HAYWARD, Calif. — The Hayward Community Services Commission wanted an advisory panel convened by the city’s police chief to be more transparent by holding public meetings. The Hayward City Council decided to dissolve the panel and form its own public safety committee instead.
“This is a committee in response to the community saying that they want us to continue to prioritize public safety,” Councilmember Ray Bonilla said, “and that’s exactly what we’re doing by bringing this to the purview of council on a bi-monthly basis.”
Last week, the Hayward City Council voted unanimously to establish the Council Public Safety Committee and dissolve the Hayward Police Department’s Community Advisory Panel, which the city’s Community Services Commission wanted to be open to the public and subject to the state’s sunshine laws. The new committee is set to meet bi-monthly and will be comprised of three members of the council, set to be appointed by the mayor in January, with the first public meeting set for February.
Among the recommended topics of discussion for the new committee were the fire department’s use of drones, Hayward Police Department’s training curriculum and calendar, the city’s policy on using military equipment, and a review of the city’s emergency management plan. Councilmember Julie Roche said she would also like to see the committee tackle pressing public safety issues, such as burglaries at local businesses.
The committee is expected to discuss its scope and specific responsibilities at the first meeting.
Councilmembers thanked Bonilla for spearheading the creation of the committee and said the Community Services Commission should see it as a win since the city has never had an oversight committee for public safety.
The decision comes two months after the council rejected the Community Services Commission’s recommendations to make the Community Advisory Panel more transparent. The commission specifically recommended that the council require the panel’s members complete statements of economic interest like members of all other advisory bodies; interviews to fill vacancies on the panel be public; and meetings be subject to the Brown Act, which requires meetings be open to the public and agendas be posted at least 72 hours in advance, among other things.
The Hayward Police Department’s dissolved Community Advisory Panel was established in 2018 upon the recommendation of a community taskforce assigned to update the 1992 Hayward Anti-Discrimination Action Plan in 2017, according to a staff report. The intention was for the panel to serve as a bridge between community groups and the police department, reviewing and discussing community concerns, police shooting cases, and current and proposed policies and programs.
Councilmembers nominated two to three community members to serve on the panel, and the police chief, city manager and mayor appointed 12 of them to serve two-year terms.
At an October meeting, City Manager Kelly McAdoo told the council that the advisory panel never had an opportunity to get “kicked off” because of the turnover in the police chief position, followed by the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and then resignations from panel members. She added that the panel was never intended to be an oversight committee and the decision not to be a Brown Act body was to allow for more candid conversations.
Roche chastised the commission for going beyond its scope of community services by offering recommendations on public safety, which the council decided to ignore. Instead, Bonilla introduced the idea of forming a committee comprised of three councilmembers to oversee public safety, including the fire department, emergency services and public safety infrastructure, which had broad support on the council.
In terms of whether to dissolve the Community Advisory Panel, interim Police Chief Bryan Matthews told the council being able to have an unfiltered dialogue with the community in a confidential setting was valuable though perspectives on the council varied. Councilmember Dan Goldstein expressed support for maintaining it, while Councilmember George Syrop supported dissolving the panel and establishing a new one that answered to the council instead of the police chief.
The decision to reject the commission’s recommendations led to a discussion about the commission’s purpose during its November meeting. Members said addressing racial equity issues, including public safety, had been a standing part of their meetings for years and they would need to clarify their role if the council did not want commissioners addressing those topics.
Some said they did not believe councilmembers were the best people to drive the city’s dialogue on public safety issues and would craft policies with blind spots.
“Why even have a Community Services Commission,” Commissioner Tyne Johnson said.
Goldstein, the council liaison, said the commission’s primary responsibility was to advise the council on the best ways to spend social services funding by ranking nonprofit organizations’ funding requests.
“This is also a training ground for you to learn how the mechanism of government works,” Goldstein said, “and also an opportunity to interact with people like myself, who can help you make a difference in the community. So nothing that we did, if any of that came across as squelching, then I promise you, we’ll make that right.”
Even though the public can’t serve on the committee, he said the public can still participate in public safety discussions by communicating with city councilmembers and attending the new public safety committee meetings.
The council’s vote on Tuesday, Dec. 12 included dissolving the Council Airport Committee, as well as transferring all responsibilities related to the airport to the Council Infrastructure Committee, renamed the Infrastructure and Airport Committee.
Councilmember Francisco Zermeño said he was opposed to consolidating the committees, but voted in favor of the motion because it was combined with the motion to form the public safety committee.
Sonia Waraich can be reached at 510-952-7455.
