Oakland Mayor Thao’s Firing Of Chief Armstrong Was Against The City Charter

by

In allowing new Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao to fire Oakland Police Chief LeRonne Armstrong on her own, Oaklanders have allowed the new Mayor to act against the Oakland City Charter. And the Mayor’s lack of legal ability to hire and fire extends to City of Oakland department heads.

To put it bluntly, Mayor’s Thao’s actions in firing Chief LeRonne Armstrong were illegal. Let’s review.

There are three Oakland City Charter sections which impact the Mayor’s power to hire and fire with respect to the Police Chief and other department heads. One directly concerning the Mayor’s powers, the next about the City Administrator, the third regarding the Oakland Police Commission, and the fourth pointing to the Oakland Police Department.

Let’s start with Oakland City Charter Section 305[e], which refers to “Functions, Powers and Duties” and reads as follows:

Section 305. Functions, Powers and Duties. The Mayor shall be the chief elective officer of the City, responsible for providing leadership and taking issues to the people and marshalling public interest in and support for municipal activity. The Mayor shall have the following powers, duties, and responsibilities:
(a) The Mayor shall be responsible for the submission of an annual budget to the Council which shall be prepared by the City Administrator under the direction of the Mayor and Council. The Mayor shall, at the time of the submission of the budget, submit a general statement of the conditions of the affairs of the City, the goals of the administration, and recommendations of such measures as he may deem expedient and proper to accomplish such goals.
(b) Recommend to the Council such measures and legislation as he deems necessary and to make such other recommendations to the Council concerning the affairs of the City as he finds desirable.
(c) Encourage programs for the physical, economic, social and cultural development of the City.
(d) Actively promote economic development to broaden and strengthen the commercial and employment base of the City.
(e) Appoint the City Administrator, subject to confirmation by the City Council, remove the City Administrator and give direction to the City Administrator. The Mayor shall advise the Council before removing the City Administrator.
(f) Serve as ceremonial head of the City.
(g) Represent the City in inter-governmental relations as directed by the Council.
(h) Provide community leadership.

As you can see, there is no language that gives the Mayor of Oakland the specific power to hire or fire the Oakland Police Chief. In our short history with the Strong Mayor system in Oakland, we have had only one Oakland Mayor who openly fired the Police Chief, Sheng Thao, and one who did it in concert with the Police Commission: Libby Schaaf. The rest of the actions were resignations on the part of the Oakland Police Chief.

Now, let’s look at the Oakland Police Commission.

There’s a popular assumption that the Mayor of Oakland has to “work with” the Oakland Police Commission in the firing of the Police Chief. But there’s no language, none, in the Oakland City Charter that legally sanctions such a relationship. Instead, the City Charter simply reads like this:

2.45.070 – Functions and duties of the Commission.
In addition to the powers and duties described in section 604 of the Oakland City Charter, the Commission shall:
A. In accord with the City’s record retention schedule, maintain all electronic communications to, from and/or copied to any Commissioner or alternate regarding any matters within the Commission’s jurisdiction, and provide such communications to the City upon request.
B. Maintain the confidentiality of its business in accordance with state and local law, including without limitation, California Penal Code 832.7 and the California Public Records Act (Cal. Gov’t Code sec. 6250, et seq.). A Commissioner’s failure to maintain such confidentiality, whether or not intentional, may be considered “gross misconduct in office” for purposes of City Charter section 604(c)(10).
C. Review and comment on the education and training the Department provides its sworn employees regarding the management of job-related stress, and regarding the signs and symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, drug and alcohol abuse, and other job-related mental and emotional health issues. The Commission shall provide any recommendations for more or different education and training to the Chief who shall respond in writing consistent with section 604(b)(6) of the Oakland City Charter.
D. Prepare and deliver to the Mayor, the City Administrator and the Chief by April 15 of each year, or such other date as set by the Mayor, a proposed budget for providing the education and training identified in subsection C., above.
E. Notwithstanding section 2.29.020 of the Oakland Municipal Code and in accordance with section 604(b)(10) of the City Charter, have the authority to remove the Chief, without the approval of the Mayor, by a vote of not less than five (5) affirmative votes and only after finding cause. For purposes of removing the Chief, “cause” shall be defined as any of the following:
1. Continuing, intentional, or willful failure or refusal to perform the duties and responsibilities of the Chief of Police as required by any employment agreement with the City, the City Charter, the City’s governing laws and regulations, or any laws, rules or regulations of any governmental entity applicable to the Chief’s employment by the City or to City operations, including without limitation, the inability to perform the duties and responsibilities of the Chief of Police as aforementioned as a result of alcoholism or drug addiction; or
2. Gross neglect of duties, material violation of any duty of loyalty to the City, or material violation of City or Department policy, including without limitation any policies or procedures pertaining to harassment and discrimination, after the Chief has received written warning of the neglect or violation and the Chief has failed to cure the neglect or violation within twenty (20) days; or
3. Conviction by, or entry of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, in a court of competent and final jurisdiction for (a) any crime involving moral turpitude, (b) any felony offense, (c) any crime which is likely to have a material adverse impact on the business operations or financial or other condition of the City, or (d) any crime which has resulted in imprisonment; or
4. Failure or refusal to cooperate with any investigation involving employees of the Department; or
5. Obstruction of any investigation of Department employee misconduct or criminal activity; or
6. Refusal, which shall include ongoing failure, to administer or enforce any Department policy or procedure; or
7. A material act of dishonesty, fraud, embezzlement, self-dealing, or other act of moral turpitude; or
8. A material breach of confidentiality; or
9. Loss of any professional license or other certification required by state or local law to perform the duties of the position of Chief of Police.

As you can see, there’s no language that supports the ability of the Mayor of Oakland to directly fire the Chief of Police. And regarding reference to Section 2.29.020, that points to this language:

2.29.020 – Police Department.

There is established in the City government a Police Department which shall be under the supervision and administrative control of the City Administrator. The powers, functions and duties of said Department shall be those assigned, authorized and directed by the City Administrator. The management and operation of the Police Department shall be the responsibility of the Chief of Police who shall serve as Director of said Department, subject to the direction of the City Administrator.

Note, City Administrator – there is no mention of the Mayor of Oakland. The Mayor of Oakland doesn’t even have the power to hire and fire department heads; the City Administrator does, again, according to the Oakland City Charter.

Jerry Brown’s version of Oakland Strong Mayor called “Measure X”, which we’re still using, was really set up, as a long-time friend of mine who knows, said: “because Jerry didn’t want to have to be bothered with going to City Council meetings.” In effect, the Oakland Government we’re operating today was really designed for the pleasure of one man: Jerry Brown. Jerry didn’t want to deal with the day-to-day matters of firing department heads; he left that to City Administrator Robert Bobb. But as social media’s influence grew, Oakland’s government operation slowly adjusted to pedestrian expectation, rather than written law.

Thus, by the time Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf became just that in 2014, she was under the impression the power over the hiring and firing of the Police Chief was directly hers. What was more troubling was the Oakland City Attorney and the Oakland City Auditor never called her on it.

So, when news of the Oakland Police Sex Scandal emerged in 2014, Mayor Libby Schaaf said her job is to “run a police department, not a frat house.” Well, really, the job was that of the City Administrator, not Mayor Schaaf. But since the Mayor hires and fires the City Administrator, the City minders let the Mayor do it without questioning the matter in public. Even the “official” Oakland website forgets that the City Administrator hires and fires the Chief of Police, and not the Mayor of Oakland. But, and to her credit, when holding the press conference where she announced the resignation of Oakland Police Chief Sean Whent, Mayor Schaaf had Oakland City Administrator Sabrina Landreith at her side, showing that the power was shared cosmetically, but Sabrina did the real dirty work:

By contrast, Mayor Sheng Thao made Chief Armstrong’s firing all by herself and without the City Administrator (Interim City Administrator G. Harold Duffy) by her side and about her thoughts and opinions regarding what he said at a press conference, as opposed to a clinical reading of a written violation of policy or ethics one would have expected the Chief to be blamed for. Indeed, only Oakland Deputy Police Chief (now Interim) Darren Allison stood behind Sheng:

Moreover, Mayor Thao did not even follow her own January 19th statement that she would read more reports and determine the blame to place on other officers in accordance with the Federal Monitor’s report. Mayor Thao acted without consulting the Oakland City Charter, and even failed to site the specific city law that gave her the power she wrongly believed she had.

All of this leaves Oakland’s Government in a mess. The question is, does the electorate care?

Stay tuned.



1 thought on “Oakland Mayor Thao’s Firing Of Chief Armstrong Was Against The City Charter”

Leave a Comment