Recording in progress.

Good morning, everyone.

I'd like to call to order our Friday, October 3rd meeting, a special meeting, and I'll uh begin as we do all meetings by asking everyone to rise if you can and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Thank you all.

I'll ask the clerk to please call the roll to establish our quorum.

Supervisor Marquez.

Present.

Supervisor Tam.

Present.

Supervisor Miley.

Supervisor Fortunato Bas present.

President Howbert.

Present.

We have a quorum.

Thank you very much.

I would like to make uh mention that Supervisor Marquez is joining us remotely, caring for her family.

We thank you for being here with us, Supervisor Marquez.

I also would like to say good morning to everyone and let everyone know that due to room capacity, you can see it's a packed house that we have activated the overflow meeting room.

If you or anybody you know would like to participate in the overflow meeting room, this meeting is being live streamed over there.

It's also being live streamed as we know uh over Zoom to the general public, but across the street, located at Alameda, the Alameda County Training and Education Center, located at one two five twelfth street on the fourth floor.

The Hayward and Union City Rooms is available for you.

I also note that we have listed on our agenda public comment on closed session items and closed session.

Oftentimes we will adjourn very quickly into closed session.

Today, however, we're not going to do that.

If we need to go into closed session, it will be after the rest of our agenda.

So we're going to basically be able to go on to the first item and complete that before going into closed session.

So we won't take public comment on closed session items, and we won't go into closed session until later in the meeting.

Supervisor Halbert, if I may.

Okay, so this will be a statement from Supervisor Marquez fulfilling the legal obligation for explaining why she's on remotely.

Supervisor Marquez, thank you for being here and take it away.

Thank you, President Haber.

I just wanted to uh disclose to the public that I am using just cause to participate remotely today because I am caring for my grandmother, so I intend to stay on throughout the entire meeting.

If I have any technical challenges and get disconnected, I will rejoin.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Does that satisfy the legal requirements of explaining this?

She just needs to state whether there's anyone.

Yes, I apologize.

Um over the age of 18, the person that I'm caring for, which is my grandmother.

Very good.

Thank you again for taking the time and effort to be here with us, Supervisor Marquez.

So I would like to say that uh for speakers who would like to speak on this next item to fill out a speaker card.

The clerk uh has them.

Um we are going to be alternating in the room, five speakers, uh, online five speakers, and five speakers from the overflow room, or maybe in person overflow and online, something like that.

We're going to rotate so that everyone has a chance to speak.

Um, I'm also going to say that uh we all know that this is a highly charged topic, and I'm expecting everybody to be on their best behavior if possible to not disrupt the meeting and to allow everybody the courtesy of being heard.

I do note that we have rules established for this, and I'll ask the clerk to actually please use the agenda disclosure that we typically read to give people an understanding of our rules and also how to participate remotely.

Thank you.

Detailed instructions are provided in the teleconferencing guidelines.

A link to the document is included in today's agenda to view an automated translated transcript or listen to an automated translated audio of the meeting from English into multiple other languages.

Please utilize the worldly link in today's agenda or the QR codes posted throughout the room and select your preferred language from the drop-down menu.

If you are joining the meeting using a computer, use the button at the bottom of your screen to raise your hand to request to speak.

When called to speak, please unmute your microphone and state your name.

If you are calling in DAL star nine to raise your hand to speak when you are called to speak, the host will enable you.

If you decide not to speak, notify the clerk when your call is unmuted, or you may simply hang up and dial back into the meeting.

When called, please limit your remarks to the time allocated.

If you're using an interpreter, you'll be given double time to allow the interpreter adequate time.

Thank you.

Very good, thank you.

The first item up then is the treasurer tax collector, and uh he'll give a brief staff report.

Great, thank you.

Um good morning, Board of Supervisors.

Um I have um something, I have uh a report, I guess, or some comments.

Um I timed it last night, and it's unfortunately 20 minutes long, so bear with me.

Um I have a PowerPoint outlining my talk, and I have a handout that you've got by your seats.

On November 10th, 2024, you unanimously directed me as the Alameda County Treasurer to develop to develop an ethical investment policy to be added to the Alameda County investment policy statement with the following recommendations.

A direct the treasurer to develop an ethical investment policy in consultation with community stakeholders, including but not limited to communities of color, unions, and local organizations, B.

Submit the ethical investment policy to the Board of Supervisors within 90 days, and C, return to the Board of Supervisors within six months of submitting the ethical investment policy with an implementation plan, and subsequently report on implementation annually.

Responsible and ethical investment criteria, which I urge you to approve today.

We have all been the subject of literally thousands of emails since November.

Why is that?

Would any of us have thought that arguments about fiduciary standards, prudent investment decisions, limiting the universe of investable choices or bond math would have generated the kind of debate this proposed policy has caused?

No, of course not.

The development of an ethical investment policy, or as we are now calling it, responsible and ethical investment criteria should be simple.

Our investment policy should be rooted in the values that the County of Alameda articulated over 20 years ago and defines and redefines for the future through a recurring 10-year examination, now called vision 2036.

Every leader of this county, from its elected officials to the appointed executive team and agency heads are given the explicit task to ensure that every single thing we do and every single change we propose aligns with this vision.

In this policy, is this policy then needed?

I argue it is needed.

Is it needed to fulfill this mandate?

I say yes.

Our current investment policy, our IPS, already gives us some guidance in this area.

In our IPS, we have a section titled Socially Responsible Investment Objectives.

It says, quote, in addition to and subordinate to the objective set forth in the county's primary investment objectives, the Treasurer seeks to implement a policy of responsible investment, which is a strategy and practice to incorporate environmental social and governance ESG factors in investment decisions.

Investments will be made with responsible investment goals to the extent that such investments achieve substantially equivalent safety, liquidity, and yield compared to other investment opportunities available at the same time.

The Treasurer will actively incorporate ESG factors in its investment analysis and decision-making process and will work to enhance its effectiveness in implementing the principles of responsible investing.

Within the guidance for responsible investing, the Treasurer will consider additional socially responsible and impact investing criteria.

Such criteria will be shall be consistent with values promulgated by the county of Alameda.

When former Supervisor Carson proposed that I be directed to create an ethical investment policy to be added to our IPS, he stated, quote, this policy will reflect our county's core values of sustainability, social responsibility, and compassion through universal criteria for favoring some investment options and excluding others.

He went on to state the legal requirements under California law of our government fund are to ensure safety, liquidity, and finally yield return in that order.

As a county, we are allowed to incorporate other considerations, such as fostering inclusive growth, supporting environmental sustainability, and respecting human rights.

I couldn't agree more.

I would submit to you that your approval of the responsible and ethical investment criteria is the choice necessary to remain aligned with the vision of Alameda County.

Let me explain to you how we got here today.

We commenced in February to perform the following steps.

One, we collected every policy that we could identify from every public jurisdiction, focusing on California, that had any type of sustainable, socially responsible ethical investment provisions.

We found 14 such policies, enough to draw ideas and language from and to learn from existing precedents in this area.

Two, we drafted the language that would form the basis of this new criteria.

Three, we held meetings with interested parties regarding the creation of the policy and a discussion of the draft in generalities.

We held approximately 25 listening sessions, mostly virtual, some in person.

Four, we began to draft operational guidance to implement this criteria.

Five, we published the draft criteria language and solicited further written public comment.

Six, we made final edits on the criteria.

Seven, on May 6, 2025, we convened the Treasury Oversight Committee.

The Treasury Oversight Committee approved this policy and voted to send it to you today.

The draft before you is the result of 11 months of intensive and focused thought, internal discussions, and active listening to constituents and interested community groups.

Let me summarize the responsible and investment criteria to you for you.

The first part of the criteria places the policy squarely within the principles of Vision 2036, while also keeping in mind the requirements of state law and our own investment policy statement that safety, liquidity, and then yield are the paramount concerns of every investment.

The criteria reminds us that the Vision 2036 is closely aligned with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, SDGs, which I urge us all to read and understand and comprehend its incredible vision.

The criteria then discusses positive screening of investments to the extent possible using the best available data, tools, and standards that exist to support the goals of Vision 2036 and the UN SDGs, especially to promote the following.

One, healthy environment, sustainable environment, environmental stewardship.

Two, thriving resilient population, social responsibility for health, nutrition, protection of life, and support of decent work, diversity, and equality.

Three, safe and livable communities, good governance, accessible infrastructure, and respect for the law, for prosperous and vibrant economy, promotion of community economic development.

The policy discusses how, in general, investments will be chosen based on those values.

ESG ratings from a variety of sources will be used to choose investments where possible, and those with lower ratings will be scrutinized more extensively.

Positive screening is the most important thing we can do, and I will talk more about this later.

However, some negative screening may be necessary if we don't do our positive screening well enough, or if things change in the world.

Therefore, the policy discusses on what basis we would consider selling or divesting.

We identified four reasons.

One, institutional practices that pose reputational, financial, operational, and legal risks to the county, two, investments in corporations which derive over 10% of their revenues from certain industries, energy, oil and gas, coal operations, firearms, tobacco, casinos and gambling, security and correctional facilities, alcoholic beverages, distillers and vintners, industrial defense.

Three, investments in certain sectors that have histories of severe or persistent human rights violations in their own operations or supply chains, such as textiles and apparel, electronic equipment and components, and agricultural products.

Four, investment in institutions that consistently, knowingly and directly facilitate and enable human rights violations, as outlined in international law and the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.

The criteria directs the treasurer if they feel that a company or an investment has experienced negative environmental social governance or controversy performance, which is severe, ongoing, and unremedied, to consider divestment.

Hank, do you need to advance the slides at all?

Or I'm having the clerk do it.

Okay, thank you.

If such divestment does not materially compromise the Treasurer's fiduciary responsibilities, if divestment is recommended by the Treasurer, its justification will then go to you, the Board of Supervisors, for your approval, and if so approved, will be carried out by the Treasurer.

Finally, the criteria directs the Treasurer to review all the current holdings based on this new criteria.

It also directs the treasurer to report to the TOC and the Board of Supervisors annually on how well the portfolio has met the standards and criteria set out today in this policy.

You will notice there is no mention of any specific country in this policy.

Under state law, we are not allowed to invest directly in any foreign country, although we may invest in foreign projects through supranational organizations.

You will also notice that there is no mention of certain words that of course we are opposed to, such as genocide or apartheid or xenophobia.

In our opinion, these are policies that governments pursue, not companies.

Our IPS, and now this criteria is a statement concerning values.

It is not a political statement.

Today, the investment pool which I administer holds almost 10 billion dollars, which is the true savings of the 1.7 million inhabitants of Alameda County, including approximately 200,000 public school children who attend the schools in our 14 school districts.

My primary duty is to safeguard this money, but I can't put it under a mattress, even if that mattress was guarded by our great sheriff's department.

I need to put the money to use to make some returns.

You will see why I think of myself more as a banker than as an investor.

Under California law, governmental public investments are only allowed to invest in fixed income, meaning bonds, which basically means our investments are loans to others.

We cannot invest like a pension plan.

We are not allowed to buy equity or stock, either public or private.

We don't profit from buying low and selling high.

Stock prices are not relevant to what we do.

The price of bonds rise and fall generally on interest rate, not on the public's perception of how well a company is doing.

California law fits well into my self-perception as a banker.

It states that safety of our investments must be our primary concern before anything else, including performance.

This places a responsibility on us to evaluate both the financial health and the underlying mission of the recipients of our money.

As a banker, I need to know my customers.

I need to know what our loans, that I need to know that our loans are going to institutions that have a long-term view and are not interested in writing any short-term ventures.

I also need to consider what reputational risks we may suffer if our borrowers act badly.

Out of this philosophy, I believe we have both have a responsibility and a duty to shepherd our money in ways that create a healthy society.

I could spend hours talking about the types of risks that we consider, why we do it, and how we do it.

I would also love to explain the specific composition of our portfolio.

You are free to ask me if we have the time, or we could discuss it at another session.

But I do want to make two specific points.

First, the amount of holdings in specific companies is only about 10% of our portfolio in approximately 38 companies.

Therefore, this focus on specific company behavior needs to be understood in that context.

Second, our primary focus is on our community.

We currently have approximately 175 million dollars deployed in local banks, which in turn are relending them to affordable housing projects and to small businesses in low-income communities.

We are working on many other nationally based institutions from the Federal Home Loan Bank, Freddie Mac, PharmaMac, SBA, and others, which allow us to put our money, our investments into this county, into this region, into this state.

In the future, we hope to be able to know exactly how much of our pool is invested into Alameda County, and also to know exactly what the impact of those investments have been in terms of jobs, economic growth, small business health, et cetera.

Some of this work is tied to the operational guidance for this new criteria, which I was asked to do, and I would be glad to return to the board to talk about this.

Suffice it to say that I do not foresee the responsible and ethical investment criteria to cause us to make any changes to the pool's assets other than what we already do.

You will hear today many votes of support for this policy.

We have all gotten thousands of emails applauding the transparency and accountability and encourage behind public investment decisions and how they align with shared community values.

And while many of those who support the creation of this policy may still argue that it doesn't go far enough in its language and specific prohibitions, they will be generally supportive.

You will also hear from some who oppose this policy.

There are three types of criticisms that we have heard.

We all have heard.

One criticism of this policy is that it poses a substantial threat to our financial stability, which risks lowering returns, cutting into county revenues, and placing vital services in jeopardy.

This is a complete misunderstanding of how a bond portfolio works.

Interest rates drive the bond market, not specific company performance, nor do any sales or divestment limit our investable universe.

Another criticism is that this policy is ideological and value driven and violates my fiduciary duty by taking what is called non-pecuniary considerations into account.

If I'm accused of thinking like a banker, I plead guilty.

We believe in fundamental long-term investing which produces financial performance that is consistent and dependable.

We talked above why we think our sustainable and responsible investment values are good for our pool.

Our financial performance has been excellent, and all other metrics are outstanding, and in every way this policy adheres to state law.

Finally, a third Chris a third criticism is not financial in nature, but has touched the nerve in the community.

It focuses on the term human rights violations, which is now embedded in this proposed policy.

To be clear, in this policy, human rights violations are meant to pertain to no one country or to no one specific conflict.

This proposed policy hopes to curtail human rights human rights violations everywhere, including the United States.

Hank, is that conclude your request?

Almost.

So while Hank is speaking, we can't have disruption in the audience.

You're speaking, so I would ask you to continue.

Almost done.

Almost done.

California law makes it clear that the treasurer's duty is to ensure the safety of our investments.

Given more time, I would explain how we deal with credit and default risk.

However, over the course of this past year, I came to appreciate another way in which safety and risk are considered, should be considered.

I have learned that our choice of investments can make our stakeholders feel more safe or less safe.

When I decided to sell our holdings in the Caterpillar Corporation, I knew that act would make some of our stakeholders feel less safe, and I am truly sorry that they feel this way.

However, on the other side of the ledger, in thousands of emails I have received, constituents communicated how much more safe they now feel in Alameda County because of this action.

They express that they feel safer in a county where their leaders have chosen to pursue an investment policy that fostered community values that uphold human rights and protections for the environment.

The responsible and ethical investment criteria is designed to be part of the county's investment policy statement.

The Treasury Oversight Committee is charged with reviewing the IPS every year, and it's charged with sending it to you, the Board of Supervisors, for annual approval.

This is a living document to be examined and reexamined at both the operational as well as the policy levels.

We feel we have listened and refined the criteria to make it both actionable and objective in the context of the county's duty to maximize safety, liquidity, and yield.

We feel satisfied that we have language and the data that gives the treasurer's investment staff the flexibility we need to make the best and most proper investments within state law, our own investment policy, and to the greatest extent possible for the residents of the county, including its school children.

This is not about a single issue we face today, but a long-term commitment to Alameda County stakeholders to incorporate their values into decisions made about how their money is invested.

I'll take your questions.

Very good.

Thank you, Hank, for the presentation.

I'm going to uh first go to public comment, and I'm going to ask the clerk, how many speakers do we have with speaker cards and how many uh hands raised online?

Speaker cards here, and also in the overflow room, and then for hands raised online.

I'll say that we're going to um see how many people there are, but we're going to also, let's see, it's 10 35.

We're going to have an hour of public comment.

I'll ask speakers to be called in the order of in-room, overflow, and online, in alternating fashion, support and oppose, as the clerk understands.

So how many do we have?

We have 211 in person.

We have.

So clearly, not everybody's gonna get to speak.

We're going to uh limit this to an hour, 60 seconds for each speaker.

I'll ask the clerk to call five in person, and then in the overflow room five, and then online five.

So if you could call the five, and if you are in the room, you could come up to the front and be ready to speak when the person before you is um is finished, that would allow for more speakers to be able to speak.

MJ Bowman, Adina Appelman, Moina Sheikh, Chris Moore, and Arlet Jacum.

I'm so glad to be here as a proud California and Alameda County resident.

Um, I'm in I live in Berkeley, and I'm very proud to have Nikki Fortunata Bas as my supervisor.

Today we have an opportunity and a moral responsibility to take a stand against many types of oppression by saying no to investments that harm others.

I'm not so naive as to believe that adopting this EIP is a game-changing event, but I am certain is it is a step in the right direction.

I dream of a time when I'm looking back at this moment, knowing that I did something with the tools at hand rather than nothing.

Please, please seize this opportunity and adopt this desperately needed EIP.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Thank you.

I'm Adina Danzik Appleman, a local district four resident.

Hi, Supervisor Miley, a parent of three public school students, all of whom do not feel safe publicly showing up as Jewish students, Treasurer Levy.

Anti-Jewish graffiti is everywhere.

My teenage daughter was accosted on BART by a man screaming effing Jews, following her from one BART car to the next to the end of the train until someone finally intervened.

She will not ride BART anymore.

Policies fueled by obsessive focus on the only Jewish state in the world create a hostile climate for Jews everywhere, like those murdered yesterday, preying on Yom Kippur, which makes my children here feel nervous to go to synagogue.

Why single out the Jewish state?

What about atrocities around the world?

The values you mentioned are critical.

Please vote no.

Good morning, Chair and members of the board.

My name is Moina Scheik, and I'm a tax-paying resident for 43 years and a constituent of Chair Hobbit.

Five-year-old Hind was traveling in a family car with relatives trying to flee the conflict.

Israeli forces, particularly a tank unit, opened fire on their vehicle.

Her aunt, uncle, and multiple young cousins were killed instantly.

Hint survived the initial attack, but was injured.

After that tag, wounded and terrified, remained in the car among the bodies of her relatives.

She was on the phone with Palestine Red Crescent Society calling and begging for help.

I'm so scared.

Please come.

Please, someone please come take care of me.

This is coming from a five-year-old child.

Her cries and voice during this phone call were recorded and later became a central piece of how the incident is remembered and reported.

Hence car had 335 bullet holes.

This has been made possible with that tax dollars and investments.

Please, I urge you to adopt an ethical investment policy that prohibits investing in companies that facilitate genocide, apartheid and human rights violations.

Thank you.

Good morning, my name is Arlette Hakome.

I am a member of SCIU 1021, a resident of Newark, and a constituent of Supervisor Marquez.

Hi, Supervisor Marquez.

I first want to thank the Treasurer Hank Levy for writing this EIP and for allowing the community to provide thoughtful input.

It meant a lot to all of us who met with you and spoke with you.

Um I just want to say to address a previous speaker, the EIP does not single out Israel, nor is it an anti-Semitic policy.

If you actually read it, it talks about human rights violations.

And if Israel is committing those, they should be held accountable.

I also want to thank our Jewish allies for speaking truth to power.

I hope that all of you supervisors will vote yes to approve the EIP.

I would also like to say that many in the community would like to see the AIP include genocide and apartheid in the language since this is already basically said in the EIP.

Thank you.

Hey, Chris Moore.

So uh the treasurer said today selling limiting investments does not hurt returns.

I don't think there's a competent financial professional in the world that would agree with that.

Um, so he may uh have have, I don't think anybody also in here has read the last six years of financial reports that uh that the treasurers offered, but a responsible treasurer would not remove the reporting benchmark and not change the way they report uh their returns uh on their performance when at exactly the time when when returns look bad.

The fact is the portfolio underperformed by an estimated 160 million dollars.

We're now looking at another policy that will only serve to to deliver less revenue to the county, and that'll hurt schools, that'll hurt the homeless.

We can't implement a policy like this at this time.

Have somebody come in and do a review, a tier one firm of uh of the Treasury offers.

Thank you.

TEC.

The first five callers at TEC are Brooke Atherton, Ofra, who's Dr.

Castro, Teresa Midvos, and Sean Schultz.

Hello, I'm Brooke Atherton.

I'm a D3 resident, and I'm a member of Alameda Families and Friends for Collective Liberation.

I'm here to urge the passage of the ethical investment policy with no downward amendments.

I want to thank Treasurer Levy for the work that's gone into this and to all the community members who have made this possible.

Um it is a moral choice to make sure that the investments of our county are not harming people.

It seems it's actually quite basic.

Um, in addition, we don't want to be contributing to the climate change that harms all of us.

That's pretty basic.

I think that when people come out and oppose this, you should really question their motives for being against this.

In addition, many of the emails received in opposition are from an out of state MAGA aligned group.

A vote against this is aligning with MAGA.

Okay.

It may seem neutral, but it's driven by anti-Israel activists and could lead to blacklisting companies simply for doing business with Israel.

Last year, divestment from counterpillars show how these kind of selective targeting works, signaling out Israel while ignoring other complex regions.

This does not promote peace, it's few division.

Anti-Semitic hate crimes are on the rise in California, and we just saw how in famous periods gate just yesterday in Manchester.

This is not few, those are real attacks.

Policies like that only make things worse, legitimizing effort to demonize Israel and creating more hostile environment for Jews.

It will also harm, also if this policy passes, we would expect it to apply equally to other countries, companies like EPL and Amazon and do business in places like China.

That would harm our investment return and expect legal action if it's not apply equally.

Hello, I'm Dr.

Loni Castro.

I am a retired physician.

In District 5.

I want to thank the treasurer and everyone who helped participate in drafting this.

Um this uh responsible policy for investment.

And I also want to say the worst crime in the world is genocide.

We know that there are more uh children now who are amputees in Gaza per capita than anywhere else in the world.

Um the generational trauma will be incalculable, and so we of course investments in war are more profitable, but that's not where we're going to be making our money.

You have a responsibility to the next generations that come after you.

And Oakland, I do want to thank the treasurer for divesting out of caterpillar.

That is a weapon of war that has been used in Oakland against our own communities.

If you go uh look at black spaces reclaimed and remain, you'll see the videos documenting what has been done in the recent past here with Caterpillar.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Therese Matros, uh resident of Supervisor TAMS district three, and I strongly support the ethical investment policy.

We don't want our tax dollars going to investing in apartheid or the ethnic cleansing, and we do not want to be on the wrong side of history.

We have seen this play out in apartheid before, and we want to be on the right side.

Thank you, Treasurer Levy, for developing this policy in an effort to support human rights on behalf of our county.

I appreciate him listening to those of us who are rightly upset at the idea our dollars could be used in the violation of human rights at home where we see displacement and homelessness due to speculative real estate operations and the currently wrapped up witch hunt terrorizing those who appear to be immigrants.

And I urge careful attention to companies whose products can be used abroad in bombing operations and tech companies that enable surveillance to further apartheid.

I thank him for divesting in uh caterpillar, and thank you all for your time.

Um good morning.

My name is Sean Schultz.

Uh, I'm a UAW 4811 member and a lifelong resident of Alameda County and a resident of District 4, uh, Nikki 14 Autobas's uh district.

Um, I strongly support the ethical investment policy.

Um, I believe that um I'm deeply moved by seeing um the genocide and apartheid that is currently occurring um in Israel.

Um, and I am also deeply moved by uh, you know, many human rights abuses across the world, including within America.

I believe that the treasurer is um uh posing that uh this is sort of like a bank, and we are sort of like the depositors of this bank is very apt.

I think that in order to trust how our investments and money is used, we uh it is very important to have a policy like this that reassures us that um our tax dollars and our investments will not um be used um to promote violence, but instead can be invested um uh properly.

Um so I yeah, I strongly support the ethical investment policy.

Thank you.

Tamara, you're on the line.

You have one minute.

Tamara, you're on the line, you have one minute.

Hello.

Go ahead.

The proposed policy talks vaguely about HG ratings while specifying none to use as a guidance while investing.

ESG ratings are quantitative indexes designed explicitly to make ethical policy decisions objectively consistently and ensure transparency and accountability.

The policy has no quantitative criteria when investment decisions are made.

Instead, states vaguely, Alameda County will not invest in companies that consistently knowingly and directly violate facilitate and unable severe violations of human rights, leaving the justification to the treasurer himself.

This alone undermines accountability and jeopardizes returns on investments and therefore the needs of Alameda County residents.

Housing education safety.

Vote no on this proposal.

I'm a Berkeley resident and Alameda County tax player.

Adrian Vasquez, you're on the line.

You have one minute.

Hi there, my name is Adrian Vasquez, District 5.

I'm a former tech worker and current teacher.

Um here supporting the EIP.

Thank you, Mr.

Levy.

Uh, what we allow ourselves to fund abroad today is what we'll fund at home tomorrow.

Um, and uh that is becoming more true each day.

Uh, I'm lucky compared to so many others, though I was evicted in 2021 so that my former landlord could give luxury condos.

Uh, and I was deeply sad to leave that come up over a decade, and grateful uh that as a result I moved closer to my unhoused neighbors.

Unfortunately, I've watched as their tents and medical supplies get hauled to the dump and some of them getting sick or passing away as a result.

And meanwhile, online I watch a U.S.

funded genocide.

So not only do I support the EIP, but uh it's logical implications.

Let's stop investing in militarized occupation abroad and in our own country.

Thank you.

L, you're on the line.

Yeah, one minute.

Uh hi.

I urge you to, I strongly urge you to vote no on this measure.

It looks great on paper, but there are serious flaws that get to the heart of accountability and transparency in county operations and chart a dangerous path for Jews in Alameda County.

A resolution at this historic moment urging divestment from companies conducting, quote, severe human rights violations for many, as you can see in this room, will mean pressuring the county to divest from Israeli companies.

And people use Israel as a pretext to hate and kill Jews.

This year, Jews have been shot down in Washington, DC in New Hampshire and Boulder.

Each of the perpetrators shouted free Palestine as they killed Jews on American soil.

Just last month at the entrance to Highway 24, right here in Oakland, drivers saw graffiti depicting a star of David with a swastika inside.

If we don't act now, it's only a matter of time before what happened in DC, New Hampshire and Boulder happens here.

As people use Israel as a pretext to hate and kill Jews, this would put Bay Area Jews in more danger than we are already in.

Moreover, leaving decisions about what constitutes severe human rights violations to a treasurer who has strong political opinions of his own is bad policy and bad for Alameda County.

Promote a Calabelli, good.

Thank you.

Hirsch Goldberg Polan was originally from Berkeley.

He was at a music festival when terrorists from Gaza attacked Israel.

Hirsch sought refuge in a rocket shelter, but terrorists surrounded the shelter.

A hand grenade from the terrorist blew his arm off at the elbow.

He was taken alive by Hamas and held hostage in Gaza for 11 months until his captors executed him.

I'm not aware of any other direct connection that our county has to the conflict between Israel and Gaza.

But if we are to take sides, we should support our ally Israel, who offered the Palestinians land for peace in 2000, 2005, 2009, and got nothing in return but rocket attacks, bus bombings, rape, kidnapping, all supported by propaganda and protesters.

You were not elected on a platform of bringing this conflict to our county.

There is no benefit to our county in boycotting Israel.

Vote no.

On this shameful proposition.

Thank you very much for your time.

Pixel for A.

You're on the line.

You have one minute.

Good morning.

Thank you for taking the time to consider this important investment policy and for listening to our comments.

My name's Ansel.

I'm a physical therapist.

I work at Highland Hospital.

I live in Oakland in Supervisor Miley's district.

I want to point out that a lot of the comments against this proposal are really relying on an imagined connection between this form of responsible investing and anti-Semitism.

But I think we all know that the people who are actually advocating for anti-Semitism do so full throatedly and from important pulpits like the president's office of the United States of America.

There are people advocating for actual anti Semitism in the right wing of the United States politics.

Those are our enemies here, not policies like this.

And the other thing I want to point out is that a lot of these arguments against thank you.

Rajneet Tate, Edward Escobar, Celeste Sada?

Swan No, and Rosita Garcia.

Hi, good morning.

Um I'm a constituent of Nate Miley's district.

I'm a member of Jewish Voice for Peace and the Alliance of South Asians taking action.

Um what one particular unnamed ethno supremacist ethnocidal state does and has been doing today, doing today, will be emulated, is being emulated by ethnocidal regimes around the global south.

Okay, so we can't keep reacting to every human created crisis, and EIP is going to help us be preventive and responsive.

The second thing I want to say is that we all want nice things, you know, public safety, universal education, um, elder care, community services, um, things like that.

Why should our having nice things have to depend on slaughtering other human beings?

Thank you.

Edward Escobar, Citizens Unite Coalition for Community Engagement.

Almiti County Treasurer Henry Levy has failed the taxpayers instead of safeguarding public funds.

He's politicized the treasurer's office, divesting from caterpillar, not for financial reasons, but to appease fringe activists pushing the BDS agenda.

This isn't responsible governance, it's ideological pandering.

Levy's so-called ethical investment policy was crafted under pressure from the same failed voices behind the unsuccessful attempt to stop the recalls of criminally indicted Oakland Mayor Sheng Tao and disgrace DA Pamela Price.

These operatives lost public trust, and now Levy is letting them steer our county's finances.

By meddling in foreign affairs, specifically Gaza, he's inflamed local tensions, stigmatize Jewish residents, and turn a nonpartisan office into a political soapbox.

Alameda County deserves a treasurer who protects our money, not one who weaponizes it for performative politics.

Thank you.

Last December, the treasurer divested from Caterpillar, a company that was founded in our backyard in San Leandro in 1925 when two companies merged.

In the hundred years Caterpillar has been around, it has built millions of homes to house people around the world.

It has helped move Earth on farmlands to feed hundreds of millions of people around the world during its hundred years in existence.

It also built bridges and critical infrastructure.

Yet the treasure sold.

Caterpillar bonds last December and lost 300,000 dollars.

Yes.

My name was called.

My name was called.

Please look.

Could you my name is.

I'm gonna ask for order in the court, the what is this room called?

The chambers.

That's the third warning, the third warning.

We're not going to have disruption.

It's very simple to ask the clerk.

I thought I heard the name called.

I'm gonna ask the clerk to verify that.

The name was called.

So I'm not sure who's spreading misinformation or disinformation, or maybe it was an honest mistake.

That's okay.

His name was called, he'll be allowed to speak, but we're not going to have disruption.

If we have disruption, if we have disruption, we're going to have to continue the meeting or uh take a break or pause and take it down a notch.

We don't need to elevate this.

Let's de-escalate this.

Everybody take a deep breath.

We'll get through this.

We will.

This clock was stopped, so we'll just continue from where it left off.

Is that fair?

Thank you.

Thank you.

The treasurer divested from Caterpillar last December and lost $300,000 and did not inform you guys or ask you guys that it's okay to lose $300,000.

Well, Meals on Wheels was asking for $300,000 to feed disabled seniors.

But that's not just the problem.

The problem is he was not transparent.

How many of you looked into hundreds of pages financial records?

Well, we did, and we have this graph that says he re underperformed and lost 160 million dollars.

Sorry.

Okay, but your time is up as well.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

My name is Celeste Saudet, and I'm a Palestinian American and Alameda County resident here to ask you to vote yes on the ethical investment policy.

For the past two years, I have had no choice but to see my money and tax always support the killing of my own people, which has been incredibly painful.

If you vote no, consider your responsibility for funding the genocide, the killing of women, the killing of children, and the dehumanization of Palestinians.

If you continue to support Israel, the message you are sending is that no one is safe and that I, as a Palestinian, am not human.

If we continue to dehumanize people to justify these horrific acts of violence, who will be next?

Alameda County has the power to stop funding Israel by voting yes on the ethical investment policy.

So ask yourselves which side of history do you want to be standing on?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Was that all five in the room?

We try to do in the room.

Maybe they've left.

I don't know.

Um Rosita Garcia.

Okay.

So go if they're in the room, we'll go to the next in the room.

I think we had three more in the room.

Anya D.

Hello, can I be heard?

Um, hello, Supervisor Miley and all.

I'm Anya.

A Jewish resident of District Four.

Oh, and I'm more nervous than I thought I'd be.

Um, I'm here also representing Jewish friends and neighbors in district four as well.

Who couldn't be here?

We just finished the holyest day of the year in the Jewish calendar.

Yesterday, Yom Kippur services, the rabbi spoke about ethics as a core part of Judaism.

Hearing him speak about ethics the night before this vote on the ethical investment policy really struck me.

The rabbi described that our care for others and for life is central to our faith, which means as Jews, we must take action against this genocide in Gaza and to speak out against all human rights violations.

He discussed how without these ethics and the actions they demand, our religion is hollow.

It's clear to me that to uphold our county's values and Jewish values, we must not be investing county funds and entities complicit in harm.

I urge the board to adopt the EIP.

Thank you.

TEC room.

The next five callers at TEC are Laura Blumenthal, George Libmus, Isabel, George Libmus, Paula Rainey, Isabel Rosenstein, and Rebecca Wilkes.

Hello, my name is Laura Blumenthal, and I am a San Leander resident in Supervisor Tams district.

This is my first time participating in a county board of supervisors meeting.

I too work in public service and took off time to be here today.

I am a Jewish parent, just closing the week of high holidays, where we focus on ways we can repair the harms we've caused over the past year.

In continuing with that tradition, I'm here to support the ratifying of a strong ethical investment policy.

It's so important that we exercise our local government power to uphold the values for a more free, just, and humane society as we watch corporate-backed political forces inflict harm on our neighbors here and abroad.

There is absolutely no need to support war, disenfranchisement, pollution, genocide with our tax dollars.

I appreciate your leadership using your limited power to invest in a better future for our children in the planet.

Thank you.

Good morning.

My name is George Lipman.

I'm from Berkeley.

I'm also a Jewish parent.

I served for many years on Berkeley's peace and justice commission, advising the city council and the school board on all matters of peace and social justice.

You might want to create one of those here.

We created a subcommittee on socially responsible investment and procurement policy.

In that process, we learned a few things.

Four things I'll mention.

One, as a budget, is often described as a statement of our values.

This also applies to our investments and our procurement policies.

As number two, as Treasurer Levy said, the phrase human rights violations does not refer to one country, they are everywhere in the world, including, as he stated, in our own country.

Number three, the reason that socially responsible investment improves financial returns rather than degrading them as clear war, fossil fuels, racism, and mass incarceration are destabilizing choices.

Finally, it would be crucial to expand the purview of this policy to include socially responsible procurement.

Good morning, thank you.

My name is Paula Rainey.

I'm in district three, and uh appreciate the opportunity today.

I'm representing the Berkeley and the Bay Area Women in Black.

Also Northern California's Sibyl, which is a large uh ecumenical faith-based Christian community.

I urge you to vote yes and adopt this ethical investment policy for the county.

Please know downward amendments.

Um, I completely embrace the rationale that Mr.

Livy has outlined.

His thought processes make perfect sense to me.

Um for years, a large percentage of the people here, and I would bet the people in the county have been having conversations with their own financial institutions about how they want any retirement funds invested.

Let's do that here in the county.

We've had the conversation now, and it's wonderful that we have the opportunity.

Um, my name is Izzy Rosenstein.

I am a district one resident and Oakland taxpayer, urging the supervisors to please vote yes on the EIP.

I think it's essential for us as a county to put our money where our values stand and invest in the future we want to see in the world, which includes divestment from war and weapons manufacturing and other industries that harm the environment and our communities, and instead return the money to supporting Oakland and Alameda County residents and helping build a stronger community here at home.

Thank you.

Hello, I'm Rebecca Wilkes, District One resident, a Jewish resident and a teacher in Alameda.

I believe in the safety and the future of all children, and I strongly urge the supervisors to adopt ethical investment policy.

Thank you.

Howard, you're on the line, you have one minute.

Howard, you're on the line, you have one minute, please unmute.

Jennifer, you're on the line, you have one minute.

Thank you, supervisors.

My name is Jennifer Bryson Alderman.

I'm a 25-year Alameda County resident.

Uh, I oppose this measure strongly.

Every day I see the power of the county care system.

I'm a nurse practitioner at a community clinic in Oakland.

My patients are some of the most vulnerable, stigmatized, and underserved youth and families in Alameda County.

In my work, I see the power of the critical health, housing, and public safety funding the county provides.

I witness how Alameda County funding transforms and supports the lives of our neighbors, making a material difference for those individuals in our community as a whole.

And as powerful as the county and its funding are for us here at home, it cannot influence foreign policy.

It cannot serve vulnerable people around the world.

Right now, right here in our country, MAGA is pushing and federal funding decisions are being made that imperil and punish the people of the county that you and I serve.

Our collective energy and your leadership are needed to be focused and determined on strong performance.

Please vote no.

Lois, you're on the line, you have one minute.

My name is Lois Kellerman, and I urge you to vote no on the proposed ethical investment policy.

This policy, as you can see from the audience, is being put forward by anti-Israel activists with only a foreign agenda and a lot of misinformation about Israel.

Will this policy be applied to all the countries in the world that have human rights issues?

If not, then this is discriminatory only against Israel.

If it is going to be applied to all the countries in the world, do you really want your meetings hijacked by foreign interests when Alameda County has so many urgent issues to be dealt with?

This is, I think it's not in the interest of Alameda County, and I and I urge you to vote no and don't let your meetings and priorities be hijacked by foreign interest groups.

Thank you very much for letting me speak.

Marty Glick, you have one minute.

You're online.

I'm a resident of Alameda County, and I urge you to vote no.

Henry Lee Henry Levy stated several things that are simply not true.

First, he told someone privately today that this policy has targeted Israel, and then he denied it in his public comments.

More importantly, as a financial executive, his performance is as bad as no, there's been no transparency.

As been mentioned before, there's at least 80 million dollars where he underperformed that takes away from the serving the um needs of Alameda County.

We must, we must take a pause and get an outside advisor to come in and see what's going on in the county and advise the board on what the policy should be and what the focus should be.

The underperformance of the treasurer is scary.

The bias of the treasurer is also scary.

He publicly stated that the selling of caterpillar was for his personal reasons.

That violates every ethic that any treasurer signs up for.

I urge the county to vote no and focus on critical needs.

Thank you.

Aparna, you're on the line, you have one minute.

A partner, please.

Hi, yes, I'm on.

Hi.

My name is Aparna Singh.

I'm a resident of Oakland.

Um, this is a vote on do ethics matter.

It's actually not a vote on the treasurer or on Israel-Palestine.

It's a policy that's going to be universally applied.

That's very clear in the language of it.

So I'm a little baffled by those opposing it.

You know, would you rob a child if it increased your personal returns?

No, I believe we wouldn't, right?

Because all of us have personal ethics.

Then why as a group would we not have group ethics and an ethical investment policy?

These are very, very basic Godrails.

And in the long term, which is what we should be thinking about, being ethical and being prosperous go hand in hand.

So I would vote, um, I would urge a vote yes for this ethical investment policy.

Thank you.

Eileen Lee, you're on the line, you have one minute.

Please unmute.

You have one minute.

Julie Wilde, you have one minute, you're online.

Julie Wild, please unmute.

You have one minute.

Thank you.

I'm Julie Wilde and the Livermore resident.

We talk endlessly on how did our country get to this point where we have leaders who want to be dictators and a military leader who promotes warrior ethos.

And then we wonder where all of this came from.

It's rather simple.

We become what we prioritize.

Right now we value weapons over the welfare of people.

We value power over principle, and we value dominance over democracy.

This needs to change.

I thank Treasurer Levy and to those who are prioritizing human rights.

Thank you for reminding us that we are collectively stronger when we support one another through ethical investment, when our investments are aligned with what we hold most dear, we do better and our souls are at ease.

An earlier speaker mentioned any mentioned any residual harm for companies like Caterpillar.

Yet if companies choose to do harm to others through their business decisions, then there are consequences for that.

We are all responsible for our actions and businesses are no different.

Our power as a country is in our innovation, our diversity, our democracy, and our Ofra plebem, Delilah Vilas, Lala, Camelia Schwartz, and Jan Burnett.

Hello, my name is Delilah Avilas.

I am from District 4.

I'm also a Youth Spare Artworks, a transitional housing shelter for youth in East Oakland.

What's occurring to Palestinians under settler imperialism, genocide, and displacement is the same logic that pushes the climate crisis and displaces and erases black, native, and indigenous peoples and poor working class people here in Alameda County.

No one should be subject to these realities and these material realities manifest through the budgets that we create and are systemically redistributed.

As a youth of Turtle Island and as a global community member with moral consciousness, we support the redistribution of funds to the EIP.

Let the people of the Aloney territory transcend scarcity mindset and be remembered for being leaders of humanity.

The future belongs to those who love and care about it, not those who steal seal, exploit, and dominate it.

Thank you.

My name is Camellia Schwartz.

I have lived in Oakland and Alameda my whole life, and I feel don't feel physically safe anymore.

The policy you are proposing will be likely used to boycott Israel by making Alameda County the first U.S.

county de facto support the BDS movement.

You are telling people that it's okay to hate us and that we are the bad guys.

I am 17 years old.

I have never harmed anyone, nor have a lot of Israelis.

Our only crime is being Jewish.

When people hear companies are being boycotted because they are an Israeli company or have business in Israel, what do you think they are going to say and do to not only Jews in general but to Jewish students?

They're going to single us out.

You are not blacklisting Israel, you are blacklisting Jews.

I have been told by teachers that because I believe in Israel's right to exist, the only Jewish states I want violence, and that I'm not welcome in their classroom.

I am shaking right now.

I came in and I don't feel safe.

I should be able to have my opinion.

Thank you for having us here today.

This ethical investment policy should be passed.

It is very robust, as we've all heard.

It doesn't single any one entity uh or country out.

It applies to human rights violations, it applies to genocide, it applies to apartheid and applies to private companies that would be harming our communities here locally.

We've seen a criminalization of homelessness, we've seen federal agents uh essentially acting as military on our streets, and we've seen a lot of that empowered by private corporations, uh, many of them here directly in the Bay Area.

What we're asking for is for you to divest from those entities that are engaging in genocide, human rights violations, apartheid, or other authoritarian measures.

Thank you.

For the clerk, there was three.

Do we have two more in-person speakers?

Lala and Ofra.

Maybe they left.

Next two.

Will be Sarah Dorman and Elaine Suzanne.

Hi, my name is Sarah Dorman.

I'm a lifelong resident of Alameda County, and I currently reside in Oakland, Supervisor Miley's district.

I've been a teacher in Alameda County for the last eight years, and at school we work really hard to teach the kids to take responsibility for their actions and to have courage and speak up, stand up in the face of injustice.

I'm sure everybody who raises kids here tries really hard to make them into good people.

And I don't know how to tell these precious kids that we have to spend our money to bomb refugees or bulldoze people's houses, and that when they grow up, they're gonna have to do that too.

It is such a corruption of everything that we're all trying to do to teach these young people and raise them upright.

I want to ask you, please, Supervisor Miley, to vote yes to pass this policy that would make it so that we never invest in human rights violations, genocide anywhere in the world.

Thank you.

Hello, my name's Elaine.

Um I'm here today to tell you, I strongly urge you to vote no.

Uh the treasurer has been underperforming on his benchmark since 2022, costing the taxpayers 65 million, and likely to total 160 million in the next three years.

He quietly removed his performance benchmark from his report without telling this board or his oversight committee.

Just as he had the worst investment results in more than five years.

That is not transparency.

He also changed the reporting method to an to actively traded portfolio metric.

Please vote no.

I am highly in favor of transparency, which is not what we have.

The treasurer moved the goldpost and then said he made a touchdown, which was completely untrue.

TECRO.

The next five speakers in TEC are Quinn, David, Benjamin, Jeremy, and Helen.

Hello, my name is Quinn, and I work for Fossil Free California.

I've worked for the past five years on pushing for fossil fuel divestment of our state pensions.

And I'm very excited to be here today, also supporting Alameda County and setting higher standards for ethical investment of this fund as well.

What we see over and over is that fiduciary duty comes to be defined as life is less important than money.

And it is time that we change that standard to say that we matter and we are trying to build our future, and the investments are part of that.

So thank you so much for outlining a policy that really says that people matter, that our environment matters, and that's all part of building the future together.

And I really want to particularly shout out Treasurer Levy, who took time to sit down with us and with many other folks to hear about the history of many of these movements in considering the creation of the Cam.

My name is David.

I've been an Alameda County resident for the last four years.

I urge you to reject the proposed ethical investment policy, a policy that has only been proposed in an attempt to delegitimize companies with ties to Israel.

It is absurd that this is even being discussed.

This is local government.

Why is there an obsession with this one foreign conflict?

Why not spend the time and energy on protecting people who live here and making their lives better?

How about showing some concern for a minority group that has faced an enormous increase in discrimination over the last two years?

Not only is the anti-Semitism in Alameda County troubling, local governments can't even bring themselves to call it out.

The Berkeley Peace and Justice Commission failed to pass a resolution condemning anti-Semitism.

To add insult to injury, the agenda for the meeting we are in right now was released on Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the year to Jews.

Please try harder, reject this policy.

Hello, I'm Benjamin Zhou, a resident of Piedmont.

I support the ethical investment policy.

And I urge you to support it as well.

Uh it is it is an unfortunate and historical fact that many Germans supported the Nazi regime, even German Americans.

We must also remember the role of American companies in the crime in the crimes of the German regime.

We must remember the use of slave labor by via Ford and the complicity of IBM, Coca-Cola, Germany, and the genocide of the of Jews and the peoples and the peoples of Eastern Europe.

I support the ethical investment policy.

Do you?

Hello, my name is Jeremy Russell, and I'm an Alameda resident.

I urge your no vote.

But this proposal, as evidenced by the tensions here in the room today, is exacerbating divisions and potentially harmful to our county's future.

But instead of uh the vague standards here, which could be used in ways that undermine its own goals and uh are our um potentially selective, instead, we should focus on positive and not negative screening tests.

And I urge uh you not to grant the office of the treasurer discretion to act on personal feelings.

Please vote no.

Hello, my name is Helen Finkelstein.

I think I'm in District 5.

Um, the concerns about our ethical values, and and what we have to know is that these values are our received news them on how to maintain our communities safely and and in good order.

Um, so if we invest in things that are harmful to our communities, in militarism, in environmental destruction, yes, and human rights violations, those things are going to harm our communities and cost us more in the long run.

So we need this environment ethical investment uh policy.

We need it for the health of our communities.

Rosita Fresia, you're on the line, you have one minute.

Rosita Fresia.

Hi, my name is Rosita.

I'm a CNA member and nurse in here here in the Bay Area living in District 4.

Every day I care for patients who health is not just shaped by what happens in the hospital, but by the world that we live in, the air they breathe, the safety of their homes, and whether their communities are stable and whole.

Please adopt the ethical investment policy, because the same corporations our county invests in fossil fuel companies, weapons manufacturers, corporations that profit from displacement, genocide, and human rights abuses are the same forces, making our patients sick, traumatized, and unsafe.

As nurses were taught first to no harm, that principle should apply to everyone who as we steward public money as well.

We cannot say we value health and equity while investing in industries that destroy both.

By divesting from harm and reinvesting in clean energy, housing, and community well-being, Alameda County can live its values and help build a healthier future.

Our public funds should heal, not harm.

Pass the ethical investment policy.

Divest from companies that profit off suffering, genocide, and apartheid.

Invest in the well-being of the people we serve.

Good morning.

My name is Francisco Acosta.

Alameda Cowley manages 11.5 billion dollars, one of the largest public portfolios in the nation.

That demands world-class transparency.

But what we have seen is the opposite.

The treasurer quietly removed the benchmark, the only report card for this portfolio.

More than a year ago.

Last night he told his own Treasury Oversight Committee that he was still using the benchmark.

Yet he failed to disclose it.

He then artificially boosted report results by changing how he reports on portfolio returns.

He lost a hundred and sixty million dollars.

How can you trust him with any recommendations?

These are not the actions of transpiring the steel work of public funds.

Before making a decision, we need uh we need uh an independent firm that stopped here to conduct an independent review.

Nothing less is acceptable for this.

Megan, you're on the line, you have one minute.

Hello, my name is Megan Moxpress.

I'm a resident of District 5.

I am also Jewish.

I spent yesterday commemorating Yom Kippur with my family.

I am fully in support of the EIP.

I ascribe to the Jewish principle of Takuna Lam, repairing the world, and this is a small step toward atoning for our past sins as a community in financially contributing to genocide and other human rights violations, and a step towards doing right and being right, consistent with the values of the county where I really love to live and have lived for many years.

Thank you so much for your time.

Please vote yes.

Todd Fairfax, you're on the line, you have one minute.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

I urge you to vote no on this policy and remind you of the fiduciary duties of elected officials.

The policy appears to be far from best practices recommendations from the governmental finance officers association, which is considered the gold standard for public financial management professionalism and standards in North America.

Before approving any new restrictions, Alameda supervisors and taxpayers need and deserve the facts that others have already alerted you to, namely inappropriate reporting methodology now being used, underperformance, and an ongoing lack of transparency.

I urge you to hire a tier one investment firm, not a boutique consultant to review Alameda's 10 plus billion dollar portfolio before making this decision.

You have a fiduciary duty.

Thank you.

Juanai, one minute.

Hi, I'm Juan.

I'm an Oakland president.

I support the proposed policy, with the idea of kidnapping people, just trying to deliver aid.

I don't think I have to emphasize the urgency of this measure.

Given the billions of dollars we invest, we should invest in the values of our county.

I've had the board members say that they want to focus on local issues.

I agree.

That's exactly why we should pass this policy.

It's forward-looking.

It doesn't single out the apartheid state.

Nothing in it mentions Israel.

If companies want investment, they can simply stop aiding crimes against humanity.

I yield the rest of my time.

I see there's a lot of wonderful people that wishing to speak.

Shamsar Ruffay, JB Leibowicz, and then Allison Tanner.

Hi everybody, I'm Jessica Berg.

I am I live in Piedmont and a constituent of Nikki Bass.

Um I just want to call a space spade.

We have seen Trevor Levy say in print several times that he divested from Caterpillar because of his concerns about their intentions with Israel.

So I think trying to make it seem as if this is not about that is really a fool's errand.

Um I find it very problematic to have one person given sweeping authority to decide what's ethical.

We're seeing what happens when we do that in the federal government, goes off the rails and could go off the rail here.

While we might all be very happy with somebody's decisions in this point in time, we don't know what that looks like four years from now or 40 years from now.

So I'm very uncomfortable with giving anybody that type of individual ethical decision making.

The clause about companies that enable or facilitate human rights violations is dangerously vague.

It can be twisted to fit a political agenda, which is obvious from the main proponents.

Their target is Israel, not China, not Boko Haram, not Sudan, and clearly not Hamas.

We've already seen how this plays out.

The caterpillar divestment targeted a company doing business with Israel while ignoring countless others.

The anti-Jewish bias is echoed in the graffiti at nearby nearby Lake Merritt, which now feels less safe.

At the same time, a hundred and sixty million dollar portfolio shortfall was reported this morning.

Why are we talking about Israel instead of talking about that?

Alameda County shouldn't be in the business of choosing sides and global conflicts.

It should uphold transparency, consistency, and fiduciary duty.

Hello, my name is Reverend Allison Tanner.

I'm Pastor Poequitus at Lakeshore Avenue Baptist Church, just down the road from here.

My congregation, along with the vast majority of people who have come here to speak, is in strong support of the EIP.

It reflects the faith values of my congregation, affirming the sacredness of all human beings and also the need to create structures that ensure their safety.

In a time when pursuit of power and greed are causing so much harm to so many people, both locally and abroad.

We are eager to live in a county that exhibits clear moral leadership, specifically through refusing to profit off companies that violate the human rights of others.

Contrary to Christian nationalists outside of this area, my congregation firmly believes that Jesus talks more about money than any other topic, insisting that how we make our money, how we spend our money, and how we save our money match our faith beliefs.

This clear comprehensive policy lets us follow the key tenets of our faith.

Thank you.

John Jonathan Minzer, Mona Masri.

My name is Jonathan Mincer.

I'm a resident of Oakland and Senior Director of Government Affairs for JCRC Bay Area, largest collective voice of Bay Area Jews representing 70 organizations and 90,000 Jewish residents here.

I urge you to reject the ethical investing policy.

This policy is not about impact investing, but it's clearly aimed based on the comments and that we've seen here about targeting Israel.

Only 15% of Bay Area Jews are satisfied with how local governments respond to our needs, and this is a perfect example why.

The agenda was released on Yom Kippur.

No other foreign conflict has ever been discussed, but I've been in this room four times talking about this.

I've been in this room and heard slurs directed at me like Zio, a term popularized by KKK leader David Duke.

And local anti-Semitism and the rise, and we've not seen one resolution from this board.

With growing division, we should be unifying communities, not politicizing our investments.

Please reject this policy for both local finance reasons and our community well-being.

Thank you, supervisors for the time.

I strongly support the ethical investment policy and appreciate Treasurer Levy's thoughtful analysis and clear explanation, including that this policy is a universal policy, not direct at one country but any entity involved in human rights abuses, including genocide and apartheid, despite the absurd comments from many people advocating against it.

This policy helps ensure our tax dollars don't support companies involved in human rights violations at home or abroad.

And an earlier public comment spoke about the benefits of caterpillar, which was insane.

They supply ICE, our prison systems, and have enabled well-documented genocide against human rights and human rights against Palestinians.

Again, I'm grateful that Treasurer Levy divested our caterpillar holdings, and this policy prevents us from backsliding on our community values further.

We have a moral duty to keep public money out of these harmful entities.

So I ur uh strongly urge you to pass this policy today.

Thank you.

TEC RU.

The next five speakers of TEC are Eileen, Wendy, Jackie, John, and Renoir.

Thank you, thank you.

My name is Eileen Tutt, and I live in District 5.

I voted for Supervisor Nikki Boss.

My grandfather and my great uncle were survivors of the Holocaust, and I grew up with stories about the decades-long search for so many missing family members, all of whom were found murdered.

This horror and trauma does not justify Zionism, apartheid or genocide.

And I am so proud to be here today as a part of so many great organizations, labor organizations, Jewish organizations, and people here in support of the EIP.

I want to thank Treasurer Mr.

Mr.

Mr.

Levy for the time and attention he gave to this extraordinarily difficult and sensitive issue.

I have never felt safe as a Jew, and I've never felt safe as a woman.

Um, and I will just say that I feel safer with this, this EIP being adopted as a Jew and and as a member of Alameda County.

I know it won't make a big difference in the long term, but for what's happening in Gaza, but it makes a difference here in Alameda County.

My name is Wendy Hershey.

Years ago, I took my personal money out of Wells Fargo and Bank of America and put it into a local credit union so that I wasn't helping support fossil fuels, foreclosures, weapons, and human rights violations.

My credit union helps our local economy without harming the planet, and I don't need to compromise on my core values.

I favor an ethical investment policy for the county, and I'm chagrined that JCRC opposes this while it approves of Trump's attacks on Iran in June of this year.

I'm Jewish, and I'm ashamed that a few powerful Jewish organizations are accusing me of singling out Israel because I want to protect the earth and humanity.

These organizations are energetically promoting the revival of McCarthyism, and you supervisors shouldn't go along with that.

I hope you see that.

Please approve the investment policy.

My name is Jackie Cabasso.

I'm the executive director of Western States Legal Foundation, a nonprofit nuclear disarmament advocacy organization here in Oakland.

Our office is in Preservation Park.

My apartment is in District 5.

I'm also the North American coordinator for Mayors for Peace, a network of more than 8,500 cities in 166 countries, led by the mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, with 236 U.S.

members, including Oakland, Berkeley, San Leandro, Richmond, and Dublin in Alameda County.

Mayors to Peace is working for the global elimination of nuclear weapons, safe and resilient cities, and a culture of peace in which peace is a priority for every individual.

Goals fully consistent with the proposed responsible and ethical investment criteria.

In a time where human rights, international law, diversity, equity, and inclusion, and the planet itself are under unprecedented attack by a lawless and unaccountable federal administration.

It is incumbent upon local government to protect and uphold its residents' well-established socially responsible values.

I ver I urge you to approve the addendum to the Alameda County Investment Policy for 2025.

My name is John Burroughs.

I'm an attorney for the Oakland-based uh Western States Legal Foundation.

Uh I urge adoption of this policy.

It builds upon decades of effort in the region to have responsible uh investment policy.

Uh examples.

Uh Oakland has a nuclear free zone ordinance.

It prohibits uh investment in nuclear weapons makers.

Uh Berkeley has a similar ordinance with a similar uh prohibition.

And nuclear weapons uh are contrary to the right to life as the UN Human Rights Committee has found.

So this isn't the only thing this policy would address, but I'm just giving uh an example of something important that this policy will address.

Thank you.

Good morning.

Thank you so much for taking your time and and paying attention to the concerns of your Alameda County residents.

I am the Reverend Ranwa Hamami, and I am a resident of District 5 in Oakland, a Unitarian Universalist, a minister and a member of the interfaith community that has been mobilizing on this issue.

I'm also a parent of a toddler who has insisted on multiple wardrobe changes this morning.

That's important.

I'm here to say I support this ethical investment policy because we in California and Alameda County are part of the fourth largest economy in the world.

Shouldn't we be modeling what is possible with that power?

Supervisor Voss and Treasurer Levy, I am deeply grateful that you are listening to your constituents and have shown your support for this essential policy.

I pray that your fellow members of the Board of Supervisors will listen to and fulfill your moral and fiduciary duty to address the ways in which our public funds are currently invested in companies that harm our communities.

Something we should be able to assume all of you will do without needing to remind you and fill multiple rooms.

You're on the line, you have one minute.

Good morning, supervisors.

My name is George Visharat.

I'm a resident of District 5 and an emeritus professor at UC College of the Law San Francisco.

I strongly support the adoption of the EIP, barring county investments in entities engaged in systematic, severe violations of human rights under international law.

Alameda County has taken principled stands before against apartheid South Africa and Burma's military regime.

Today the need is just as urgent.

Israel's ongoing genocide in Gaza continues despite international court of justice rulings.

And the US has recently killed Venezuelans in international waters.

Examples of the rapid erosion of international law.

While foreign policy isn't normally the board's domain, you represent the values of Alameda County residents.

This policy provides a principled, forward looking framework to align the county's investments with universal standards of justice.

Thank you.

Naomi, you're on the line, you have one minute.

Hello, my name is Naomi.

I'm from Castor Valley.

The Palestinian Nekba is a potent frame for looking at colonial genocide as an ongoing process rather than an event to look at the way genocide becomes hegemonic, normalized.

Within this context, assert new African liberation fighters.

Those black families fleeing white supremacist terror in the South only to become ghettoized in cities in the North, the West, and the Midwest.

Quote should not be understood as migrants, but as refugees who fled their national territory due to persecution, land theft, and naked terrorism.

As in East Jerusalem, so in Harlem.

As in Janine, so in Philadelphia.

As in Maseryata, so in Russell City.

If genocide is normal operating procedure, the companies which profit from that status quo are culpable wherever they operate.

Let us act accordingly.

Please pass this resolution.

Lori Rosenberg, you're on the line.

You have one minute.

Uh thank you.

Hi.

I'm Lori Rosenberg-Arazi.

I'm a Jewish resident of Oakland and have been since 1973 a resident of Alameda.

Um the investment policy being proposed is not ethical.

It is one that inspires hatred and increases the dangerous atmosphere of anti-Semitism in Alameda County.

Mr.

Levy cites human rights violations as a trigger for the divestment from a company in which the county may invest its funds.

Nevertheless, divestment thus far, and we're speaking mostly about caterpillar, spoke strictly on Israel, ignoring far worse violations in numerous countries outside of Israel.

If the strict reading of the proposed policy is not explicitly anti-Semitic, we are fooling ourselves as to how it is intended to be implemented and how it has been implemented thus far.

This is obviously a hate-filled anti-Semitism and makes Jewish residents of Alameda County less safe.

Not just feel less safe, but be less safe.

Telling me how unsafe they feel in that room.

So I urge the supervisors to take care of our home.

We depend on you.

Please vote no on this proposal.

This proposed calls.

Thank you.

Rex Lee, you're on the line.

You have one minute.

Rex Lee.

Hello.

Yes.

Hi, my name is Rex.

I'm a worker with uh Filipino advocates for justice in Guinea City.

Hi, Supervivor Marquez.

Oh, yeah.

Fremont's also my hometown.

So yeah.

Uh I thank Treasurer Levi for drafting the ethical investment policy as we work in fighting for housing rights, dealing with rising fruit costs, and we're worrying whether our neighbors uh will disappear the next day here in the United States as is carries on out its own policy of ethnic genocide and cleansing.

Our siblings in Gaza deal with a worse version of what we are fighting against every day.

Treasurer Levi has painstakingly drafted this policy after months of dialogue with the community.

I urge our supervisors to adopt this policy with stronger language that stands against unethical corporations that individual countries commit genocide, ethnic cleansing.

Ronnie Zieger, you're on the line.

You have one minute.

Hi, thank you.

My name is Ronnie.

Um I'm a taxpayer in District 5.

And I want to share that I want to suggest that today our rights in this country are under severe threat.

And one right that we must continue to exercise is to spend our money in a way that's aligned with our values.

Otherwise, we are literally funding our collective demise.

I say this as a Jew who is against genocide or violence against anyone.

Let's take this beautiful opportunity to vote yes and adopt the ethical investment policy.

Thank you.

Eleanor Levine, Karen Stiller, Cynthia Papermaster, Jeremy Russell, and Tim Drew.

So I note that we are past the time that um we have allotted.

However, because the clerk already called the next five, I think we should do it.

And I'll just say people are waiting in the overflow room, they're waiting online.

So we'll go a whole nother round.

I know that's more time than we allotted, but let's go a whole nother round.

Five in person, five at the overflow, and five online.

I want to thank and commend all the speakers and everyone in attendance.

We're doing a great job.

Let's keep it going.

First, next five in the room.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Eleanor Levine.

I am a proud Jewish grandparent and parent, a member of Congregation Bethun.

I am speaking in favor of the um resolution that's before you.

We've heard a lot of accusations about the incompetence of our treasurer.

I'm sure that our treasurer will get up and give us the information that seems to be in debate here.

So let's wait for that information.

I also want to say, as a World War II baby, I've seen a lot.

And the kind of anti-Semitism we're seeing today is a result of Israeli policy, and nothing more than that.

And it's the result of equating Judaism with love for Israel or being a member of an Israeli.

And um this is an emotional topic, I'm sorry, but the issue of anti-Semitism is not as it's been presented today.

Thank you.

Hi, I just want to mention Jeremy Russell, I believe already went.

So, and he's not in this room.

Okay, so my name is Karen Stiller.

I'm a resident of Fremont and Senior Director of Jewish Affairs for JCRC.

I'm here to ask you to reject the proposed ethical investment policy.

While there's nothing wrong with ethical investment, um, that's not really what this policy is about.

How do I know that?

By looking around this room.

People talking about it are talking only about Israel.

I know that because you already divested from Israel without even having a policy.

I know that because the only foreign conflict that ever gets discussed in this room is Israel and Palestine.

Why is that a problem?

It's a problem because it's created an environment where anti-Semitism thrives, and Jews are simply attacked for caring about their Israeli friends and family.

Jewish identity is being conflated with this conflict, and we see it every day.

So please reject this policy, and I ask you to vote no.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Cynthia Papermaster.

I've lived in Alameda County most of my life, over 50 years now.

I'm with, I'm Jewish.

I have family who died in the Holocaust, but I do not speak for all Jews.

And I resent very much the Jewish people in this room who are turning this issue into one about anti-Semitism.

It has nothing to do with anti-Semitism.

It has only to do with ethical investing.

Ethical investing is something this county should definitely get behind.

And I'm very proud to be a member of a county that's considering an ethical investment policy, which could be historical.

I want to be proud of my county.

I want to be proud of my supervisors, and I urge you to vote yes on this policy to make us proud to make us really uh taking a historical step in favor of justice.

Thank you so much.

Hello, my name is Tim Drew.

I am a district five uh resident and I'm a member of East Bay Democratic Socialists of America.

Uh that organization delivered uh yesterday letters to supervisors uh signed by seven faith leaders and over 50 organizations.

I want to note that we our coalition represents the majority here in favor of the EIP.

Um you may not get that impression uh by the way that it's going one oppose, one against in the comments.

Um I want to urge the board, like I said, to adopt the EIP today.

This policy would require the county to avoid risky investments in harmful industries, harmful and risk risky business practices, and in companies that facilitate human rights violations.

As you heard from this uh Treasurer Levy, this policy builds on the county's strategic vision and consistent with uh the policies, the counties' policy.

So please please vote.

Vote yes.

Thank you.

Sydney Levy, David Scholes Schollenholt.

My name is Sidney Levy.

I work, live, and own a house in Oakland District 5.

Although I'm not related to Treasurer Levy, we share the same last name and the same desire to see the EIP resolution passed.

As a Jew and as a human being, I am concerned about anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, and racism.

I am also concerned about apartheid and genocide.

Please add those words into the resolution.

In the interest of time, I will focus my remarks on the on the latter.

Ever since the Holocaust, we've been saying never again.

And what have we gotten always again?

Darfur, Rwanda, Bosnia, the Rohingya, the Uyghurs, the Yazidis, and now the first live stream genocide in Gaza.

This is neither about politics.

This is not country specific, it is about our community values and universal values.

Please add the words apartheid and genocide to a resolution.

Thanks.

Linda Wolf.

Linda Wolf.

Valerie R.

Hi, my name is Valerie Runberg, and I'm here on behalf of the nonpartisan nonprofit organization Stand with Us, which works to fight anti-Semitism.

Though this bill may not specify that it is targeted at Israel, the one and only Jewish state, simply by looking around this room, it is clear that Israel is the target.

I don't see a single sign about Iran, Sudan, or China, all of which commit egregious human rights abuses.

One previous speaker noted that even our own country has a record of human rights abuses, which it does.

If this bill is applied consistently, does that mean this committee is prepared to divest from all American companies, such as the ones we all work for to make a living?

If the answer is no, then this policy is not about human rights.

It's about the one and only Jewish state.

This is a veiled attempt to further ostracize Jewish and Israeli residents.

I urge you to vote no on this policy.

Thank you.

TEC room.

The last five here at TEC are Mark Dudley, Daniel Kaplan, Anjali Sunderham, Jean Moses, and Cindy Schombaum.

Hello.

My name is Mark Dudley.

I'm a resident of Oakland.

I'm here speaking in favor of the ethical investment policy.

Any investing that does not contend with the notion of ethics is not an investment.

It is stealing from our future to line the pockets of people who are actively harming us today.

And because people seem to keep bringing it up, I will state that I am also for a free Palestine.

And I think that that is important.

So thank you.

Bye.

My name is Daniel Kaplan.

I live in District 5, and I'm a member of Jewish Voice for Peace.

Not long ago, I lived in a neighborhood in East Jerusalem for several months.

And many of the homes in my neighborhood were demolished.

Those homes belong to Palestinian families who lived there for years, if not generations.

They lost their homes because of a legal system that makes it virtually impossible to recognize their residency.

Meanwhile, new apartment complexes, exclusively for Israeli Jews, sprung up in the areas where those homes once stood.

This phenomenon of racially driven displacement is widely understood by Palestinian Israeli and international human rights organizations as just one dimension of Israeli apartheid.

And in the years since I lived in East Jerusalem, this phenomenon has only accelerated to the point.

Anyway, it's counterpart bulldozers make this possible.

And just as we should care about displacement in Oakland, we should care about displacement Palestine.

Housing is a human right.

Support the policy.

Hello, my name is Anjali Sandrum, and I am a resident of Oakland.

So much has been said already so eloquently in favor of the ethical investment policy that we urge you to adopt.

And I'd just like to say something hopeful that extends beyond this conversation into sort of what we as people can accomplish in the fight for social justice.

A friend of mine just wrote to me from Italy.

He says, now everything is blocked.

The airport is blocked with people on the runway.

They cut the fences and entered the fields.

Train stations almost stopped everywhere with people standing on the tracks, not to mention the ports.

The ports are blocked with dockers and families camping directly on the banks.

In Livorno, two Israeli ships have been forbidden by the workers to approach and they are gone.

Same for a US ship full of armored tanks.

Not a single nail is charged or discharged.

Many government palaces, such as the parliament or foreign office building are surrounded by thousands of people in and around the building.

To cut it short.

Thank you, your time is exactly how a general strike should look.

Thank you to the last speaker.

My name is Jean Moses.

I live in Lena Tams, District 3.

I'm a member of the Interfaith Coalition for Justice in Our Jails and of Imani Community Church of Oakland.

Thank you, Treasurer Levy, for your hard work putting together a considered and professional investment policy.

I hope that we are also going to be looking at investing in bond funds that are socially responsible.

Please vote yes on this recommendation as a step in the right direction.

I'd also like to add that I strongly reject anti-Semitism and racism of all kinds.

Hate and discrimination based on religion or race is despicable.

I believe that this policy supports the value of each and every precious human life.

Thank you.

I'd like to cede my time.

Hello, everybody.

My name is Violad.

I'm a member of the Palestinian youth movement and a member of District 3, a resident of District 3, Lena Tams district.

And I've been watching these past two years, my people face a genocide.

I've been watching massacre after massacre happen in Gazze and land being annexed across the West Bank.

I have been watching this and being and feeling helpless.

The UN has just issued what we already know that this is a genocide and that it is incumbent on governments to prevent materials and resources from providing and allowing Israel to continue this.

It's a crime to support Israel during this genocide.

By passing this resolution today, what you are doing is standing on the right side of history.

There is a reason why we care about this.

This is a local issue.

And everything that we do here comes back around.

When we make war and weapons less profitable, we make war and weapons less possible.

We do not consent to having our tax dollars allow for this genocide to happen.

We do not want to be complicit.

This is what the people want.

We did not consent to be complicit in this genocide.

So please pass this resolution.

Linda I'm a longtime resident of Berkeley, and I ask you to vote no on this policy.

The process of Hank Levy's divestment was hasty, chaotic, and ill-considered from the past from the start.

This board is committed by law to transparency and fiscal responsibility.

There are too many relevant needs before you to countenance time-sapping distractions.

As an aside, I'm leaving now rather than returning to my original seat, as the man two away from me as being one of the very many who have also been verbally abusive in the past.

You also might not have seen that most of those here refuse to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

Are those the American citizens that an American government board chooses to receive advice from?

Thank you.

Leslie Zeger.

You're on the line, you have one minute.

Hello, I'm Leslie Ziger.

I'm a Oakland homeowner and supervisor for Tonado Bass's district.

I'm also a Jewish person.

I support the EPS because I believe that never again means never again for anyone anywhere.

Making sure our tax dollars are invested in violence or are not invested in violence is a move in that direction.

I also reject the suggestion that has been made that being against Israel's genocide is anti-Semitic.

It is absolutely not anti-Semitic.

It is actually our Jewish values to oppose genocidal acts, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, all of the things that Israel is doing.

Thank you.

Laura, you're on the line.

You have one minute.

Hi, my name is Lara Kiswani.

I'm the executive director of the Arab Resource and Organizing Center Action, AROC Action, a mother and a longtime resident of District 3, born and raised in Alameda County.

Thank you for introducing the ethical investment policy, and I urge all our supervisors to support it.

A yes vote puts our values into practice and reflects the priorities of the overwhelming majority of your constituents, indicated by every recent poll.

Residents across our county want our public dollars aligned with our values.

We may have limited influence over a right-wing federal government, but we do have control over how our county invests.

As a Palestinian, I join the majority of Jews in this country who believe never again, must mean never again for everyone.

I want to know our dollars are not invested in genocide of my people today or in any other human rights atrocity now or in the future.

Please vote yes on the ethical investment policy.

Thank you.

Salim, you're on the line, you have one minute.

Salim.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Go ahead.

Good morning, supervisors.

My name is Selim, and I oppose this policy because of its impact on Jewish safety.

I'm a resident of Berkeley, and when I look around this room, every person, just one comment, and accept those.

Every single foreign policy comment today against Israel.

Not one word about Syria's half-million dead, not one about China's Uber persecution, not one about Nigeria's solder Christians, not one about Yemen.

This isn't about human rights, it's about singling out the Jewish state.

These vague criteria will be weaponized exactly as we're seeing in this room right now.

Discriminatory against Israel and Jews.

And this isn't theoretical.

We've witnessed time and time again the direct connection between such policies and violence against Jews in Alameda County across the nation and across the globe.

Students are attacked on campus right here in UC Berkeley.

Senator Streton, families are free to wear Sarge of David in Alameda County.

This policy won't help a single person suffering abroad, but it will absolutely fuel the anti-semitic case of an injury Jewish Jewish children, families and seniors.

Joshua, you're on the line.

You have one minute.

Thank you, and I strongly urge you that you reject this policy.

Um there are a lot of questions going on, and I think that there need to be answers in terms of the performance to date of the treasurer.

The treasurer, uh, there's a bit of citizens' review of his performance, and it is uh it's it's been shown that there's over a hundred and sixty million dollars that could have been used for county programming, and that is money that is now gone.

Now, we don't want to conflate the poor performance of a treasurer with a um very charged political issue.

And, you know, looking around this room, treasurer has insisted this has nothing to do with Israel.

This has nothing to do with anything going on in the Middle East, but just listen to the comments, look at the people in this room, and the old comment that, you know, if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

So I think this board, if they really want to deal with these kinds of issues, they should look at BDS, because that's what this is.

This is BDS by another name.

Rochelle Towers, you're on the line, you have one minute.

Rochelle Towers.

Uh hello.

Uh I'm a member of uh Cahila Synagogue, longtime resident of Oakland.

I've been a social worker in Oakland and a resident of District 4.

My family lost more than a dozen members in the Nazi Holocaust.

Many people and many companies justified their investments in that genocide by citing the irresistible profits that could be made.

Would we consider that an ethical choice?

Would Alameda County proudly proclaim they fulfilled their fiduciary responsibility by making similar investments?

Please vote yes on this EIR.

Thank you.

That was the last online speaker.

Okay, thank you very much.

Um, we'll bring it back now for deliberation.

And before I do, though, I want to thank everybody who spoke today, everybody who participated, those in the room, in the overflow room uh online.

Uh, for some of the speakers, I know it wasn't easy.

Um, it's difficult to do, but uh I think everyone um rose to the occasion, handled yourselves very well, and I'm grateful for that.

My intention was to run a very fair and efficient meeting.

I know we went um well past uh the time that we allotted, but I think it was the right thing to do.

I'd like to thank our clerks for also handling this uh well, those clerks in the room and in the overflow room.

Um I'm gonna hearken back to a speaker who mentioned that we should always look at the motives of those uh speaking.

And I know we have people on both sides, and my assessment personally is that both sides are very passionate about their position.

Both sides are um coming from a position of um what they really believe in.

And it's uh it it it's important that I I say that.

Um, some people are rightly concerned about um genocide.

Um clearly that that's something that we have to get um, we have to get past and and not allow uh my own family fled, uh my own wife's family fled Nazi Germany.

People are also concerned about the focus uh on Israel uh and uh the uh the war in Gaza.

The fact is uh I believe that unfortunately this has been very politicized.

I do believe that uh we should have more focus on um uh uh conflicts around the the world that we're trying to absolve uh and yet everything I see in here is about about this one.

Um and so uh I'm really disheartened by that.

Uh I'm not opposed to the spirit of an ethical investment policy, um, but I have to ask at what cost and at what real effect.

Super Treasurer Levy's already said that uh he's divested from the one that he has divested from.

Then there's nothing more in our portfolio.

So um I'm not can convinced that uh we can uh I'm concerned about the comments made about yield, and I would like to ask uh Treasurer Levy um a question, which is to say the three important priorities are um mandated priorities.

So for um safety, liquidity, and yield.

Is it your interpretation that s one is more important than the other, or are they all three our top priority?

State law is really clear on this, Mr.

President.

It's in that order.

It's absolutely clear.

Safety is number one, liquidity is number two, yield is number three.

Are there any others beside the top three?

Those are the only ones in state law.

Okay, very good.

So I also want to understand better, the current policy talks about reputational risk.

So how how do we define that?

Um it's it's if uh if if something is said um that is made public that um doesn't look well uh for the county.

I think that's something to be taken into account.

So somebody says something derogatory about the county that's more can happen a lot of different ways, right?

I think what I think one of the speakers talked about Wells Fargo.

So that's a good example.

Remember when Wells Fargo was under the heat for so many things.

I mean, and you know, um if if if it's if you know we can show our values by selling, divesting, if you will, from a company that has a rep a bad reputation without suffering financial hardship, which we absolutely can do.

And that's I was gonna go, you know, it's gonna talk about more about how bonds work, but absolutely can do that without suffering any financial harm.

So yes, I think I believe in that, and I think we all should.

Not that we don't believe in it, but who whose judgment is reputational?

How far does a reputation have to go before we take action?

Well, it just all seems very squishy.

It is it is squishy.

I won't deny that.

It is squishy.

So I I also um just heard today, uh, and I had heard bits and pieces before, but I heard it loud and clear today, and I I just have to ask.

Um it was we talked about, did we remove a benchmark from how we evaluate our performance some time ago?

Yes, we did we we did, um, and it was we haven't about a year ago we did, and we've been it's been sort of a back burner project.

We've been trying to creating a benchmark is an interesting thing.

You don't you don't necessarily want to create one that so mirrors your portfolio that it's it's not useful, but you also have to find one that you know you can compare yourself against.

Yeah.

Um when you removed it, how long had we been using it when you removed it?

Did you make it clear, and for the period of time before you removed it, how did we perform against it?

I think when I looked, we've we you know, we meet with our consultant every month, and you know, by video, you know, we get reports from him.

Um we we've we've never we haven't managed against the benchmark um for for eight years that I've had this role.

Um I think it showed it we had it there in our reports.

We took it away, probably with we've talked about it every once in a while.

Um I'd be glad to, you know, talk about it more with you at the Treasury Oversight Committee.

Um, and um that was one positive thing, you know.

I mean, that was when Chris Moore emailed me on Monday asking me about this.

I was I was more than happy to talk about it with him.

Um got blindsided by everything else, and I hear he put out a report, and I hope I hope you're interested in the 160 million that appears to have been lost.

You want me to tell you about that?

Well, I in a second, because indeed that that is the next step, but I'm looking at a chart that showed that for a period of at least 12 months prior to the benchmark being removed, that we, whatever benchmark it was, however relevant it was, however squishy it is, I don't know, but the portfolio underperformed it by, you know, at least somewhere between a half to three quarters of a point.

And so, you know, it and I'm not accusing uh anything, I'm just no, it's fine.

Let's talk about it.

Yeah, let's talk about it.

So on Monday, last Monday, Chris Moore emailed me and he asked me some questions about benchmarks, and um, and also, and he, this is I mean, miss uh Mr.

Moore doesn't understand a lot.

Um, he talked that he didn't understand the difference between the word return and yield.

He said, please let me let me let me know.

Please let me know about that.

He didn't understand the difference between market and book, which you know, and I can explain that if you want to know.

Apparently, he put this report out.

So let's talk about benchmarks.

Let's talk about what you had asked me at first about what's priority under state law.

So safety.

You know, these are th these are things I wanted to talk about, but took out of my speech because it was getting way too long.

Um, so that has to do with credit, and credit has to do with risk.

We're not allowed, we the the portfolio is only allowed to invest in investment grade.

A lot of benchmarks include less than investment grade um has to do with um ratings by the nationally recognized rating services, and our our policy actually is actually more conservative, even than state law.

So if you know the ratings, they tend to go from triple A to A to A triple B, etc.

Our policy is A and above.

A lot of the benchmarks have below, have what's called high yield, used to be called junk bonds.

Those are benchmarks we can't use, because um, and and we can't we can't use them.

They're not relevant to us.

We can't invest in those, we don't invest in those.

So our benchmark.

Wait, I just let me finish.

Sure, sure.

I apparently he put out a report.

I've been in correspondence with Mr.

Moore since Monday.

There's so many things that he didn't understand, and it was a little hard to answer him over an email.

Now he's got you convinced, and he's got some other people in the audience convinced that there's under performance.

He clearly doesn't understand.

And I I'm really shocked at some people, some who are my friends out there who are mirroring, and you were too, who are mirroring this accusation.

He could have sent me his report.

He could have had me look at it.

I was in communication with him.

I would have been glad to have talked to him about these things.

Hank, I'm asking a simple question.

We had a benchmark, presumably it was a benchmark that we could benchmark against it was relevant.

We underperformed month after month after month.

I'm just asking.

I it's a good eventual court's wrong.

It's a good question.

I don't know.

I think that's why we took the benchmark away.

We didn't.

I think I I I'd be glad to answer you at some point.

I don't know why you know what that benchmark was.

We took it away because we felt we needed a better one, and we haven't done that yet.

Okay.

So we took a benchmark away because we didn't know what it was, and we have yet to replace it.

When you took it away, um how long ago was that?

I think it was over a year ago.

So a year, so in the last year we've been searching for a better benchmark.

It's been a back burner project.

Okay.

I haven't put my attention to it.

I'm just trying to understand.

Uh, but please you can ask me these questions, they're fine, but please don't fall for for lies and innuendos and things that I can't answer, and that are technical things.

Please don't do that.

So certainly I I don't um say that money went missing.

I think I heard that said, but I I am sensitive to the notion that money could have been earned.

Let me let me give let me give you a data point.

It is fact that the portfolio made had returns of 400 million dollars last year on a 10 billion dollar portfolio.

It's easy to do the math, that's four percent.

That's that wasn't too bad.

You know, the market was probably above that, but we had bonds that had we we had bought earlier with lower yields, so it wasn't quite as much as the market was.

The market, so there you go.

I mean, that's sort of I hope that helps explain why sometimes we might be below a benchmark.

The benchmark is based on market rate, which probably last year was maybe 4.5, and we did four because we had older maturities, it's because we've been holding them, we have certain uh liquidity goals, certain liquidity, you know, and you know, let's get into a technical discussion.

I accept the answer that the market is different than what we're allowed to invest in.

But Hank, there's 58 counties that are also not able to invest in things.

How did how do we benchmark against them?

How did they perform?

The bottom line is we just don't know.

We just don't know.

Yes.

So well, what we know what we know a lot.

I think we're we're doing I want to give you the assurance we're doing very well.

We have a consultant, we have a consultant who has a lot of clients in California and now we're doing quite well.

Okay.

Another comment that was made, uh, and I just can't escape it.

And I don't I take your word that you say that this is not personal, it's not about anyone uh war or conflict, but yet uh it was mentioned that you even said in public that you made the decision to divest of caterpillar out of personal motives and beliefs.

I think somebody shared that you wrote a particular article or even mentioned a comment that to the contrary, which is it, because again, um you did that unilaterally, you did that without asking or really telling anyone, and it's really concerning to people that it gives the impression that you did it, um, out of personal motives and beliefs, and not out of um just in in general.

So I help me understand that.

Sure.

First of all, I just want to say, as you know, I wear three fiduciary hats.

I'm on the pension plan, I'm a trustee of the pension plan, I'm a plant sponsor of our deferred compensation plan, and I'm the treasurer.

I think about fiduciary responsibility all the time, all the time.

I'm really aware of my biases and trying to be aware.

Um, everybody's biased here, as you said.

Um, so it's did I divest that I sell caterpillar because I was because I felt they were harmful to Israel.

Um it was it, I think I what I said in public, um, Supervisor Howard, what I said in public was an article I wrote in the Jewish News in January of 2024.

Um, and I said at that point, that was the only thing I I've said in public.

Um I said that because of my history for 50, 60 years as an activist, being involved in the Vietnam War and the Civil Rights Movement and Union causes, anti-racism causes, that boycotts and sanctions and divestment have that it's been a tactic that's been useful.

That's all I said.

Then people took what they wanted to mean from that, that I'm part of BDS, and that I did it for personal reasons.

People can think what they want to think.

I feel like I did it.

I feel like I did it because of um the reputational risk that the caterpillar holdings were were were causing on us.

And I don't I I and I'm I'm I'm glad I did it.

Um I'm proud, I'm not just proud, I'm glad I did it.

I feel like this discussion, I did it, I did it kind of strategically because I felt like a discussion about ethical investment policy wasn't gonna happen unless I got rid of the one sort of sore point.

It did no harm to the county, I assure you.

In fact, for those who have said we lost money, we actually made money.

Making money, no, you've heard me say that we're not about making money, we're not about making profits.

That's not how bonds work.

We actually made money on those three bonds, but it's actually not a good thing to make money because it means that interest rates have risen.

That's because that's not a good, it's actually you want to lose money, but I can explain that another time.

The point is I'm glad I did it, because it enabled us not to have to talk about caterpillar.

If we if I hadn't sold caterpillar, most of these people here would have we would have been talking about caterpillar, caterpillar, caterpillar.

You would have been sick of it, and at least it elevated the discussion to talk about policy, and I'm glad I did it.

So, Hank, I I want to make it very clear.

You're a good person, I get that, and I don't think any other.

We I'm just trying to get to a little bit of the motives why and understand for clarity.

I think you just shed a light on, indeed, this is for a lot of people about caterpillar.

You got out of it and hope to elevate it and alleviate that, but indeed, you've just sort of mentioned this is about caterpillar still.

And that bot that bothers me, but I want to make it very clear.

I'm not saying you're a bad person in any way.

Some people might have said that, not me.

Um, but I just have to also ask with regard to the rest of the policy, you know, of the other counties that also have the same mandates that we have, they may not share the same values, but just out of curiosity, how many prohibit themselves from investing in the things that, especially, you know, legal products, alcohol, for example.

Um, I'm not dissuading you from saying one way or the other, but would we truly be the only county to not invest in the things that you list?

The policies that we came across, you know, would were different.

Um, I I don't like prohibitions.

I don't think any more than you do.

I mean, I don't I don't I don't like to my hands to be tied.

You know, the whole, I know this is squishy, you know, and I'm I'm ready to accept a little squishiness.

I don't like I don't like to be prohibited.

And in fact, our policy says discourage.

That was a word that I we got from Mendocino County.

They use the word discourage, and that's a word we like, so we took that.

So it doesn't say prohibit, you know, in terms of in terms of the 10% of revenues of those products.

That's that's not an uncommon thing.

And those are those industries are typical of being named and policies, but it doesn't say, you know, we study, you know, San Francisco has had a prohibit, has the words prohibit in their policy.

City, some cities have the city of Oakland has many, the city of Berkeley has many.

I didn't want to, I purposely we purposely didn't use the word prohibit.

Okay.

You mentioned that you have a consultant on board to help you make decisions.

And I guess did they help you make these decisions?

They helped, yes.

They helped, they helped me write this policy.

They, you know, together we came up with a process for listening to community groups, they were on every phone call, um, they listened, took everything into account.

Yeah, they played an important role.

Yeah, so but they weren't they weren't a you know consultants for all of all caliber.

Um professionally, um, nationally recognized, I don't know what tier one, I guess you could call it tier one, um, if you want, but um I certainly feel that we might benefit from a peer review by a firm like that.

I certainly do believe that we could benefit ongoingly from a um RFP that would be let to bring on somebody that would help make those decisions.

And I want to make it clear that I think a decision to divest or to not invest is it's not fair for one person, Hank.

I said this before at each of our meetings, it's not fair for one person to do by themselves.

Um, and and I just am a believer, I I I have been in the past, and I still believe that at some point the buck stops with the board, and that I would recommend that if we're going to make a decision that would divest that it should rest with this board.

Um, so that's the that anyway.

I've I again can I say some can I say something?

Sure, of course.

You you and I have talked about this many, many times, and and it was you know, and you said that early on, and that was fine, and I agreed with you.

And it's you know, it's in the in the policy that the board gets approval of it.

And I don't I've tried, as I said before, I've I've tried to elevate this to policy.

First of all, I was directed to do this.

I didn't initiate this.

You know, this is not like Hank Levy's policy, which you know, some people have said even even in jest, and even my supporters have said this.

Not true.

This is this is you know, Supervisor Carson was the one that initiated this, and and you unanimously directed me to do this.

Um I'm you know, I'm I was glad to do it.

Uh I'm not sure I would have done it the same way.

You know, I fought against things like, you know, to prohibit certain things.

I mean, you know, I I did that fight.

Um, and you know, this is not about me, you know.

Um, I don't know what's the future's gonna bring in terms of like I said, we we've gone through our policy under, you know, using the criteria that has been proposed, and no change, you know, our consultant says they don't recommend, they don't see any changes to our policy.

We've got some, you know, I mean, some people, even people who oppose this policy have pointed out they don't like some of the holdings we have, you know, Amazon and you know, for the supply chain problems and Apple, you know, for the supply chain problems they've got.

I mean, I don't know what's gonna happen in the future.

I don't know whether, you know, future meetings will be about coming to me or coming to the TOC or coming to you and saying, we don't like this stock, we don't like that stock.

I really don't know.

Um and and and please, I mean, this the the tier one, I mean, just when you are, you know, when you try not to try not to mirror these arguments.

The people who don't like the policy and don't like the consultant I used are now saying, oh, I chose the wrong consultant.

We should use a different consultant.

I mean, just think about.

I mean, I'm I'm open to having anybody look at our policy.

I'm or and our performance.

I have no problem with that.

That's what I think should should happen.

Um, but you mentioned supply chain, and you mentioned um even though you didn't list it, you you talked about it, and it's it has been mentioned.

If we if this is truly about anything other, why aren't we looking at the supply chain coming from China?

Why aren't we looking at Ethiopia and the Tigres and Sudan and Darfur and Myanmar and Rohingya?

There are products made there, there are investments made in uh all sorts of areas that have problems.

We haven't even called that out.

Indeed, if you let this keep going, as was mentioned, we might not be able to invest in hardly anything.

How are we gonna where is well I have a lot of answers to that?

I have tons of answers to that.

A number one, it's I have thought about it, and we're trying to get um a framework, and we're trying to hire our consultant to help us with the framework.

It's very hard, it's you know, this all comes down to like ESG ratings.

Um trying to figure out, you know, we need some help, research help, and trying to see what companies are doing well and not doing well.

Um we haven't found, we've been looking for years, ever since we installed that ESG policy into the IPS five years ago.

We've been looking for some framework, and it's been hard to find one.

Um, I mean, I'm also like there's some there's ESG frameworks that explain how well a company and they try to rate them.

Um there's some that there's some ratings that will say company A is doing really badly, and some and then a different rating will say it's doing really well.

So it's like do you put all of them together?

Um, and so it's been difficult.

I want to do it, and I'm ready to do it, and I'm ready to hire our consultant to do it to help me do it.

Um so it's not something I want to pay attention to where that will go.

I I don't know exactly.

Um we I'm not really nervous about the universe of investments.

There's, you know, I told I talked about the universal we can invest in, and and don't forget corporations are just a small part of our portfolio.

There's plenty of other things we can invest in.

You know, I talked about I I made mention of Federal Home Loan Bank and Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae.

Um, these are all guaranteed by the federal government, you know, there's plenty of investment options.

Plus, of corporations, we have, you know, right now we invest in about 38 companies.

We have a universe of maybe 150 companies that we can invest in who are rated A and above.

So I'm not nervous about that.

If we find that we should, you know, quote, divest of Amazon, there's plenty of there's plenty of others.

I'm not nervous about that.

So don't forget our own community bank that we're talking about.

And the community is separate the public bank.

Gotta keep some money for that.

Yeah.

Uh I agree with you.

We we need help.

I'm concerned about what this might do down.

I I all the work that you referenced, I think needs to be done before we do this or as we do.

But that I'm gonna stop here because I've had enough time.

I would like my colleagues to weigh in.

And I normally typically the chair will go to their colleagues first, but um as as Supervisor Fortunato Bass pointed out, I'm on the Treasury Oversight Committee.

I've heard and we've talked about this before, and it's important that I would weigh in.

And while I typically allow everyone else to do that, uh I know Marquez has her hand raised, and so um I think we all want to speak.

And so I was feeling like we have in the room Supervisor Miley, Supervisor Fortunato Bass, Supervisor Tam, and Supervisor Marquez.

Could we go in that order?

Marquez first.

Ah, maybe she has to go.

Supervisor Marquez, thank you again for holding on with us, and um for being here and taking the effort.

Uh, indeed, because you are remote and have uh familial uh concerns.

If you have to leave, that would be fine.

We understand, but we'll give you the first chance here to go.

Go ahead.

Uh thank you, President Howard.

I actually don't have to leave.

I appreciate the consideration.

I just wanted to clarify.

I know that we uh went beyond the one hour initially um indicated by you, Mark, for public comments.

I appreciate that, but I wanted clarity.

Did we exhaust the list of everyone that wanted to speak?

I just wanted to have an understanding of the status of that.

We did we did not.

We did not, okay.

Is there bandwidth to allow more opportunity for people that would like to speak that have already submitted a speaker card or raise their hand?

I don't think so because some of us have a hard stop and we haven't even deliberated yet.

So not to say that it couldn't be done, but it would cut into our deliberation time.

That indeed we have allow for a reasonable period of time that we um make sure that all sides of an issue are able to participate.

That's why um we asked uh the clerks to alternate um support and oppose.

Um, I think we all heard the commentary and almost exclusively um was repetitive.

And so, we well, I feel like we've allowed for enough public comment to satisfy the requirements.

Can I ask what the hard stop is for others?

Because we're almost at the 1 p.m.

mark.

I don't know what other people's commitments are.

Donna, do you want to weigh in?

Yeah, I just want to clarify because that didn't accurately reflect um my my comments um with your short with a sort of your concluding remark that um I am comfortable with where you cut off the comments that is correct.

Um the notion and it is, and that the um Brown Act does require that we allow a reasonable amount of time um for public comment.

I I'm not saying anything about that, you know, the goal is and the hope is that you get people from other sides, but the truth of the matter is at the time that you take the cards and we we we exercise a process of allowing people to speak in the order that they present their their cards, and because we have remote remote locations and different locations, we try to take people from the different rooms.

Um, but we you know we have no way of knowing when they submit these that they will be um the that they whether they'll be pro or for.

So we're not really um doing that, but of course the we I feel comfortable with it what has happened because you have had an opportunity to hear from different and varying sides of it.

So I just very good.

So we've um complied with the legal requirements.

So look, if four of us want to proceed with more public comment, or if I guess three of us want to do that, then that we could be here as long as we have 200 more speakers, maybe.

But what I've said is everything that's been said by just about every speaker has been repetitive to speakers before then almost all of it.

And so I feel like we've done a good job with that, but I'm only one person.

Okay, um so I feel that it's time to go to deliberation, Chair Howard.

May I make a suggestion?

Sure, um, for me, it would be helpful if the clerks do have the um physical sign-in sheets, and if people did mark support or oppose, if you could tally that up for the board so we know the number that support or oppose if they sh if they share that with us.

Um, we do not require, nor would it be appropriate for us to require people to say whether they understood.

So I understand that on Zoom we don't know, people may not have marked that, but it's a data point that's important to me because my office has counted the emails, the phone calls, etc.

So it's just a data point that I think is important, and since Supervisor Marquez asked if any of us have a hard stop, I do not have a hard stop today.

Thank you.

So we'll give a minute for the uh clerk.

Are there any other deliberations that you would like to add at this point?

Supervisor Marquez.

Um, I just would like to just uh add that if we had capacity capacity, I know we still have to deliberate, but I would be open to at least one more hour at public climate because um the public has been waiting for next steps on this item since last December.

So I like I want to be respectful of everyone else's commitments, but I certainly am open to at least one more hour.

Okay, if we don't do that, do you have any other deliberation comments?

I do, I have questions.

Let's put that um, okay.

So um with respect to this policy, um, just want to clarify that it is uh county policy and non-infordance.

Just want to clarify that.

Um is that accurate?

Uh it's a policy, not an ordinance.

Is that your question?

Yes.

Hank?

It's a policy, not an ordinance.

Okay.

And if it's adopted today, when does it go into effect?

Immediately.

Okay.

And the annual review would be one year after the policy goes into effect, the annual reviews.

Um, which it's sort of based on the TOC's um meeting schedule.

We usually meet in November and May.

So um, but it but the the IPS comes gets approved by the board every year.

So I think maybe we'll we would send it up in May, perhaps.

So it might be less than a year.

Okay.

I can't answer that.

Yeah.

You can't answer that.

Well, no, I mean if if you want it, um, I just I should check with when we last did it.

You can review it anytime you want, I would think.

But in this policy, it's saying it's going to be reviewed on an annual basis.

I want to be clear when does the review take place on the TOC committee?

As well as the full board.

I just want clarity on that.

Yes, the the TOC reviews the IPS.

If there's no changes and nobody brings up any issues, then there would probably be no discussion.

Then it comes to the board, probably in a consent form.

And if nobody brings up any issues, um, then it probably gets just voted on consent.

I would think that's the way it works.

I'm sorry to be vague, but the fact is that no one usually discusses the investor policy statement.

Mm-hmm.

Okay, thank you.

Those are my questions for now.

Thank you, board president.

We've ignored Hank for too long.

Yeah, yeah.

Supervisor Miley.

Yeah, go for it.

Yeah, you'd like to go next.

I please go ahead.

Um, first off, um, I concur with Supervisor Um Marquez and Supervisor Cortinata Bass that uh we should allow for another hour of public comment.

Um but having said that, I do have a few questions of the treasurer, and I was one of the board members that voted back in December to support and direct you to help develop this ethical investment policy because I believe we need one in our county that reflects the value while also seeking responsible and sustainable management of our financial resources.

Um there are a couple questions I had based on your presentation.

You had mentioned that you uh did a peer review, you've had 25 different public forums uh of uh different um jurisdictions, and so I wanted to just um focus on the the cities that are in my uh supervisorial district.

Like for example, um, one of the speakers mentioned that in Oakland, um, which Oakland's policy is basically deferring to ordinances.

For example, they have the nuclear free zone ordinance, they have one on linked banking, they have one on tobacco divestiture resolution, fossil fuel divestiture, firearm or gun manufacturing divestiture, and sanctuary city investment ordinance.

And under their nuclear free zone ordinance, they specifically restrict the city of Oakland's investments in US government treasuries or to find alternatives.

And if you can't find alternatives that meet that rate of return, then you also have the option of exempting or waiving that um that restriction for a period of up to 60 days.

So do we have something?

Uh how do you handle U.S.

Treasuries given the the policy and the addendum that you're proposing?

Good question.

Um, first of all, um I don't know how to handle US Treasuries um in terms of our policy.

Um, and it's uh it's it's uh something that would be very risky probably to get into.

Um we certainly don't want to prohibit ourselves investing in US Treasuries.

Um, that would be really wrong, I think, to prohibit us from doing that.

Um, what one thinks about how the U.S.

Treasury spends its money, um, you know, military expenditures, you know, ice, you know, whatever, you know, aid to this country, aid to that country, that would be risky business to get into.

Um, so I'm hoping to stay away from that for the moment.

The fact is is that we currently um not so much because of policy, we actually have gotten out of US Treasuries to a great deal.

We have very little US Treasuries in our policy.

We find it it really is more, we actually like both for return enhancement and also because of mission, you know, impact.

We prefer to invest in things like the federal home loan bank, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae.

We know where that money's going.

We know that Farmer Mac, we know where those monies are going.

They're going to housing, often affordable housing, they're going to agriculture, often to farmers, um, so we know where that money's going.

So we like that better.

And you know, and the returns are better than treasury.

So that's my answer.

Okay, um, that's helpful.

And um in the discussion that they had in the city of Oakland on their sanctuary city investment policy, they are basically prohibiting the city from investing in companies that contract with ice when it comes to issues around data collection or immigration detention services.

How would a treasure, I mean, how would our addendum policy reflect something like that?

And how does the treasurer make that determination in terms of understanding whether companies or some of the holdings are contributing to the ICE um activities?

So I think the way I intend to approach this is I I want some help from a consulting company to give me a framework so I can get information about what, and again, we're talking about 10% of our portfolio, it's not a big part, but it's a billion dollars, so you know it's it's a lot.

Um, you know, to try to begin to get some information.

If I would say that if a supervisor wants to ask me a specific question or points me in a certain direction, then we'll we'll go after it.

You know, you don't have to do it at a meeting, just email me and call me up, you know, you know how to get a hold of me, you know, ask me, you know, I'm I'm concerned about this.

What is our portfolio have?

Now, what about if a member of the public, you know, comes to me and says, you know, would you look into this?

Would I do it?

You know, I think given time I would I would I would obviously put your concerns on the front burner if uh if a citizen did it, I would probably look into it too.

I'm you know, I'm an elected official and I'm you know, I believe in serving the my constituency, so I probably would do it, but yours would come first.

So then I'd I'd look into it more with the help of people who could do the research, you know, obviously you know our staff consists of you know two people plus me you know two and a half people plus me so we can't really it's hard to do this work but I would try.

So you mentioned that uh you're seeking a consultant to help with the ESG type would a consultant like that help provide advice on where some of these investments could potentially go.

Yes yes my my understanding is that we're gonna they're gonna if that I want a consultant to give us a tool which probably is also choosing what you know one or more of these rating services that can give us information about these things you know some of the rating services you know there's certain companies you probably heard of MSCI and sustainability Morningstar these are services and you know to some of them only focus on financial aspects some of them don't focus on you know whether a company is is giving money to people who are serving ice you know a lot of these companies don't you know don't talk about you know human rights violations in Gaza I mean you know some of them don't do that they pretty much focus on financial aspects so we're gonna have to you know maneuver through the different companies and services without spending a ton load of money because all these things you know cost you know 30, 40 thousand dollars each so we have to be careful so um you had also um mentioned in your comments and in response to President Halbert that um your decision to divest from caterpillar was also in part to help elevate the issue of ethical investment policy at the county did you believe that under the county's current investment policy which we adopt every year in a very um perfunctory way somewhat that that um policy because we we don't deal with your transactions we we develop the policy we adopt the policy you follow the policy based on uh your best judgment did you believe that that existing policy that we have in place enabled you to move forward with the divestment from caterpillar yes yes I did I did I the the the quote that I gave at the beginning of my talk which was from our current policy which is a socially responsible policy I believe that gave me the rationale to do that.

And by adding um these addendums what do you think that would accomplish in terms of your further uh decisions on either positive screening or negative screening.

Beyond what we already have on the social responsibility.

I don't know if I could I don't know if I can add any more than what I said in my talk.

I think that it's made you aware it's made the community aware by having certain things in a policy that talk about wanting wanting our investments to mirror our visions you know and I spent a lot of time talking about vision 2036 and this is the first time this discussion has happened in the eight years that I've had this job.

So I'm um I don't know what more to say uh you know it's as supervisor howard says it's squishy you know and but at least it's out there you know and it's something that with it sets a it sets a baseline I think it sets a baseline for how we think about it.

And and the addendum the ethical now we're calling it criteria not policy it it sort of elevates that baseline and it gets everybody thinking about it.

I I tell me I want to tell you a story um when we put in the the socially responsible investment policy clause in I think we did in 2020 um you know what we thought that meant to us was we you know, we were thinking environmental and it kept us away from investing in fossil fuel companies.

So it did, it did it had it did have an effect.

You know, we don't, we haven't had fossil fuel bonds, you know, and I knew, you know, when we did it, I mean, it was sort of like, you know, and I, you know, I talked to my my CIO, my chief investment officer, and I said, what happens if a fossil fuel company has this incredible rate of return, you know, a coupon rate, way more than anybody else.

Would we invest in it?

Would we want to make you know more money?

Which, you know, I've been accused of not making enough.

Would we make more money?

Assuming everything, credit risk was the same.

You know, we didn't we didn't really answer that.

It was sort of a question.

It's a very Jewish thing to ask a question that has no answer.

So um, so you know, we kind of asked ourselves that question.

And we didn't luckily we didn't have to have an answer because there was there was nothing before us in that situation.

Okay, those are uh my questions.

Just a follow on, but Hank, um essentially slave and imprisoned labor in China doesn't rise to the level of wanting to get out of an investment.

All the other genocides that happen there.

Why it all was there not any that's not for years, well documented.

None of that seemed to matter.

Or or and what I'm afraid of is the is that what this might lead to again, which is there's are you gonna start looking at all of that going forward?

Well, first of all, I want to ask you why you're asking me that.

Because you you this again is a flash point that was made, and it's just seems again and again and again like it was made for this particular situation and not another, but yet our words are saying that would be for anybody that was conflicting with these value states.

You know, I've tried so hard to say time and time again, this is not about Israel, this is not about the Middle East conflict, this is universal.

But your actions are matched.

But wait, just let me finish.

So, um people who I can't I can't help what people in the audience make of this.

I can't I can't make either that people who support this think that this is about BDS.

And I can't, I can't help people who are opposed to it think, you know, that I've done a horrible, uh horrible thing.

I I can't help that.

I can't help what they think.

You know, I gotta, I mean, I'm trying to convince you what the purpose of this is.

You know, as I said to Supervisor Tam, if you want me to look into, you know, do any of our companies do business in, you know, in China that are you know against the ergors, you know, or any of us or any of our I I will do that to the best of my ability.

I will do that.

It sounds like the policy you're contemplating will it make you do that.

You're asking us to approve a policy that will make you do that.

Well, it we we will my intention is to begin with some rating service or rating services.

Call it a benchmark, call it a benchmark, if you will.

You know, some ESG human rights benchmark.

I'm looking for some tool that will help me.

I think I've been told that there's plenty out there, and I believe by the way, Supervisor Howard, that the consultant who I would like knows those tools better than some tier one, some hypothetical tier one advisor.

I think they know these tools better.

So that's what I'm hoping for.

To the extent that these tools will help, I don't know.

We'll have to see.

You know, we we only we're not gonna hire another staff.

We do need more staff.

Um, but if actually if I'm hiring more staff, I'm gonna do it for for positive screening.

I if if I hire, if I come back to uh to Susan's office and ask for more staff, I want that person to help with impact investing.

I'm not gonna have them look to screen for negative screening.

That's not really what I want to do.

I guess I just wish you had that all prepared with uh everything that's going to happen that you're about to do would be we would have those answers so that we would know what the effects of this policy would be before we make it.

Well, if I was gonna come, I was hoping that you'd approve of a contract with a you know a consultant today, but that didn't happen.

Um so that that'll come soon.

So as soon as we can get them on board, we'll have some tools and then I'll be able to see what we can do.

But I think I'm still dependent on people asking me certain questions.

Um I have we have this in the in the pension fund, supervisor how where, you know, our st this the ASERA staff doesn't have the ability to look at reputational risk and other things like that.

It takes citizens' groups, it takes labor union activists, it takes nonprofit, you know, advocates to come to a SARA and say, would you look at this?

Would you look at that?

I mean, don't forget it's different that we're talking about there, we're talking about private equity, where things can be way, way more hidden than in our, you know, in our case where we're dealing with public fixed income.

So I mean the information should be more available to us where we have public companies, not private, but anyway, so it's not quite the same thing.

But you know, you've got to ask people who care.

You know, and they will they will they will say something, and it's fine.

Supervisor Miley.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you, President Albert.

Well, before I start, are we gonna give another hour?

Because I know I have to leave at 2 30.

I we have a closed session to uh attend to as well, possibly.

We have uh maybe we need to take a lunch break.

I don't know.

Um we can go for another maybe 30 minutes.

It depends on how long we want to deliberate, and I don't know that.

Okay.

Maybe we could shed light on that.

Okay, all righty.

Well, I might this might be the only time I get a crack at this.

I say that, I say that because I believe that probably a lot of decisions we've heard a lot.

How much more an extra hour is going to weigh on our decision, I'm not sure.

Probably pretty small, but we'll see.

But it would certainly let people feel good about being able to speak, but if we can't get the decision done, that will be for not.

Okay.

Well, I want to thank uh you, President Albert, for how you've conducted the meeting and all the speakers who spoke today and the treasurer for the um other report.

Um a few a few questions and comments.

So um, and also um full disclosure, Hank's a friend.

I've known Hank for decades.

He was actually before he was the county's treasurer, he was my campaign treasurer, so know him very well.

Um I trust him, and I've I've actually indicated to people that um whatever he came up with, I'd be inclined to support.

But some things have come up, so I really and I said I wanted to wait to the hearing today so I could um make a decision.

And and as a treasurer, you have discretion, right?

Yes.

Okay.

And as a treasurer, you're a countywide elected official.

Yes.

Okay, right.

So I don't know when it talks about in the um the letter or document from you that corporate and financial institutional investments within the portfolio portfolio will undergo assessment of their environmental social governance and controversy ratings at the time of purchase of the securities based on available information.

That's pretty much your discretion talk working with your consultants and staff and advisors.

Okay, and yes, and when you make that decision or those decisions, do you talk to the treasury oversight um a committee?

Do you run do you talk to the county's finance committee, which made up of uh the county administrator, the auditor?

No.

No.

You just make okay, okay.

Okay.

Then also in the same document, you know, I I I I've got to admit, I've got concerns with the 10% of um revenue from the following industries.

I don't understand why it's 10%, and furthermore, I don't understand why some of these industries are indicated.

For instance, it's no secret, I've done battle with the alcohol and tobacco industry uh since, you know, over the time of being elected official back when I was on the city council and here at the board.

Um, and uh both of these are legal products, for instance.

And so I'm it's just curious that certain industries were kind of kind of um targeted, whereas in the other paragraph, you state investments are also discouraged in companies within certain sectors that demonstrate severe or or um or persistent human rights violations in their own operations or supply chains.

Um, and then in another paragraph, Almin County will not invest in companies that consistently knowingly and directly facilitate and enable severe violations of human rights as outlined in the international law and the UN guiding principles on business and human rights.

So to me, I I don't understand why we even need that uh that earlier paragraph that outlines certain industries, why can't we just strike that?

And once again, you've got the discretion, and if you decide on a case by case basis that you think it's inappropriate to invest in a particular company, like caterpillar or whoever it might be, you make that decision and you bring it to the board uh for concurrence.

Why can't we just do that?

Uh I I think um there was uh there was certain certain industries that by their very nature, by the by the main products that they make money from, we would that was sort of putting us on notice that we would look at those more closely.

Those were those seven companies, those are those seven industries.

I was when I told the story to Supervisor Lamb when that you know we began looking more closely at fossil fuel companies, and that actually had uh an effect.

We no longer you know put money into the bonds of those companies.

So that's why those that's why those are there.

It's and it says, and you notice it doesn't say prohibiting.

Discouraged.

Yeah.

It means that we're gonna take a closer look.

Yeah.

Well, I once again I just I'm just uncomfortable with first of all the 10% and then listening those seven.

I I'd rather give you the discretion to do what you need to do, and then if you think um we shouldn't be investing in a certain industry, a certain company, uh, that you make that call and you bring it to us, and we concur or we don't concur.

It's it's a valid point.

Um I'm I think I mean, I think we're okay with the discretion that we have from the policy because it says discouraged.

It doesn't say prohibit.

Because you are an elected countywide official, whoever's the treasurer is an elected countywide official, and the board of supervisors uh takes on a role just like you do as a fiduciaries of the public trust of the public resources, and I I just I have a real visceral reaction to singling out certain, you know, I drink, I drink alcohol, I don't gamble, but I I just have a problem earmarking certain industries.

I mean, you know, I fought the pharmaceutical industry.

They're not listed here, but we all take medicines.

Um and sometimes there's you know, pharmaceutical industry, they've abuse some of that at times.

So I would rather give you the discretion if you think an industry and a company is abusing policies, human rights policies, and other things, you you say, okay, we are not going to invest in that, and they're off our list.

That's kind of where I'm coming from.

And it doesn't matter if it's 10%, 20%, 5%, but the point is, you make that call, because we put the trust in you as the and it wouldn't, even if you're not the treasurer, whoever that treasurer is.

You know, I'm I'm open to that idea.

I mean, I I want discretion.

I mean, if you want to take away limiting language from the policy, gives give me more discretion, that's fine.

I don't I know I don't know if constituents would like that.

I think they might like to hear from you about what industries are suspect, shall we say?

They might want a list of those things, but I'm okay with that.

Yeah, they would know that when you bring it to our attention.

So XYZ corporation, but it wouldn't come it wouldn't come to your attention probably because if on the purchasing side, we would never probably ask you.

We can we can make that policy, we can make that we can.

That would be bad.

No, no, you could, but that wouldn't be workable.

I think that's what I was saying.

Is that if we put in our policy a direction to seek the advice and go of a nationally reputable firm, if they would make help Hank do his job to help make decisions, if that conflicted with him, if he had a conflict with them, that then it would come to us.

What he's suggesting is that he would never bring those decisions to us.

He would make decisions of his own not to invest in anything he didn't want to, listed on here.

And that it would never get into our portfolio.

Yeah.

Well, let me let me let me give you uh let me give you an example.

Take the emerald fund, the surplus land development fund.

It's outsourced to a separate financial firm.

You know, and they're dependent on our investment policy statement, which we have to give them, you know, to in order to invest things.

Um they don't ask us, you know, they have to go off the policy statement.

And if we should notice something that violates that, um, you know, this ethical investment criteria that we're talking about today is, you know, it adds a whole lot more language than we if we gave this to an outside company, they could do it.

I mean, so I mean, it's not also about me.

It's about, you know, do you want to delegate how much do you want to delegate to anybody?

Um, and giving them direction for what to do.

Um I don't know if I guess I'm I'm wandering a little bit here, but well, the thing is where I'm coming from is uh so that we could uphold our fiduciary responsibilities, so you could adhere to safety, liquidity, and yield, so that there's transparency if a company is violating um human rights, or um, and it's been demonstrated by the international law and UN principles.

Um, and if you feel uh it fits with in the category of environmental social governance uh con and or other controversy, uh, you would make that call, but it would be the final decision upon whether or not it's approved or not, would come to the Board of Supervisors.

The public would also see that as well.

Now that's going to produce, I mean, more work for us that's gonna be on our agenda, but at least it's very transparent, and and we have an opportunity to weigh in.

Yes, we agree with you, no, we don't agree with you, based on some rational um this uh input that you've provided to us around why you have made that call.

I would really advise you not to at all go down a road of um approving purchases.

I think you really have to let the treasurer's office do that, or you know, like I said, I was just giving you this example about outsourcing it.

You know, you could outsource it to a discretionary firm like the Emerald Fund is doing and let them do it.

You know, so it's not necessarily about the treasurer's office.

Um I would don't, I would really advise you to not to for I do have an idea about transparency.

We could put out a report.

You know, part of the reporting, we could put out a report about our holdings.

We could, we could, you know, the uh, if we got the right tool, we could put out, along with our investment report, which we give to you every month, and we put on our website every month, we could put out, you know, a you know, an ESG report, if you will, and give that, put put that out, give that to you, put it on the website.

Anybody would be able to look at it.

And if they had questions about it, then and they want and they said, you know, this is a bad company, blah, blah, blah.

And then they'd come to me or they'd come to you, you would come to me, then we could do something about it.

You know, then we could uh divest it or sell it.

But hopefully we're gonna have good processes going in into the purchases, and I would really urge you not to go anywhere near trying to prove purchases as we make them.

Right.

But we're we're working really fast, especially in the months of November, December, March and April, when we're getting billions of dollars coming through our doors.

So that's not possible.

Well, like I said, I do have an issue with the 10% and the and the seven categories that you've listed here.

Um I don't I don't feel it's uh necessary um based on everything else that's in uh the document that you've uh provided us.

Uh furthermore, I just want to say, as I always say, reasonable people will disagree, and you know, I think there's merits on both sides of what I've heard uh today and in the past.

You know, I've heard I've had people talk with me about this over the last few months.

Uh so um I appreciate the fact that we're finally having this come before us.

It's taken a while, but it's here today.

Um I would would definitely say that I think there is um more of a bias, and I think President Halvert was trying to bring that out as well.

Uh that it and some of the speakers that this might be directed more at Israel, and it needs to be more universal, and that's what you're uh maintaining.

Uh so I would like to see more universality about it, because you know, uh human rights uh uh violations, uh war, uh hostilities, things of that nature.

I mean, it's not good at all for a civilized society, and that's what I I hope we're striving for, a civilized society.

Um the um, yeah, I do like I said, I do think folks have raised some good some good points here on both sides.

And what further concerns me is some of those points that were raised by people who oppose us passing this uh policy.

And I know you talked about Chris Moore and some of the things that brought up.

Um, but I and you also said you're not opposed to any further peer review.

I think um I would probably feel a little bit more comfortable with a peer review of what you proposed here, uh, particularly if if we're gonna keep the 10 percent and the listing of industries in here, uh, one through seven.

Um I definitely would feel more comfortable with a with a peer review of this.

Um let's see here.

Then I just want to say that um I appreciate the work you've done here.

Uh um the fact that that that that this got through the Treasury's Oversight Committee, I think that's important.

Hopefully they paid attention to it and didn't just rubber stamp it.

Because we we put a lot of trust in them.

Um I don't I don't this wasn't run through the finance committee, um, county administrator and the auditor before coming here.

No, okay.

Was there any particular reason why?

Um it's it's it's not enough we don't run things through the finance committee.

Okay, all right.

Okay.

Just asking at the moment.

Um I'm I'm on it.

It hasn't met in a couple years.

Okay.

And then I just want to basically say to everybody, you know, we're all on the same team.

Um, we none of us uh believe in discrimination, war, um, um, human rights violations, any of this, and it's it's just troubling that we're so divided, both here uh in this county, throughout this country.

We're we're all on the same team.

And the fact that we have a administration that's all you know messed up back in Washington, DC, I won't say that name, but you all know what I'm talking about.

And the fact that um Israel has an administration that's all messed up.

Um hopefully we can uh make changes both in our country at the national level and Israel make changes uh in its country with this administration because I don't wanna do anything that further divides us um uh nor hurt um Palestinians who are being hurt in Gaza or hurts Israelis, and a lot of that once again is being done by the government uh that's in charge.

And so making changes there, both in this country and in Israel are fundamentally important.

So that's all I have to say at this this point in time.

Thank you, Supervisor Miley.

I just uh Hank, one more clarification.

The safety, liquidity, and yield.

I think in your presentation you mentioned safety around do some people feel safe living in Alameda County based on their investments.

But safety in this context, I believe is meant to be, is it a safe investment?

Will the company go bankrupt?

Will the company lose money?

Will the company not so much will it make us feel safe?

So please help me understand your understanding of these mandated principles because safety of an investment has nothing to do with the EIP.

Oh no, you no, oh you're absolutely right.

You're absolutely right.

Safety in state law and safety in our IPS and safety everywhere I've mentioned it, it's all about the safety of investments.

So if we can accomplish EIP with uh the rules of safety, liquidity and yield.

In other words, if we can invest in other things and still make the same and still make the same returns, that would allow EIP to be successful.

But if they don't make the same returns, how are we consistent with our mandate?

There's we don't have a benchmark.

I just I just uh first of all I just want to say the reason I brought up that safety thing, and that's just my personal opinion.

It had nothing to do with with my professional job as a treasurer because the opposition to the policy, so many people have talked about being less safe.

And I wanted to bring up the point that that sometimes get uh gets overlooked.

One speaker talked about it, they feel more safe.

So anyway, but that's just personal, has nothing to do with with you know my my role.

Um, in terms of the question you're asking is does limiting our investments does by the by this policy limiting like you know, getting rid of not investing in companies that have 10% of their revenues, like Supervisor Miley said, or you know, not investing in caterpillar, not investing in this company, that company, does it force us to uh invest in other companies that give us less return in in finance it's called concessionary returns, which is and I I think we have a universe of 150 companies.

We don't have to invest in corporate debt, we can invest in in government debt, much of which you know I love and I think has great impact on our community.

So I'm really not afraid of concessionary returns for limiting our universe that the policy may do.

Yes.

You mean lose not making as much?

Not making as much.

Yield one of our mandates.

Yeah, the yield is the third, absolutely, but I'm not afraid.

I'm not afraid, I don't believe that we're gonna have a lower yield because of this policy.

Okay, not afraid that we would otherwise have a lower yield.

You think you can still lower I'm sorry, I didn't hear that.

You can still accomplish a similar yield is what I'm hearing you say.

Absolutely.

Well, with the benchmark and nationally reputable investment company, I might think.

Anyway, if if you if the if the super if the administration wants to pay for a study out of their budget, I'm fine.

Okay, all right.

Let's do it.

I've taken too much.

Supervisor Fortunato Bass.

Thank you, uh Chair Halbert for leading us through this uh conversation.

Um I want to thank first my predecessor, Supervisor Carson, because indeed it was uh his action that brought this forward uh to the board and then to our treasurer.

And thank you, Treasurer Levy, for um all of the work you've done to engage to research um and to present today, as well as the Treasury Oversight Committee and the communities.

He's been participating in this process.

Um I also want to acknowledge that I represent a very diverse district in District Five, one of the most diverse in the nation, which is home to Arab, Muslim, Jewish, Filipino, Asian, Latina, immigrant, and other communities, and I do feel uh deeply responsible to represent all of you.

So as someone pointed out, the county's budget expresses our values, both our operating budget of over 5 billion a year, as well as our investment budget of 10 billion dollars.

And those values include sustainability, social responsibility, and compassion.

And I do believe that now more than ever, because our country is clearly under an administration that is authoritarian, and perhaps probably on the road to fascism, that we have to do everything in our power to uphold our humanitarian values.

This is also an administration that is denying climate change.

And so I do believe our public dollars should not perpetuate any harm to either our communities or to our planet.

And when Supervisor Carson brought this forward last year, in terms of social responsibility, his memo said that the exclusion criterias may include things such as fossil fuel extraction, the production and sale of weapons, or companies with a persistent record of direct involvement in severe humanitarian rights, severe human rights violations, such as war crimes, apartheid, and crimes against humanity.

That was the direction from Supervisor Carson.

And I believe, as some have pointed out, that it would be also appropriate to include genocide among those human rights violations.

Carson's memo also pointed out that our county does have a history of making investments that are aligned with our values, specifically in 1985, the board unanimously divested from South Africa, and in 1996, the board barred investments in companies doing business with Burma.

And today, I do believe that there are two important rights movements, protest movements that are happening that are on par with the South African divestment movement.

And that is the movement that is fighting for the liberation and the freedom of the people in Palestine.

That is something that we cannot be silent on.

In addition to that, over this past year, I think many of you are aware that one of my priorities has been to support our immigrant and refugee communities.

And with the passage of HR one and the billions that are now going towards ICE, the largest law enforcement agency in this country is ICE.

And immigrants or those who may look like they are immigrants are literally being kidnapped in our own communities.

So that is another thing right here at home that I think we cannot sit in silence about.

And while these discussions play out in the way that they do, I want to be really clear that I personally, and I believe I believe this board does not condone anti-Semitism or Islamophobia, Islamophobia, or any form of hate.

So I've taken very seriously this conversation, and I want to thank my staff in particular because we have been literally tallying up the comments that we have received from members of the public.

So we have received 3,624 emails.

This has been over the course of the time I've been in office.

2,116 of them are from unique individuals.

And we have we have we have looked at my email, looked at the email of my staff as well, and 69% of the emails that we have received from unique individuals have been supportive of the ethical investment policy.

We've also received 60 calls to our office, and 86% of them have been in support of the policy.

This is why I asked for the clerk to share that data point as well about the comment cards that we receive today.

So I do support an ethical investment policy.

I do believe, as written by our treasurer, and as approved by the Treasury Oversight Commission, it is comprehensive, it is universal, it does not target any particular country.

However, it's very clear globally as well as here in the US what some of the larger conflicts are that exist.

I also wanted to briefly say that I do want to make sure that this board continues to improve our process in terms of hearing from everyone.

Because we don't hear from everyone who wants to comment, I do want us to continue to work hard to make sure that we allow to hear everyone's voice, even if it is redundant, it's a unique voice of someone who lives in our county, that we should make sure we prioritize.

Treasurer Levy, I believe you do give to us on a monthly basis your investment reports, and the last one I noticed was from July 22nd.

So I did take a look at that report, and in terms of things that I think are important for us as a body, weapons manufacturing, I think is really important at this time, and some of the larger companies like Lockheed Martin or Boeing are not represented in our investments.

That's a positive thing.

Secondly, in terms of what's happening with our immigrant community and building of detention facilities and private prisons, some of the larger groups that are corporations that profit from that include Core Civic and Geo Group.

I did not see them on our list of investments, and that's also a very positive thing.

Related to immigrant justice, one of the things that I know many of us are concerned about is surveillance.

There are many non-governmental organizations that track which corporations are involved in the types of things that are against our values, such as surveillance that can lead to criminalization or to racial profiling and targeting.

Amazon is one of those companies.

I do see them on our investment list.

That is something I'm concerned about.

And I do think based on this policy, as I read it, we have an opportunity as a board when we receive those monthly investment reports to take a close look at that 10% that we invest in corporations and to flag as a board, including for our treasurer, any concerns that we have.

And as is written in the policy, those could be looked at not only by the consultant, but on a case-by-case basis.

And if the treasurer, and then from there, the treasurer would bring to the board documented just justification for potential disinvestment.

And so just based on the information that we have right now, if this policy were in place, I would be very concerned about doing more research in terms of Amazon's uh involvement and surveillance, especially if our immigrant communities, and then there are other corporations I saw on the list that potentially are also engaged in surveillance, which groups like the American Friends Services Committee and I'm sure a host of other NGOs could um work with the treasurer and a future consultant to make us more aware of.

So with that, you know, with that I will just say that I have been very proud to reside in Oakland and to represent Oakland, very proud to reside in Alameda County for the past 28 years and to be serving on this board.

Nothing that we do is easy, but if we really center our decisions on our own humanity and on compassion, I think we'll do the right thing, and I think passing this policy is the right thing.

Thank you.

Supervisor Marquez, anything more to add?

I know you had some questions, but I want to make sure you.

Thank you so much.

Um I'm also in support of this policy.

Want to acknowledge the work of Supervisor Carson and his staff for bringing the recommendation forward and really want to commend our uh county treasurer.

I know this process has not been easy.

You've been very open, you've met with various stakeholders.

Um my office also has been inundated with emails, phone calls, and um this is something I think that we are doing to uphold humanity and our compassion on all fronts, not just um with respect to human right violations, but also protecting our environment.

Um I am gonna keep my comments brief because it's been relatively quiet here in my grandmother's household, but that's not gonna be the case in another few minutes.

So I will keep my comments to a minimum, but um do support this investment policy.

I know it's a good start.

We could review it and expand on it in the future, but I think this is moving us in the right direction, and also we'll echo the comments.

Um, I know it's really hard to get this meeting scheduled, but I'm hoping in the future, with something that is um such a priority for so many people that we could allocate a minimum of at least three hours for public comment if possible.

So hope that we could do better in making sure that people have the ability to weigh in.

Thank you.

So, straw poll, I hear a support from uh of approval from um at least strong support from two.

Uh I I am opposed as recommended without a peer review and without a benchmark in place, and especially hearing that this is going to lead to looking at just about everything from facial recognition to Amazon.

Um, I I I feel strongly that we should be having a peer review uh and or um some other study about the consequences of doing this on our safety liquidity and yield.

And I think Supervisor Miley and Supervisor Tam, you know, straw poll here.

Um, where do you lie?

Supervisor Tan.

Um, so I have heard everyone, I've gotten the same emails that all the supervisors have received, and I've talked to a number of the my staff and I actually have talked to a number of community groups, and um I don't think the compassion that we as a county are feeling over the global conflicts, especially with what's going on in Gaza and Israel, is mutually exclusive from the need for accountability and some um you know more precise uh way of looking at this ethical investment policy because I think we uh we can we can stay grounded in our mission as a county and uphold our shared values but also providing um the funding that's very necessary to deliver those critical services and these are not nice things to have housing health care food security emergency response which is a part of our core missions these are things that are core to what we do as as a county so that's my first priority so I share some of the concerns that we've been hearing about the need to reevaluate and strengthen our policy with the help of the consultant that the treasurer mentioned that he's going to be um securing I think um I share all the comments that my colleagues have made about condemning anti-Semitism it has no place in our society definitely not in our county and county policies should never adversely impact any group based on ethnicity race gender or political idea ideology but words have power and impact and this issue as we saw today is very polarizing as the treasurer mentioned he can't control how people view the words he can't control how people feel but they feel what they do and so I don't think a policy that symbolizes um the problems that we're having with tolerance or anti-Semitism should be moving forward without some real acknowledgement of what's going on and to have that reevaluation I think is warranted.

Supervisor Miley yeah I kind of indicated that I do have some concerns with some uh with a couple of the provisions in the policy like the 10% and the listing of the seven categories I do think it would be prudent to have a peer review um I just feel that sometimes good intentions lead us down a road of unintended consequences and I I tend not to want to do anything that's going to produce unintended consequences nor do I want to as one speaker earlier mentioned do no harm so um my position is the work's been done I think it should be peer reviewed before we go further unless we're willing to uh make some alterations uh today would you um suggest maybe the treasury oversight committee uh andor reactivating the finance committee might be a way to do that or what's your recommendation I would take it through the finance committee and get an outside consultant to look at this very good um I'm hearing three supporting that would you like to make a motion supervisor Tan I'm trying to capture um the comments that are made with the straw poll so at this point is there consensus to have the finance committee or is it the Treasury Oversight Committee look at doing a peer review and reevaluation of I think Supervisor Miley mentioned the finance okay so I will move that we have the finance committee of the board of supervisors assist in conducting a peer review and a reevaluation of the ethical investment policy and our investments our investment portfolio in developing and further refining that policy could could we add into that motion that the finance committee feels it needs to have an outside neutral consultant, look at this.

That would be appropriate as well.

Because the treasurer did say he's open to you know having an outside peer review of this.

I think she said peer review.

Oh.

I did say peer review, but if you want to specify that it has to be an outside consultant, I have no response with that.

Yeah, I didn't want that to be excluded.

Okay.

If that's not excluded, then I'll second that motion.

Motion's been made and seconded with the any other comments.

Supervisor Force and out of ask.

This is incredibly disheartening and disappointing.

Please.

So I just want to say for the record.

We were doing so well, we were doing so well.

So we can clear it.

We can clear the room if we want.

We're gonna take a five-minute recess, everyone.

Five-minute recess.

Recording in progress.

We're going to readjourn now, and we do that by asking the clerk to call the roll to establish reestablish our quorum.

Supervisor Marquez.

Present.

Supervisor Tam present.

Supervisor Miley.

Present.

Supervisor Fortunato Bas.

Present.

President Halbert.

Present.

We have a quorum.

Thank you very much.

I note that was more than five minutes.

The restroom can get a lengthy line.

So we're back in open session.

A motion has been made and seconded.

I don't know if there are any clarifying comments or things that we need to be said before we take the vote.

But I'll ask the clerk to please call the roll.

President Habercast.

Sure, a clarifying question, but I note Supervisor Tam also.

Okay, I'm would like to make a substitute motion and actually move forward the actual item on the agenda.

I think it's important that we're clear and consistent to the public in terms of what's before us.

Um so if we could take that action first.

Sure.

Before we do that, um was there a clarification you needed to make, Supervisor Tam?

And we will vote on the substitute motion first as required by parliamentary procedure.

Supervisor Tim.

I have no issue with voting on the substitute motion, in fact, voting on the ethical investment policy, but I do want to have the county retain a financial firm to review and evaluate the impacts and maybe make changes to the policy.

Uh to understand its impact on our investment.

So that's not the substitute motion.

We can vote for or against it to get to your motion, which I think is what you're talking about.

But right now there's a substitute motion to accept this investment policy as presented.

That's what I understand the motion in the as presented without changes.

Okay.

So a motion's been made and seconded.

Um is there any other clarifying questions?

I'll ask the clerk to call the roll.

Supervisor Marquez.

No.

Supervisor Miley?

No.

Supervisor Fortunato Bas.

Aye.

President Halbert.

No.

So now the motion that was made before us is there.

If we have any clarifying questions or comments or discussion on the motion, Supervisor Miley.

Um, I think Supervisor Tam made the motion, the original motion.

Um I can either make a substitute motion or if she withdraws her motion, I can make a new motion.

And we can always make a substitute motion.

That's how things work.

But would you like to make a second substitute motion?

Yes, okay, and it has nothing to do with the motion that's already been made.

Okay.

Please uh the floor is yours.

Yeah, because um I would make a substitute motion that we can adopt this policy, but it would be subject to uh peer review, and come back to us.

So I guess the question then becomes would it who would order the peer review under what um direction and auspice?

Would it be the finance committee, the treasury oversight committee?

If you're approving something that has to come back to us, if there are recommendations, the this policy can still come back to us with a peer review.

I'm not sure I completely understand the logic of approving it to come back and maybe be changed.

Um I would rather see it be um a peer peer reviewed before it comes back, but do you I'm trying to understand the difference?

Yeah, the rationale is um some folks would like for us to get something on the record and it can come back to us for review as opposed to not having anything on the record and then coming back to us with uh adoption of something at that point in time.

So I'm willing to compromise and put this on the record, but subject to peer review and bring it back to us.

So I think we've had hours and hours of um that's fine.

I we've had a lot of dialogue and on the record, this all counts and can be part of the peer review.

Um but if that's what you would like to do.

Yeah, I'm offering that up only because, like I said, there are things in this uh policy that I have concerns with, like the 10% and the list of um industries.

I'd like to see that change.

And I could make a motion to that effect, but I think there'd be too much back and forth.

So I'm willing to go ahead with adopting this today, but subject to a peer review.

So not implemented, adopted, but not implemented until it comes back to us with recommendations.

After it's been reviewed, yes.

Yes.

And the and the consultant um that would do the peer review.

You know, the treasurer said, um, you know, he's this will come back to the finance committee, the ad hoc finance committee who will be conducting that peer review.

The finance committee will be the ones that will be selecting the consultant to do the finance committee will be providing direction on what we would like to see safety, liquidity, and yield.

I'm very comfortable with all of that, yes.

Okay, I'm just clarifying.

Yes, and I want to make sure that I think the headline in the newspaper is going to be we did what we did.

The notion, the intricacy of yeah, but it's subject to is not going to get picked up.

But that's fine.

That's what majority of the board will do.

That would be the intent of my motion, and and I don't know who seconded it, but I want to make sure the board is clear on the intent of the motion.

I I can support that motion.

Um I think it's important, uh, because you know, frankly, I want to see some stronger language about investments in ice, for example, uh divestment from ice.

And so um I think the to present, but I think it's important to get the findings that will come out of the peer review presented to the ad hoc finance committee and the treasury oversight committee.

Okay, so it's not effective until either of those.

Is that okay with the maker of the motion and the seconder of the motion?

Can someone just restate what the motion would be now?

Because I'm confused.

Miley, you got it?

I would also like to ask if it will not go into effect immediately for a date certain to get to the finance committee and the TOC.

So that would be up to the maker of the motion, I guess.

If it's going to the finance committee and it's the county administrators' uh finance committee, how soon and how much time do you think it would take uh to do a review, send it to the respective oversight committee, have a consultant and yada yada yada.

Still have to, you know, procure a consultant initially, you know, so there would be time there as well as whatever that the time for the review and then going to the two committees.

So, I think it you know, it would it's gonna take a few months, at least.

We have the a speedy procurement process.

So would nine 90 days be, or is that kind of too?

I I'd rather come back with a timeline.

Okay, all right.

Okay.

She said you need to come back with the timeline.

So what my motion is, and I'm trying to accommodate, um, like I said, I got friends on both sides of this.

I think there's merit on both sides of that we adopt this today, but it not become effective, subject to the finance committee doing a you know, orchestrating a peer review of the policy, and coming back with any findings or alterations that need to be made around the policy, and we do that um within, you know, 120 days, 120 days.

I don't know that we've made a deadline yet, but okay.

Is there a second to that motion restated?

So hearing uh I was originally the second and hearing that um information, I would prefer that it went into effect immediately, and noting that the divest process in the policy calls for a case-by-case basis, the treasurer providing justification to the board in the event that there would be any type of divestment.

It's still up to this board to take any action to implement this policy.

That would be my preference.

No good deed goes unplenished, Nate.

So, but by the way, um somebody wants to petition the board to divest of something that's already pretty well codified, I think.

We we can bring that to uh us anytime.

But anyway, so that I'm not hearing a second to Nate's motion.

And so I will second uh Nate's motion.

So then now we have a motion.

It okay.

Is there gonna be is there gonna be a substitute motion to that motion?

I'm not sure, but maybe we'll go to Supervisor Marquez with her hand up.

Thank you, President Howard.

Can we just clarify who sits on the finance committee?

Because my understanding is we have a budget working group, we have a finance committee, and then we also have the treasury oversight committee.

So those are three distinction, distinctive bodies that can for the purposes of this motion.

Can we clarify who actually sits on the finance committee?

Well, as Hank said, hasn't met in three or four years.

Um, it's an ad hoc committee.

Um that includes uh the county administrator's office, a representative from the board, the treasurer tax collector, the auditor controller, and county council.

So would it be the board president that sits on this or somebody else?

We know who is appointed to that committee.

In the past, it was supervisor Carson.

Yeah, it's generally been the chair of the budget committee.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

So I think supervisor uh through the president through the chair, I think supervisor um Tam second my motion, uh, because once again, I would have much more of a sense of comfort around this, because I do have some concerns.

I'm willing to adopt it, but not but hold off on its implementation until the finance committee has had a chance to review it, come back with findings, and any further uh recommendations, because that would cause that in terms of my own sense of fiduciary responsibility.

If you as the the chair of the uh budget committee, the president of the board, county administrator, the auditor, and the treasurer, county council have a chance to grapple with this and decide uh if you need an outside consultant or send it to the Treasury Oversight Committee uh for further uh review, and you do that, that's fine.

But the point is I feel much more comfortable once that has gone through, and then based on what you bring back to us, we can then uh vote it up or down in terms of um implementation.

Very good.

Um a motion's been made and seconded.

President Howard, was the Treasury Oversight Committee also included in there?

Since that's that is the body that reviews that's what I heard policy, and that's an established.

I thought I heard that.

Yeah, I give the.

Before the public, can we clarify who's on that committee?

I would give the finance committee the discretion to decide.

If you if it if it if it's mandated that it goes to the Treasury Outside Committee, then do that.

If it's not, and you don't think it needs to go there, then don't send it there.

And the Treasury Oversight Committee is made up of representatives from the various jurisdictions.

Yeah, so the Treasury Oversight Committee includes the county superintendent of schools, a representative from the Board of Supervisors, a public finance representative, the Treasurer Tax Collector, and believe they're also representatives from the special districts as well as a school or community college and the auditor control.

And I was going to say the Treasurer's Committee is made up of all these entities because the county pool is more than just county funds, it's funds for special districts and the school districts as well.

So that's why we have the Treasury Oversight Committee so that we make sure that we are discharging our responsibilities because everybody depends on the funds that are there.

If mandated, we would do that, and if not mandated, it's at the discretion.

So a motion's been made and seconded.

You have to raise your hand a little higher, Hank.

You have, I mean, this is truly our decision to be made, but I completely respect the commentary.

Well, I don't I have some the consultant we hired was familiar with ethical investment policies in general.

I don't think you're gonna find anybody who knows any better.

And I think that what's gonna happen is that they're gonna come back to you and they're gonna say it's the human rights violations clause that's creating the division in the community, and they're gonna put it back on you.

Do you want to have human rights violations in this policy or not?

I think otherwise there's not going to be any other those other things.

I mean, what Supervisor Miley said about the 10% of the seven industries, and we can wordsmith that, or whether we want to put in other things that we're want to look at more closely.

We can do that, and you can do that.

We can do it together.

But if you want to give it to like some peer person, you're not gonna find anybody better, I think than the company, and they're gonna put it back on you.

We're gonna be back in this room in six months having the same discussion, and you're gonna have to make a decision.

Do you want to you want to include things?

You want to include the word human rights violation, because that's the hang-up.

That's where the rubber meets the road.

That's what's created the division in the community.

You're gonna have to make a decision six months from now, or a year from now, I assure you.

I appreciate that, Hank.

Earlier you said you had no problem with the peer review.

So that's what we're doing.

So that motion's been made and seconded.

Um call for the vote, please.

Supervisor Marquez.

Aye.

Supervisor Tam.

Aye.

Supervisor Miley, Supervisor Fortunato Bas.

No, I support the policy as is.

I think this is not the right decision.

President Howbert.

Aye, with that, the motion passes.

We're going to recess to close session, but I'm going to ask Supervisor Miley if he has a comment to make.

Go ahead.

I just want to make it clear what we voted to, we have we voted to approve the policy that's before us, not implemented, subject to review by the finance committee, which is different than I mean, the treasurer had hadn't taken us through the finance committee because he's acknowledged that the finance committee hasn't met.

So we're directing the finance committee to meet, and that gives me a better comfort level around the implementation.

Should we implement this as is or if it's modified?

Thank you, Supervisor Miley.

With that, we have recessed into closed session.

Recording in progress.

Okay, I'd like to reconvene from closed session.

I'll ask the clerk to please call the roll to establish quorum.

Supervisor Marquez.

Excuse Supervisor Tam.

Present.

Supervisor Miley, excuse Supervisor Fortunato Bas.

Present.

President Howbert.

Present.

We have a quorum.

Thank you very much.

County Council, anything to report out from closed session?

The board did not take reportable actions in closed session.

Very good.

Seeing as how the business before us has been completed, we are now adjourned.

Thank you all.

Recording stopped.