Letters: Civilian police oversight panels need clear authority

Submit your letter to the editor via this form. Read more Letters to the Editor.

Civilian police panel needs clear authority

Re: “Berkeley fires police panel leader” (Page B1, Feb. 11).

Berkeley’s dismissal of its police accountability director is already being described as a “rollback” of civilian oversight.

That interpretation is understandable. A voter-approved oversight system clashed with city leadership, sued over access to police records, saw board resignations and then lost its director.

But before concluding that reform is collapsing, we should examine the structure of these systems.

Civilian oversight bodies are often described as independent. In practice, they operate within executive control, state confidentiality law and collective bargaining constraints. When charter language promises broad access and state law imposes limits, conflict is predictable.

Berkeley’s experience mirrors tensions seen in Oakland and other California cities. This may be less about ideology than about design.

If cities want oversight that endures beyond headlines, they must ensure that authority is clear, legal boundaries are aligned and independence is operational rather than rhetorical.

Rajni Mandal
Oakland

Affordability crisis is Gen Z’s biggest threat

Gen Z is often labeled as entitled complainers, but our complaints are justified. Rent, tuition and everyday costs have risen far faster than entry-level wages, making financial stability difficult even for those working or studying full time. We have to choose between necessities such as health care or rent. Saving for long-term goals such as a family or a house can feel unrealistic.

This isn’t about lack of work; it’s about structural challenges hindering our opportunities. The average one-bedroom apartment in the Bay Area costs just under $3,000 a month. We want those same opportunities our parents and grandparents had, such as affordable tuition, starter homes and achieving our version of the American Dream.

Acknowledging these problems should spark action on the affordability crisis, not stubbornness. Investing in our generation is not charity; rather, it is building for a better economic future and a better tomorrow for all Americans.

Julian Johnson
Davis

Give voters a say on Trump in 2026

Wouldn’t it be worthwhile to give voters a direct way to express their confidence in President Trump’s ability to govern? A nonbinding proposition on the November 2026 ballot could do just that.

Daily headlines about the Trump administration dominate the news cycle. Stepping back and considering the totality of the past year raises a fundamental question: Do you have confidence in Trump’s ability to govern?

In many democracies, leaders who lose public trust face a vote of no confidence. While such a mechanism does not exist here, a nonbinding proposition would allow voters to clearly express their views.

Voters should consider whether the president has upheld his oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution,” whether he promotes core democratic values, and whether his policies and cabinet appointments strengthen national security and democratic principles.

Providing voters with a nonbinding opportunity to weigh in would enhance democratic engagement and public accountability.

Larry Bieber
Castro Valley

New term for Trump’s imperialism isn’t needed

Re: “U.S. foreign policy is now dynastic, medieval” (Page A7, Feb. 10).

Andreas Kluth’s recent op-ed strives to characterize Donald Trump’s naked bullying of other, smaller nations by riffing on the Democrats’ juvenile slogan “No Kings.” He invents a new term, “neo-royalism,” when a perfectly accurate social scientific term already exists, “imperialism,” that accurately describes the bipartisan consensus of both Republican and Democratic parties that America is uniquely qualified to impose our will and institutions on the sovereign nations of the world.

For example, a news article in the same edition of the East Bay Times described the piratical seizure on the high seas of a tanker carrying, or that had carried, Venezuelan oil, supposedly justified by unilateral U.S. sanctions, not approved by the U.N. Likewise, Cuba is suffering an acute oil shortage due to unilateral U.S. sanctions and an illegal blockade of oil enforced by the U.S. Navy but not sanctioned by the U.N.

Why call this “neo-royalism” when “imperialism” fits so well?

Michael Dunlap
Oakland

Palestinians deserve right to their own lands

Re: “Israel cabinet measures aim to gain more control in West Bank” (Page A4, Feb. 9).

It is pure insanity for Donald Trump’s Board of Peace to be in charge of rebuilding Gaza with the U.S. and Israel leading the project. Israel bombed Gaza to smithereens with munitions from the U.S. and exterminated 70,000 Gazans, mostly women and children.

Palestinians are being blocked out of any control over their own lands. The Board of Peace is just a formalization of the same colonization, apartheid and theft of indigenous land that began in 1948. Palestinians must be allowed to keep their lands and determine their own fate. Israel Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich must not be allowed to “continue to bury the idea of a Palestinian state,” nor should Israel be allowed to continue to impose “illegal Israeli sovereignty” over the West Bank or Gaza. Israel has no role in Palestine.

Elizabeth Fisher
Pleasant Hill