[This is Steve] Every year the Grand Jury is required to issue a special report concerning citizen complaints about all the cities in Alameda County. This year, the 20-member panel focused exclusively on Oakland, due to “the unusually high number of complaints” against Oakland. The Report is scathing, laying bare the embarrassing, almost criminal failures of the progressives who lead us, and their deliberate attempts to ignore what is best for all of us in favor of their racialized obsession with “equality.” Read through the Foreward—it’s not too long, and exposes for all to see the incompetence and corruption rampant in Oakland government.
For the full Report, see here. Thanks to reader Mike Henn for sending this to me.]
* * * * * *
FOREWORD
The 2024-2025 Alameda County Grand Jury received an unusually high number of complaints concerning the City of Oakland. While the Grand Jury normally investigates complaints across Alameda County, this year, because of the significance of the issues, we primarily focused on Oakland. As the county seat and its largest municipality, these investigations serve the citizens of Alameda County.
Oakland is a dynamic and beautiful city, but also complex. Home to over 425,000 residents and a wide range of major employers both in the public and private sector, with a major seaport and an international airport, Oakland is an economic engine that helps to fuel regional growth in Alameda County. Not only should Oaklanders benefit from a better city, but all of Alameda County benefits from a better Oakland.
It is well reported that Oakland has had significant financial issues and problems in providing basic city services to its residents. This report speaks to the responsibility of the city to provide these basic services, finding that in many respects Oakland has failed in its duty to its citizens.
Within our report we examine several issues related to revenues that drive the delivery of city services. While each investigation explores the individual issues and provides findings and recommendations, they collectively highlight a broader concern: a breakdown in oversight and accountability.
The Grand Jury found a stunning commonality across the City of Oakland’s governance: a failure to provide citizen oversight and internal controls. Oakland has an intricate set of boards and commissions that are designed to oversee policy. Although only four are formally required by the city charter (port, civil service, public ethics, and police), Oakland has over 40 boards and commissions that are intended to provide citizen oversight. These boards and commissions are vital in managing programs and advising elected officials.
The Grand Jury found failures in this process. While certain commissions met as scheduled, other commissions with critical oversight functions failed to meet, some cancelling meetings mere minutes before they were scheduled to begin. One of the most troubling findings was a fundamental disconnect regarding the city’s financial condition. Elected officials testified that Oakland is financially sound, with substantial assets and no threat of insolvency. In contrast, city finance and administrative staff warned that the city faces immediate fiscal risk. Further complicating our investigation was public information that was released and then retracted, in the form of a November 8, 2024, memo expressly warning of insolvency and possible bankruptcy. Elected officials claimed the document’s release as a “mistake.” Even so, nothing could discount the severity of the situation, with the replacement memo still warning that “immediate action is necessary to maintain the solvency of the General Purpose fund.”
The Grand Jury also found elected officials had the expectation that bond sales would continue. Conversely, Oakland’s finance officials expressed concerns that the city could not currently satisfy the requirements for disclosures and certifications without significant budget reforms. At the time of this report, there’s no clarity on the city’s ability to sell bonds to fund critical infrastructure in the near term. Clearly there is a chasm between what disclosures are publicly made and the actual financial conditions facing the city that hamper the ability to provide even the most basic city services.
The Grand Jury acknowledges the dynamic and challenging environment in which Oakland finds itself. Just as an example during our one-year term, the city will have had four mayors and four new members of the city council. That said, the Grand Jury found much of the oversight and reporting to the public was simply not taking place. It found the process of governance, in many cases, to be largely broken and siloed. It is our hope that the city will implement our recommendations and heed this warning as an opportunity to reform its process and rebuild public trust.
While the Grand Jury has serious concerns about the city’s governance, we also wanted to acknowledge the many hard-working individuals that continue to devote their lives to making Oakland a better place to work and live. During extensive testimony, the Grand Jury found many individuals who are working tirelessly, committed to improving Oakland. The city’s problems are significant, but its continued operation is a testament to their efforts. Government has a duty to provide an environment that allows these dedicated public servants to succeed and thrive.
While the Grand Jury is prohibited from advising on policy matters, it is our hope that elected officials will take our report as a helpful tool in reform. The governance of Oakland relies on partnership and cooperation from municipal and county officials and agencies, coupled with robust citizen oversight. Oaklanders are proud of their city, as they should be, and by working together Oakland can deliver on its promise to not only its residents but all of Alameda County.
Steve Heimoff