2015 Mayoral Race in Oakland
The time is now.
Oakland is at a critical time in our history. We’re a booming town facing rapid opportunities from economic and cultural development yet facing a crippling gentrification process that further marginalizes an already tragically oppressed population (black, brown and poor.) We have a golden opportunity here….to radically transform and interrupt the patterns of colonization in gentrification by embracing Oakland’s rich heritage of strength and revolution on behalf of the people that can powerfully support the marginalized in the process of capitalizing on this unique and rare time in our history. This is a time that we may never see again if we are reckless while the city is being accessed by those (many with good intentions) with financial power and privilege. The combination of the opportunities in housing, development, retail, education, community organizing to be a model for interrupting systemic oppression, uplifting the historically marginalized and elevating all of Oakland in a way that represents the magic that is in this town is upon us. We need leadership that has the will to lead with deep cultural competency, is intelligent enough to honor the layers of complexity in leading the “many” voices of Oakland during this decade ahead and shows the track record of listening, learning and being a true voice for the people. We CANNOT blow this next decade. The results will continue devastation to the generations of Oakland natives, particularly black and brown folks. We can shine in this decade and show this country what the spirit of Oakland can accomplish with a consciousness and brilliance unique to our history of revolutionary spirit, love and community.
In my research to consider who I want to be our mayor, I have strived to find a balance of studying their action based track record and/or clear plan for implementation of ideas along with knowing/feeling people’s energetic and spiritual aura, as I experience in my interactions with and observations of them. It lets me deepen my understanding of a person to know who they are, how they show up and what they are capable of.
Who am I voting for?
*Keep in mind, Oakland has rank choice voting (click the link to learn more), so I have to carefully weigh how I choose my order of preference. Rank Choice Voting means that if the candidate I vote for FIRST for is eliminated, then my 2nd (and possibly 3rd) choice vote will count towards those in the lead. If you are planning on voting first for someone that isn’t likely to win, then you REALLY have to think carefully about your second and third choice votes. They will not go to people who are already knocked out! Also, please consider that as you read my WHO I’M NOT VOTING FOR at the bottom of this blog along with what the polls are showing now. I’d love to vote only with my ideals, but that’s simply not practical given the reality of the consequences of getting this wrong. Currently, the top people according to the polls are Kaplan, Schaaff, Quan and Tuman. It is highly likely that our 2nd and 3rd votes will be tie-breakers among this group of 4.
First choice (Identifying the perfect balance of someone aligned with my ideals, traits that embody good leadership and HAS A CHANCE TO WIN. I will not throw my vote away)
JOE TUMAN~
Joe Tuman is the perfect balance of a thinker, doer, fighter, learner and good human being we need, given we’re in a time where there has to be a mayor who can handle all of the layers of work to be tackled, do it well and in service of all of Oakland! I know that many of my friends and allies have some concerns about him. They are fair concerns, but not deal breakers for me. Below, I’m going to spend some time talking about why I like him, why I have faith in him and why I think he’s a great and viable candidate for our town. At this point, over 4+ years, I have had numerous one on one interactions with him and am repeatedly blown away with his characteristics/abilities in the following ways:
His commitment to his core values, continual learning, collaborative communication and honesty- I have observed his ability to speak to many people, bring them together and collaborate with them, yet stand strong in his values. He doesn’t switch them up based on who he is talking to. I have also observed him lean into learning what he doesn’t know, like a true life long learner. That goes a long way for me. For example, he’s deeply concerned about the many perspectives of Oakland, and has spent considerable time in the flats (in addition to all the wealthier neighborhoods) knocking on doors and asking people what concerns them most. This work shaped his priorities, just like a community organizer. When I challenged him on being focused on adding police as the core value in his safety plan in a time that many black and brown people are in tension with police, he listened, but also offered that in his experience on the campaign that many older black and brown people he’s spoken to have also been asking for more responsive police. I appreciate that in his fine tuning process of creating a safety plan during this campaign, he has demonstrated considerable growth in his stance to accommodate the voice of those in fear of police. THIS IS DIFFERENT THAN BENDING FOR VOTES. This demonstrates the WILL TO LEARN. I can't tell you how valuable that trait is for me in any relationship I'm in, ESPECIALLY in a politician. If I sit back and analyze his evolution, I see that he first needed to understand that just because HIS experience with police is one of feeling more secure, that a significant population in Oakland doesn’t experience that…in fact, they experience terror. He has been willing to be responsive (in large part listening to the voices and experiences of Oaklanders, as well as the other candidates) and has worked to significantly increase his cultural competency in ways such as moving more towards community policing and explicitly stating a priority of protecting constitutional rights of citizens, without sacrificing his value of creating a safer Oakland…he just expanded that to be responsive to making it safe for all. This wasn’t where he started… but that is because his experience as someone who appears white (he identifies as Iranian) and benefits from white privilege (which I observe him talking comfortably about in ways many white people will not engage) didn’t give him personal experience to prioritize this at such a high level of importance. What I love about him, in this regard, is that he’s not stuck on stupid. He’s a learner and is committed to keeping many perspectives around him so that he can continue to deepen his knowledge, engage many experiences and create responsive plans that work for Oakland as a whole. IF THERE IS ANY CANDIDATE I BELIEVE IN that can implement a plan to interrupt gentrification but powerfully grow and develop this city while keeping all the players at the table it’s Joe Tuman.
His intellect- he is able to take the meta ideas and whittle them down into micro/action plans with credibility and fidelity. Oakland needs someone who takes a vision and can actually put the theory to action plan in place to make it happen. He breaks down economics, practicalities and timelines in ways that I don't see any of the candidates doing. Not to mention, when this cat sat in my house and asked the room to ask him questions, he listened to 15-20 people in a row ask their questions, TOOK NO NOTES, and then began from the beginning and answered every question. Not one at a time....he remembered EVERY question, and opened with the question I asked about digging into his white privilege. He's courageous and brilliant. I was BLOWN away. I’ve not met many HUMANS with his level of intelligence and critical analysis…let alone a politician. But, he’s not a politician, he’s a teacher. So, there’s that to consider (see my thoughts on breaking the machine) as we think about how to unravel the toxicity of city hall, the vested interests in this town and how we bring new and well researched thinking. We need smart. We need savvy. We need someone who can engage in complicated and complex matters powerfully. I believe that is Joe Tuman.
My intuition: I JUST PLAIN FEEL HIM- back to my initial statement about trusting my gut and focusing on my instincts about aura and spiritual connection….every time I see him, every time I interact with him (even in tension- and BELIEVE there’s been tension- we’ve had to navigate at house parties, panels, and in one on one) he’s deeply present, kind, committed and passionate about doing this town right. His ego is NOT in the way, there’s nothing toxic about him…he’s a good soul, smart, talented and committed to service. My entire intuition says he’s the right person for the job and I’ve felt that way from the beginning over 4 years ago AND as I’ve gotten to know other candidates and research them. He just WINS for me.
His accessibility to the people- connected to my being impressed by his communication, is how easily accessible he has been throughout the campaign and commits to while in being office. I believe that this trait will allow him to continue growing into a more culturally competent mayor (this defined by staying engaged in the many cultures that exist in Oakland so he can authentically represent their needs and strive to balance them) of a town that has such varying interests. The campaign staff he hired was consistently responsive to any requests I made (opportunities for volunteering, needs for papers/links and my own requests to meet him or create space for him to meet others.) *This is MORE than I can say for several candidates*. This shows me his commitment to engaging people around him that will share this value while he is in office. I believe that Joe Tuman as our mayor will create ways to ensure many of us have access to him, and GIVEN THE LAST TWO MAYORS, this is a critical trait. We must have a mayor that prioritizes time with many voices and reflects what he learns in their work. Joe Tuman is that kind of leader.
His openness to new ideas- My biggest critique of the election overall is the candidates’ lack of analysis regarding our educational system and their band aid thoughts on how to help. I was able to engage Joe in a thoughtful and deep conversation about the systemic issues in the school system and he asked insightful and provoking questions that further deepened my belief in his intellect and willingness to listen and develop deeper and responsive policy. He was highly interested in my own radical thoughts (further showing me he’s not conservative) on education reform and immediately went to engaging me in working out kinks in the implementation of such a radical plan, NOT shutting it down with the same old “City Hall doesn’t run the school district” crap I keep hearing from some resigned candidates. He has shaped his safety, job development and economic policies from a base of his experiential beliefs, and aligned them powerfully with what he has learned are the needs for residents in Oakland. In my opinion, his policies reflect a TRUE commitment to the multiple populations in our town. He’s balanced, thoughtful and it is his openness to the many perspectives which will shape the policies we need that will ensure Oakland’s development is unique and supportive to its true populations.
Joe Tuman brings me hope, confidence and faith in the possibility of humanity in the office balanced with smart, responsible and galvanizing leadership.
MY 2ND AND 3RD CHOICE VOTES: Let’s be clear and honest here. This is a chess move. I am quite surprised by the two candidates that are neck and neck for me in these entertaining these two critical votes. After reading all of their policy papers and seeing them in numerous panels, I am equally impressed with their policy and stances. I’ll first tell you WHY I find them both to be viable (not my first choice, but strong and workable candidates) and then why I selected the order I’ll put them.
Libby Schaaf and Bryan Parker
3rd choice (this one is tough, because it’s voting with my heart to send a message and a refusal to choose the lesser of several evils, given that the rest of the likely candidates to still be in it at this point are candidates I can’t live with):
Bryan Parker: I liked him from the beginning. I am more impressed with Bryan Parker’s track record than Libby’s and am drawn to him because he’s not a politician and has a fresh set of eyes in a toxic political environment. He’s smart, well versed in economics of Oakland (both in his experience in the Port and his unapologetic statement about the 2 Oaklands, citing disproportionality in unemployment, education, etc.) His priorities are focused highly on increasing businesses in Oakland, jobs, leveraging existing infrastructures, housing, educational focus on mobilizing the city to take on race and class. His papers demonstrate high levels of cultural competency and understanding of the myriad of race and class issues in Oakland. He also has lived experience OUTSIDE OF THE MACHINE of Oakland in the port that shows high levels of success. He states clearly that he wants police with racial sensitivity and focus on healing the numerous traumas in the flats. He gets it. He’s smart. He’s mindful and hits most of the points I’m interested in seeing my mayor engage.
2nd choice (this is where the personal dilemma of making sure those I can’t live with and knowing the reality of the current polls comes into play):
Libby Schaaff: I have to be honest, I am quite surprised that after reading all of her papers that she’s made it this far to the top of my choices, and even more surprised that she’s going to get one of my votes. It was my intuition on her energy, her history in city council as a politician and her (her team’s) lack of responsiveness to my requests that had me discredit her. *They didn’t have policy papers out by September 30th and I admittedly wrote her off.* These issues are still very strong concerns for me. However, after doing my due diligence of reading her papers (although released fairly late in the campaign), all of the other priorities she focuses on, she is a mayor I can live with and would invest time to organize in order to hold her to account for any lack of responsive dealings….and I believe we’d have to do that with her. There still is ONE major issue I’m still worried about…her lack of an effective record overseeing the finance Management committee and her general track record being a part of a toxic city hall. My gut says run from her (much like it does with most politicians), WHICH IS WHY I WANT PEOPLE TO PUT JOE TUMAN FIRST, but her shit on paper is together more than most. Her paper on education is actually the strongest of all the candidates, even citing focus on teacher reform in a way that aligns with my belief in one of the root causes of our educational issues. Her focus on police/safety, civic engagement (and, frankly, her record supports this with lots of organized open meetings to engage the public on issues), mindfulness of accessible transportation and creating healthcare and housing for those in poverty is impressive.
So, why would I vote for her over Dan, given his nearly perfect alignment with my values?
Good question. I’d say she’s right after Dan and neck and neck with Bryan on cultural competency and awareness of the many populations in Oakland. However, she’s got a proven track record of working well with people (although she’s stepped on it a few times with her voting record)…she’s got powerful allies in politics (which is a blessing and curse) and she obviously aspires to higher political ranks, which means she has to keep relationships and a good record. THIS ALSO MEANS we (as citizens) have negotiating power to hold her to account regarding these issues. She’s going to have to deliver hard on affordable housing, safe city, transportation, etc. in order to keep accelerating her career. She’s not alone in being someone who can build a resume with a success in Oakland (I see it all the time), and I think she can do a lot like Jerry Brown did and that we can capitalize on her future aspirations to really hold her feet to the fire.
Dan seems more to me like stuck on his values than being a successful mayor that galvanizes many communities into one large successful development of the city, so if I have to choose a politician, I’m going to pick the one that most closely aligns with my politics, has some track record of bringing people together, but one I can use some community based power to hold her accountable.
So, why am I voting for her 2nd and not 3rd?
Now, I don’t WANT to do all of that hard work to hold her feet to the fire…that’s a lot of fucking work and I’d much rather work with a mayor who leans towards this progressive agenda that is willing to learn and be open than someone who is immersed in it AND immersed in politics. That’s why I want to work with Joe Tuman. HOWEVER, the polls currently show Rebecca Kaplan is high up in the lead…and I REALLY don’t want her to be mayor given her faults (see below). So, if Joe were to get knocked out, it is a likely scenario that Libby Schaff and Kaplan will be up there, especially given Jerry Brown’s endorsement. I want to make sure my second vote goes to someone that can beat a candidate I DON’T want. Given the popularity of Kaplan (and potentially Quan), voting for Parker second doesn’t help make sure Kaplan isn’t in the mayor’s seat. Parker is simply not likely to be in the top running, so voting for him second enhances the chances that Quan or Kaplan get in. And, I’m on team #NOTQUANORKAPLAN. But, I choose him 3rd because
A. He’s in the top three of my choices
B. I can’t live with myself voting for any of the candidates below that I believe won't make good mayors
Who I’m not voting for:
1. This is the “no” that I’m actually saddest about. Dan Siegel is without a doubt the candidate that speaks most powerfully on behalf of the most marginalized and oppressed. He’s done a lot of amazing things….very recently representing Alan Blueford’s and Oscar Grant’s families pro bono, and has a tireless track record of civil rights work for decades. His voice is an important one in the conversation of where Oakland is going. He also put a lot of time and effort into ideas that are thorough and aligned with many of my (and the social justice focused community’s ideals). He’s got some smart and powerful people who are deep in the trenches of the real fights that are life and death in this town working with him….I respect the team, I respect the message. However, I do not think his ideals alone are enough to lead this town through the difficult task ahead. He’s a perfect Vice Mayor, to be a voice in the ear of the mayor who may get caught up in the lure of the privileged, but I do not think he should be the one in charge when he has to frequently engage privileged populations and keep them engaged and in the conversation. His track record of alienating opposing viewpoints from the school board (when I worked in OUSD) to his abrasive and extreme left rants throughout the campaign on panels I’ve watched have proven to me that he’s not the “all Oakland” galvanizing mayor we need. I need to know that the police unions won’t shut down in talks during this critical time that we have to add police and interrogate their training and accountability. There will be ignorant economic developers, middle and upper class voters, unions, politicians, etc. that will have to have a diplomatic person that can unite multiple viewpoints and bring people to common consensus for a win win. I have to know that we won’t see a repeat of Occupy Oakland mishandling applied to privileged Oakland interests which simply repeats wasteful bickering time. That just isn’t Dan’s skill set and that lack doesn’t get compensated by being the most culturally competent person on the list of candidates for me.
2. HELL NO- Jean Quan. I simply cannot trust her. From the time that she showed up on Fremont HS’s campus in 2001 for a school clean up, picked up a broom to pose for a photo and put it down without cleaning a thing I’ve been clear about her core aura….it’s self serving and manipulative. But, to offer more than a salty after thought that would mean I can’t analyze her political experience, she simply demonstrates over and over again that she’s not trustworthy. From backpedaling when held to account for poor choices on the school board and city council, to misconstruing data about crime and finance and deals that are cut again and again and again and (of course) her disaster of the handling of the police department (who hate her) with Occupy Oakland, to her efforts at CEASEFIRE that threaten criminals with jail unless they “take advantage of community help” that simply isn’t actually available or supportive? I’m just out of fucks with her. Moving on.
3. Rebecca Kaplan. Aside from the feeling I get when I meet her (which isn’t quantifiable, but I’ve learned to trust my gut) that she’s overwhelmed, high off being loved in politics, pie in the sky and not grounded in action, I just observe that she focuses on issues that will get her votes. Is she a hero to some those that prioritize Medical Marijuana and LGBTQ community issues? For sure. But, those two are not Oakland’s most pressing issues at this critical juncture in our history, nor have they ever really been. Not to mention, when asked for policy papers or any proof that she had put careful thought into her priorities, I was given a 500 word (for ALL THREE ISSUES) web page that shared this superficial, theoretical, no evidence for HOW to implement, non tangible SUMMARY of a few key issues. *Safety, jobs and “fresh start”….there is no evidence of critical thinking in her delivery (in writing or on the stages when I’ve observed her)- and after multiple requests to her campaign where I asked if there was anything more comprehensive (I mean, SHIT, can’t I get a 1 pager with some economic detailed action plans for each item that isn’t boasting about non relevant voting records on these issues?!) materials, the campaign manager simply told me I could ask more detailed questions of them if I wanted. FOR REAL? You’re running for mayor of one of the most vibrant and rapidly developing cities in the country and you don’t have policy papers or detailed plans for the voters to have access to and I'm supposed to hit up a campaign manager to learn more about what YOU think!? I’m not surprised she says nothing about quality education. She clearly doesn’t value critical thought or deep engagement on any academic or strategic level. Oakland or I have NO time for that.
4. Courtney Ruby. I am BEYOND sad she won’t be our city auditor anymore. Courtney is a really nice person who got a lot of respect from me the other night with Marianne Williamson’s endorsement of her and my learning of her plans to make the city government work better. Courtney is a Break the Machine kind of person….I’m a believer of that. I believe that we have to get people from outside the system inside the system to break it and build it back up. However, she is black and white, cut and dry about the numbers and Oakland is WAY more complex than that. One strategy she talks about as her first order of business demonstrates this shortcoming for me. She keeps saying she will make every department manager reapply for their job immediately. This simply ins’t a practical approach to breaking city hall’s inadequacies. How would you effectively assess who should be in the position so quickly, how would the city be running while you engage an adequate process for rehiring and WHAT IF you need to fire 75% of people? What then? It’s a short sighted solution that carries a lot of power in the political rhetoric, but simply isn’t an effective solution. Had she said they all go on a one year probation (or did rolling probations so you could ensure capacity for high quality rehiring and evaluation process, she actually might have gotten my third vote.) In addition, she focuses WAY too hard on safety in isolation of other problems, putting most other areas of focus on hold while she “addresses” that and offers a vapid plan for work force development that seems to be absent of a deep analysis of the issues in our educational system in Oakland and the impact of poverty on numerous levels. I worry she’ll significantly perpetuate gentrification, regardless of her intentions, and not be immersed enough in the necessary work of city partnership with the educational system and viable economic opportunities we’re facing that could authentically address poverty and systemic racism. She’s EXCELLENT as our city auditor. And, she’s beginning a journey into cultural consciousness about “trauma” in the community and a personal mindfulness about racial and socioeconomic equity that is a good start— but, Joe Tuman is way further along than her in this journey. My experience with her the other night at the panel hosted by Marianne showed me that her depth and understanding of the issues isn’t deeply immersed enough in the voice of the marginalized in Oakland to be a sufficient mayor.
I will say it again, Joe Tuman is the perfect balance of a thinker, doer, fighter, learner and good human being we need, given we’re in a time where there has to be a mayor who can handle all of the layers of work to be tackled, do it well and in service of all of Oakland! I trust him. My gut trusts him and I think he has the will to deepen his learning in partnership with us, the skills to galvanize and lead us through this historic time and he's profoundly passionate about making Oakland a better place. He's a teacher that has stepped up to put his time and resources where his mouth is.....I'm in. Joe Tuman, all the way. I hope you consider him, if not for your first vote, at least for your second. Keep him in the race and get someone in who is smart enough and insightful enough to break this machine (as Marianne Williamson talked about this week) of a dysfunctional city hall and help us raise Oakland (all of Oakland) up!