Bay Area

OUSD Board Delays Vote on Reparations Resolution for Black Students

“There is not one Black family in OUSD that hasn’t experienced the pain of anti-Black racism in our schools,” reads a statement on reparationsforblackstudents.org, a website run by the Justice 4 Oakland Students Coalition in support of the bill. “Now is the time to look at the solutions from the Black community and invest in the remaining Black students.”

Published

3 years ago

March 12, 2021

Mia Lane

Former site of Lakeview Elementary School, a majority Black school which OUSD closed in 2012. Lakeview Elementary was a majority Black public school. Currently American Indian Charter School, a majority none Black school, has taken over its campus. The Reparations for Black Students Resolution would protect schools like Lakeview, who have at least 30% Black students, from facing closure. Photo by Zack Haber on March 9.

During a Oakland School Board meeting last month, the Board decided to delay a vote to approve The Reparations for Black Students Resolution until March 24, preventing the resolution from being approved during Black History Month and frustrating many who had organized and advocated for the bill’s passing.

The Justice for Oakland Students Coalition includes:Oakland Education Association, The Black Organizing Project, Teachers for Social Justice, Parents United for Public Schools, and other local community organizations. The coalition inspired and informed the resolution after two years of listening sessions with Black students, parents, educators and District staff.

The resolution seeks to address the harm Black students, families and teachers have faced in OUSD including: the closure of 16 schools with a significant population of Black students in the last 15 years, a disproportionately low graduation rate and disproportionately high suspension rate among Black students, and a loss of about 67% percent of OUSD’s Black student population since 2000.

The board slowly came to their decisions to delay during two hours of tense discussion, brief public comments, and votes from about 11:00 p.m. February 24 to 1:00 a.m. on Feb 25. Board Director Clifford Thompson prompted the process by proposing amendments to erase much of the resolution.

“I back the resolution 100%, but I’m just taking out a few things,” said Thompson while proposing the cuts.

Clifford proposed cutting all of the following from the resolution: protections to stop schools with 30% or more Black students from facing closure; requirements for the superintendent to implement a retention plan for Black teachers;creation of an emergency fund to help Black families affected by the COVID-19 pandemic to pay rent, protections for Black students with disabilities on Individualized Education Plans (IEPs), and all references to charter schools.

The resolution contains about 1,650 words that, if passed, would require action from the Oakland Unified School District. Thompson proposed cutting about 1,300 of these words, or about 80% of the actionable language. Director Aimee Engproposed adding about 90 words to the resolution that direct the Board and superintendent to “seek public, private and philanthropic partnerships” that would “resource targeted investments to accelerate the academic outcomes and support the social emotional well–being of Black students.”

Neither Thompson nor Eng made their proposed amendments visible to the public or other Board members before the meeting. General Counsel Joshua Daniels made Thompson’s amendments visible during the Zoom meeting for less than five minutes. Eng showed those attending and participating in the meeting her amendments by sharing her screen for less than three minutes.

Board members VanCedric Williams and Mike Hutchinson, who wrote the current version of the resolution, expressed deep frustration at the proposed cuts and changes to the bill.

“Let’s not try to cut this down into a meaningless resolution and then walk away feeling good,” said Williams about Thompson’s proposed cuts. “We cannot play these games anymore. We really have to stand up to what our values are.”

After about 30 minutes of discussion from Board members and Supt. Kyla Johnson-Trammell, Hutchinson called for the discussion of cuts to the bill to be ended and for the Board to vote on whether or not to implement it. All Board members except Hutchinson, Williams and student Board Director Jessica, Ramos voted to continue to discuss the changes.

“Not only do I find this extremely offensive,” said Hutchinson upon hearing that the Board wanted to continue discussing changes to the bill, “but it sure feels anti-Black to me.”

During the meeting Ramos claimed hundreds of students were texting her to express disappointment in the proposed changes to the bill.

“This is very sad,” Ramos said. “You know when someone chews your food and then spits it back out? That’s how this feels.”

Board member Sam Davis, however, claimed compromise and accepting less than what the community initially asked for was essential.

“You can’t take something exactly as written because you have to accommodate the reality you’re working in,” Davis said. “To me, something is better than nothing and this addresses some of the demands the community had brought forth.”

Board President Shanthi Gonzalez pushed for a slower process that would allow more time to craft a bill that was “more acceptable and that everyone could live with.”

“I think it’s just happening too fast,” said Gonzalez. “It would make sense to slow down. Everything our Board does is a product of negotiation.”

Williams and Hutchinson both claimed they had reached out to other Board members for their input on the bill and questioned why the changes were being presented during the meeting instead of beforehand.

“You said you thought this was moving too fast, now you’re trying to re-write it on the spot,” said Hutchinson. “You didn’t try to do this last week when it was originally written.”

Before voting on the proposed amendments, the Board heard public comments. All 15 people who were allowed to speak opposed the amendments and called for the Board to approve the original resolution. Dozens of other Oakland community members asked to speak, including District 3 Council-member Carroll Fife, but were not allowed to.

After hearing public comment, the Board voted on whether to accept Thompson and Eng’s amendments. Ramos abstained from voting. Williams and Hutchinson voted “no.” All other Board members voted to accept the changes, and the amendments passed.

Then Williams made a motion to ask the Board to vote on whether or not to change the name of the resolution, as it stood in its current form, to ‘The White Supremacy Resolution,’claiming that it now did the opposite of what it had originally set out to do.

“That wasn’t hyperbole and he wasn’t joking,” said Hutchinson after seconding Williams’ motion. “You turn Black reparations into another exercise in white supremacy.”

Ramos, Williams and Hutchinson voted to approve the motion to change name of The Reparations For Black Students Resolution to The White Supremacy Resolution, while all other Board members voted against the name change.

After more discussion of the bill, Gonzalez suggested taking more time to compromise on a version of the resolutionthe Board could agree on and admitted that the current version was “substantially different” from the original one. Williams agreed as long as discussions about changing the bill could start from its original form.

“Please stop messing with this,” he said. “Put it back to the original and we’ll debate it.”

All Board members voted to restore the resolution back to its original form, except for Thompson and Board Director Gary Yee, who voted to keep the amendments.

Then the Board voted to delay the vote to approve the Reparations for Black Students Resolution until March 24. On that vote, Ramos abstained from voting. Hutchinson voted “no.” All other Board members voted to accept the delay.

Since the vote to delay, community members have been vocal about rejecting any changes to the bill and urging board members to vote yes at the March 24 meeting. On February 26, dozens of Oakland students and community members rallied outside of Board member Sam Davis’ home.

“You can make the discussion to support it now or we can have civil disobedience later,” said a student through a megaphone at the rally. “We believe it is vital to support The Reparations for Black Students Resolution as written by the community.”

Davis thanked the students for coming by and told them he would vote “yes” on the resolution and reject amendments on March 24.

Mia Lane

Posts by Mia Lane

Up Next

Senate Passes $1.9 Trillion American Rescue Plan

Don't Miss

Senate Confirms Marcia Fudge as HUD Secretary

Mia Lane

Click to comment

Alameda County

District Attorney Pamela Price Will Face Recall Election on November General Election Ballot

The Alameda County Board of Supervisors scheduled the recall election against Alameda District Attorney Pamela Price for November 5, coinciding with the 2024 General Election. The decision comes after weeks of controversy and drawn-out discussions amongst county officials, recall proponents, and opponents, and legal advisors.

Published

3 days ago

May 18, 2024

Oakland Post

Alameda District Attorney Pamela Price’s future will be determined on the November General Election ballot instead of a special recall election. On the left, DA Pamela Price. On the right, principal officer of the recall campaign Save Alameda For Everyone (SAFE). Collage by Magaly Muñoz

By Magaly Muñoz

The Alameda County Board of Supervisors scheduled the recall election against Alameda District Attorney Pamela Price for November 5, coinciding with the 2024 General Election.

The decision comes after weeks of controversy and drawn-out discussions amongst county officials, recall proponents, and opponents, and legal advisors.

Recall proponents submitted 123,374 signatures before the March 5 deadline, which resulted in 74,757 valid signatures counted by the Registrar of Voters (ROV).

The recall election will cost Alameda County $4 million and will require them to hire hundreds of new election workers to manage the demand of keeping up with the federal, state and local elections and measures.

Save Alameda For Everyone (SAFE), one of the two recall campaigns against Price, held a press conference minutes before the Board’s special meeting asking for the Supervisors to schedule the election in August instead of consolidating with the November election.

Supporters of the recall have said they were not concerned with the $20 million price tag the special election would’ve cost the county if they had put it on the ballot in the summer. Many have stated that the lives of their loved ones are worth more than that number.

“What is the cost of a life?” recall supporters have asked time and time again.

Opponents of the recall election have been vehemently against a special date to vote, stating it would cost taxpayers too much money that could be reinvested into social programs to help struggling residents.

A special election could’ve cost the county’s budget to exceed its current deficit of $68 million, which was a driving factor in the three supervisors who voted for a consolidated election.

“Bottom line is, I can’t in good conscience support a special election that is going to cost the county $20 million,” Board President Nate Miley said.

Many speakers asked Miley and Keith Carson to recuse themselves from the vote, claiming that they have had improper involvement with either the recall proponents or Price herself.

Both supervisors addressed the concerns stating that regardless of who they associate themselves with or what their political beliefs are, they have to do their jobs, no matter the outcome.

Carson noted that although he’s neither supporting nor opposing Price as district attorney, he believes that whoever is elected next to take that position should have a reasonable amount of time to adjust to the job before recalls are considered.

Reports of recall attempts started as soon as April 2023 when Price had only been in office three months.

Price and her campaign team Protect the Win have been adamant that the voters who elected her to office will not fall for the “undemocratic” practices from the recall campaign and they are prepared to put all efforts forward to guarantee she stays in office.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Bay Area

Radical Proposal to Limit the Power of Oakland’s Police Commission

Since February 2023, several stakeholders, including the Coalition for Police Accountability, began to work on amending the Enabling Ordinance of Section 604, Article VI of the Oakland City Charter. The Enabling Ordinance was approved by 83.19% of Oakland voters and established the civilian membered Police Commission (the Commission), the Community Police Review Agency (CPRA) and the Office of the Inspector General (OIG). The recent process to amend was focused on addressing some of the inefficiencies and disruptions that have occurred with the Police Commission and to establish guard rails and procedures to mitigate such issues in the future.

Published

3 days ago

May 18, 2024

Oakland Post

Cathy Leonard, President Coalition for Police Accountability. Courtesy photo. Coalition for Police Accountability logo.

By Coalition for Police Accountability

A counter proposal was presented by Councilmember Jenkins to drastically amend Article VI, Section 604 of the City Charter. The proposal would remove the selection process of the police chief from the Commission and give that power solely to the mayor. Currently, the Commission selects the candidates from which the mayor chooses the chief and presents them to the mayor who selects the final candidate. The proposal also moves the OIG to the Auditor’s Office. These proposals would rob the Commission and the OIG of independence from City Hall which 83.19% of Oakland voters sought in voting for Measure LL in 2016 and Measure S1 in 2018.

Our position is that the issues that have been raised about the hiring of the Chief, the appointment authority of Commissioners, and the scope of CPRA can all be incorporated into the ongoing collaboration of all the stakeholders working on the Enabling Ordinance. Those stakeholders are the two authors, the Coalition of Police Accountability, the Police Commission and the community members who have participated in this extensive work which has yet to be completed and approved by the City Council. The Charter is very clear that the Commission hires the IG and that the IG is supervised by the Commission. The ordinance cannot override that provision of the Charter.

Amending the Charter is not the vehicle that should be used to make amendments. The proposed Enabling Ordinance should be given a chance to effect positive change before making radical and undemocratic revisions.

For further information, please contact the Coalition for Police Accountability by reaching out to Mariano Contreras at puralata1@gmail.com.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Bay Area

Oakland International Airport Will Now Be Called ‘San Francisco Bay Oakland International Airport’

The Port of Oakland Commissioners voted unanimously to rename the Metropolitan Oakland International Airport to San Francisco Bay Oakland Airport at their board meeting last week. Despite a six-week battle with San Francisco leaders, residents and even Oaklanders, the Port remained steadfast in their decision to change the airport name in order to bring more revenue to Oakland’s economy.

Published

3 days ago

May 18, 2024

Oakland Post

The Port of Oakland unanimously voted to rename Metropolitan Oakland International Airport to San Francisco Bay Oakland International Airport after weeks of controversy and legal pushback from surrounding Bay Area cities. Photo by Takako Phillips, iStock.

By Magaly Muñoz

The Port of Oakland Commissioners voted unanimously to rename the Metropolitan Oakland International Airport to San Francisco Bay Oakland Airport at their board meeting last week.

Despite a six-week battle with San Francisco leaders, residents and even Oaklanders, the Port remained steadfast in their decision to change the airport name in order to bring more revenue to Oakland’s economy.

The Port reassured all parties that the airport will continue to have its OAK three-letter code and ‘I Fly OAK’ phrases, to minimize confusion among travelers.

“Our Board came to these discussions with a shared love of Oakland and a desire to see our city and airport thrive. Since our initial vote, the Port has met with dozens of community leaders and stakeholders and heard their concerns. We are moving forward with a commitment to honoring our past while building a stronger, more inclusive future,” Board President Barbara Leslie said in a statement.

The Board had delayed their decision by a month in order to listen to community members’ concerns about the name change. Bay Area residents accused the Port of trying to rewrite history and hide their current problems with public safety and crime behind a big tourist attraction.

The Port stated that their intention is to boost the number of people who fly into Oakland, which will allow for travelers to get to know the city and spend their money in the local businesses.

According to reports, Oakland Airport (OAK) is the closest major airport to 58% of the Bay Area population.

In the days following the announcement for change consideration, San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu filed a lawsuit against Oakland to protect San Francisco.

The lawsuit argues that Oakland airport’s attempt to “unlawfully incorporate” the San Francisco trademark leaves the city with no choice but to sue for trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition.

San Francisco city leaders and Oakland residents have insisted that the new name will create confusion and chaos for travelers who are not familiar with the area or the distinction between the two airports.

The Port has since responded with a countersuit of their own, asking the courts to rule that their name change does not violate San Francisco Airport’s (SFO) trademark.

The counterclaim says that the Port “seeks to increase awareness of Oakland Airport’s geographic location on San Francisco Bay among potential travelers and thus increase passenger traffic at Oakland Airport, create jobs, and boost economic activity in Oakland and the wider San Francisco Bay Area.”

Two days before the Port meeting, Chiu sent another letter to the Port offering to collaborate with Oakland to find alternative names for the airport and avoid litigation.

Oakland Port Attorney Mary Richardson said in a statement the following day that the Port is willing to partner with SFO to bring as many options as possible to travelers and have an open dialogue on how to move forward, but ultimately will still change the Oakland airport name.

The ‘San Francisco Bay’ rebrand has already made its way to the airport’s website and physical changes such as signage will be coming in the following months. The name swap will cost Oakland about $150,000.