direct access to their decision makers.

A few other key findings, um, misaligned authority is creating a disconnect between public expectations and actual powers, weak institutional alignment undermines long-term planning, fiscal discipline, effective oversight, and organizational complexity leads to operational efficiencies that lack accountability and transparency.

We heard from many people that we talked to that everyone is in charge and therefore no one is in charge.

Luckily, there are two key models that most city governments across the country uh use.

One is council manager, um, where the council acts as a unified legislative body, and the mayor sits on the council.

Um council the council appoints a professional manager to run city government, um, and there are a few examples of each of these these types up here.

Strong mayor government is where a mayor is the chief executive and runs the city government.

This is a balance of power between the mayor, which is the executive branch, and the council, which is a legislative branch.

The council serves as a separate legislative branch of government and is responsible responsible for oversight.

Just a quick history.

Jerry Brown successfully championed Measure X in 1998, which passed quite quite well that gave a trial strong mayor system that was set to sunset after six years.

There was a commission that formed, they chose to move forward with a mayor council form of government where the mayor and the council were separate branches.

However, they did not give the mayor the strong veto powers and things like that that would be typical in a strong mayor form of government.

So this has created a blended model that has elements of both of these models but lacks the benefits of both of them.

The mayor does not serve on the council but lacks the powers of a strong mayor's, they can't vote or veto its decisions.

The city administrator manages agencies and operations.

I apologize, you still have you have three minutes.

I just want to make sure that you are.

We're just gonna go straight to the recommendations here.

Great.

First and most importantly, the working group recommends that Oakland change its charter to fully adopt one system or the other in an integrated and complete fashion.

Next slide, please.

Luckily, there are research that tells you and helps you identify which of these two systems actually is a match for the character and history of your city.

Next slide, please.

The recommendation as to which system to adopt is to adopt the strong mayor system, which Nicole has already described in brief and which is much more fully described in our report.

Next slide, please.

I want to make it clear that that research I just referenced talked about what is the character of a city that would be best served by a strong mayor system.

So through all that outreach I talked about, we heard about fiscal stress.

And that's where a strong mayor system can help because it creates complex intergovernmental challenges.

We heard about racial wealth and geographic inequities.

And this also is where strong mayors shines because it serves best where there are disparities across neighborhoods.

You know we've got a highly engaged civic culture, and strong mayor is appropriate where voters expect that visible executive leadership.

Finally, you can't really see my last point there, but that's all right.

Uh we need someone to lead decisively, and the is what people were telling us over and over again.

And political fragmentation makes it difficult for collective accountability, hence the favoring of the strong mayor system.

So it was the recommendation is based both on feedback and on research.

Um we also recommended a balancing strengthening of the city council with the uh creation of a legislative and budget analyst office, a return of the council to an odd number, and clarifying certain things in the charter about the city council's role.

I want to close by pointing out just one thing since there's new uh reporting out saying that the report recommends a salary raise for the council.

I want to clarify that because charter change is about structural things, it's about process.

And so we noted that all the other elected officials, auditor attorney, mayor, have a salary setting mechanism within in the charter that allows the entire package to be reviewed.

That's not the case for the city council.

The provisions only allow for cost of living increases.

So we simply recommended that that process be changed to be consistent across all of those elected offices.

And anything else would be a factual evidentiary-based thing as to what salaries any of the officials in any of these elected offices would receive.

All right, just to close out, um, there were a number of other things that came up during the research.

There were questions about the city attorney and the city auditor and whether or not those should be elected or appointed positions around oversight bodies, including commissions, um, and financial decision making, whether or not there should be some long-range planning, a controller's office, things like that.

Those were all things that we we recommend for their analysis, but went beyond the scope of this review.

Um, so some next steps.

Any charter charter changes must be approved by Oakland voters.

Um the mayor and the council are working together to determine which recommendations to advance to a ballot.

Um, we have done some polling um in which we we shared with the council members today that really shows strong support for um the working group's recommendations.

Um implementation of this needs to be there needs to be thoughtful transition periods so that we don't uh not fully implement uh all of the recommendations.

Um and this should be a living document.

The charter should be something that we come back to regularly and make sure that it's actually meeting the needs of Oaklanders.

Um, just a quick note charter reform creates conditions for improvement, but doesn't substitute for effective leadership and management.

There are a lot of other things that need to be done in order to improve the way that um Oakland works.

This is just the high level recommendations.

Um the full report, uh, we also developed a full uh very extensive FAQ based on a lot of the feedback that we've been and questions that we've been getting are all available on the mayor's website.

We encourage you to take a look at the full report.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Thank you for your work as well.

Uh council members, do you guys have any comments before we go to the public?

Councilmember Brown.

Thank you.

Um, I was gonna offer them two minutes of my time just in case they would have because I felt like they were rushing through kind of the presentation, and so I just wanted to um give you the opportunity if there was any like additional input that you wanted to make sure members of the public, whether here are watching virtually, like you wanted to make sure that the message um just the hard work of the working group and in um all of your efforts.

If there was anything else you wanted to to say.

That's very kind of you, and I appreciate it.

Um I think people leap to the second recommendation in the report.

There are two choices that almost all cities in the United States, all that we've looked at, use.

And so what the committee really wanted to get across was there is a problem with Oakland's current structure, that it's a mixed match that is dysfunctional.

And therefore, the first recommendation is do something.

Move to an integrated and complete system that is recognized as such and tested by use in multiple other cities.

The second report, the thing I want the second recommendation is tied to the third.

They are really recommending the stroke, what is called the strong mayor model, but it really is a balance of an executive and a legislative branch within the government, and therefore there are recommendations with respect to each.

And the final point I want to underscore is this is connected with the character of the city of Oakland.

Otherwise, it will you could just toss a coin because they're both formal systems.

In deciding which one to choose, you really have to ask what's the history here, where are we coming from?

What is the character of the city that we have?

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

All right, let's any other comments from the council members.

Okay, so you want to talk about public comment, Councilmember.

Okay.

All right, let's go to public comment.

As I call your name, please approach the podium in any order.

If you are participating via Zoom, please raise your hand so I can recognize you.

And as usual, I will call those who are present in chambers first and then those who are participating via Zoom after.

Starting with Mark Zwiski, Kevin Daly, Jonathan Korn, Dina Bilkoff, Madori Tabata, George Speace, Orlando Perez, Wald Wool Walskowski.

My apologies if I mispronounced that.

Blair Beekman, Mike Volk, John Caress, Rajny Mandal, Steve Cohen, Naomi Shift, Keith Brown, Ahmed, Ali Bob, Somea Zuber, Charles Long, Dan Marks, Antonette Blue, Veronica Garcia, Nancy Folk, Stephen Folk, David Boatwright, Elizabeth Silver, Ralph Camps, Pamela Drake, Pet Martell, Annie Mudge, Millie Cleveland, Richard Fuentes and Libby Shaft.

Again, a please approach the opium in any order.

Please state your name before you begin.

The um those who are participating via Zoom, please raise your hand and we'll call you after we have those in person.

You may begin.

Thank you.

Greetings.

I'm Stephen Falk, co-founder of the Oakland Charter Reform Project, and my comments are limited to three quick and related points.

My first point is that I urge you not to adopt the strong mayor recommendation because there is a better way for Oakland.

My second point is that 97% of California cities have rejected the strong mayor system.

With the exception of San Francisco, which is both a city and a county, every single city in the Bay Area, large and small, has rejected the strong mayor model.

No California city has transitioned to a strong mayor system in the last 20 years, not one.

So basically, no cities are doing what the working group is asking you to do.

So you have to ask why is that?

It's because, as study after study after study has proven, professionally managed cities with a powerful city council are more transparent, more responsive, more effective, and more efficient, and far less corrupt.

So my third and final point.

A lot of the public conversation around this issue infers that you have only two choices either a strong mayor or a council manager form of government.

That is false.

That is not true.

That is what's known as a false dichotomy.

In fact, cities today rarely choose the pure.

I apologize, your time is ended.

You have one more minute, Mr.

Falk.

Thank you.

That is what's known as a false dichotomy.

In fact, cities today rarely choose the pure version of either one of those systems, and instead craft a hybrid system best suited for their city.

And that's what we're recommending with our third option, which features leadership by a powerful mayor with a veto, over sight by a more powerful city council, and the terrific public services that professional management can deliver.

Thank you for your attention.

Thank you for your comments.

Hello.

Thanks for the opportunity to comment.

My name is Nancy Falk.

My primary message is that Oaklanders need not settle for the strong mayor form as recommended.

There's a better proven third option that includes several of the working group's recommendations while better positioning Oakland, given its unique nature for the future.

This third option has three key elements.

Number one, it embeds a more powerful mayor with the veto authority to serve as chair of a two more powerful full-time city council that's supported by an independent budget and legislative analyst office, as recommended.

Three, who jointly, mayor plus council, oversee a professionally trained executive, the city manager.

There's no need to settle for the strong mayor form because it's not the proven best structure for delivering high quality, efficient, and effective city services.

Council manager form of government, upon which this third option is based, is the proven best approach based on a lot of the research that is in the working group's great appendix.

This third option is 10%, and this mayor, count council manager form of government is more efficient than strong mayor, has stronger budget solvency than strong mayor cities.

And it's 57% less likely to have corruption convictions than strong mayors cities.

So let's not settle for the strong mayor option and instead adopt the proven third option for a better.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Yeah, go ahead.

Oh, I live in district three.

Um I'm uh and I'm here just to lend my support to the council manager system, the so-called third option.

Um, and I'm asking the council to put that option uh on on the ballot and let the voters decide, not the strong mayor model.

I'm opposed to the strong mayor model for the reasons that others have expressed, but uh one is that with all due respect, I think the strong mayor system is too dependent on the good faith of the person who occupies the mayor's seat.

The structure of our government should include checks and balances, continuity of professional management, accountability of the city council in addition to the mayor, and we should look to what our other peer cities do.

All of this points to uh a council manager system with a strengthened mayoral rule, the third option.

Um, and as others have said, this is the model that is widely in use, and we should not ignore that.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Currently in D4, I appreciate the informational report.

I think the working group did a great job at showing all the options.

And while they have one preferred choice, I really appreciate their point.

Change something, choose a new system.

I suggest the council quickly set up its own working group so they can choose the best options.

And I'll I'll mention a couple points I disagree with.

We need an at-large seat.

I live in D4 today.

Um, but I, like most Oaklanders frequently travel throughout Oakland to different districts.

You know, five districts in the last 24 hours.

For me, I suspect other people have done better than that.

So we need someone who is able to look at the entire system, and both council member Brown and Council Member Kaplan have done a good job with that.

I fear an at-large mayor's election, the last four district, sorry, the last three district four CMs all become mayor.

We are not getting the geographical equity by having an at-large mayor's race.

The only way we get a mayor from Deep East Oakland is to have the council president be from Deep Beast Oakland and have a recall.

We can't depend upon that as a way of getting geographical equity.

Thanks.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Good morning.

My name is Steve Cohn.

I'm a uh long-term resident and homeowner in Oakland.

And um my understanding, I've been trying to follow this whole process, is that everyone believes that the system is dysfunctional.

That the city council members have the power to develop policy, but no power to implement it.

The mayor has the power to implement it, but has no input in developing policy.

So to me, if you just have a strong mayor, the city council still doesn't have any power to implement the findings, and by having a strong mayor who can veto the work process the work uh process of the council, puts the council in a weaker position than it's in now.

Um, in respect to people who said that there's a lot of interest in having a strong mayor.

Um there was a survey done by Ivartis for the working group, and the number one item was strengthen the city council, provide city council with more direct ways to hold administration accountable, and then put mayor back on the dais was a second with 82p 82 percent support, give mayor a role on the city council and help save policy laws.

So I hope you'll take what's called the third option, having a strong mayor, a strong city council, and make Oakland the city that we really want it to be.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for your comments.

Greetings, Chair and Councilmember, Council uh President.

Uh Mark Sowicky, resident of District One.

I've worked for uh local governments for 23 years, including almost five years as Oakland's uh director of economic development.

Um there's no question that we need charter reform.

Uh we we have a dysfunctional system, and I think we all know that.

Um but I disagree with the working group's recommendation, and I didn't find their uh support of their recommendation to be very strong.

Um their own website uh provides a lot of material, which if you haven't uh gone through it, you definitely should.

Um but I focus on in particular pages seven to nine of the working group's report.

Um key differences between a council manager and strong mayor.

The strong mayor concentrates power in a single elected individual.

It heightens the risk of political political political politicization.

That's a tough word to say.

Misuse of authority, decisions are driven by short-term electoral incentives and success depends heavily on the competence of the individual.

Council manager lays a foundation for professional management.

It insulates decisions from short-term political pressures and enables the manager to make decisions that are that are tough politically.

Um serving professionals provide continuity, stability, institutional memory, and consistency across election cycles.

Most importantly, though, um, the council manager system will distribute political power across the council and ensure that district representatives have equal standing and shaping policy and advocating for their communities.

I urge you to take up uh charter reform.

Thank you for your comments.

All right, um, good morning, council members.

I'm Keith Brown, executive secretary, treasurer of the Alameda Labor Council.

I'm speaking to you this morning as a lifelong Oakland resident and uh resident of District 5.

And I want to first of all thank the work of the working group.

And I think one thing that almost all Oaklanders agree that the city is slow to provide basic services.

Another thing we all agree on is that the structure of our city is not working.

Currently, everyone is in charge would mean which means no one is in charge.

We must establish clear lines of responsibility.

We must ensure that the structure of our government can deliver for our community and for better use of limited resources.

The strong mayor position offers clear direct accountability, speeds up decisions, strengthens coordination, and delivers results on homelessness, public safety, and fiscal responsibility with greater oversight and legislative capacity to better represent districts.

So our community has made it clear that they want a city government to be decisive on action and results, and a strong mayor system allows us to deliver for all Oakland neighborhoods faster and more efficient.

Thank you for your comments.

Hello, I'm Mike Volk, and John Caris, who's with me here, is ceding his 90 seconds to me.

So uh both John and I uh have lived and worked in Oakland for over 40 years.

Uh we're part of Neighbors for Progressive Action and Oakland Group with over 500 members.

We support charter reform as Oakland's current charter system surely clearly doesn't work.

We do not support the strong mayor model recommended by the working group.

Only four large cities in California have a strong mayor system in our entire state.

Two of those, San Francisco and LA, are special, being also counties.

There's a better alternative.

An empowered mayor embedded in a council manager form of government.

This approach features a citywide elected mayor with significant leadership authority, including veto powers, as recommended by the working group, but also features a professionally trained city manager overseen by the council and many mayor working together as recommended by the National Civic League's model civic city charter.

Some variation of this charter form is used by 96 or 97% of the largest cities by population in our state, including three that are larger than Oakland, and they were on the slide that we saw just a few minutes ago.

And uh that's uh Long Beach, Sacramento, and uh San Jose.

So this would this method would give our city council the leverage it needs to help get things done in Oakland.

That's something that 83% of the people that the working group surveyed said they they think is the most important.

The highest percentage of anything on that survey was that they wanted the council to have the leverage to get things done in the city, and you won't have that leverage in the strong mayor system.

Um other thing that uh 82% of those surveys said is that they want the mayor to attend council meetings.

Now, Barbara Lee has said she doesn't have any problem with attending mayors, but the strong mayor initiative doesn't require that, and a future mayor may not want to, and that's in fact how we got where we are, partly.

So uh let's pay attention to what the voters asked for in the in the survey.

Um some of you may have seen Libby Shafts uh letter to the editor, uh, which said council manager is widely used because most uh it's mostly soft small cities.

It's not, it's the opposite as we just saw.

Uh there's there's a lot of large cities that have that.

So mindful of the upcoming Ching Tao trial, it's unlikely that voters will vote for a small mayor.

So I urge you to consider this uh combine system that is a working model of the city that provide a personality.

Thank you.

Your time is up.

Thank you for your time.

Good morning.

Good morning, council members.

My name is Pat Martell.

I'm here today representing the International City County Management Association, a professional organization that advances transparent, responsive, effective, and efficient local government through good governance, leadership, management, innovation, and ethics.

As the West Coast Regional Director of ICMA, I want to urge your consideration of a viable third option to move more effectively to deliver the results envisioned by the mayor's working group recommendations.

A strong mayor with veto power who actively participates in city council meetings, leading a fully engaged city council city manager structure.

This option creates clear lines of responsibility and accountability.

Elected officials set policy, and a professionally trained manager is accountable to the mayor and city council for execution.

Local governments have become larger and more complex over time and benefit by having trained professionals manage operations that best serve the needs of the community.

This structural model clarifies the role of the mayor and city council and eliminates politicizing administrative decisions while preserving strong democratic control.

It balances strong political leadership with results-driven professional administration, allowing the mayor and city council to come to focus on community vision, policy, and the priorities while leaving operational decisions to the city manager.

Thank you for your comments.

I apologize before the next speaker goes if I can take one person through the chair with his discretion or to take one of the members of the public that are participating online.

I'm going to give them their two minutes.

Thank you so much for your patience.

Veronica.

You are unmuted.

You may begin your two minutes.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for that.

Can you guys hear me?

Yes, you may begin.

Okay, thank you.

Good morning, council members and every Oaklander in the room.

I just want to start by saying that I really appreciate the work that's gone into this and the effort to improve how the city of Oakland operates.

I don't think anyone would disagree that Oakland needs a faster action and more clarity around who is responsible when things aren't working.

That said, I do have some real concerns about the recommendation to eliminate the at-large council seat.

If that happens, the council will be made made up entirely of district representatives.

And since the mayor doesn't vote on legislation, we would lose the only citywide elected voice in the legislative branch.

And that matters.

The at-large seat helps connect neighborhoods, bring attention to citywide needs, and make sure no community gets overlooked, like Melrose, which sits in both district five and district six.

From where I stand, removing that role creates gaps at the time when we really need to be more connected, connected as a city.

So I just want to urge you to move forward with changes that improve.

Thank you for your comments.

Your time is up.

Thank you for your patience, the member of the public.

You may approach and state your name for the record.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Good morning, council members.

My name is Ahmed Alibob, and I'm a D6 resident, a dad, and I've had the chance to serve both inside the city and in the private sector working with Oakland businesses.

I was part of the mayor's working group on charter reform and got to hear from hundreds of Oakland residents.

And the biggest thing I heard over and over was the need for clear accountability.

Residents expect that when they vote for a mayor, the buck stops there.

At my house, at my home, when accountability is unclear, my five-year-old just runs the whole house.

Speaking from experience, that's not a model that we should replicate at City Hall.

Right now, our system spreads responsibility across too many places.

When something goes wrong, it's not always clear who owns it.

And that makes it harder to actually solve problems on behalf of our residents.

This is about aligning authority with responsibility.

So when decisions are made, there's clarity on who is accountable.

And when outcomes fall short, it's clear who needs to answer for it.

At the same time, these recommendations strengthen the council's ability to provide stronger legislative and financial oversight, which is just as important.

I believe this moves Oakland in the right direction.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments and thank you for your patience.

Next speaker.

Hi, my name is Charlie Long.

I'm a 21-year resident of City of Oakland in District 4.

Uh, and I have been a city manager four times.

Uh, but also I've invested uh a hundred million dollars into downtown Oakland with two appropriate projects.

Uh I served on uh Bill Gilcarist's uh development advisory committee.

And let me tell you my observation based upon my uh awareness of how organizations work and how development works.

Oakland's or Oakland's organization is broken.

There is no sense of common purpose.

Departments are silos, they don't talk to each other, they don't they don't have a sense of common purpose.

And I am here to uh strongly request that you reject the strong mayor option because all it does is it says, okay, we've got a broken system where nobody where basically there are silos.

Let's create another broken system where there are silos, where the mayor basically is not a participant.

The council manager form of government makes the city manager accountable to the mayor, to the council, and the mayor sits on the city council and has veto power and is an active participant.

Let's create that kind of unified approach to the mayor.

Thank thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Good morning, council members.

My name is Dan Marks.

Excuse me.

I'm an Oakland resident in District 2 and have worked in and for local governments for more than 40 years.

I'm a former uh employee in the city, I'm former community development director in the city of Berkeley, and have worked as a as a employee in several uh Bay Area cities, and for the past 15 years, I've been a management consultant on local government effectiveness all around the country and in California.

I want to thank the mayor for uh putting forward the the mayor's task force and bringing the issue of charter reform to the city's attention and carrying it forward as an as an issue that we have to address in Oakland.

Clearly, we need a more effective government that can deliver the services the people of Oakland want, and in my opinion, have not received over the last many years.

And I think most Oakland residents would agree with me that we need a more effective government, not a political one.

City managers are trained in and spend their whole careers making local government more effective.

Mayors were elected for their political acumen, not their organizational skills.

It's for this reason that almost all the cities in California has been spoken earlier, adopt the city manager form of government.

And I, along with many of the other people that have spoken here today, based on our long experience in local government, believe that the third option is the best option for the city of Oakland and urge that you carry that option in some fashion forward to the citizens of Oakland.

Thank you so much.

Thank you for your comments.

Rajni Mandal District 4.

I want to start by acknowledging the effort here.

It's easier to point out what's broken than to try and fix it.

And I appreciate that this process is attempting to do that.

What I hear from my community is very consistent.

People want basic things to work, like roads and public safety, and many residents don't feel we have that.

Charter reform is part of the solution, along with fiscal and broader governance reform.

But my concern is simple.

Who is accessible to the regular Oakland resident when something needs to get fixed, and how do we ensure that it actually happens?

It's already difficult to get regular residents' voices heard.

That makes me cautious about concentrating more power in a single office where access can feel even more limited to those without influence and power.

We need balance, clear leadership with accountability and full representation, including the at-large scene.

That's why I'm leaning towards a balanced approach, like the third option.

But I really urge council to choose a structure that will truly deliver results with accountability and transparency and accessibility to all Oaklanders.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Thank you.

My name is Elizabeth Silver.

I go by Libby Silver.

Um I was I've lived here for 48 years.

I um a retired lawyer.

I was city attorney of several cities for a total um career of 37 years.

So I know what you all are doing, and um I thank you for it.

I'm in favor of the council manager form of government.

The most important thing that the city council does, that the whole city does is it adopts its budget, and the budget is the blueprint for what gets done in the city, and the um council then has to uh appoint somebody who's going to implement the budget.

It just doesn't happen by itself.

So the city administrator or city manager, whatever you want to call the position, is the person who implements the budget.

The budget includes the council's goals, how many will be spent, what programs will be adopted, etc.

And it's important to have a professional in the role of implementing this the budget.

The mayor can be on the city council.

The city manager really works from council meeting to council meeting.

So the council has control over the implementation of its objectives because the council appoints and can fire the city manager.

Thank you.

Miss Mille, Ms.

Drake, you guys want to speak?

My name is Millie Cleveland.

I also live in District 4.

I moved one block 30 years ago out of District 5 and ended up in four.

Um I want to throw a little twist to the discussion about the underlying assumptions about the council developing policy but not being able to enforce it.

The mayor can't develop policy, but it's responsible for enforcement.

My observation coming to council meetings is that our council representatives have abdicated their responsibility in enforcing things that they vote on and making sure the city manager follows through.

The macro unit, the chief of the fire department changed the scope of work, and not one council person raised an issue.

We've had decades of city auditors making recommendations on how to deal with OPD over time, which have been dismissed by the council.

The council voted to civilianize almost 40 positions in OPD, putting 40 cops back on the street, and the council has done nothing to force the city administrator to speak on the work that has been accomplished.

So I'm against the um oh my time is up.

I'm against the strong thank you, Miss Milley.

Naomi Schiff, I'm only speaking for myself.

I support something like the third option: an effective mayor and an effective council.

I got to Oakland when John Redding was mayor, and before district elections, and I've attended city hall meetings since Lionel Wilson and his city manager Henry Gardner.

I served on a commission that vainly attempted to fix Jerry Brown's unworkable, incompetent measure X.

People want effective and accessible district representation and a publicly accountable mayor.

The word strong shouldn't be used here.

It's pejorative because it implies weak.

We've had way too much talk about strong stuff at the national level.

Let's get rid of that.

Most cities our size use council manager system.

And lastly, I support a point of city attorney and auditor because those posts are not for anybody to run for.

You need somebody who has very specific qualifications.

It's not the same as running for other political offices.

I really appreciate the work that's been done.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

I've called all names.

Good morning.

Ralph Cannes, uh, former chair of the public athletes commission.

Commenting that this whole process is corrupted.

Section 601 requires 601 of the charter requires an advisory group be created by resolution of the city council.

That didn't happen in this case.

There was no public meetings of this working group for the public to observe the process and understand what took place.

A little minor detail there, but the only way you can legitimate do this is do what they did in 2003 and by city council resolution create a working group that the public can participate in and understand what's going on.

I made public records request to the mayor's office back in December that it yet to be responded to involving things like where the agendas and minutes of the meetings of the working group.

I'm still waiting.

Who paid for all of this?

Who actually did the work?

None of that is public.

This is a violation of the Constitution of the Brown Act.

It is a disgrace that it's been functioning this way.

Thank you for your comments.

Well, I was trying to get Libby Shaft to come up with me so we could do a mini debate.

You all want to hear that, right?

First of all, I need an extra 10 seconds before you start counting time.

I need to ask somebody to translate the sign.

It doesn't make sense to anybody so far.

And I want to complain about mobility issues for the for this building.

Please don't take my time for that.

Please.

Please stop the time.

Don't worry.

Uh I will grant you an extra 10 seconds.

All right.

When you get out of the garage and you're walking with a cane or whatever you're doing, please do state your name for the record.

Oh, sorry.

Pamela Drake with the Wellstone Club.

You have to go all the way around, like about an extra block or a block and a half.

Somebody should be at the door at the other side.

There's you have somebody sitting in a in a desk there that could come over and escort you over to the security, so you didn't have to go all the way around.

Hope that's not an ADA uh violation, but it seems like one.

All right, let me let me start my actual time.

Uh how much time am I gonna get to talk?

10 seconds more.

20 seconds more.

You know, I'm opposed to the strong mayor.

I'm not in favor of the whole move movement towards uh authoritarianism that this country's been involved in.

I think we're backing off of that now on top of that.

Uh, there's really two issues that are the ones that are up for concern.

One is that when the council members have a complaint from their constituents, they don't have any place for it to go.

So hire some assistant city administrators who work directly with each council member with each district, maybe giving district seven their own and the other districts uh two two council districts for one administrator.

So you get your special one.

See, can need special anyway.

Um that would that person would then work directly when they have a complaint, and they'd say, okay, we'll see what we can do about your complaint, and we'll work directly with you so you can talk to your constituents about what's being done.

The other issue seems to be the mayor should be sitting on the council.

The mayor should be available for people to see how she thinks how she organizes her thoughts and makes her decisions.

Thank you, Miss Thank you, Ms.

Drake.

You were given by the chair 10 extra seconds, so we allowed the mic to stay on long enough.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker who signed up.

That's President Chambers.

Thank you.

Buenos días, my name is Richard Fuentes.

I'm a leader in the union movement with Ask Me, Council 57 representing 26,000 workers.

I'm also a small business owner here in downtown Oakland and a downtown Oakland resident.

I'm also a member of the mayor's working group for the charter reform, and I want to speak in support of our recommendations for a strong mayor.

We did community outreach.

We heard throughout Oakland from every single district from working people that they wanted to have a strong mayor form of government.

We had surveys where Brown and Black communities got to participate.

You're hearing today about a third option, a third option that is not recommended by the working group.

A third option that has no input from working people, from black people, from brown people.

Let's be clear.

A third option is a privilege option.

Working people don't have time to come today to at 10:30 in the morning to provide their perspective.

I've worked for three municipalities.

And because of the diversity that we have within our city, a strong form of mayoral form of government is really an approach that would serve Oaklanders because Oaklanders don't know who is responsible.

Oaklanders don't know who's in charge.

Oaklanders want to know who is responsible for filling their potholes.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Well, hello.

My name is Libby Schaff.

I'm a lifetime Oaklander.

I am a 24-year veteran of City Hall, and I speak to you as a private citizen today.

I am probably the only person alive who was an East Oakland council staffer under Jerry Brown's strong mayor form of government.

I was a council member of District 4, and I, of course, was the mayor for eight years.

So I do bring a unique uh perspective on how these different systems actually have worked in the past, and happy to answer any questions if you have any.

Um I want to start by saying I was disappointed to hear citations of the survey and suggesting that that represented voter sentiment.

Um the survey that was done by the working group was an opt-in survey, and the demographics of respondents 16% of respondents didn't even live in Oakland, and an interesting 23% were city of Oakland employees.

So I just please do not regard those survey results as voter sentiment.

Three polls now have been done about how do Oaklanders feel about this proposal.

All three have turned back very clear mandates that Oakland voters want a strong mayor.

61% in the poll uh the pulse of Oakland poll in the fall, 64% in the East Bay polling institute results, and then Mayor Schaff, is there other insights you want to offer?

I I do you have questions about how the system worked?

Yes?

Okay.

Um, under Jerry Brown, this the working group's proposal is essentially the same as we had under Jerry Brown's strong mayor before the council took away the veto power.

You might not remember Jerry Brown had a veto power because he hardly ever used it.

The one time I remember was a piece of legislation I actually wrote when I was the legislative aide to council member De La Fuente District 5.

Um the council had a lot of power.

In my experience, it is actually when the council and the mayor had the best collaboration, and the council office's constituent work, which was my passion when I worked in the council offices, actually got done.

There was more responsiveness from the administration.

Uh, while it is not clear that this proposal requires the 311 or constituent response to be under the mayor, at that time it was.

The Oaklanders Assistance Center was actually part of the mayor's office, and it was much more responsive than our current system.

Uh the council had a full-time legislative and budget analyst that allowed us to write good uh legislation, proactive legislation, and to have our own independent budget analyst to actually be an independent validator of the financial information that we were getting from the administration.

So those were some of the qualities I remember from the strong mayor.

Finally, everyone agrees that a hybrid system is fuzzy and does not serve anyone.

Option three is just another hybrid proposal.

I would prefer to see Oakland go back to a council manager form of government rather than swap one fuzzy hybrid for another.

I know that anyway, that that would be um based on my experience in these 24 years in these various roles.

And if anyone doesn't have any other questions, I appreciate the opportunity.

All right, thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

All speakers have been called.

If you are participating here in chambers and signed up to speak in your name was called, please approach the podium.

If not, we will move on to the Zoom speakers.

I see no one rising, so we will go to those who signed up to speak in Zoom.

If you are it and the mayor got extra time, and I was speaking about mobility issues, not about the strong mayor.

And I would like 30 seconds to finish.

Chair Jenkins.

Miss Midley, you're out of order.

I signed up on time, yes, and I had to listen to all that stuff.

If I give you extra time, I'd have to give everybody else extra time.

No, if you're giving people who've been involved in government.

I didn't give her extra time because she was involved in government.

I didn't say that.

All right.

Well, I I didn't get all my time because I'm having a problem with the mobility issues in the city hall, and that doesn't seem okay.

Okay, so because this is an issue of that, I will allow you 30 extra seconds.

Thank you.

Okay, so the strong mayor, the the real issue.

If you think about strong mayor and you think about a corporation, you know that the idea person is not the same as the detail person.

There's nobody who can do both well, and it's really a place that ends up at the change because of all the corruption.

Now, the current mayor is not going to be involved in corruption, but whoever comes after her could use this as a real power grab.

That's that's what it essentially is.

But the other thing about the legislative uh office, uh, I don't want a plant from the administrators in in the city council office.

I think that's a bad idea.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Now moving to the Zoom speakers.

If you um signed up to speak for this item and um you wish to use your time, please raise your hand in the queue so I can recognize you.

I see Blair Beekman.

You have been unmuted.

You may begin.

Hi, uh Blair Beekman.

Thank you a lot for this item.

I'm living in San Diego that also has a strong mayor system, and that also is having a lot of questions around the strong mayor system.

Um, I was originally from San Jose, um, and they had uh a quite a community process uh a few years ago to decide the future of strong mayor versus council manager city manager ways of working and easily the community came out in supporting the future of council manager system and created a very clear case uh of its importance.

The strong mayor simply is there to serve uh you know real estate interests and those of the rich.

And I the majority of the people who are going to be for this measure in Oakland are gonna be either in real estate or are uh rich people, and we have to acknowledge that.

Um, the tech accountability uh ideas that were created that whole new charter ideas were created for back in 2014 and 15.

It was with the intention to work towards a future of community participation and open democracy as how to talk about our future of how we practice community together.

And I think we have to be committed to those goals.

That the uh I've been learning, this is a learning process for myself, that the you know, council manager city manager way of working works towards open participatory democracy.

The strong mayor form does not, it serves the interest.

Thank you for your comments.

Uh, the next speaker in Zoom, you have been unmuted, Midori.

Hi, I'm Midori Tabata, and I'm in District Six and have been here for many years.

And while I appreciate the work that the uh the working group has done, um I support a council manager system.

Um we had one before we started, and it worked pretty well before we started Tinker.

And now we have a system that we all agree is not workable, but with a council manager's system where we have with the mayor sitting on the council and leading the effort, we have a strong rear, strong council, and we have a professional city council man.

I mean a council man, I'm sorry, city manager who is professional and can last beyond just one administration.

Don't know exactly what the don't want to depend on the goodness of the of the mayor, depending on who gets elected.

So I strongly support a council manager strong mayor system.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

I show one last hand raised in Zoom who's listed under iPhone.

When I'm unmute you, please state the name that it's written on your speaker card that you signed up for.

You are unmuted.

iPhone.

Hi, hello.

Uh my name is Fernando Perez.

I did sign up yesterday.

Great, thank you.

You may begin.

Hi, uh, my name is Fernando Perez.

Uh I uh was raised in Oakland.

I've lived throughout the Bay Area.

I've lived in uh Livermore, I lived in Hayward.

Uh I just bought a house two years ago and I moved back.

And uh I I love Oakland.

I love here I I love it here.

Uh, but I'm I'm I'm kind of tired of uh I'm I'm kind of tired of always trying to be unique politically wise and all of that, and why can't we just do what our neighbors in the Bay Area are doing and they're doing great.

Uh they do they're following the council uh manager system, and uh I I've I've moved out of Oakland for over 15 years, so I got a I got an opportunity to see what a good strong city does.

Uh basic uh trash needs uh car pickups are done on a timely manner.

So why can't we just do that?

Uh why can't we just choose a system that's been working for our neighbors here in the Bay Area as well?

Uh so uh those are my two cents, and uh thank you for your time.

Thank you for your comments.

Again, all names have been called.

If you signed up to speak for item five, uh please approach the podium or raise your hand in the queue at this time, Chair.

I see no more speakers.

Thank you.

Thank you to everyone who came out to talk about your opinion on the way that Oakland goes forward.

I know it's not it's because you care about Oakland and the direction that we go, and that's the commonality that we have between us.

So this won't be the last meeting that we have to discuss potential charter changes.

I think it's important that everybody has an opportunity to weigh in in the public forum.

And so I work with the mayor's office and the council members to um schedule another item at some point in time so that other people have a chance to weigh in.

With that, I'll open it up to council members if you guys have any comments.

Council member Brown.

At large, council member Brown.

Excellent.

Um, okay, well, thank you all so much.

Um I would just want to first start off by thanking um the mayor's working group um and everyone who was involved.

Um I know it's it's it's not easy to um you know put together uh the community engagement events and just organize you know all everyone's thoughts and opinions, and so just want to offer my gratitude and thanks for for that.

Um and then in addition, really grateful for everyone who showed up today to kind of speak and share um about whether it was their personal experience navigating um Oakland City government and what and and how you all think that we should we should uh begin to move forward.

Um and so of course, you know, my goal in all of this is ensuring that we are moving forward with a government governance structure uh that is based in accountability, and we're also ensuring that we are listening to the concerns of of our constituency, right?

And a lot of times it's it's really been very consistent around um, you know, at the end of the day, community members want their concerns to be addressed.

Um now if we get into the weeds of how that takes place, I at the end of the day it boils down to accountability.

Um, and so that is what I'm I'm interested in, and so I look forward to working with my council colleagues, so council member um Jenkins and uh council member Raman Chandren to to ensure that we move forward in a path that um is supportive of our entire city.

Um of course there is a larger conversation around um just overall representation and and I just don't think that in our day and in our day and age and just in this moment that we should be at any point reducing uh overall representation.

One of the public speakers talked about investment, like in how we are investing in in our communities.

And it is the whole reason why I ran for the at-large seat had to do with the the blaring observation of how communities both in East and West Oakland uh have been um underrepresented uh for decades.

And the truth of the matter is is that in this moment um that that is what we're living through, right?

And so uh I just I can I cannot get behind and support um a recommendation that seeks to uh eliminate representation for for the community.

Um, and I have not um ran into any community members that say uh they don't understand uh you know uh the role of the at-large seat or there's confusion between the mayor of our amazing city.

Um and so I just wanted to make sure that I say that on the record that um I I just don't believe that that is the the direction we should be going.

Uh the report also states that um uh I guess the talking point is that um uh moving the council back to an odd number of votes.

Um I do think that there's a simple fix as far as that, um, which we could all move forward with, which is as simple as uh five votes and the legislation passes, and in the event that there is a tie-breaking vote, the motion fails.

Um, and so in this moment, I think more than anything we should be a hundred percent focused on solutions uh to improving uh how our city of Oakland governance uh works and works the best for the people of Oakland.

And so um that is something that I want to get behind.

I'm grateful for uh the the group that um presented um their their findings around this third option.

I do think that it is important for uh so many of the important decisions that we make as a council.

I do think that there is some value in ensuring that the mayor can also weigh in on those.

Um, and so I am supportive of the third third option.

Uh, just wanted to say that on the record.

Um, and as always, I'm always open to uh engage further um with members of the working group um uh if they would like as well.

Um and I also would note that um during the working group's process and when they met with me, um, I offered uh multiple recommendations of how I thought that we can improve improve uh the city of Oakland's government structure, um, and I did not see a single one of my recommendations uh make it to the recommendations.

Um, and so um I think that that is something that um in my opinion um is just something that has been missed, right?

Because I think all of us on the council we have valuable insights that we can share around how um we can improve city of Oakland governance.

Um so that's that's all I'll share in this moment.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Councilmember Houston.

I'm not on the rules committee, so I'd like to pass that to my council member Ramachana first before I state what I want to state, but I do want to say something.

No, I do want to say something about um the timely um manner of um uh of scheduling item 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4.

And I'm gonna I'm gonna hold something up so everyone can see this real quick and why I held that up is that I need that schedule of council member Brown, and you're doing an excellent job.

Everything you do and work with me, you're doing an excellent job.

But yesterday I said I need to schedule because yesterday I sat with the president um the principal of Castlemont, and I had a hundred and fifty students in Castlemont homeless.

Were you were you guys talking about the charter?

We were talking about the charter and a charter reform because I'm gonna share this.

My district was 10 toes down for the mayor more than any other district.

My district was for the recall of the mayor and of the the DA more than any other district.

And everybody out here knows I've been 10 toes down for the mayor from day one.

I'm gonna go back to my council to my district because they're waiting for what how I feel about this charter rebuy, um charter reform.

And I remember back if you go back to Robert Bob, how good it was with Robert Bob.

I mean, with the strong council, strong manager.

So um my constituents in D7.

They waiting on my opinion, but I want their opinion.

But if it led to my opinion on the charter reform, it would be um in line with councilmember Brown of the third option.

Um because I'm tired of um going outside of my scope of work and doing things I shouldn't be doing because we're not able to do it because a council member is only legislation and policy.

I'm tired of going to remove a car myself.

I'm tired of relocating an encampment myself, and that the city administrator reports to the mayor, but doesn't report to us as a council, right?

We should have that same authority that the city administrator reports to us, right?

I like what Ryan Richardson is doing.

Um I can just go on and on and on, but I said I was gonna pass it to you, council member.

I'm gonna let you I'm gonna pass it to you, but I got a couple of more things to say, so don't use that as my time, President.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I think today's this meeting was very enlightening.

Myself and Council President Jenkins wanted to schedule this item specifically to continue the process of gathering community input.

Um today we heard plus or minus 20 comments that were opposed to the strong mayor system and open to some alternative.

We heard about four that were for the system.

But apart from what we hear here, I can at least speak for myself, and I know many of my colleagues who are out and about the community.

I have said at least 17 times in the past month when I'm in people's living rooms in my district, when I'm on their street corners and I'm in the business districts, that I am in an information gathering stage, and this is very valuable input, and I'm continuing the process of listening to our constituents and hearing very different perspectives.

For I forgot who someone that mentioned you can't come at 10 30 a.m.

That that's correct, which is why after 5 p.m.

we're out in our communities talking to people and meeting them where they're at, and I've heard very different perspectives, and I think this is important.

The I appreciate the mayor's working group in scheduling a first round of community outreach late last year near the holidays.

And I think a lot of those sessions served as information to show, ask what is the charter.

And now, a couple of months into this process, people are starting to form an opinion one way or the other.

So I think this is very helpful, and I will take all of this into consideration, plus all of the conversations that I have.

And this is not the last time this will be heard in council.

We will bring this to an evening meeting at the full city council as this process continues, and I look forward to continuing to hear what people have to say from not just my district, but all over the city.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilman Busa.

I can speak again.

So in closing, I want to say that I'm gonna have community meetings from Sheffield Village to the Hills to the flats to my Latino brothers and sisters that's waiting for me to speak about this.

I spoke in front of 300 last week, and I'm gonna speak in front of 300 again this Sunday.

So I'm gonna get opinions, I'm gonna get you know that what they want, because I might want it purple, they want it green.

If they want it green, that's where I'm gonna go, no matter even if I want it purple.

So I'm gonna talk to my constituents, but I'm definitely gonna give my opinion, my opinion for with influence um on how I feel and whatever they decide, they decide.

But I'm gonna be having my community meetings for sure about this for sure.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Houston.

Councilmember Brown, any more comments?

Councilmember Roman Chandra.

So I'll make sure that I work with the city attorney's office to send out a timeline for in which things need to get on the ballot.

We need to hear them uh two regularly scheduled meetings, and that timeline is tight.

I encourage people to continue doing the research and continue reaching out.

I understand that Spur and Legal Windman voters will be available for questions.

Um as Councilmember Ramon Chandren said, we will hear this again at a regularly scheduled meeting uh during council so that more people have the opportunity to weigh in with that.

I'll entertain a motion to receive and file this in committee.

So moved second.

And that was a motion by councilmember Ramachandran, seconded by councilmember Brown to receive and file item number five on roll for that is Councilmember Brown.

Aye.

Councilmember Fife is excused, Councilmember Rama Chandran.

Aye, and Chair Jenkins.

Item number five is received and filed with three ayes, one excuse Councilmember Fife.

That now takes us to open forum.

I will read the speakers who have signed up for this item.

If you are participating via Zoom, please raise your hand so you'll be recognized.

And for those who are here in chambers in person, please line up behind the podium in any order.

I have Blair Beekman, Kelly Kevin Daly, Rajni Mandal, David Boatright, Ralph Cannes, Millie Cleveland, Anil Umilo, and any order.

Thank you.

David Vote Right District 4.

I agree that the council members should be paid more, but only if the council eliminates the city general purpose fund deficit, they contributed to without adding more taxes.

The council members dedicate their full time that the uh council members dedicate their full time to their council member responsibilities as they implicitly agreed to when they ran for office.

The council members attend all city council meetings and their committee meetings with rare exceptions for health or serious personal reasons.

It's amazing that the city council won't allow seating partial unused speaker time and then allows only part of a speaker's time to be seated.

How can multiple city residents be given preferential treatment, especially if they didn't sign up to speak by the deadline and others were not allowed to speak?

And if council member Houston wants to speak without signing up to speak in a committee he's not on, I don't understand the rules.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Rajni Mundel District 4.

I want to connect today's charter reform discussion to another area that deserves the same level of scrutiny, police oversight.

Right now, council is asking fundamental questions about governance, roles, authority, and accountability.

And those exact same questions apply to our police oversight system.

The recent city auditor report makes it clear the issue is not just resources, it is structure, including overlapping roles, unclear authority, and gaps in accountability across multiple oversight bodies.

And we are seeing the consequence of that structure and practice.

Decisions stall, responsibilities are diffuse, and it becomes difficult to determine who is ultimately accountable for outcomes.

I'd also like to note that a significant number of the city attorney public opinions, actually, one in four in recent years have focused exclusively on these oversight agencies.

That suggests ongoing uncertainty about scope and authority, not just capacity.

The mayor's charter reform working group provides a useful model here.

It brought together community members, experts, and stakeholders to evaluate governance and develop clear recommendations.

I'll encourage council to consider a similar approach for police oversight.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

I would like you to uh place on rules, uh scheduling uh overtime OPD overtime for public safety.

This is a significant effect on our budget.

I understand that it was placed on the agenda for finance, but it is not just a finance issue, it is an operational issue for decades.

City auditors have made very concrete recommendations on how to control OPD overtime that the city administrator has never implemented, and you guys have ignored.

I also think that the uh other issue that needs to be placed on the agenda is OPOA's MOU.

It has a lot of tweaking that needs to be discussed out in the open.

People aren't trying to be at the negotiating table, but there is no law that would stop you from putting that on.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

I'm hoping that you will follow up on the suggestion from the member of the public ethics commission to investigate whether whether the council is legally required to set up public hearings on the charter reform or whether we can just move directly to a vote in counseling committee.

I'm hoping that we have public forums for more than 90 seconds of discussion.

Uh looking forward to the answer from the city attorney on that.

Thanks.

Thank you for your comments.

Good morning.

Anil Camelo.

I'm a I'm a brown guy.

I'm a former employee, a former HR director here.

I'm currently a city manager, and I've got 32 years in public sector governance.

For me, the key political issue is how is a city going to be managed?

I care about the city.

I run here every week.

I come an hour to run around Lake Merritt every Saturday morning.

My point is I really, really care about the city.

I consider it to be my hometown.

And I've considered to be a hometown for the last 40 years, ever since I got off Pan Am flight.

Governance is the key issue.

And please, please, please do not double down on a failed system.

Strong mayor system is a failed system.

What does work consistently around the country for local city governance is a council manager form of government?

I can tell you with 32 years of service, including three years here, the city of Oakland, and currently a city manager, that system works.

Please go to option three.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Afternoon, Ralph Cannes.

Again, you keep ignoring this.

The mayor's office won't respond.

I don't know what's going on.

You're losing millions and millions of dollars because permit fees aren't being enforced.

The liens don't get placed on the property.

There's no actual constructive notice to a buyer.

Therefore, the fees never get paid.

The city is losing millions and millions of dollars.

It also adds to garbage being dumped because the rules around disposal by under during construction aren't being followed.

Why don't you want to do something when you have a money trouble that's all about money?

You're being ripped off like crazy.

Almost none of these people are even from Oakland.

It's all money leaving the city.

That you should be getting a cut of because of what the city does for those people.

And Jenkins, you're saying you're wanting to look at me again.

I mean, what is this?

You you you have there's a screen down here.

Thank you for your question.

There's a screen right here.

That's fine.

Thank you for your comments.

Appreciate it.

Next next speaker.

Our next next speaker.

Our next speaker is Blair Beekman.

Please unmute yourself and you may begin.

All right, thank you.

Uh, really interesting uh meeting today.

Thank you.

Really good uh public comment here at Open Forum.

Thank you.

Um good luck in addressing the future of uh police uh um overtime pay.

Um the uh the March 10th uh committee meetings overall seemed like a really good session, uh good learning experience for myself.

I'm I'm really uh happy just to learn things from the March 10th session and overtime was a part of that.

So good luck on that.

I think it's gonna take uh much longer uh to 2028 before uh charter changes can be uh can come to a vote.

Good luck that we can have a community discussion.

Um I'm encouraged by what people have said.

Uh thank you.

Um and I wanted to comment on um just another thank you for the work of the flock issues that we've created a compromise process.

Uh we can talk about a new flock vendor, and that's an important concept for all of us.

We can develop a good future.

It's good examples for California.

Thank you for your comments.

That was the last open forum speaker.

Thank you.

This meeting is adjourned.