Recording in progress.

Good morning, everyone.

I'd like to call to order our meeting of the regularly scheduled board of direct supervisors' meetings for Tuesday, January 13th.

And I'll ask the clerk to begin by taking roll call.

Supervisor Marquez present.

Supervisor Tan.

Present.

Supervisor Meyerly, excused.

Supervisor Fortnite Obest.

Present.

President Howard.

Present.

We have a quorum.

Thank you very much.

Will you all please rise if you can and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance?

Thank you very much.

We now have Board of Supervisors' remarks.

I'll turn to my colleague, Supervisor Tam first.

Thank you, President Halbert.

I wanted to highlight a press conference that I attended yesterday in Oakland along with our district attorney, our chief probation officer, Alameda County Health, and our public health department, in particular, both uh our public health director and Dr.

Moss was there.

It was to reaffirm our commitment at the county to address human trafficking through strong partnerships with the Oakland Innovation Fund and the DA's Heat Watch Program and continued coordination with the Oakland Police Department.

We are advancing a plan to reinvest Oakland-based organizations that provide critical survivor-centered services, including street outreach, emergency housing, job opportunities, mental health support, and legal aid.

So public safety and survivor care has to go hand in hand, and the community-based organizations that were there and as part of our um effort in this month in January to recognize the important effort to eradicate human trafficking.

They're essential to that effort.

Thank you.

Thank you, Supervisor Tam.

Any other board remarks?

Supervisor Fortunato Bass.

Thank you, President Halbert.

Um, I wanted to acknowledge the fatal shooting of Rachel Good by ICE officers in Minneapolis, and send our my condolences to her family and everyone who's been impacted.

Um killed by an off-duty ICE officer, and so it's really important more than ever to make sure that our county and our region is prepared for any increased escalation of ICE activity given the nature of the enforcement that is being conducted.

So I did want to draw everyone's attention to our Alameda County Together for All, Act for All meeting on Thursday at three in our board chambers and on Zoom.

There are two items that we have continued from the November meeting.

These items are items my office is bringing forward.

The first is an immigration enforcement response plan, and the second is a policy for ice-free zones.

So we heard initial information from AC Health and our social services agency about their plans.

We'll have an opportunity to hear from our public safety public safety agencies and department heads as well as general services.

So I encourage people to participate if you're interested in this issue.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

With that, we'll move on to public comment on all items which are on the agenda, except those listed as set matters.

That would include closed session items and regular scheduled items, except for those listed as set matters.

We'll take uh public comment on items not on the agenda later in the meeting towards the end.

I'll ask the clerk to please take speakers first three in the room with us, the next three online, and rotate back and forth.

But the clerk will also explain how to participate online briefly so that everyone online can understand how to do that, and then we'll go to public comment.

Detailed instructions are provided in the teleconferencing guidelines.

A link to the document is included in today's agenda.

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're calling in, dial star nine to raise your hand to speak.

When you're called to speak, the host will enable you to speak.

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.

As a reminder, you may always just observe the meeting without participating by clicking on the view now link on the county's web page at acgov.org.

When called, you will have two minutes to speak.

Please limit your remarks to the time allocated.

Thank you.

Very good.

If we can have uh speakers who are in the room, the first three, and then rotate to online speakers.

Thank you.

Ranjeep Tate, Ed Romano, and Emily Ling.

Um, happy New Year.

Sorry.

Happy New Year.

Thank you.

My name is Ranjit Tate.

I'm a member of the Alliance of South Asians Taking Action, Hindus for Human Rights, and JVP Bay Area.

Thank you for voting to approve the EIP embedded in today's item 47.

In December, I celebrated Hanukkah with my Jewish friends and colleagues.

We find the dilatory tactics towards implementing Alameda County's EIP to be despicable.

Since the ostensible ceasefire, just you know, three months ago, Israel has killed more than 100 Gazans per week.

More than 15 a day.

But we are immune to numbers.

So Lulu, Amir, Gesan, Rosan, Farah, Fajhar.

These are the names of six children, all from one family in Gaza that Israel has killed in recent strikes.

I ask you to rescind the October 3 decision to draft the request for proposal, approve the RFP, publish the RFP, evaluate tenders, select a consultant, await a report, maybe mail it to Timbuktu and back, send the EIP to the TOC again.

Implement the EIP immediately.

It's a win-win-win.

County government can focus on other pressing issues, save the expense on an unnecessary consultant, support, and fund HIV care, for example.

Align with constituents who are in favor of the policy as written.

Send the message that Alamida County will not succumb to Israel's manipulativeness, narcissism, and psychopathy.

And I will end again with Lulu, Amir, Gesan, Rosan, Farah, and Fajhar.

Thank you.

I'm Ed Romano.

I'm with E-Spay DSA.

Um this past December 11, I attended the Treasury Oversight Committee meeting that spoke to the concerns expressed by the board on October 3.

In response to a hack job analysis published by so-called finance and business community leaders.

What their interest in opposing an ethical investment policy that moral witnesses in Alameda County have fought over a year for remains to be seen.

So this is on item 47 as well.

As someone who's followed the progress of this issue, though, I'm seeing that the TOC has faithfully considered the concern baiting by that initial analysis over the previously published benchmark and our county's portfolio and our county portfolio's past performance with respect to it.

In that meeting, which President Howbert missed, a third-party peer reviewer, which this body has insisted on acquiring, a gentleman from meter, reviewed our county's past performance with respect to those benchmarks and vindicated Treasurer Levy's letter to the board dated November 19, that he wrote in response to the initial false criticism.

A member of the TOC also commented that, consistent with the treasurer's letter, that yields are predominantly subject to interest rates and not at all to the parameters of the ethical investment policy.

As a reminder, this body decided to suspend implementation of that EIP upon adopting it, using the aforementioned analysis as pretext.

So given this feedback from the TOC, it begs the question why the EIP is being held up at this point under some sort of rudimentary misunderstanding on how our portfolio is managed.

I expect the board to rescind that decision to delayed implementation consistent to the determination made by the TOC and a third-party consultant, any less is a mismanagement of county resources and taxpayer money.

Thank you.

Good morning, supervisors.

My name is Emily.

I'm a United Methodist clergy person living and serving in Alameda and speaking this morning on behalf of Interfaith for Palestine.

A coalition of individuals and communities that first came together to call for a real and permanent ceasefire in Gaza and continues together, grounded in the shared spiritual value of investing in life.

I'm here regarding item 47 and the continued delay in implementing the ethical investment policy.

Over 1,000 people from all over Alameda County gathered last June for the second year in a row to walk 22 miles, the length from Rafah to Gaza City to call for an end to the genocide in Gaza and to invest in life instead, here and globally.

We did so just one month after the TOC approved on EIP for our county in May.

At every stop of the pilgrimage, people called you, our supervisors, to urge the approval and adoption of that policy.

When you finally agendized it in October, the most bizarre thing happened.

In my world, as a faith leader, that's like affirming a value that you have no intention to practice.

As a parent, that's like talking about a rule for my kids that they do not have to follow.

It doesn't make sense.

Your vote on October 3rd that approved the policy but required yet another hoop was an obvious and blatant attempt to sideline what so many in our county, not outsiders, not political lobbies like Koofy have called for to courageously stand up for the values of human dignity and life, no matter who, and protect them.

Our ask as interface for Palestine is to rescind your October 3rd decision to hire another consultant to review a policy approved not once but twice by the TOC, talk about wasting public resources, and instead to implement the policy as quickly as possible.

It is time.

Thank you.

Caller, you have two minutes.

Go ahead, please.

And please state the item you're speaking on.

Berkeley mom, please unmute your phone.

You have two minutes.

Yes, I'm speaking to item 47.

Just a couple months ago, the board voted to postpone the adoption of the new policy until the independent audit reviews reviews it for the negative impact.

Your fiduciary responsibility is to maintain the returns and stability of the county investments.

Why is it back on the vote with all the changes intact?

The board must be consistent and stick to their own vote.

Remove the appendix from the policy.

Thank you.

Caller, you have two minutes, please state the item you're speaking on.

Hi, my name is JB Liebovich, and I have a member of the Oakland Jewish Alliance.

My comment is about agenda item 47 and the public record.

In October, the board approved the policy, the ethical investment policy with conditions and a delay reflecting a decision to require additional review before implementation.

I was present and spoke during public comment at that meeting.

Tensions escalated to the point I was escorted out by county security for my safety after audience members supporting the policy directed extreme personal accusations towards people who were against the policy.

During that discussion, the policy was characterized as neutral toward Israel while statements made outside the meeting by the treasurer and by advocates for the policy, including speakers today, indicated Israel was an explicit focus.

To my knowledge, there are still no publicly available minutes or video from the December 11th Treasury Oversight Committee meeting where this policy was discussed.

Given that context, I respectfully ask the board to decline approval today.

If the board instead chooses to approve this item, contrary to its October vote, I ask that it explicitly state on the record whether the prior conditions are being satisfied, waived, or superseded.

So the public record is clear, complete, and transparent.

Thank you.

Chris Moore, you have two minutes.

Please state the item you're speaking on.

Uh hi, Chris Moore, item 47.

Um I uh agree with the comments of the immediate prior speaker.

Um this was voted on in the Treasury operating uh Treasury Oversight Committee.

December 11th.

There's no video for that meeting.

There's no uh no minutes for that meeting, which seems like a brown act violation to me, which which isn't surprising for for uh the treasurer.

Um, but the real issue here is that he's making another political statement uh to forward this policy, which specifically the Board of Supervisors said we are going to hire an outside agency to review this to understand the negative impacts that it may have on our portfolio.

And guess what?

It does.

Finance 101.

When you restrict investments, it has a negative impact on your returns.

It reduces the amount of interest return to your constituents and to your community.

You just got done laying off 300 people in a county because you don't have enough funds, and yet here you're your uh again up for review is to look at a policy that will further reduce funds to the county.

Um, so any case, I think you know it's proper to pass the investment policy, but remove the appendix.

You don't know what's going to really come out of that review, and it's inappropriate uh for it to be in there.

And again, it's just a political statement by your treasurer, who is a self-described activist.

Uh, and and that's why he's doing this, just to help out uh his uh friends in uh uh the north uh district.

Thank you.

Peter B.

Tim Drew, Zach.

Hi, um my name is Peter Bernhardt and the city of Albany resident, and um I'm here today speaking on behalf of a group of citizens who last year um inspired in fact by what happened here in um in uh Alameda County to pass our own uh ethical investment policy and a second document called an ESG implementation policy.

So I think it's important maybe to look at that a little bit.

Um the implementation policy, uh, an ethical implementation policy, um, adds to a statement which is pretty performer about fiduciary obligations, governing law, ethics, conflicts of interest, that sort of thing by adding a value statement that reflects the values of the community and how those would be reflected in the way the city invests money.

How that's implemented is a separate concern, and that's what Albany did.

They took that ESG policy, and then they went on and they developed an ESG implementation policy that uh focused specifically on the mechanics of that.

The difference here is that um uh Treasure Levy is responsible for investing.

He's the one that's implementing it.

There's a is there any question about the values already expressed in the uh policy that you passed in October?

You're gonna get a consultant.

Are you gonna hire someone a moral philosopher to say that um uh that the policy meets uh certain criteria?

We know our values, they're expressed in the policy already.

There's no reason to revisit that.

The best thing that the city can do at this point is is move on to do implementation.

Um finally, I wanted to say I looked at the uh item 46.

Um, the treasurer's investment report, not only does it refute the lies that are being told by these um previous um the guys who have um political activists, it shows that it's already implementing ethical investing.

Um, and I want to salute uh Treasurer Levy for his integrity and moral courage while also um meeting his obligations as a fiduciary.

Thank you.

Hello, supervisors.

Uh good morning.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

My name is Tim Drew.

I'm with the East Bay Democratic Socialists of America.

Uh, I'm here to speak in favor of item 47, the treasurer's policy, also item 46, the report.

Um uh the uh ethical the report includes the ethical investment criteria that you passed in October 3rd uh with a delay to have it reviewed by an independent consultant.

However, I just want to point out that the uh Treasury Oversight Committee has uh reviewed that um uh ethical investment uh criteria twice now.

Uh and actually during the uh last TOC meeting, uh several members of the TSE were actually quite perplexed that it was before them again and uh and didn't quite understand the rationale for uh delaying its implementation.

Uh so I want to encourage the board to rescind its decision to um go through a lengthy and perhaps costly review uh of the ethical investment criteria once again uh and uh proceed with implementation.

Um I just want to point out that um that this uh delay in implementation kind of creates a uh conundrum where you've approved a policy and yet you for some reason don't feel that it's worth implementing.

I think you're concerned about the um uh the fiduciary responsibility of the treasurer.

Uh and um that I just want to note that this uh uh conundrum is a um ironic.

Uh and uh a if if you why would you commit to this ethical investment criteria uh if you're going to predicate it on yield or return?

Um just two weeks ago we were all witness to the state, our state uh invading uh Venezuela and abducting the president, and we need to set a an example and divest and not invest in fossil fuels and military.

Thank you.

So hi, I'm not here to discuss anything on the counties docket.

I'm here to address the issues with the current presidential administration.

I'm proud of the Duke of Essex and the Princess of Essex for authorizing the Anschnick project for the loss of Donald Trump Jr.

and Ivanka Trump for a compliance.

I'm requesting the impeachment order 134 and impeachment order 158 be activated against the state for blatant gloss mouse intentional negligence.

This is the state copy of it for it in court.

In view of gross and implied application, I'm asking that this county indictment and this uh validified indictment be active against Interpool.

I am identifying as P 228 764 um 628 of Interpool as the field commander of Prince Essex and asking that it be an active service warrant against the state and validified in Oregon, Nevada, Oklahoma, New York, and Delaware.

I am requiring that Agatha of V Trump, Wise v.

Sircaska, Anderson v.

Trump, and Trump organization v.

Anderson as well as McCormick Anderson.

Be active for review.

I'm asking that this be understood as federally classified 059125 in view of the impeachment.

And identify and product procedure requirement for the act of requestment for the impeachment trial of Donald John Trump.

The current administrator be seen, and I wish to present that to the state as well as this county commission in view of a Superior Court designation.

And compliance to that, I will wish to identify that as an agent and pen name Patrick Anderson as a notary.

Thank you.

I do appreciate all public comment.

I'll just remind everyone and the speaker that this is a time to speak on items on the agenda.

It's not the time to speak on items, not on the agenda.

So I would ask that all speakers stick to items that are on.

Caller, please unmute your phone.

Eileen Lee, this is your last opportunity.

You have two minutes.

Please unmute your phone and state the item you're speaking on.

Caller, you have two minutes.

Please state the item that you're speaking.

Yes, hello.

Hello, can you hear me?

Yes, go ahead, please.

Okay.

I apologize.

I didn't.

Yeah, yes.

Um I'm speaking on uh item 47 on the agenda.

Uh my name is Bob Johnson.

I'm with the Friends of Wadi Fiking Circle at Asbury United Methodist Church in Livermore.

Uh, I want to first address the accusations that uh somehow having an ethical investment policy would decrease the amount of money coming into the county or not earn as much on investments.

There are plenty of ethical opportunities to invest out there.

Um, you don't have to invest in dirty companies to make adequate funds.

There are great examples of this.

If you look at um the United Methodist pension fund for clergy, uh they invest ethically, and the fund is doing quite well.

Uh CalPers, the public employee um pension system here in California that's one of the largest in the world, uh, also has standards they follow, and they do quite well.

So uh there are plenty of opportunities to invest ethically.

I also want to ask that there be no further delay.

Uh, there is no need to spend money to waste taxpayer money on a uh consultant.

The policy was very clear in the wording.

The criteria for determining whether a investment is ethical or not is very clear.

And lastly, there's been a lot of opposition and and smear done against our treasurer uh that is inappropriate.

Um a lot of this is coming from a group out of Texas.

It's actually a Christian Zionist group known as uh Christians for United for Israel.

Um, they are actually aligned with the Trump administration.

They have a theology that is um wrong in saying that Israel has to conquer all for Christ to return.

Uh, we can't be aligning ourselves with such a group and following their um ideology.

Uh we need to be independent and do what's right for the people of Alameda.

Caller, you have two minutes.

Please state the item that you're speaking on.

Hello, uh, my name is Ruth Laurie Weinstock.

I am speaking on item 46 and 47.

Um, I would like to applaud our treasurer for doing such an excellent job and investing my own tax dollars as a homeowner.

And I also would that's for 46 and for 47.

I would like to say that we would like, I would like to see the ethical investment policy implemented immediately.

I can tell people as a representative from apartheid free and other ethical organizations that I belong to that are concerned with ethics.

And after listening to our supervisors, for example, Supervisor TAM and Supervisor for Tunato Bas and their concerns for the moral and ethical behavior that is being perpetuated in the country of what is called the United States of America.

The issue of helping our local population, which is so impoverished that they have to resort to prostitution, for example, as you were talking about, you know, um supervisor Tam and a supervisor Fortunato Bass talking about how ICE agents are going around and shooting innocent people and getting away with it.

This is an example of our government setting uh a precedent for unethical behavior ahead of anything else, financial, whatever you want to call it.

And I, as a taxpayer, would like to see our county set an example for ethical investment policy and ethical behavior.

And this is not only about Israel.

Of course, I'm concerned about Palestine, but I'm also concerned about all of the people in our own county who are being targeted by unethical behavior.

And our ethical investment policy will protect us and it should be implemented immediately.

Thank you so much for your time.

Caller, you have two minutes.

Please state the item you're speaking on.

Hi, my name is Um Helda Polson.

Good morning, supervisors.

I'm here regarding item 47 and the continued delay in implementing the ethical investment policy.

I'm speaking as a Jewish resident of Alameda County and as a representative of Alameda Families and Friends for collective liberation.

The EIP was a result of a year-long process that began in December 2024 and was approved twice by the Treasury Oversight Committee in May and again in December of 2025.

If there were legitimate concerns, this board could have asked Treasurer Levy or the Oversight Committee to return with clarifications.

Instead, Supervisor Halbert led the charge in moving the issue to the Finance Committee, effectively sidelining the county body charred with oversight and freezing implementation for an indefinite period.

Supervisor Halbert's actions have aligned the Alameda County with a troubling opposition campaign, one that includes emails and pressure from Christians United for Israel or Kufi, a Texas-based Christian Zionist organization with no stake in Alameda County governance.

Hufi is closely tied to the Trump administration and bankrupt's illegal Israeli settlement expansion in the West Bank.

Christian Zionism is not benign, it's an extremist ideology that supports the dispossession of Palestinians as a religious objective and frames a takeover of Palestinian land as necessary for the second coming of Jesus.

It is also fundamentally anti-Semitic.

It does not recognize the survival of Jews unless they convert to Christianity.

So I want to ask Supervisor Halbert directly why are you allowing an out-of-state Christian Zionist organization to influence your actions on a local investment policy?

And why is this board giving weight to pressure from non-county actors with a clear ideological agenda rather than honoring the will of Alameda County residents who have spoken clearly and repeatedly on this issue?

The ask today is simple and urgent.

Rescind the October 3rd decision to hire a consultant to review the EIP.

Alameda County should not delay justice, transparency, and ethical investment because of smear campaigns or religious extremism hijacking our local decision making.

Thank you.

Niche for item 47, Michael Yoshi for item 47, and Nate Hansen for item 37.

Hello, I'm a resident of Oakland, and I'm here to speak on item 47.

First, I'd like to thank the Board of Supervisors for responding to the demands of our community in taking the important step of passing a human rights-centered ethical investment policy.

As other speakers have noted, the residents of Alameda County have time and time again shown that we do not want our public funds to be invested in genocide, occupation, and apartheid.

This is not an issue separate from our communities.

Even through the so-called ceasefire, our Palestinian, Lebanese, and Syrian community members continue to have families that are being bombed, starved, and systematically displaced.

To our friends who spoke earlier with concern about the finances of our county, I find it ridiculous to support this board continually wasting taxpayer money in the circular process.

Thank you, Treasurer Levy, for consulting with community stakeholders to draft a truly comprehensive and progressive policy for our county, especially in the context of the current political moment.

It has never been more important for all of you to maintain moral and political clarity in representing the will of your constituents.

For this reason, I'm calling on the board to resent their decision to subject the ethical investment policy to even further review by yet another consultant and do the common sense thing, which is to just implement the policy that you voted in already.

Thank you.

Good morning, supervisors.

Excuse me.

My name is Nate Hanson.

I'm the manager for real estate and government affairs at Related California.

Um I'm speaking today in support of item 37, which is the lease development disposition agreement for the 430 Broadway project.

Related California and our partner, the East Bay Asian Local Development Corporation, have been working in partnership with county staff for years to begin to lay the groundwork for this incredible redevelopment that will create affordable housing for seniors and families at 430 Broadway.

Together, the three phases at 430 Broadway will create almost 200 affordable units, which will help to address the housing crisis, which is severe and acute.

I'm incredibly thankful for the partnership of the General Services Administration staff as well as the community development administration staff and for you all as we've worked together to create the groundwork for this incredible project.

This is an amazing opportunity for all of us to work together to address the housing crisis here in Alameda County, and I'm looking forward to our work together.

Thank you very much.

Please state the item you're speaking on.

I'm speaking on item number 47, uh ethical investment policy.

So back a few months, if you remember, Henry Levy underperformed on the county's 11.5 billion dollar investment portfolio.

That resulted in over a hundred and twenty million plus dollars in loss, and he manipulated the return metrics and changed how he calculated the return metrics without letting the Board of Supervisor know, letting the Treasury Oversight Committee know, and then he removed the reference benchmark.

All of this is very concerning, and he was okay with an outside entity coming in to look at our investment, and the Board of Supervisor agreed to that, and that's what needs to happen.

Now he's sneaking in the policy, and by passing independent outside financial oversight.

And he's head of the Treasury Oversight Committee.

And the last time, despite the meaning not being available to the public, I attended the committee members at TOC wonder what the will of the Board of Supervisor was.

So you guys need to speak up and be clear.

You want independent oversight.

There should be no question where the fiduciary duty is, and we just need transparency for the public, especially when the county is hurting and we are laying off Highland hospital workers because we don't have money to cover for data health care.

This is county workers that need jobs that provide essential services.

What are we doing?

We need transparency.

Please do not implement this policy before we have outside review like we wanted and decided on.

Caller, you have two minutes.

Please state the item that you're speaking on.

Vish, please unmute your phone.

You have two minutes.

Hi, uh, good morning, board.

Um, I want to start off by just asking for a moment of honesty.

Um, if you're somebody who supports genocide or you're just afraid of Chris Moore recalling you, let's let's be honest about that.

But let's let's not pretend what the policy that the TOC voted on, uh, that it doesn't explicitly say that this amendment will not be implemented until it gets explicit approval from the board.

That's what it says.

So let's let's not pretend that Treasurer Levy is sneaking anything in.

This is a policy that for the second time the um TOC considered and voted to include that caveat.

Now I'm here to ask the um board to remove that caveat.

There is no reason for it.

And I will let you, I will let uh TOC member Stephen Hicks tell you why.

Um there was at the December 11th TOC meeting a robust discussion about this allegation of portfolio underperformance and the supposed benchmark removal.

And of course, um, you know, Mr.

Moore left before he believed so much in uh these smears that he left before that discussion even took place.

So, you know, now he's accusing Brown Act um violations.

But Mr.

Hicks said, I think this my starting place here is that your investment policy is a reflection of your values, and the discussion that we've we've had here is a debate over values and whether you should they should be applied or not applied in respect to your investment.

The county already adopted this and it's put on hold.

Okay, that's what you're going to do, but we're reviewing a policy.

What we've talked about here, reviewing a policy on criteria that we've in this discussion shown doesn't have any impact on your return.

So it's just a fight over values.

So this is Stephen Hicks, somebody who has more experience with institutional investment and financing than anybody in the room there, and anybody who's given public comments here saying that this is nothing to do with returns.

This is a political smear.

Thank you.

David Pandia, you have two minutes, please state the item you're speaking on.

Oh, hello.

Hi, everyone.

Um this is uh Debbie with SCA 1021.

I uh I'm just speaking in support of item 71.

Um we want to reiterate our support for increased accountability, transparency, and uh a truly public governance of Alameda Health System.

Um, that has this has been a process that has uh taken some time to make sure we get here, and so we're happy to see that the board is moving in their direction of seeking um state legislation to uh make these necessary changes.

Um I will also highlight that our members are deeply interested in um as uh AHS has made unfortunate um cuts in this uh time, um, and very dangerous cuts to uh patients, and so we we want to make sure that um there is public accountability, transparency, and a truly public governance system of Alameda Health Systems and so thank you, supervisors Miley, Lena Town, and all the other supervisors for moving this forward.

Um we look we look uh ahead to our partnership.

Caller, you have two minutes, please state the item you're speaking on.

Mona, please unmute your phone.

You have two minutes.

Hi, thank you.

Good morning.

Uh my name is Moina, and I'm speaking as a Muslim resident of Alameda County and as a representative of uh the D DS DSA organization.

I'm speaking in support of item 47, but I also want to speak about the ethical investment policy in the random of the report.

I was at the October 3rd Board of Supervisor meeting, and I'm extremely disappointed that you wanted to have the policy reviewed by an outside consultant before implementing it.

At the October 3rd meeting, I witnessed how Treasurer Levy was attacked and smeared by speakers who were presenting themselves as financial experts.

While they presented false information about the sale of the caterpillar bonds in December 2024, they alleged that the county lost money on that transaction while, in fact, there was a financial gain.

While the creation of false news is common practice in today's political landscape, it should have no place in our public discourse in Alameda County.

But it appeared that President Howard was not only sanctioning the distribution of fake news, but was using it to engineer a way to sabotage the ethical investment policy.

He parented their call for an outsider view with so-called tier one consultant.

We deserve better leadership and a process that reflects the will of the people.

It was clear that the overwhelming number of people present on present on October 3rd, both in person and online, were calling for not only the approval of the AIB, but its immediate implementation.

As a Muslim, I'm also extremely concerned that one of the major opposition voices came from the people affiliated with Christian United for Israel.

This organization is based in Texas and advocates for the takeover of Palestinian land as part of their end times theology.

They are strongly aligned with the current administration financially and politically.

We should not align ourselves with this political misuse of religion.

I urge you to rescind the October 3rd decision and hire a consultant to implement the policy rather than review it.

Thank you.

I urge you to once and for all reject the supposed human rights criterion in the ethical investment um policy.

Back in October, a group of nine congregational rabbis from some of the biggest congregations across Oakland, Berkeley, Fremont, and Pleasanton, all signed a letter against that criterion because it is vague and ideologically driven.

The letter says the movement behind it does not seek justice or peace, but the delegitimization of Israel itself and its rhetoric and actions create an increasingly hostile environment for Jews in Alameda County.

The Treasurer, unfortunately, has revealed himself to be driven by an extreme ideological position rather than the best interest of the residents of Alameda County.

This is evidenced by the fact that Treasurer Levy himself showed up at the Richmond City Council meeting last night last week to defend Mayor Eduardo Martinez, who has posted extreme conspiratorial anti-Semitic posts on social media, including claims that the Bondi massacre of Jews during Hanukkah was a false flag attack.

Treasurer Levy went there himself to defend Eduardo Martinez without for a moment condemning his anti-Semitism.

This to me reveals the Treasurer Levy is operating on an extremist ideological agenda that he was not elected to carry out, and it's not in the best interest of the residents of Alameda County.

I urge you to reject the human rights criterion because it is unwieldy vague, cannot be executed in any any balanced fair way.

Thank you very much.

Michael Yoshi, good morning, President and Board of Supervisors.

My name is Michael Yoshi.

I am uh Pastor Emeritus of Buenavista United Methodist Church and part of Bay Area to Vest, which has been very involved in this whole ethical investment policy from the very beginning.

Um I'm appreciative that the Treasury Oversight Committee had voted to continue to affirm the language of the ethical investment policy as it stands.

I think we're all very aware, and I want to just comment on what this previous speaker has just talked about.

There's been a smear campaign that started on the October 3rd meeting against Henry Levy.

There's been these false information.

In fact, we were here when there was a dog and pony show about the caterpillar divestment that Levy had implemented in December 24, saying that we lost money when that was not true.

And we're in this era where false information is always spread for political campaigns.

And I think we can't just accept that to be the way in which we work in this county.

We have to have higher expectations and higher standards of how we do business.

I want to point out to you that you approved on October 3rd the ethical investment policy, and I want to quote to you what's in that policy.

In the context of this ethical and responsible investment criteria, divestment during an investment period will also be considered on a case-by-case basis when negative environmental social governance or controversy performance is severe, ongoing, and unremedied, and where such divestment does not materially compromise the county's fiduciary responsibilities.

Documented justification were presented by the treasurer and approved by the board of supervisors.

You in this policy have the authority to review the financial situation of any uh company that's brought to view for divestment.

It's going to be in your hands.

And so when you ask these questions about financial issues and so forth, it's there in the policy.

You have that authority and responsibility.

So implement the policy now.

Let's get moving on this so we can move forward on this situation and can and move forward in a way that we can be responsible ethically as a board of supervisors.

Thank you.

Eve, you have two minutes.

Please state the item you're speaking on.

Hi, thank you.

I'm speaking on item 47.

And I'm speaking so to just share my view that I agree with Pastor Yoshi and others who are urging you guys to hurry up, begin implementation of the ethical investment policy that you've already approved.

I myself have been at numerous public meetings about this over the last year plus.

And there's been ample time to hear from the public and consider things.

The treasurer's comments and writing and statements about this are incredibly thoughtful and reasonable.

And I have to say, as a, you know, proud Jewish resident of Alameda County as a member of a Jewish congregation, I'm I'm so disappointed to hear any of this, the idea that implementing such a beautifully written ethical investment policy would somehow make Jewish people less safe.

Quite to the contrary, this kind of policy and having our values borne out in our investments is critical to the safety of all of us.

This there is a smear campaign against Treasurer Levy.

And it's you guys, it's time to just move forward and actually move into implementation.

This is a great policy, and we strongly support it.

Thank you.

You have two minutes, please state the Jewish progressive in Berkeley, and like you, as ethical citizens and leaders, we are all horrified by genocide occupation and apartheid.

But why are we silent about the horrors going on in Darfur?

Where there have been over hundreds of thousands of deaths of non-Arabs since 2023?

Why are we silent about the ongoing genocides in Myanmar, in Balachistan, in the Congo?

Do these lives not matter?

Divesting from only Israel is anti-Semitic.

Hank Levy's speech in Richmond last week supporting the anti-Semitic actions of their mayor is anti-Semitic.

When communities put Jews at risk, everyone is at risk.

Therefore, please do not succumb to the lies and distortions.

Please stick with your wise decision to have Hank Levy's ethical investment statements reviewed as is required.

Thank you.

Caller, you have two minutes.

Please state the item you're speaking on.

Kiko, please unmute your phone.

Thank you.

Good morning.

My name's Keiko Kubo, and I'm an Oakland resident and have voted in Alameda County for over 50 years.

I'm here representing Sudo for Solidarity today.

Sudo is a Japanese word for crane, and sudo for solidarity was founded by Japanese Americans who were children in the World War II U.S.

concentration camps and their descendants in response to the policy in the first Trump gener administration that separated children from their parents.

Our mantra is to stop repeating history.

Very few courageous people stood up for Japanese Americans in World War II, and we commit to speaking out for others facing oppression today to model the support we wish we had had back in the 1940s.

Our practice is to note parallels between our community's experience and events and policies today.

Sudo works in a number of areas, ending immigrant detentions, supporting reparations for African Americans, and various intergenerational healing work.

We join other Japanese Americans and supporters in the efforts to end the genocide in Gaza and to support a free Palestine.

We work from a number of approaches, including advocacy and accompaniment of communities at risk.

I'm a member of the Barrier Sudo group who works with the coalition to keep ISID of Dublin and the free refugees campaign to who support people at risk of deportation.

We've organized and co-organized rallies in Dublin and Tamparin and in Sacramento.

You may have seen the recent Rachel Maddow burn order series, a pseudo founder was a key person interviewed.

Following Sudo's practice that never again is now, and to speak up for communities in ways we did not experience in World War II.

Um I'm speaking on, I'm sorry, items 46 and 47 as a local resident to ask the board of supervisors to rescind the plan to hire a consultant to support Treasurer Levy and to implement the policy.

Caller, please state the item you're speaking on.

This is for agendized items only.

You have two minutes.

Go ahead.

Item 47.

I represent a growing coalition of residents, workers, and recall organizers who now make up the supermajority of Alameda County.

We're here to ask a direct question.

Will supervisors Nikki Fordinato Bass and Alyssa Marquez continue to serve a narrow ideological faction, or will they finally listen to the broader, diverse voices of the people they were elected to represent?

This county is not a playground for political experiments.

We need leadership rooted in public safety, accountability, and fiscal responsibility, not loyalty to failed ideologies.

That brings me to Treasury.

Treasurer Hank Levy.

His unilateral decision to divest county investments based on political optics, not performance, is reckless.

His job is to protect public funds, not to play activists with taxpayer dollars.

Divestiture without a clear fiscal mandate undermines our financial stability and jeopardizes essential services.

We didn't elect ideologues.

We elected stewards.

And right now, the people are watching as this board either enables or reigns in those who have lost sight of their duty.

Supervisors Bass and Marquez, will you continue to double down on failed policies and fiscal negligence?

Or will you stand with the supermajority demanding balance, transparency, and common sense governance?

The clock is ticking, the people are organized, and we will not be ignored.

Thank you.

LG, please state the item that you're speaking on.

You have two minutes.

I am speaking on item 47.

Um, and I would like to use my uh time here to say that there's been a lot of gaslighting here.

Um, to the idea that this is driven by by Christian Zionism, that is patently false.

I am a practicing Jew.

I attend Shabbat services every week.

I speak Hebrew and Yiddish.

I'm in a younger voting block, solidly on the left, and I'm a proud Zionist, meaning that I support a Jewish homeland in the indigenous land of the Jewish people because I know my people's history, and I am far from alone in this.

To the absurd idea that this is driven by people from Texas.

I was born and raised in Alameda County, and I currently live in Oakland, my birth city, and I have been a taxpayer in Alameda County from the moment I started working.

Israel is not an apartheid state.

Arab Israelis have full voting rights, they are 20% of the Israeli population, they have seats in the Knesset, the Israeli Congress, and there is a current Arab Israeli Supreme Court justice.

That is not apartheid.

As people use Israel as a pretext to hate and kill Jews, it's only a matter of time before what happened in Australia in DC and Boulder and Manchester and Jackson, Mississippi happens here.

Leaving decisions about what constitutes severe human rights violations to somebody who has strong political opinions of his own without supervision, is bad policy and bad for Alameda County.

Please promote accountability and good governance and protect Alameda County Jews and everyone.

Thank you.

Brandon, you have two minutes.

Please state the I am your speaking on.

Good morning.

Are you able to hear me?

Yes, go ahead, please.

Okay.

My name is Brandon Vesley.

Um, I organize with Jewish Voice for Peace Bay Area.

I live in District 5.

Um, I am commenting regarding item 47.

Um, I first just want to share that Jewish people are not a monolith.

Um, Jewish Voice for Peace has hundreds of supporters um and members in Alameda County.

Um, and we strongly support the ethical investment policy as written and the excellent work that Treasurer Levy has done on this process.

Um, I want to call the board's attention to what I think is a falsehood that's been promoted by some folks on this call.

Um, it is possible to get returns for county residents and invest in linefire values.

There, those are not diametrically opposed things.

We can do both.

Um, I agree with a lot of what others have said and want to direct the board's attention to the fact that a lot of callers on this call um are couching their political agenda and disingenuous financial criticism, claiming that this will affect returns when what this really is is political criticism of this policy.

It would really encourage the board not to fall into this trap.

Um, and as others have suggested, to implement the policy immediately.

Um, there are so many other important issues for our counties or county to focus on.

Um, our unhoused residents, our immigrants that are increasingly under attack.

Um, we don't need to spend additional time focusing on this when it's been through several reviews um and a transparent process for public input.

Um, avoiding that will also save us tax dollars.

And it's just, it makes sense.

The public overwhelmingly supports this policy, and it's not a good use of our time to continue relitigating it.

Thank you.

Caller, you have two minutes.

Please state the item you're speaking on.

Go ahead.

Good morning, Honorable Supervisors.

My name is Sharon Lai, Chief Strategy Officer with the East Bay Asian Local Development Corporation, and I'm speaking on item 37.

I want to take this opportunity to express my sincere gratitude for your unwavering leadership, partnership, and commitment to advancing affordable housing for our seniors and families here.

As you know, seniors represent the fastest growing demographic experiencing homelessness, driven primarily by housing and affordability and fixed incomes.

And actually, a significant portion of the Balti's population are extremely low-income residents and seniors, 75% of whom earn an average of less than $20,000 a year.

And so we are extremely excited here for this opportunity to partner with the county and related to deliver this master plan development and to meet the housing needs of our seniors' families and vulnerable neighbors, including 25% uh permanent supportive housing for building A here.

This project is the product of deep uh long collaboration between our partners at related as well as the county and truly exemplifies what public private nonprofit partnerships can achieve for our county and our community.

Thank you for this board and county staff's continued support and collaboration.

We look forward to moving forward with this project.

Thank you.

Veronica, you have two minutes.

Please state the item you're speaking on.

Good morning item agenda 71, please.

Go ahead.

Good morning, board.

Thank you.

Good morning, board members.

Uh, my name is Ronica Palacios.

I have served as an eligibility specialist at Alameda Health Systems for 25 years and currently serve as interim president for the Alameda Health Systems chapter.

I'm here on behalf of 4,000 members to speak on agenda item number 71, which talks about the governance.

This is a full circle for myself.

Back in 2019, these conversations were started with the late Supervisor Richard Vaya and the late supervisor um Wilma Chan and also Nate Miley.

Um again, I am speaking on behalf of 4,000 members.

We support and strongly value the importance of sound financial governance for Alameda Health Systems, and I am encouraged at this moment, has arrived.

I have worked collaboratively with both past and present board members since 2019 and appreciate the ongoing dialogue and progress.

We are willing and eager to work with you in any capacity needed to support the success and stability of Alameda Health Systems.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Caller, you have two minutes.

Please state the item you're speaking on.

I'm speaking on item 47.

Can you hear me?

Yes, go ahead, please.

Um, I was deeply concerned to see Hank Levy walk into the room in Richmond at Richmond City Council meeting to support Mayor Martinez.

As you know, um 80 elected officials uh wrote a strong letter of condemnation against um Mayor Martinez for smearing uh the Jewish community and spreading hateful lies that the Jews committed their own mass murder on Bondi Beach.

Um it's also a deep concern that many have voiced um, you know, other conspiracy theories at this meeting that in fact people coming in from Texas are instigating this, or it's some Christian group.

I can assure you, I am not Christian.

I am not from Texas.

I was born in Alameda County, and I'm an Alameda County taxpayer.

I am deeply concerned about Hank Levy's behavior in general.

I uh don't believe he should be sitting as chair of the Treasury Oversight Committee.

He is clearly biased, and we need to have other people supervising Hank Cleavy.

Hank Levy cannot be supervising himself.

That is absolutely ridiculous.

It's inappropriate to include a pen the appendix since it has not yet been reviewed for negative impacts to the investment portfolio.

You should follow your own guidelines, your guidelines that you have established, and you need to do that in order to maintain public trust.

President Howard, there are no more speakers.

Very good.

Thank you all for participating today in public comment.

Um I will note that I heard a lot of comments.

Rescinding the decision for a peer review is not on today's agenda, so that's just not an option.

Um I note that we have members of the public on both sides.

Some say we lost a hundred million dollars, others say we can make just as much money in other ways.

The peer review is designed to find out the answer to that.

Experts, not lay people that will come and present to us what they find.

It's an action we already took, and it's important that we look to experts to bring us that information.

Um results of the development of an RFP, and we'll be issuing an RFP to proceed with that.

There will be more public comment available in the future on that, but that was an item that we decided.

Um, and rescinding that item is not on an agenda.

So I will also note that you saw that meeting, many people were.

That was a bit of a compromise.

The comments from the supervisors were not leaning towards approval.

It got there with the idea that it would be a peer review.

So anyway, um, I I know this remains and continues to be and will continue to be a very divisive topic for us.

We will manage through it, we will manage through it together, we will manage through it on the basis of our democracy principles.

Majority of our board will decide, and we've made a decision to issue a peer review, and that's what we're headed towards doing.

The finance committee will be meeting on the 21st of February.

Uh, that is a CAO's subcommittee, the January, I'm sorry, January subcommittee meeting, and that so I'll uh ask the CAO to report out on exactly the process for that.

That meeting will not be um open to the public.

The results of that meeting, though, and the issuance of RFP and the proceeding with the RFP and a peer review coming back to us will be public.

So if I could ask the CAO just to clarify that um what will happen the next steps, it would be helpful.

Thank you, President Howard.

Uh, for your board's uh direction, um, the county administrators' ad hoc finance committee does have an upcoming meeting uh next week with several agenda items, including a review of the draft RFP or an independent uh review again as directed by your board.

Uh, once the RFP is finalized, uh, we will work through the general services agency and follow your board's procurement guidelines to issue that RFP and secure and appropriate uh professional services uh firm to come uh to conduct the review.

Thank you very much.

I know we're not really taking up item 47 at this time.

I did want to make some comments because it is on the agenda.

I'll however, recognize Supervisor Miley.

We will still have this topic before us when we come back for the mass motion.

Uh yeah, yes, Super Chair President Halbert.

I've been listening.

And if we're taking up item 47 now, I have some comments on it.

If not, I'll hold my comments until we take the item up.

But some of what you said, I wanted to also speak to and ask the county administrator a few questions as well.

So I'm not sure if you want to handle that item now or wait.

No, that's meant to be in the mass motion.

It was brief comments at the chair's discretion to leave answer some of the comments that were made.

But we'll take it up with the mass motion.

A clarifying question from Supervisor Marquez.

Thank you.

Just a clarifying question since we're on this topic.

Um, is it possible since the budget finance committee meeting is meeting on the 21st?

We are having a regular board meeting on the 26th.

Can we just announce to the public?

No, obviously that meeting is not brown acted, so people can't participate, but can we just provide a status update to the public in terms of what the possible timeline and next steps are agreed upon during the 20 meeting on that particular item?

Sure.

Yes, yes, we could do that.

Thank you.

Okay, saying seeing that public comment has been um heard, we'll now move to approval of the minutes.

Is there a motion to do so?

Mr.

President, I will move approval of the minutes.

I'll second.

It's been moved by Supervisor Tam, seconded by Supervisor Marquez to approve the minutes of Tuesday, December 26th, Tuesday, December 9th, Friday, October 3rd, and Tuesday, July 22nd, which has been corrected.

Uh ask for roll call vote, please.

Supervisor Marquez.

Aye.

Supervisor Tam.

Aye.

Supervisor Miley.

Aye.

Supervisor Ford Notabez.

Aye.

President Halbert.

Aye.

Minutes have been approved.

With that, our next item is to adjourn, recess rather to close session.

We are now recessed.

Recording stopped.

Recording in progress.

Good afternoon, everyone.

We're going to reconvene from our closed session.

We will be adjourning back in the closed session.

Um at least once.

At least once or twice before we finish today.

But for now, I'm gonna reconvene to open session, and I'll ask the clerk to please call the role.

Supervisor Marquez, excused Supervisor Tan.

Present.

Supervisor Miley.

Present.

Supervisor Fortnite.

Present.

President Halbert.

Present.

We have a quorum.

Thank you very much.

With that said, I'll ask County Council anything to report out from closed session.

I'd like to reserve my report out until we complete co-session.

Thank you.

Very good.

Thank you.

With that, we come to our set matter item listed at one o'clock.

We're obviously running a little bit behind.

We have had a lot uh to do today already.

I would like to turn the meeting over to my colleague, Supervisor Miley, who will can commend Richard Lee for uh sorry, passed away, Richard Lee, for his historic contributions to policy reform education and inspiring people to believe they can make meaningful changes within Alameda County and beyond.

Supervisor Miley, I know that you were very close to Mr.

Lee, and I now give you the floor.

Well, thank you, um President Halbert.

And I apologize to um folks who are here to receive uh the commendation.

Sorry, we're running a bit behind.

Uh that's typical.

We have a lot to cover in closed session, and we didn't get to everything.

Um, but I asked the president if we could get up here.

And so um I do apologize, but I appreciate the board um allowing me to make this uh presentation.

You know, Rich um I'm uh I'm not uh get a little choked up, but Rich was a good friend and a longtime supporter uh over and you know over decades, and we held uh memorial for him of uh a month or so ago, uh maybe two months ago, and we wanted to get this uh to the board around the time of the memorial, but uh because of the holiday schedule, this that and the other, we weren't able to do it, and then we weren't able to do it before we broke um uh for the um in the Christmas uh holidays in the new year's.

So here we are today.

Um, and you know, I would like to rich because between Rich and Jeff Jones is over there, and Rob Rach and others, when I was on the Oakland City Council back in uh the 1990s, you know, I served for 10 years on the Oakland City Council back in the 1990s.

I didn't come to the City Council uh understanding uh cannabis and its importance, but uh Rich and Jeff and uh Rob and others um uh talked with me about that uh in Proposition 215, and I became a supporter of 215 because they brought in a lot of folks to the city council at that time uh to show the medical need for cannabis for marijuana and um it's you know the the importance and the value of that um and I would say you know uh countless numbers of people came and testified to the city council about that, and I became a very strong uh supporter in the city at the time we set up through the city manager's office and with the city attorney and the police department and uh Joe DeVries, who worked for me at the time, he was on that task force and others to establish um the whole effort that launched in Oakland, Oakstadam and other things to support uh medical cannabis and eventually um you know the need for uh uh recreational cannabis uh not just uh locally but throughout the state.

Uh so rich was a real strong um and knowledgeable uh proponent and um just I just miss Rich.

I think a lot of us do.

Uh so I sound try not to get choked up, but uh I'll read the uh the commendation.

Um Rich Lee, whereas Richley dedicated his life to education, advocacy, and strategic uh political action, transforming cannabis access, policy, industry, and culture in California, the United States, and globally, whereas through the establishment of Oakstadam University, Mr.

Lee implemented an educational infrastructure, providing early training to patients, growers, job seekers, entrepreneurs, and local officials, leveraging broad coalition of friends, advocates, legal professionals, medical personnel, law enforcement, allies, and volunteers to initiate vital conversations and voter actions, and whereas Mr.

Lee was generous, selfless, and tireless, and is empowering others, creating opportunities over personal enrichment, while pushing boundaries through civil disobedience as a conscientious objector to the war on drugs, whereas Mr.

Lee entered Oakstam University's curriculum, excuse me, whereas Rich Lee insured Oakstam University's curriculum empowered students to return to their communities to change local laws, validating the belief that all politics is local and initiating true grassroots cultural change.

And whereas Oakstam University has educated over a hundred thousand individuals from a hundred and sixteen countries, shifting global perspectives and establishing legal uh framework that profoundly changed the world.

Whereas Mr.

Lee's entrepreneurial and spirit led him to found key institutions, including Coffee Shop, Blue Sky, SR 71, the Bulldog Coffee Shop, Oakstam Museum, Gift Shop, and the Student Union, while publishing newsletters and media to advocate for cannabis education and reform.

Where's Rich Lee exhibited leadership by supporting political figures, pushing decriminalization, co-founding Republicans against marijuana prohibition ramp, advancing hemp descheduling, and fostering early psychedelic efforts while mentoring the next generation of thought leaders?

Whereas he championed social justice through Measure Z and Prop 19, demonstrating that permitted cannabis business can contribute to regulatory frameworks and community safety.

Whereas recognizing the city of Oakland's designation of November 10th, 2025 is Oakstadam Day, the County of Alameda honors Rich Lee on the date, on this date, for his visionary leadership, advocacy, and lasting contributions to education.

Now, therefore, this Board of Supervisors County of Alameda State of California commends the life and legacy of Rich Lee for his historic contributions to policy reform, education, inspiring people to believe they can make meaningful change within Alameda County and beyond.

And you know, the Prop 64, 64, right?

Prop 64, right?

The legislation here in California that legalized the recreational use of marijuana, you know, Rich, you know, was very instrumental in making that happen, put in, you know, millions of dollars and shepherded that campaign.

Um Dale, who's over there, um, kind of was kind of the, you know, the the um the spokesperson, the symbol, the um, and she could speak about that, how um, you know, Rich and all the efforts to get the soccer moms and others to get behind Prop 64 and Dale, you know, she's the uh CEO of Oakstadam University.

Um, so um it's just, you know, Rich was truly a a trail, a trailblazer, and he was selfless.

Um, and we're gonna truly miss him.

Um, and it's unfortunate that even though Prop 64 passed, and what we all hoped for in California with the legalization of marijuana, you know, cannabis uh making that uh plant a legal uh product that people could use and uh and that's regulated that would be in a better position now uh under legalization than it was before.

But we do know that because of all of the requirements that have been placed upon it, um, uh entities taxing it, um, jurisdictions not allowing it because Prop 64 gives jurisdictions the you know the ability to allow for manufacturing or or or um dispensaries or others that it's really stifled the ability of a legal, a legal product to flourish in this state, and ultimately uh we need to make sure that marijuana cannabis is uh declassified at the federal level so it's no longer an illegal substance, just like alcohol, tobacco, it's uh it's a legal uh product uh that adults uh can use reasonably and responsibly, as well as work with um you know folks who need for medical uses as well.

So I've said a lot, and in fact, um uh rich, you know, Oakstam, Rich was inspired to do Oakstam because of Amsterdam.

Um so if you've never been to Amsterdam, uh you might not know what I'm talking about, but I've been to Amsterdam, and um, yes, so Rich, I was inspired to do over here at Oakstadam because of um well, take a place in Ashley.

So it's a real honor to uh present this commendation, and maybe before I go down and present it, I'm uh I hope there'll be uh folks who want to speak, speak to it uh this afternoon.

What a wonderful and heartfelt uh commendation.

Uh Supervisor Miley, I appreciate that.

Um, let's see if there's any public comment on this item.

There are no speakers.

See, none.

I'll ask the family if they want to come say a word or two and accept the commendation.

Show them the commendation.

We have a very nice something that you can hang on the wall somewhere, and um and after a few comments, then we'll come down and present it to uh the family for a photo.

Thank you.

My name is Dale Skye Jones.

I am the executive chancellor for Oaksterdam University, and I see some familiar faces.

It is a pleasure and an honor, and I appreciate all of your time and attention for this moment.

If you enjoy legal cannabis, it is the legacy of Richard Lee and Oaksterdam, and you have offered a fitting and beautiful commendation.

And I'm so grateful for each and every one of you and all of you that do the good work in this county, because it was always about freedom.

It wasn't to legalize weed, it was to legalize people and their choices, and to focus on the precious few resources that we have on violent crime, on crimes against others, because cannabis should never have been a crime.

And so here's to Richard's vision, and we're not done yet.

We are still working hard, and we've now educated over 100,000 souls from 116 countries, including places like Germany and Mexico, that have now pressured the US into moving this forward.

So I just want to thank Richard and his mom Ann Lee, who also recently passed, and for just being such an inspiration for our family and the three children that have been born since Prop 19 and the first um voter initiative to finally take what was contraband into commodity that we can control, tax, and regulate for public health and safety, and now hopefully we'll also help pay for it for seniors and our veterans and keep small business alive and thriving here in Alameda County.

I am so grateful again for this moment.

Thank you so much on behalf of all of Oaksterdam and our students.

And now I pass it to the man who started it all, Mr.

Jeff Jones, who went to the Supreme Court on this issue.

Oh, I'd be Mrs.

Jones.

Thanks for having me.

I I don't want to take too long, but um I've been speaking before this body for over 30 years on this important issue, and I do appreciate the activeness that this body has had in both moving policy forward, understanding.

Um I met Nate when he was on the Oakland City Council and he shepered our issue forward as we brought many important patients to the dais and had it.

I think an open conversation, which is tough to have on this issue over 30 years ago.

And Richard, I helped to bring to the Bay Area from Texas because he was my supported gardener at the time when I was actively involved as dispensing through the Oakland Cannabis Birris Cooperative.

And he pushed me to open up on Broadway.

And uh I soon was in in the midst of having a federal case that the day I got sued, Nate Miley happened to have an appointment at my office to hold a press conference.

So my response to being federally sued at the time by the Clinton Janet Reno DOJ was to have our local council member spar with them and say we're not gonna go away.

And it it's just a breath of fresh air to see where things are at.

Now we do have struggles of any industry, but I think that we're both uh paving a way for a new look at how cannabis is going to integrate into our economy and our society, but it it was through efforts like Richard long ago that even pushed me farther than I felt comfortable.

And I got sued when I was in my 20s and did not think that I would have a wife or a family.

So I feel extra lucky, almost like I hit the lottery.

And I do appreciate your efforts today and recognition.

Thank you.

The very first time I ever spoke before a public body was right here in this room in this spot in two thousand seven was my introduction to civics and engaging in civic life.

And I'm just so grateful for everything you do every day.

Thank you.

Full circle.

Let's do it.

At this point, we are going to recess back into closed session.

We have a quick matter to take care of.

I know that we never know when we're going to come back, but this one I don't think will be too long.

So bear with us.

When we do come back, we will take up the full agenda.

Um in the mass motion, and then we will adjourn back into closed session to finish up the rest of our business in close session.

So for now, we're going to adjourn briefly to closed session.

Recess, recess to close session.

Good afternoon, everyone.

We're going to reconvene from close session.

I'll ask our county council if there's anything to report out from closed session.

I can go ahead and report something out.

We should take role before we do that.

That's a good please call the road to real establish our quorum.

Supervisor Marquis.

Present.

Supervisor Tim, present.

Supervisor Miley.

Supervisor Fordaberas.

Present.

Present.

We have a quorum.

Thank you very much.

If there's anything to report out or we could reserve for later, it's up to you.

We can reserve for later because I'll have to report again when we come back.

Very good.

We'll reserve reporting out from close session to when we do that after we go back into closed session, which will be after we take up the mass motion.

It's now time to take up the mass motion.

And or the consent.

And the consent calendar.

I will move the consent calendar.

Motion to approve today's consent calendar has been made by Supervisor TAM.

Seconded by Supervisor Miley.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Supervisor Marquez.

Aye.

Supervisor Tam.

Aye.

Supervisor Miley.

Hi.

Supervisor Fortnite of Bass.

Aye.

President Halford.

Aye.

Very good.

Is there a motion for the mass motion?

Mr.

President, I will move items two, three, four, question on three.

Five.

Questions on five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, seventeen, eighteen, nineteen, twenty, twenty-one, twenty-two, twenty-three, twenty-four, twenty-five, twenty-six, twenty-seven, twenty-eight, twenty-nine, thirty, thirty-one, thirty-two, question on thirty-two, thirty-three, thirty-four, thirty-five, thirty-six, thirty-seven, thirty-eight, jumping to 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, jumping to 48.

Question number 48.

49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, question on 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, and 67.

Motion has been made by Supervisor Tam.

Seconded by Supervisor Miley.

We'll go to questions first.

And I note we have two ordinances.

Okay, we just have a one ordinary item 39, and then there's one regular item that was not included in the motion.

Very good, thanks.

We'll go through then questions on item three.

Supervisor Miley.

If um the agency or the department could or Dalton in aging could just kind of get a give us a sense for the fiscal year.

Coming up.

If what was done in fiscal year 2526, is that gonna be uh those numbers an enhancement or status quo or or just kind of what does that mean?

Um thank you for your question, Supervisor Miley Andrea Ford, agency director for social services on the department director is on vacation this week, and I will be sure to send an update to the full board um upon her return Monday, okay, all right.

Thanks.

Um, I don't have a problem passing the item, but I just have to uh kind of keep an eye on the agency when it comes to seniors, you know.

The seniors are gonna look out for one another.

Comments from our wise and senior board member.

Thank you.

Any other questions on this item?

No, that uh the next item is item five.

Questions from Supervisor Lena Tan.

Um thank you, Mr.

President.

Uh I wanted to just uh flag that uh this is a really important program, and I'm glad that um social service uh went through the RP process and um selected the archdiocese to provide legal services for special immigration juveniles.

Um so I just wanted to get a sense of how many have been served in the past and how many uh are likely to be served because this is obviously to help foster youth that um have potential immigration status issues and make sure that uh they can go through the process to get um status uh legally in the country.

Um thank you for your question, Supervisor tam um to date our records indicate that they've assisted three youth with getting green cards um we've had one youth at risk of deportation and her dependency attorney stepped in and they also secured a green card for youth that had been lost right after the administration had been shut down um and further the SIJS process is long and they are strong advocates in completing the process for those youth okay thank you very much thank you that's great to know thank you our next item with questions is supervisor uh Lena Tim uh with questions on item 32 um thank you Mr.

President I'm sorry I'm sorry Nate did you have another question we'll go to 32 questions from Supervisor TAM.

Um thank you so uh item 32 is something Supervisor President Halbert and I care about because we both serve on the air board and for our county to get um basically a citation for a violation of emissions from boilers uh we just wanna make sure or I want to make sure that uh we've taken steps to try to mitigate that and to understand exactly what happened with these violations.

Thank you Supervisor Kimberly Gasway director of G at General Services Agency.

So um there was a boiler that needed to be decommissioned at 400 Broadway which we have done that we also um there was a log missing um from the boiler at 1401 lakeside and that has been um replaced and we learned that one of our boilers 1111 Jackson had never been registered so after um quite a bit of negotiation discussion um with the air quality board um we uh um came negotiated this fine and then we've also committed to them to complete an audit within 90 days um of all of our boilers throughout so they are uh fully aware that we're in full compliance thank you very much um you know with instances like this there's a whole movement right now to try to move away from gas boilers um which is also a difficult economic situation thanks uh it's it's good to know that the air board is an equal opportunity regulatory we are subject to many authorities that have jurisdiction county and there it's not the first um time that we as a county or I understand sometimes it's not the first run in with the air board is it or is it I know other counties have had similar issues other fire departments have similar issues.

The hospitals have similar issues with regard to backup generators which they desperately need to have but are highly highly regulated.

So yes sir we do have a strong relationship with them and we are supportive of their initiatives especially as it relates to environmental concerns and so when this brought to our attention we are fully complying with to audit all of our facilities.

Excellent next question or next item with questions is item 48 a question from supervisor yeah I was confused that is the um journalist uh GIGSA uh director if she could explain why is there waiver when it seems to have been uh four CVOs um that applied or something and two were interviewed and one was selected so why are we seeking a waiver of our competitive bidding I mean I I'm just confused about that.

Yeah Brian Ford chief probation officer thank you for the question I can respond to that so back when uh Supervisor Marquez and Supervisor Carson asked for um public safety partners to develop a proposal to have the county support the court in pretrial.

We took that um um request to the community corrections partnership, the CCP, and the CCP um voted uh to uh ask the board to waive the competitive process because of the timing, it was deemed an emergency, and so we opened it up to community-based organizations to submit interests and we have two bidders and uh we went with one.

So we for you formally asked us to waive the competitive process.

Yes, through this process, yes.

Okay, all right, I forgot that.

Okay, is that in the board letter?

Because I don't know if I saw that.

Is it in the board letter?

Yes, in the board letter.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Supervisor Marquez comments.

Yeah, thank you for raising the question for clarity.

I just wanted to uh thank Chief Ford.

As was mentioned, this was a joint board letter brought by myself as well as uh former supervisor Keith Carson on December 17th, 2024, and it is now January 2026.

So hence the urgency, and if you'll recall through the reimagined adult justice, um the court was really eager to start this sooner, so this was uh the best approach that we can get all justice partners to work in collaboration, and um they were in alignment with this approach.

So I fully support it, and thank you for raising the question and thank you to all the justice partners for finding a path forward and continuing to engage with the Superior Court as well.

Thank you.

Okay, we'll move to item 59.

So Supervisor Tam questions?

Um, thank you, Mr.

President.

And uh so item 59 is to approve the amendment to a service agreement we have with Cardea Health to basically provide services to the fire department, and it's going to increase the amount along with extending the contract by 1.2 million dollars.

And uh this is a really important program that we have in the county when it comes to alternative response units uh to especially on mental health care crisis.

Do you have a sense at this point based on the data and the metrics that have been collected?

Uh, how well this program is done in terms of reducing the police involvement or uh diverting uh people away from emergency room, and basically what you guys often call the frequent flyers or repeat 911 calls and and how um those uh you know the thresholds would trigger certain uh program modifications in the future, and and I'll give you some background on why I'm asking.

Uh, a lot of the cities that you know in the county are facing really significant uh budget constraints and budget deficits, and um, so some of the cities also provide a certain level of funding, like for example, San Leandro um is doing a pilot right now with their alternate response unit, and uh their ability to continue that might be also um compromised.

Um President uh Hobart, members of the Alameda County Board of Supervisors, William McDonald, uh Alameda County Fire Chief.

Um I think uh the effectiveness of the program has been uh excellent over the course of the uh 13 months that it's been actually in service.

Um we um experience about a rate of about 60 percent of the time uh the unit responds by itself, and 40 percent of the time they have to have a law enforcement uh actually come by and help make sure that the scene is secure, but uh that's a dramatic reduction uh in their minds of what calls it um local law enforcement would have been uh responding to on their own.

We are seeing a significant uh reduced reduction in the number of uh clients that are being taken to the emergency room.

Uh, that's documented uh through the uh reports that we have, and as well.

Uh we see uh a number of folks that repeat offenders, not offenders, repeat patients that we have.

Um we've seen a reduction in that, and uh the case management that we have uh with the program allows for us to go out and make uh contact calls with the different clients within the community, and so that has lended itself to allow us to lower the amount of uh repeat callers that we have.

Um, do you expect?

I mean, these are great results, appreciate that.

And do you expect or anticipate um some financial difficulties with continuing some of the programs that have been piloted or how transferable basically is it between jurisdictions with these programs?

Uh it is an expensive service, uh, and I do uh forecast that there will be some challenges to be able to keep it uh maintain it uh throughout the future, but uh we're committed uh to uh continue to fund the program um as Alameda County fire.

Um it was funded originally with um ARPA funds uh from San Leandro, and uh they've uh been able to find a way to allow for us to extend the pilot for another 18 months, and I think that may be through also through one-time uh resources.

Um but um the success of the program and the effectiveness of the contacts that we're having, as well as I think the services that are being provided by our uh clinician and our um EMT, um I think are dramatically needed, and I think that uh it's something that we're gonna commit to continue.

Thank you very much.

Okay, appreciate that.

Thank you, Chief.

Any other questions on any other items?

If not, I'll ask the clerk to please call the roll.

Supervisor Marquez, aye.

Supervisor Tim, aye.

Supervisor Miley, aye.

Supervisor Fortnite Bass.

Aye, President Halbert.

Aye.

Why don't we go to the ordinance?

Item 39 is a second reading of salary ordinance amendments.

An ordinance amending certain provisions of the 2025-2026 County of Alameda salary ordinance, Mr.

President.

I'll wave, I'll move to waive the full second reading and adopt the salary ordinance amendments as described in 39 A and B.

Second.

Motion's been made by Supervisor Tam, seconded by Supervisor Miley to approve item 39.

Roll call vote, please.

Supervisor Marquis.

Aye.

Supervisor Tim.

Aye.

Supervisor Miley?

Aye.

Supervisor Fortnite?

Aye.

President Halbert.

Aye.

Very good.

We'll now go to your last item is item 47.

Item 47.

I do note that Treasurer Levy asked to be notified.

Is he online?

Because he wanted me to let him know when we would be coming back.

Roughly, he will be calling in from home or from a remote location, rather.

And um, so is he online?

Uh Treasurer Levy, if you are online, you could raise your hand.

That would be appreciated.

And I see a hand raised.

Okay.

Uh excellent.

With that said, um, so item 47 is a recommendation from the Treasurer Tax Collector that your board approve the treasurer's annual investment policy for calendar year 2026, and that's a requirement of the government code based upon your board's delegation of authority to the treasurer tax collector.

This is an item that happens every year around this time.

Correct.

It's a requirement that the board adopt the investment policy each year subsequent to your delegation of authority to the treasure, investment authority to the treasurer tax collector.

Is that on a calendar year then?

Because we're on a fiscal year generally, but this is a calendar year requirement.

It's a calendar year delegation of authority.

Okay.

So it runs from January 1, 2026 till December 31, 2026, and every year it gets renewed around this time.

And so that um is generally pretty perfunctory.

So I don't know if the treasurer's on the line and wants to highlight the adjustments that were made um that he's bringing forth and recommending to your board.

Is he online?

He is a hand is raised, and I would ask um Treasurer Levy, please.

Uh, your chance to make a presentation uh here on item 47.

I think it would be great if you could um highlight any changes other than the addition of the appendix here and reference to the ethical investment policy, and then separately let's let's talk about that.

But um, what changes other than then the equity uh yeah, thank you.

Thank you, Supervisor.

The uh the other changes other than the ethical investment policy had to do with a of adding a couple of provisions for other types of investments that weren't clear.

We added uh if you recall you authorized me back in June and July to I became a founding member of a new local government investment tool called CalFit.

I don't know if you remember that.

Um that's a it's a short term liquidity pool.

So that had not been explicitly mentioned before.

It's it's a brand new um finance mechanism.

It's not not a mechanism, but uh a new pool.

So that was added.

We also um have added collateralized mortgage backed securities, which hadn't been explicitly mentioned before.

It's it's allowed by state code.

So we added that, and I think I think that was it, other than the ethical investment policy, very good.

Um, do we have any questions on any changes other than the investment policy change?

So then seeing none, let me then sort of direct us to the note on the first page that references the previously approved but yet to be implemented ethical investment policy, and then its inclusion as an appendix, and um just to ask the question the appendix is um is there a reason why um short of completing the ethical investment policy and noting that it's not part of the policy until it is approved.

Was there a reason that you feel strongly it needs to be referenced and put in the appendix, or is another option that I think we might have to revisit this after the peer review, because if there are recommendations or changes, we would have to do that again anyway.

So I guess um could it be the case that we would simply withhold that and after the peer review, then formally rep reference it and adopt it.

So I'm just curious about that.

And that's that's just my question.

I think others have questions.

So Treasurer Levy, if you could just weigh in on that, I would appreciate it.

I felt um, because you had approved it, that I could put it into the policy, and I wouldn't have to come back to get it reapproved again.

Of course, the board always has the right to change it, and at some later point you may, but uh if you didn't change it, then it wouldn't be necessary to have you vote on it once more.

Okay, that's fair.

Very good fair.

I f I I get that.

If if you if we don't have any changes, then we could have it done.

And of course, that presupposes that we wouldn't, but the the counter is also true, it feels like that we don't have to do it yet because there may be changes, so that is much more clearer to me.

Um so any other questions of our board members.

I'm recognizing Supervisor Miley.

Yes, um, President Albert.

Um I have questions and I also have comments.

Okay, so first of all, with the um the the policy, the investment policy, is there any um correlation between the social responsible investment objectives and the ethical investment policy?

So what I'm trying to get at is uh is there any relationship.

Can the treasurer hear me?

Um I can.

Um I'm trying to uh figure out the an answer.

I mean, I think uh uh everybody will have different opinions about w how they wanna handle all of this.

My in my opinion, social responsibility is the br is the larger rubric, ethical investment is uh and the way you know it it's sort of the you know it's it sort of falls underneath it.

You know, what's in the investment policy talking about generally soci generally social responsibility, um that's it's that's just the way I see it.

Okay.

So the ethical investment policy is uh a subset of the social um responsible investment objectives, and it falls under that that social because you got environmental, social, and governance factors, so it falls under that social factor.

Okay.

Oh no, no, no.

So social responsibility is the larger rubric.

It's it's not it's not to be separated from the others.

In other words, if one has believes in sort of environmental stewardship, that would fall under a general social responsibility.

When these terms have evolved over the past 40, 50 years in in this in the 1980s, social responsibility became sort of the term that people used.

And and social responsibility then had a lot of prohibitions, and which, you know, we have some of those in our policy, although they're not prohibitions, they're d discouragements.

I was trying to not make it so strict.

15 20 years ago, the finance community and the community who was believed in these types of investments changed changed the wording from social responsibility, which were as I said considered to be negative, a negative screening.

It's a ESG, which stood for stands for environmental social governance.

Um there was supposed to be risk-based screens, but it's it's sort of it's an evolved, and now with uh, you know, the attack for the past three years by the Trump administration on ESG, the finance community is suggesting that now you know, yet again the terms be changed.

So we're not fighting about terms, specific words.

Okay.

I think I followed that.

Um the um the the body uh the finance not the finance committee, but the oversight um uh we heard from uh speakers that the oversight body met.

Are there notes or in minutes or anything from that meeting?

Because we hear what people are saying, but do we have any record of what took place at the meeting?

It was recorded on Teams.

And we can provide you the recording.

Okay, so we download what was specifically said um on Teams from the Oversight Committee, can we have that posted online?

Um, I think, yeah, and I think it may I think it may be posted online actually.

But I can I can make sure it is.

All right, because just want to make sure we're I mean maybe people can um misinterpret what took place there, but and once again I'm not saying I know what took place there, but I'd like to at least either have my staff listen to the meeting or at least um have um the minutes from the meeting so we can uh see or hear for ourselves.

So we can say supervisor.

Did I miss something earlier?

Was there uh were there disagreements about what took place there?

Uh yeah, some people earlier today spoke about what they interpreted that took place at the meeting, and I just want to verify it, that's all.

Do you mind?

You want to you want to ask me?

I I I came in in about in the in the middle of all the public comment.

Do you want to ask me or somebody said there was robust discussion about the ethical investment policy?

And I'd like to know if there was robust discussion and what that discussion was.

Yes.

Uh I would say I would say it was more robust discussion back in May when it was first discussed.

Don't forget, in the in uh at the meeting in December, it hadn't changed at all.

So I would say there was less robust discussion in December.

Okay.

All right.

I just know that my staff looked for it today and wasn't able to find it.

Doesn't mean that it's not posted somewhere, but we weren't able to find it.

So let's just verify that.

But yeah, i if you could ask, would it be on your website?

Hank, would it be on the county's website?

And this would be both, I guess since we're referring to May and the one in December, both both uh meetings.

Or October.

Yeah.

So um the May one, I hope is still available.

You know, the county IT policy sometimes is to eliminate old recordings.

But I'll I'll find out.

Okay.

And the the policy, I mean the oversight committee, um, it's not subject to the Brown Act.

It is um no, it is it is it is it is right.

So the policy.

What what were people?

Yeah, I just got a text from from my assistant.

What were people saying was a violation of the Brown Act?

No, I'm not saying it was a Brown Act, I'm just asking.

I think they felt that the minutes not being posted and or the video not being posted, they felt was at least not in the spirit of the Brown Act was the what I took the uh comments to mean.

And that's why I had my staff look to see if they could find it uh posted, and they couldn't.

So I I have to assume that it's not posted that may not be a violation of the Brown Act, but it may also not be completely transparent as people would have hoped.

I think is what we're getting at there.

Yeah, so I'm I'm just raising it because this is so uh this ethical investment policy is it's kind of kind of like a lightning rod.

It's emotional, it's highly charged, and I just want to do my own homework on what took place at the oversight body, if a record exist of that.

Right, right, right.

It is highly charged, supervisors, and I really urge you not to put much credence into people who are saying frankly ridiculous things.

Well of course it's transp of course we're transparent, and you know me.

Um of course it's transparent.

Okay.

So I've been you know, I do this many times.

I'm getting criticized for for things which are not true, financial, procedural process.

So please, you know, there might be things you might not like about some things, but please discriminate between what might be uh a true disagreement and what is just ridiculous.

Yeah, and I urge you to.

And I'm not questioning your competency.

In fact, I think you're uh very competent.

Um, like you said, I I know you, I know you before you were the treasurer.

In fact, you were my uh treasurer, so I've known you for a long time, and I feel you're you're competent.

Um it's unfortunate people are questioning your your capabilities.

Uh my interest is understanding the fact that this is so highly charged, understanding both sides of um the the assertions that are being raised um to make sure I've done my uh due diligence around that.

And I'll talk a little further about that in a minute, but the um ethical investment policy.

I think earlier uh today's uh President Howard, you asked the county administrator.

When is it um when is the finance committee meeting, and when do we expect the RFP to go out?

Uh, what's the time frame associated with that?

So the county administrators ad hoc finance committee is scheduled to meet next week.

We have several items to discuss uh with the committee, including um the request for proposal that your board directed us to issue.

Once the RFP is um reviewed and approved, if you will, for issuance, we will work through the General Services Agency and follow the board's procurement guidelines based on that.

The GSA director has indicated the time frame would be a minimum of four months and more likely closer to six months to complete the procurement.

Is there any way of expediting that, particularly since um this came to us back in October?

Was it October?

Yeah, because if it was four months from let's say November, we we would kind of be in be into it by February or March.

But if it's four months from let's say January, then we're talking probably uh late spring if if the if the earliest.

So there's any way of expediting that procurement process.

There is, and we've looked at this extensively, um, especially with federal funding that came out on how long it takes to run a procurement.

The fastest is tip is four months, but the standard is six months.

I will remind you that we have to have the full scope.

So sometimes that's on the front end.

If that takes two weeks, 30 days, but we need to have the scope before the RFP could be issued also.

So I need to be clear on who we're I sense that there's um uh oftentimes um a sense of urgency around highly charged uh items, this and others.

And you know, um if you find need to make an exception for one occurrence, you may be questioned to find a need to accelerate many others.

Um, at least you know, matters of life and death and the like.

Um, but but I my next questions are going to be to Hank around the urgency here in that the last time we talked, there are no investments under question currently in our portfolio that would have any effect with this policy.

There are no investments that he's currently considering that this policy would have effect on.

The sense of urgency around this seems to be purely ceremonial and theatrical with no real impact to the decisions before our treasurer at this point.

That was made clear in our last meeting, I believe, and I would just like to clarify it again.

Treasurer Levy, are there any investments that you currently have that you would want to shed?

Are there any investments that you are questioning whether to take on?

Does the policy before us have any effect on our portfolio as of today?

And is there a sense of urgency for other than that to have this done?

There are no current investments that I'm currently questioning in our portfolio.

And as I've said before, uh as we were going through this, our the consultant that we had hired reviewed our current holdings and said, as far as they were concerned, there was none that this policy would cause, you know, cause me to recommend a divestment to you.

However, you know, the implementation involves closer scrutiny.

Um part of the implementation that I'm trying to adopt through another contract with these consultants is to help me monitor these things.

So that's the only thing that's being held up.

I can't, I can't, I can't screen.

I we don't have the staff, and we don't have proper screening tools to monitor these for anything else that we might want to, whether it's you know, fossil fuel, whether it's private prisons, whether it's human rights violations in, you know, the Sudan or China, you know, so which we've had at the TOC meeting in December, Son and Capital did preview this the software, the monitoring software that they were going to recommend we use.

And that's being held up.

So that's the so I does that answer your question.

I think Albert.

I think so.

Again, it sort of indicates to me that this is so big and we haven't reviewed policy.

It's not something we do every day other than the perfunctory annual review.

And one of the comments that I made earlier, as people were actually asking us to rescind this decision, um, which isn't even before us today, I think we know that.

But the the notion is we approved the need to go out for an RFP for um good reason, uh, in that it is so charged.

There are people on both sides, there are a lot of people on both sides, and getting that objective opinion as Supervisor Miley made the motion, I think, back in December or back in October rather.

Um we're committed to continue to do that, and so um, I don't know that the timing changes that, but that's just my opinion.

Supervisor Miley.

Uh, sure, thanks.

So I know we're not taking a vote on the ethical investment policy.

We're looking at the treasurer's investment policy, and um, and the addendum says that the uh ethical investment policy uh will not be implemented until the board provides final approval.

So I just want to uh say a few things if it's okay.

Because since it's any other clarifying questions before we go into comments, I thought there were more comments than there were questions.

Go ahead.

Thank you, President Howard.

So um, my um just comment.

So, what is coming up for me with this discussion since we've been hearing public comment on this, I think, since last spring, maybe earlier, um, really hoping that we could um streamline the meet the recordings of these meetings.

I believe the meeting that took place in May is on the treasurer's website, but not on our granicus drop-down menu, and my understanding is the recording from our October 3rd, which was a special meeting, has not been posted, as well as the TOC meeting that took place on December 11th.

So I think before we continue to advance this work, I know I'm not the only one that feels this way, but it's really important that the public can access this information and that it's clear where to pull it from.

We should not be having people having to go to different websites and call in and it just we can't make it this difficult for people to access our public meetings.

Also, I want to just clarify for the public, the ad hoc committee that is meeting next Thursday.

That is not a brown acted body, so the public needs to be aware of that.

That is the definition of an ad hoc is um the committee and there will not be a violation of the Brown Act.

There cannot be more than three Board of Supervisors in that meeting, but I just hope that we can get clarity soon in terms of where these recordings are housed, and my preference would be on granite is on our landing page, so it's clear to everyone how to access the information.

Thank you.

You know, that reminds me of another question, and it's for county council.

Uh, and might be a finer point of the Brown Act.

Um, I don't know if it's a requirement of the Brown Act to um to post recordings, a question.

I don't know if it's a requirement of the Brown Act to report out a vote, because if the TOC had a vote, is it required that the um the uh what the vote was, the actions of the vote, is that a requirement of the Brown Act and by when?

So I just want to say one thing.

In order for it to be an ad hoc committee, there can be no more than two members of the board on it, not three.

Um and then um I to be honest, that's not an issue I've looked at recently about the requirements generally though for a Brown Act body.

Like I'm required to report out um things that happen in closed session, things that happen on the public session, um, because the meeting is open and public, you don't need to report it out because it happened in an open and public setting.

So, does it have to be disclosed to the public who wasn't there so that they could see it?

So it should be in the minutes.

So if, yeah, I mean the minutes is the minutes are where the public has the ability to access what happened in the meeting.

Um so it should absolutely be in the minutes, um, but there's no other independent the minutes are the way you provide information to the public about what happened, and I just would need to double check on whether or not there's a requirement that you record the meeting.

I just don't recall because I haven't focused on that aspect of the Brown Act recently.

Okay.

Back to Supervisor Riley, I think you have to.

Can I just I mean, as a point of clarification, my understanding is that the there's the Treasury Oversight Committee agendas are posted, it's a Brown acted body that the Treasury Tax Collector's Office staffs.

The October 3rd meeting that you mentioned I understand was a board of supervisors special meeting.

So that is posted, it's on the county's website.

Um Supervisor Miley, you want to bring it back for comments or if it's okay.

Well, I've got some comments to make if that's okay.

Um, because I want to be clear about this.

The um in the Board of Supervisors, we do have a fiduciary responsibility.

Um so we didn't do need to understand what's happening with the public uh resources, and just because the Treasurer's Oversight Committee um has deliberated around it, and the treasurer's come up with something doesn't relieve us of that responsibility.

So that's why you know I for one thought it would be good for since this is such a highly charged um policy that um folks are either requesting or not requesting or be modified that we have the finance committee, which is composed of the the ad hoc finance committee, which composed of the county administrator, the treasurer, county council, the auditor, uh the president of the board of supervisors, um, convene so that uh they could take a look at it and um and then look at having um an objective uh uh professional uh review of this uh from uh from a firm.

I thought that would be the prudent thing to do.

So that so that's what I was trying to achieve.

Um, but this has taken a while, but I haven't finished yet.

I do feel the the treasurer, you know, is a good man, he knows what he's doing, he's got competent staff, but as I said, that doesn't um uh relieve us of our responsibilities, and it is um uh when people raise assertions about the rate of return on investment and things of that nature.

I think we have an obligation, at least I feel I have an obligation to verify if there's any um uh you know um accuracy or um verify whether or not uh what's being alleged is accurate or not.

And I was hoping that once again going to the finance committee, as well as if a firm reviews it, that would help us help us verify uh one way or the other.

Um and I do once again believe you know the treasurer is extremely uh competent, and uh for people to make personal attacks on the treasurer, it doesn't necessarily um um rest well with me uh because I just think in these times um it it's easy for people to attack folks at whatever level of government and it's unfortunate uh but I I just would wish people wouldn't have the personal attacks and you know and both sides are trying to push uh their position and their agenda and and they have right uh to to speak speak to that um if we were to divest it needs to be done in a manner that doesn't affect our ability to have the resources for safety net services I think you know we're extremely concerned about that you know with proposition one HR1 Medi-Cal you know um reforms that are taking place you know with Alameda health systems um you know potentially looking at uh layoffs and um you know uh shortfalls in its revenue uh other non-mandated things that people want to see us do I think we need to ensure that we have resources for safety and services so to do our due diligence around a you know an ethical investment policy I think is extremely extremely important and this policy needs to be carefully crafted it needs to be uh fair balanced and you know and judicious um we we shouldn't be singling out any one country I mean I think there's a lot of abuses that are taking place in the world and the policy does shouldn't be based on um any one country but should be based on um a sense of fairness balance and and judiciousness um the the policy itself you know I mentioned when we had the policy before us I had concerns with the investments are to be discouraged entities that derive 10% of their total revenue from certain you know seven things listed here.

First of all I think the threshold of 10% I've told the treasurer this because I've met with them is too uh low I'd like to see that threshold raised particularly if we want to keep these categories of disinvestment in here for a co for a company that's doing business because once again even though people might not like these things these things are legal for instance I don't smoke tobacco but I've challenged the tobacco industry as an elected official over the years.

I don't gamble but it's legal tobacco's legal um alcohol now I know I do drink um but alcohol's legal so there are things on this list that to me cause some concern if a company is doing more than 10% of its investment in legal things.

And I think that list needs to be evaluated and that causes me some concern.

I've also heard that the fact that the policy is tied to United Nations guideline guiding principles on business and human rights could possibly be I don't want to say could be triggering because it uh it's been potentially hijacked by certain uh segments of you know the international uh community to push a particular agenda so maybe we should come up with our own uh you know criteria around human rights um and I've talked to the treasurer about that as well so I do think it's important that we do our due diligence and I think it's important that you know I'm firmly committed to doing my due diligence on this both sides have raised accusations against one another.

Um, you know, who who's to say who's right, who's to say who's wrong, but both sides.

And I think that's why, once again, this is highly, highly charged.

Um the final couple things I would say is um, as I said, the the ethical investment policy that's that is be it's not before us today, but if it were to get back to us, even if the ad hoc finance committee, if no firm uh does um a review of it, I'm still gonna raise the issues around the 10% threshold and the list of items that are disinvestments, as well as the human rights, um, I'm assuming the UN guiding principles on business and human rights.

I'm still gonna raise that because I just think the list is too is too expansive.

Um let's see, and I think those are the only things I would want to point out at this time, so at least I'm clear on where I stand on this at this point in time.

I'm willing to continue us going through the process that we approved uh at our meeting in the past.

But uh, should that process fail or um um fall short, then whatever comes back to us, the there's certain things that an investment policy I'm gonna continue to look at very carefully.

Supervisor, thank you for your comments.

Um I just want to make sure.

Do we have any other questions of uh Treasurer Levy while he's still on?

I see none.

So thank uh Hank, thank you for any other questions.

Can I make one last comment?

Yeah, I'd just like to make one last comment.

Um I don't want you to think that I spend a lot of my, I mean, obviously I have been forced to spend a lot of my time listening to debates back and forth on this, meeting with many of you.

But I don't spend a lot of my time in the for my time that I spend on treasury investments on this on this issue, as I said, this only affects our our corporate credit sleeve, which is you know represents about you know a billion dollars perhaps.

Um I spend a lot more time on moving our money to local impact investments, and uh I'm sorry I wasn't able to come down in person today.

Um I wanted to tell you about something that I did this morning.

I went on a tour of a building, 820 West MacArthur.

I urge you all to drive by it.

I had some pictures I was gonna be showing you.

820 West MacArthur was is a new development.

It's affordable housing, it's gonna be workforce housing.

That was done because we placed 35 million dollars through a bank that lent it to a developer, which represented I think over 50% of the cost of the project.

I'm really proud of it.

It's more it's more.

I want to do more of it, and I am gonna be doing more of it.

Um you don't have it in your I wanted to comment.

Uh you don't have it in your November report because we didn't make the investment until December.

We get we invested 25 million dollars to a low to an affordable housing uh uh fund called LISC, Low Income Support Corporation, um 25 million dollars at a very good interest rate that does affordable housing, and we're gonna be doing more and more of that.

Um I'm ready to move on from ethical investment policy issues to telling you more what we're doing on impact investing locally.

So I just I hope that's one reason I wanted I wanted this to be behind us, so we wouldn't have to keep talking about this.

Thank you.

Very good.

Thanks uh for joining us, Hank.

We'll keep carry on with our deliberations.

Supervisor, as I listen to you talk, I can't help but think that while we took the action to, and I know it was your motion, and I know we were all feeling the charge uh that day to actually vote to approve subject to another alternative, it occurs to me, might have been to table this item subject to because what the impression is is that this is approved because it is, but it's not really approved until it's been peer-reviewed, and the peer review may come back with recommendations that we would want to consider, and when it comes back, we will have to consider those, which is why, but we did, we took the action, we approved it, subject to.

Um I'm committed to continuing the process.

It we sounds like we will do our best to make it as fast as possible, but it's not gonna be as fast as people would want.

But I still maintain that um, and especially given what your comments are that you're still going to have issues with the addendum I would recommend that we approve this annual what's generally a perfunctory approval absent the addendum and any reference to it and then when the um peer review comes back if there are any recommended changes we can change them and adopt it at that point if that's what we want to do.

If you have comments of that you want to continue to make comments as you described then we would make those comments and that we would adopt and more formally join these together at that time.

So that would be my as opposed to what um and I understand Hank's point he elucidated it very clearly that you know maybe there would be no changes and no other comments so why not get it done now but I just don't think it's the right thing to do.

That would be my my preference to um approve this absent the addendum and any reference to it.

So but that's just me I know we have others that have comments supervisor mark is any additional comments you have supervisor Tam and then Supervisor Fortunately Fortunately Bash you want to go first.

I'll I'll just simply say that we're spending an awful lot of time on this and my original position when we discussed this draft policy as a full board was to adopt it as presented that's still my position and it would take one of you who supported it to move forward a motion to reconsider to do something different or to do something different with this item in front of us but I just wanted to state my position for the record.

Any other comments I I I feel your comments I almost want to reconsider it the other way and not have to talk about this ever again but we're not there we're gonna we're at a position of moving forward it's a question of because rescinding the peer review isn't really part of it's this so I guess I will make if it's okay with everyone the motion that we approve item 47 with the deletion of the addendum and any reference to it noting that we will consider this when the peer review comes back would be my preference and if we change the adopt the policy when that's done and make changes to it by adding the addenda back in then so be it or not based on the peer review.

If there's no second then somebody else can make another motion take time.

I'll move the item as presented and I hear um supervisor bass's um comment but just want to clarify with county council resending the peer review could that be a motion that could be made or would we have to bring the item back since that's not what's agendized.

So your your board policy on reconsideration of your prior actions is that anyone who voted in favor of it could bring it back.

If you didn't vote in favor of it you have to make a request and put it on the agenda to reconsider it and get the vote to a successful vote to reconsider it before you could reconsider it.

Now, you know, if this if this that's on the agenda today before you incorporated that prior action, it's on your agenda.

So you can I think that you could vote it up or vote it down because it's on your agenda today.

It got placed on your agenda today as part of this other um action that you statutorily are supposed to take.

Or you know, yeah, that you're required to re-approve this on an annual basis.

So I'll second Supervisor Marquez motion.

So as is with the addendum, is the motion to approve, even though and because it's referenced that it's the addendum isn't valid until the peer review is done.

Correct.

I think it's it's referenced that way.

I'm gathering, and just to clarify, if the motion was made to cancel the peer review, that would not be able to be done because we have we'd have to bring it back for reconsideration.

That's a completely separate process.

Is that what county council's saying?

That's where I'm landing.

Yes.

Yeah, that's what I I would expect that to be the case as well.

And I want to be clear, I know right now we're talking about um 47.

But did we take 46 in the mass motion?

Yes, you did.

Yeah, so it's only 47.

Only 47.

Yeah, 46 was the monthly investment report.

Yep, yep.

Okay, so I will move that we adopt item number 47.

This is the treasure tax collector's investment policy for year 2026.

I think we have a second.

As presented, and a second's been made by supervisor um Portanato Bass.

So is everyone clear on the motion?

Okay.

Um questions on the motion.

Well, uh I I should probably speak on trying to understand the differences and the nuances.

Um I appreciate um Treasurer Levy coming on and appreciate President Albert's question.

I trust completely, since we delegated that authority uh for the treasurer to assess the social responsibility and the impact on the uh on specific investments, and he's very clear that there's no investments now currently that are um in violation of our policies, and so uh and I understand that from Supervisor Miley every year when we adopt this, we have the socially responsible investment objective criteria of which the ethical investment is sort of a subset because it addresses the issue of environmental social and governance issues, and it gives that authority to the treasure.

So I I don't see any added value at this time if we're trying to sort through the peer review of the of the ethical investment policy.

So it it's like I'm not quite sure why we have to make that distinction at this point.

The the well, the ethical investment policy is probably one of the most highly charged items before us.

We took a motion to approve it but yet didn't finally approve it.

It won't be finally approved until the peer review comes before us.

It could very well be the case that the peer review comes with um findings or recommendations or changes to it.

So we'll be left at that point with having to bring it back again and make the policy change to conform to what would ultimately be our final approval.

Um connecting the two together, incorporating the ethical investment policy at this point will simply mean that we will we could very likely have to bring it again.

We will have to discuss the um peer review anyway, and at that time it seems to me to be the more appropriate time to ratify the ethical investment policy.

We didn't fully ratify it, we sent it for peer review for good reason, and I think we should respect those good reasons by not incorporating it yet.

I would incorporate it when we hear the peer review.

So in other words, I envision that whenever the peer review is done, we will hear the peer review and take possible action on amending our policy at that time.

Okay.

Um not now.

I I appreciate it and agree with what you're saying.

I'm trying to understand from a process standpoint, even though we don't typically do this, we can bring this investment policy back any time, irrespective.

And so the way it's structured now, at least on page 18 with the addendum, it has big bold letters that basically said that this policy is not going to be implemented pending uh Board of Supervisor approval, right?

And it's an um Treasure Levy's board memo also says the same thing.

So what is why is it in here if it's not implemented?

I guess the same reason why it's reported that we approved this when we really didn't the last time.

Because it was subject to it's a you know uh again um it's not ratified yet, and so that's while it why would we why would we add something in there and then qualify it as not really true yet?

So that's the question I'm gonna ask the maker of the motion.

It very clearly says under the addendum, this addendum will not be implemented under the Board of Supervisors provides final approval.

Uh is that something that you're comfortable with having in that's the vote.

That's the action we took October 3rd.

Um, I see this as just capturing what that action was.

I understand there's more to it.

We're not at the phase of implementation because we have to conduct the peer review process.

We heard the timeline for the RFP, but I feel having it in the document um is keeping it top of mind on the action we took back in October.

Uh I would only add, if I may, you know, the document that is attached in the agenda packet is the version of the ethical investment policy that is before you today for approval.

That as Supervisor TAM noted, that document does say on the addendum that this addendum will not be implemented until the Board of Supervisor provides final approval.

So that to me conveys that even with the approval of the motion that is now before you, it it only authorizes everything but this addendum, because the document you're approving says on its face it's not this part is not approved.

Um, and then your minutes that you approve today um document that your prior action um adopted the ethical investment policy, um, well that uh the this addendum subject to um peer review.

So I mean it the record I think is um clear that that prior action as well as your action today have left that addendum subject to further review and that it would need to come back to you at some point to be finally approved or not finally approved, but this action and the motion would be sufficient that's before you now would be sufficient to allow the investment policy that needs to be approved annually to be approved, yeah.

Do we typically include things that aren't effective yet in written approvals of policies?

I mean, I get your point.

Legally it has no effect anyway, but is it good practice to note something that isn't finally approved and have it in there?

What would you do as a lawyer?

What's our legal counsel on it?

I think sometimes to get business done, you have to do things that you don't always do that aren't legally problematic.

So here, I believe that in order to get this um annual approval.

If this is what needs to happen to get the votes to to get that done, it's not legally problematic, it's not illegal.

Um, and there's no rule that prevents you from acting in the manner that is before you.

And striking it would equally be not legally problematic.

If a motion was on the floor to strike it, and it had if your motion had received a second and then a majority vote of the board, that would be legally acceptable too.

Sure.

That it's just that no second was given to that motion.

Understood.

Understood.

So motion's been made in second.

Are there any questions about or any more comments about the motion?

I'll not support it, but I'm just one vote.

So a motion's been made to approve item 47 as presented.

With all clarifications, that's perfectly legal.

Noting that the addendum isn't finalized until it's been peer reviewed.

And that would the clerk please call the roll.

Supervisor Marquez.

Aye.

Supervisor Tan.

Abstain.

Supervisor Meyerley.

Aye.

Supervisor Fortnite.

Aye.

President Halbert.

Abstain.

Passes.

Very good.

We have concluded.

Did we do the consent calendar?

Yes.

That concludes your regular.

So we'd have to adjourn now into closed session.

Right.

Right.

We're going to recess into closed session.

Let's take public comment on non-agendized items so that we can get that out of the way.

Members in room now can fill out a speaker slip card.

And if you're online, raise your hand for anything not on today's agenda.

We'll go first in person, first three, and then online.

Rotating back and forth.

Joe Hawkins, Johanna Holden, Jose Perez.

Dante Washington, Tony Sullivan.

Should I say Brooks?

Okay.

Lisa Ryan, David Gonzalez, Holly Calhoun.

Calhoun.

Okay.

Thank you.

My name is Holly Calhoun, and I am here as I'm the senior director of programs at Project Open Hand.

And I'm also a resident of Alameda County.

Project Open Hand is a nutrition and food provider serving people living with HIV in Alameda County since 1989.

And I'm here to ask for the release of emergency federal funds from the ending the HIV epidemic that were issued to providers in Alameda County.

We're talking about 1.2 dollars federal dollars that were issued to agencies in Alameda County, but have not actually yet been released.

And if they're not spent by February 28th, which is about six weeks away, they have to be returned to the federal government.

But due to bureaucratic processes, uh people doing this work in the community have yet to receive these funding.

What we're talking about here when we're talking about services for people living with HIV, I mean we're really talking about life-saving care.

Project Open Hand is a food provider.

We provide medically tailored food.

So food is really medicine for the folks who we serve.

And again, these are federal funds.

We're just really asking for the county to pass them through in the way that was intended, so that people in the community can receive the care that they deserve.

Thank you very much.

And oh, I'll just mention I think I've about 20 other people were here to make similar comments earlier, and they weren't able to stay.

So I do appreciate you all hearing me before recessing again.

But there are several folks in the community and other providers who are who intended to make similar comments today.

Thank you very much.

David, you have two minutes.

Go ahead, please.

Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is David Gonzalez.

I am the HIV program manager at Asian Health Services, just a few blocks away from where the meeting is right now.

I was one of the people that Holly mentioned was there for many hours today waiting to speak, along with many members from Holly and I's community, including representatives and executives from organizations that provide life-saving work to people living with HIV and people at risk for HIV, including the Oakland LGBT LGBTQ Center, East Bay Advanced Care at Summit, Calpep, East Bay Getting to Zero, and other organizations.

It is unconscionable that these organizations have not received these funds.

They have done the work, they have been waiting to get reimbursed.

We brought this to the health committee yesterday.

I spoke yesterday.

We received an email from Anika Taji today telling us a clarifying response about the funds that all many organizations just applied for.

She did not understand what we said yesterday.

We are talking about funds that were already awarded.

These are federal funds, they're not county funds.

They need to be released to these organizations that have already done the boots on the ground work of providing these vital services to members of our community.

And as Holly said, if we don't receive these funds, they have to be returned.

The health department is under increased pressure to return those funds in a very quick manner if they to the federal government if they are not spent.

This is uh a direct result of the increased pressure from the Trump administration.

These funds are emergency funds, and they originally come from the first Trump administration.

It is unconscionable that they have not been released, and we need to do better.

I want to call attention to items 95, 96, and 98.

Um sheriff's uh department, uh persons going to Department of Human Services, Human Resources Management Annual Conference.

It means to me that if the sheriff were to give an overview of exactly what human resources management means in a penal institution, and make some to the point comments on that meaning that it might in some significant way change the public's attitude about those who are incarcerated.

In other words, out of sight, out of mind doesn't work anymore.

And it may mean that public thought and and um energies might begin to be directed to rehabilitation and integration, reintegration back into society in a positive way.

That's just a thought.

There are no more public comments very good with that said we will recess into closed session recording stopped recording in progress I'd like to reconvene from closed session and ask the clerk to call the roll to reestablish our forum supervisor marquez present supervisor tam excuse supervisor miley present supervisor for tonato bass excused president howbert present okay very good we are back in open session now and I'll ask the county council to report out reportable action from closed session thank you on today's agenda under conference with legal counsel existing litigation item g and the name of the case is Natividad et al v Alameda County Sheriff's Department et al.

At a closed session that was held on December 16th 2025 the board authorized settlement authority and this is to report that the case is now settled it the final settlement amount was payment to the plaintiffs of 75 thousand dollars supervisors Halbert Tam Marquez and Fortunato Bass voted yes Supervisor Miley was excused.

Under that same section of the agenda um item H.

On December 16th 2025 the Board of Supervisors authorized settlement and that case is now settled in the amount of sixty five thousand paid to the plaintiffs supervisors Halbert Tam Marquez and Fortunato Bass voted yes supervisor Miley was excused under um the same section of the agenda item I in Luo VQ sex et al.

On December 16th 2025 the board authorized settlement authority and that matter is now settled in the amount of payment of 45 thousand dollars to the plaintiffs supervisors Halbert Tam Marquez and Fortunato Bass voted yes supervisor Miley was excused and under the same section of the agenda at item L in the case Randall the County of Alameda et al in today's closed session the board authorized the county council to retain conflict counsel and to execute a settlement agreement with that count I'm sorry to execute a retention agreement with that council to represent an individual defendant in that case and that was today on a vote of five zero.

Thank you.

Very good seeing as how all business before us has been exhausted we are now adjourned.