Oakland Public Ethics Commission Regular Meeting – November 5, 2018
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Oakland Public Ethics Commission Regular Meeting – November 5, 2018
The Oakland Public Ethics Commission held its regular meeting on Monday, November 5, 2018, at 6:30 PM in Hearing Room 1 of City Hall. Commissioners present included Jonathan Stein (Chair), Jodie Smith (Vice-Chair), Lisa Crowfoot, James E.T. Jackson, Gail Kong, and Krisida Nishioka. Staff included Executive Director Whitney Barazoto, Deputy Director/Chief of Enforcement Milad Dalju, Lead Analyst Suzanne Doran, and Investigator Simon Russell.
Consent Calendar
- Approval of Minutes: The Commission approved the draft minutes from the October 1, 2018 regular meeting.
Public Comments & Testimony
- No public comments were recorded in the agenda materials.
Discussion Items
1. Campaign Finance Compliance for the 2018 Election
Commission staff presented findings from a proactive review of all candidate committees. A total of 5,406 contributions were reviewed, with roughly 25 instances of over‑limit contributions that were proactively corrected by candidates through refunds. Staff recommended closing several specific matters:
- Sheilagh Polk “Cat Brooks” for Mayor 2018 (PEC No. 18‑20): Recommended closure with a forfeiture letter for an excess contribution that was refunded.
- Desley Brooks for City Council 2018 (PEC No. 18‑27): A $1,600 contribution from LT Liquors was explained as co‑owner funds; staff recommended closure.
- Libby Schaaf for Mayor 2018 (PEC No. 18‑22): Staff identified additional overages, including a contribution from Terrence McGrath, and recommended closure with a forfeiture letter.
- Pamela Price for Mayor 2018 (PEC No. 18‑33): A $2,500 loan from Ida B. Wells, LLC was deemed a candidate’s own contribution (no limit); staff recommended dismissal.
Staff also noted that the proactive compliance review and associated complaints were handled to ensure timely correction before the November election.
2. Investigation – Rich Fielding (Case No. 16-11)
Staff presented an investigation summary regarding allegations that Mr. Fielding, a Principal Inspection Supervisor, misused City resources by sending a letter to PG&E incorrectly identifying a property as vacant. The investigation found no evidence of a violation because the letter was never sent to PG&E and was drafted pursuant to department policy. Staff recommended closure without further action.
3. Investigation – Thomas Espinosa (Case No. 16-14)
Staff presented a comprehensive investigation report finding probable cause that Mr. Espinosa, a former building inspector, committed 47 violations of the Oakland Government Ethics Act. Violations included:
- Soliciting and receiving bribes (e.g., $300 from property owner Ms. Williams for passing inspections).
- Making governmental decisions with disqualifying financial interests (e.g., closing code enforcement cases for properties where he had received income).
- Misusing City resources (e.g., using a City vehicle, computer, and cell phone for personal matters).
- Failing to disclose financial interests (e.g., not reporting $176,179 income from Ms. Williams).
The potential administrative penalties total up to $1,151,737. Staff recommended that the Commission refer the matter for an administrative hearing before a three‑member panel of the Commission.
4. Mediation Summary – Oakland Planning and Building Department (Case No. 16-22M)
Staff reported that a complaint about failure to disclose records was mediated. The Department provided additional records and the complainant was informed that the specific requested document (signed Conditions of Approval) never existed. Staff recommended closure.
5. Mediation Summary – City of Oakland (Case No. 17-14M)
A complaint regarding a public records request to the City Clerk and Councilmembers was mediated. The City provided additional records, and the complainant subsequently requested closure of the mediation. Staff recommended closure.
6. Revised Enforcement Penalty Guidelines
The Subcommittee on Penalty Guidelines presented revised guidelines that establish a framework for warning letters, streamlined stipulations, and mainline penalties. The guidelines categorize violations (e.g., late filings, contribution limits) and provide base fine amounts adjusted for mitigating/aggravating factors. The Commission reviewed the guidelines for potential adoption.
7. 2019 Regular Meeting Schedule
Staff proposed a schedule of regular meetings for 2019, including dates in October, November, and December. The Commission discussed and accepted the schedule.
8. Disclosure Program Update
Lead Analyst Suzanne Doran reported that Open Disclosure (opendisclosure.io) received 12,252 pageviews between September 1 and October 25, 2018 – a 60% increase over 2016. Staff reviewed over 119 campaign statements, 203 late contribution reports, and 104 late independent expenditure reports. Ten filings required amendments, with eight committees coming into compliance.
9. Education and Outreach Update
Ethics Analyst Jelani Killings reported that staff had responded to 374 advice requests in 2018 (up from 251 in 2017). The Limited Public Financing (LPF) program provided funds to District City Council candidates; one candidate (Charlie Michelson) withdrew, leaving $3,057 to be returned to the election fund. Staff also trained 23 new City employees on the Government Ethics Act.
10. Enforcement Program Update
Deputy Director Milad Dalju provided an update on active cases, including the Fielding and Espinosa investigations, the two mediations, and several campaign finance complaints. Staff continues to prioritize cases based on penalty authority, impact, public interest, and resources.
11. Executive Director’s Report
Executive Director Whitney Barazoto highlighted the Commission’s comprehensive election‑related work, including providing public funds, supporting compliance, and quickly investigating campaign finance violations. She commended the enforcement team for completing seven contribution limit cases and the significant Espinosa investigation.
Key Outcomes
- Approved: October 1, 2018 meeting minutes; 2019 regular meeting schedule; enforcement penalty guidelines (likely approved, though vote not recorded in provided materials).
- Accepted Staff Recommendations: Closure of Fielding case (16-11), both mediations (16-22M, 17-14M), and several campaign finance matters (18-20, 18-27, 18-22, 18-33).
- Referred to Administrative Hearing: The Espinosa matter (16-14) was referred for an administrative hearing before a three‑member panel, with potential penalties up to $1,151,737.
- Ongoing: The Commission continues to recruit for upcoming vacancies and will work with the City Council on a ticket policy resolution.
Meeting Transcript
Okay. Welcome everyone to the uh November 5th regular commission meeting of the Oakland Public Ethics Commission. Thank you all for being here. Um we appreciate your interest in our work as always. Uh so we'll start with roll call and the determination of quorum. We have um all six of our current six sitting members here with us today, so we do have roll call. Um we move next to staff and commission announcements. Um do we have any staff announcements? Good evening, Whitney Barrizotto, executive director. Um I did want to announce that we received 13 applications for our PEC appointed commissioner position. Um and since our last meeting, Chair Stein has appointed a subcommittee of Lisa Crowfoot, Jonathan Stein, and Chrisita Nishioka. So um those three commissioners will be interviewing applicants uh at the end of this week and the end of next week. And then we'll be bringing, hopefully bringing nominees forward at the December meeting. Um I'm also happy to report that the city attorney appointed a member as well. Um I'm not gonna announce uh that person's name because they're here observing tonight, and then the official appointment will be made uh later, probably tomorrow. Uh so we'll have that uh coming forward in the future, and she'll be coming to our next meeting. That's all I have. Thank you very much. Umnouncements, um, just one housekeeping matter. We have um a large turnout today, and we have a very full agenda. Um and we have a number of public speakers, so we're gonna limit public speaking today to public comment, each public comment to four minutes. Um, of course, if you're speaking on multiple items, you have four minutes on each item. Um are there other commissioner announcements at this time? Any public comment on the staff and commission announcements before we move to public forum. Oh, I'm sorry. Do we are we out of agendas? Okay, thanks for your patience. Okay, um we'll move to open forum. Open forum is an opportunity for members of the public to address the commission on matters that are not on tonight's agenda. Um because they are not agendized, we are not able to substantially respond um to public comment, but we do want to make room for um the the public to come forward. Um we have one speaker already um who submitted a speaker's card. Um Miss Olubala, please. Uh I need to address you. I haven't addressed you since the last time I was here and was thoroughly insulted by the way you handle my case. I find it inappropriate that you allowed the violation of the Brown Act, and you subsequently sent me a letter where there was no time, no place, no procedurally explaining how the hearing would take place. I had to call to find out what time the meeting was and where it was going to be held. Once I got here, you had no evidence to support an investigation. The investigation took a year and a half for a simple thing like the Brown Act. You allowed, you told me you could not proceed to engage in rules of procedure as my evidence of how a violation took place, but you allowed Barbara Parker to write a letter in which she indicated rules of procedure items, and you never indicated that her letter had rules of procedure and you couldn't deal with it. There's no such thing. And it was no documentation. You up you alluded to a case that Barbara Parker found. And in the case, it said that an individual could not speak to an agenda item for which they were trying to deal with the item. You you had no evidence to support what my intent was in trying to speak to the item because I never got a chance to speak. Barbara Parker was trying to say what my intent was in speaking to the item. No one can define my intent because I never spoke to the item. On a regular basis, every Thursday, we deal with rules committee, which is a scheduling component of this body known as the City Council. Scheduling is always dealt with with the public engaging in that scheduling. So you would defunk. And somebody said, Oh, I read the uh the uh the lawsuit of something that happened in some case in 2008.
openpublica.com