Oakland Public Ethics Commission Meeting - September 12, 2018
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Oakland Public Ethics Commission Meeting – September 12, 2018
The Oakland Public Ethics Commission met on September 12, 2018 (originally scheduled for September 11 but moved due to holidays). The meeting covered three major enforcement actions: a proposed fine against Councilmember Lynette Gibson McElhaney for ethics violations, and two investigations into city ticket use by McElhaney and Mayor Libby Schaaf. After extensive public testimony, the Commission adopted the findings of the administrative law judge but reduced the penalty for McElhaney, and suspended action on the ticket cases pending policy guidance.
Consent Calendar
- Approval of Minutes: The Commission unanimously approved the draft minutes from the July 30, 2018, regular meeting and the August 23, 2018, special meeting (6-0 vote).
Public Comments & Testimony
- McElhaney Case (Item 6): 48 speakers addressed the Commission. The majority spoke in support of Councilmember McElhaney, characterizing her actions as a good-faith effort to protect the historic character of her West Oakland neighborhood and assist constituents. Speakers included constituents, professional planners, architects, and former city officials. Several argued that the proposed $8,625 fine was excessive and that the case should be a teaching moment rather than a punitive action. A few speakers criticized the use of city tickets for personal benefit.
- Ticket Cases (Items 7 & 8): 7 speakers addressed the McElhaney ticket case and 2 addressed the Mayor’s case. Speakers raised concerns about the high volume and value of tickets used by officials and questioned whether the stated public purposes were genuine. Staff member Bridget Cook explained that the ticket values were inflated and that McElhaney used games for networking and facility oversight.
Discussion Items
- In the Matter of Lynette Gibson McElhaney (Case 15-07): The Commission considered the administrative law judge’s proposed decision finding three violations of the Oakland Government Ethics Act: accepting gifts over $50 from a restricted source, voting on a contract with that source, and failing to disclose the gifts. Staff recommended adopting the proposed $8,625 penalty. The councilmember’s attorney argued the services were not a gift and that the fine was unprecedented. After deliberation, the Commission voted to adopt the findings but reduce the penalty to $2,550, citing mitigating factors including the short time between the law’s effective date and the violations, lack of clear training, and the councilmember’s strong community support. (Note: The official minutes record the reduced fine as $2,250, but the transcript shows the final motion as $2,550.)
- In the Matter of Lynette Gibson McElhaney – City Tickets (Case 16-08(c)): Staff summarized an investigation into McElhaney’s use of 695 sets of city tickets between January 2015 and September 2016. Staff found no violation of the misuse of public resources law because tickets were distributed per the City Ticket Policy. However, 18% of tickets were reported late and 3% were reported only after staff inquiry. Commissioners expressed concerns about the lack of documentation proving public purposes and the large volume of tickets. The item was suspended pending development of advisory guidance.
- In the Matter of Mayor Libby Schaaf – City Tickets (Case 16-08(i)): Staff summarized Mayor Schaaf’s use of 176 sets of city tickets, with 91% reported timely. No violations were found. The Commission similarly suspended this item pending policy guidance.
Other Discussion
- Subcommittee Reports: The Campaign Finance Subcommittee is analyzing survey data on public financing. The Education and Outreach Subcommittee reported successful tabling at the Oakland Museum. The Complaint Procedures and Penalty Guidelines Subcommittees are developing revisions.
- Commissioner Recruitment: The Commission is seeking applicants for one PEC-appointed vacancy beginning January 2019.
Key Outcomes
- McElhaney Case: The Commission adopted the findings of the administrative law judge that Councilmember McElhaney committed three ethics violations. It imposed a total administrative penalty of $2,550 (reduced from $8,625) and indicated interest in working with the councilmember on future education efforts.
- City Ticket Investigations: The Commission suspended action on both ticket cases (McElhaney and Schaaf) and created an ad hoc Ticket Policy Subcommittee (Commissioners Kong and Jackson) to develop enforceable standards for the use of city tickets. The subcommittee will report back at a future meeting.
- Future Meetings: The Commission will continue its policy discussions and bring the ticket cases back for action after the subcommittee provides guidance.
The meeting adjourned at 11:48 p.m.
Meeting Transcript
Oh, I think we have no one. You're ready to sit in a part of the people. You can hand it to me. Okay. Okay. Yeah. I am number seven. You want to see on the one? You can give it to me. Oh, you do. Okay. Are you sure that's what it what it is? Steven? I don't think anyone's anything. Yeah, they're all over there. Okay, folks, um uh thank you for being here. We're gonna get started in just a moment. Um so I'll give you a second to settle in and then we'll get started. Yeah, that's fine. Okay. Okay, good evening, everyone. Um my name is Jonathan Stein. I chair the public ethics commission. Um welcome to our September eleventh, two thousand eighteen meeting. I want to personally extend an apology to everyone uh for the lateness of our start today. Um I know each and every one of you are taking time out of your evening to make your voice heard on a matter that's important to you. Um and we made you wait a half an hour at least. And so um thank you for being patient and I apologize personally for the delay we encountered. Um so first I want to start with um roll call. We have six of our six members here today. Um so we do in fact have quorum. The first thing we need we need to go through a couple housekeeping and technicalities before we can get to the substance of the agenda, so please do bear with us everyone. Um first and foremost, um there was some confusion as to whether this should be um considered a regular meeting or a special meeting. The public ethics commission meets on Monday evenings, um the first Monday of every given month. Um we are meeting because the first Monday of this month was Labor Day, we rescheduled to this evening the second Tuesday of the month. And so it there is a question as to whether this is a regular or special meeting. Substantively it makes zero difference. All of the items we're hearing today can be heard at a regular meeting or a special meeting. The notice provided was appropriate for a regular meeting or a special meeting. The only question is whether the word at the top of this piece of paper should say regular or special. Um it says regular, our councils advised us it should say special. Um that's the state of things. So I'd like to turn it over to our city attorney now to advise us as to whether what difference ultimately the fact that we have that wrong makes you a little bit. Since this was noticed as a regular meeting, it was given ten days in advance. So we have more than exceeded the special uh meeting notice requirement. And we are in substantial compliance with Brown and Sunshine, and we can proceed as a special meeting. Okay, thank you. So to reiterate, the first Monday of the month was Labor Day, the second Monday of the month was a city holiday, and here we are, the second Tuesday of the month. Um welcome to the PEC. Uh I I want to just start by saying we are um the Public Ethics Commission for a number of you.
openpublica.com