The recent abrupt resignations of Kitty Calavita and Julie Leftwich from Berkeley’s Police Accountability Board (PAB) should alarm every resident who believes democracy is more than a ballot box moment.

These were not casual departures. Calavita and Leftwich were the two most senior members of the PAB and the last original members who helped carry forward Berkeley’s long tradition of civilian police oversight. Their joint letter describes an obstructionist city administration and a police department that, in their view, has systematically undermined the authority voters explicitly granted to the PAB in 2020.

That election was not close. More than 84% of Berkeley voters approved the creation of the Police Accountability Board and the Office of the Director of Police Accountability. The mandate was clear: strengthen civilian oversight, expand transparency, and ensure meaningful accountability of the Berkeley Police Department.

What has been unfolding instead is a continued erosion of voter intent.

According to the resigning members and others before them, the PAB has struggled to access records, faced reversals of its findings, and watched key policies rewritten without its input. The board has reportedly had to resort to subpoenas simply to obtain information necessary to do its job. Even the basic task of establishing operating rules has been delayed or constrained by the city administration, with proposed regulations kept from public discussion.

This is not what voters approved.

For decades, Berkeley was recognized nationally as a leader in civilian police oversight. That reputation was built not on symbolism, but on a genuine commitment to independent review, transparency, and community trust. When oversight bodies exist in name only, when their authority is narrowed once they begin to function as intended, trust is not merely strained. It is broken.

The League of Women Voters has long supported effective civilian oversight of law enforcement as essential to democratic governance. Oversight works only when it is adequately resourced, legally empowered, and respected by the institutions it is meant to oversee. Anything less becomes performative democracy.

This moment is about more than one or two abrupt protest resignations. It raises a fundamental question: when voters speak clearly, will city leadership honor that decision, or quietly hollow it out?

Berkeley now finds itself with a Police Accountability Board that is demoralized, left with vacancies and gaps in institutional knowledge, and that is publicly warning that it cannot fulfill its mandate. That should concern residents across the political spectrum, regardless of their views on policing. Civilian oversight is not anti-police; it is pro-democracy. It protects community members, officers, and the legitimacy of public institutions alike.

This problem has been building for years. We call on the City Council, City Manager’s Office, and the Berkeley Police Department’s  leadership to recommit to the will of the voters. For Council that means appointing and supporting the retention of PAB members. For all listed above that means respecting the PAB’s  authority and expertise, ending unnecessary delays and stonewalling, and ensuring transparency in policy development and misconduct review to keep us all safe. It also means publicly explaining, rather than obscuring, any disagreements about oversight rules so the community can evaluate them.

Democracy does not end on Election Day. It requires follow-through.Berkeley voters did their part in 2020. City leadership must now do theirs.

Sincerely,
League of Women Voters of Berkeley, Albany, Emeryville Board of Directors