The Oakland Public Ethics Commission (PEC) held its regular meeting on Monday, December 3, 2018, from 6:30 p.m. to 7:33 p.m. in Hearing Room 1 at City Hall. All seven commissioners were present. The meeting covered campaign finance compliance follow-up, the Limited Public Financing Program, subcommittee reports, and routine informational updates.
Campaign Finance Compliance for the November 2018 Election – Follow‑Up Report: Staff (Investigator Simon Russell) presented a follow‑up to the October compliance report. Due to a clerical error, one contributor—Michael Stephens—was omitted from the original list. Stephens made two $800 contributions to the Libby Schaaf for Mayor 2018 committee ($1,600 total, exceeding the $800 individual limit). The committee voluntarily forfeited the $800 overage to the City’s general fund. Mitigating factors included timely and accurate reporting by the committee and no evidence of intent to conceal. The Commission approved a motion to send a warning letter to Mr. Stephens (motion passed 6-0).
Limited Public Financing (LPF) Program Implementation 2018: Staff provided an overview of the program for the November 2018 election. Key statistics: total available funds $183,459; 12 of 15 certified City Council candidates opted in; 10 candidates ultimately received reimbursements totaling $176,489 (96% of funds). The two‑phase distribution process allowed redistribution of funds from ineligible candidates, increasing each eligible candidate’s maximum from $15,288 to $18,345. Demographic data was collected for the first time: 5 male, 5 female participants; ethnicity and income breakdowns were presented. Commissioner Kong asked about a candidate who dropped out after receiving funds—staff noted funds are reimbursements for actual expenditures, and leftover funds are returned proportionally.
Subcommittee Reports:
Disclosure Program: Lead Analyst Suzanne Doran presented the report. Highlights: All 56 pre‑election campaign statements were filed on time; 66 late contribution reports and 51 late independent expenditure reports were reviewed, with $1,030 in late fees assessed. Lobbyist disclosure: 43 Q3 reports filed, $392,380 in economic consideration reported ($1,610,298 for the year). Top two clients: Harborside ($270,000) and Airbnb ($150,000). Greater reporting standardization is needed. Open Disclosure (opendisclosure.io) saw 1,833 users generating 3,010 sessions from Sept 1 to Nov 6; pageviews increased 40% over 2016. Commissioners discussed the difficulty of accessing lobbyist data (PDF only) and the need for e‑filing to enable better transparency.
Education and Engagement Program: Report noted 388 advice requests in 2018 (vs. 251 in 2017), LPF administration, and ongoing ethics training for new employees (35 trained Nov 20). Commissioners asked about tracking of mandatory ethics training for all city officials and staff; challenges remain in integrating with city HR systems.
Enforcement Program: Report listed status changes: several cases (involving Brooks, Schaaf, Guillen) closed with disgorgement letters and warning letters. A dismissal letter for Case No. 17‑17 (complaint against Councilmember Gibson McElhaney and City Attorney Parker) was attached, but Chair Stein announced that this case has been re‑opened for further review. Commissioner Crowfoot requested reinstatement of bar‑chart updates showing caseload trends.
Executive Director’s Report: The Commission accepted the report. Chair Stein thanked outgoing Deputy Director/Enforcement Chief Milad Dalju (resigned Nov 6) and noted that recruitment for his replacement is open with a Dec 21 deadline.
All right, good evening, everyone. Um welcome to the December 3rd regular meeting of the Oakland Public Ethics Commission. Thank you for joining us this evening. Thank you to my fellow commissioners for being here. Um we do have all seven of our commissioners, which means we have quorum and we can get started. Um the first order of business is um staff and commission announcements, and the first thing I'll say is a welcome to Commissioner Butler. Thank you for um both your interest in the commission, but also I mean, we are just so thrilled to have you here and to have all of your expertise and your future contributions. So welcome. Um and uh we also have an announcement pertaining to staff, which is that Whitney Barzotto, our director is not able to join join us this evening for family reasons. Um, but we'll we'll manage through as best we can without her. Um are there any staff announcements, Suzanne? Or no? Okay. All right. Um any public comment on the staff and commission commission announcements. Okay. Um we'll move next to open forum. Open forum is an opportunity for members of the public to address the commission on matters that are not agendized for tonight. Uh because they are not agendized, we are not able to substantively respond. But we do create this space for members of the public to address us. Are there any comments in open forum? Mr. Gans. Good evening, Commissioner Members. Ralph Cannes. Um I'm here to submit my complaint for the public records act matter that you dismissed last month as a mediation item. Here's the complaint. It's the same complaint I've filed on September 6th, 20 September 5th, 2016. And it hasn't been investigated yet. And this staff sat on it for two years after they did mediation. Something is wrong with the system. It does not work properly. The whole system, the way it's currently set up for public records disclosures, is it's it's not right. The way the mediation fits with the complaint process uh needs to be cleaned up. And I don't think the website even explains that clearly and makes it and you should have if it's a public records act issue, here's your here's your request for mediation. When that's not done, then you file the complaint. But it shouldn't have to wait two years to come back to the commission, and the commission say, oh no, we're not gonna go any for the any forward. The the staff can do that. The staff can just say mediation didn't work. We're going to complain. The commission doesn't even need to be involved in that. And answer Commissioner Jackson's question from last month regarding there being no uh copy of the conditions of approval signed by the uh applicant for that particular project. He asks the question, is it a requirement? It absolutely is a requirement because one of the standard conditions of approval is an indemnification of the city for anything related to the project. So if an applicant does not sign conditions of approval, they can't legally go forward with the project. And to further add to it, I've seen a copy of signed conditions of approval signed by the city. And the planning department might know, but I know where there's copies of them. So the whole process needs to be looked at. You need to look at the public records act sunshine ordinance and how it all fits in with your complaint procedures, because last month basically what happened. It ain't right.