The Oakland Public Ethics Commission (PEC) held its regular meeting on Monday, February 4, 2019, at 6:30 p.m. in Hearing Room 1 of City Hall, Oakland. The meeting included action on a new mediation request form, approval of an ethics resource guide, discussion of subcommittee assignments and commission priorities, and informational reports on campaign finance limits, disclosure, education, enforcement, and executive director activities. Public speakers raised concerns about the City Council's certification of Measure AA, the pace of Sunshine Ordinance mediations, and the need for greater transparency and enforcement.
Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the February meeting of the Oakland Public Ethics Commission. Seeing that we have more than a quorum of four commissioners, I call the meeting to order. As a first comment, I would like to welcome our newest commission member, Naeli Maxon, to her first meeting sitting as a commissioner. Welcome. Are there any staff and commission announcements from any of the staff or other commissioners? Also, I know that that some people say for the whole agenda and some don't. So I wanted to raise something now that we as commissioners will have a chance to discuss during the discussion items of the agenda, but to note it as an announcement here. We also hear that you want us to work um more quickly, more deeply, more thoroughly. Um and so um many of you may also be aware that it is also budget season in the city, and I wanted to note that the commission is requesting two new staff positions as within the was in the executive director's report at the last meeting as well as this one. Um but the budget that the commission is submitting to the mayor's office uh this month has two new positions. One is a request for a staff person to do complex investigations, uh the second staff person is to do a combination of advice, disclosure, and policy work. Um we are doing this because we hear the public and we want to address a lot of the concerns that have been voiced about the speed and uh breadth of the the investigations and and uh and um public education work. So uh just as a broader issue at the five-year mark from the ballot measure this year, um, we as a commission will be reflecting on um how we are doing as a city in terms of the ethical culture in the city, and uh any ways that we may need to pivot as a commission and so in support of that greater goal. And we welcome your input throughout this year to that end. No other commissioner announcements at this time. Okay, proceeding to item number three, which is open forum. So open forum is a time for a member of the public to comment on any item that is not agendized tonight. And because the item that you would speak on in open forum is not agendized, thus the commission cannot substantively uh talk about it, cannot deliberate on it. And that's not because we're not interested. It's simply because it's not on our agenda, and so we we can't address it. But we do hear you, we hear what you have to say, and uh we often take that as um information that informs our future agendas so that we can discuss the items that get raised in open forum. If you wish to speak tonight on an item that is on the agenda, then please wait until that item is called and I will open the floor for public comment on each item as we go through the evening also. Each speaker will have three minutes to speak. Is there any public comment for open forum this evening? Thank you for the record, Gene has it. Uh and happy new year. Uh with regards to some recent activity that occurred at the city council meeting in December related to measure double A. I don't know if you are aware right now there has been an official lawsuit because the council in December voted to certify not the election results as were given by the county voter a registrar, which indicated that measure AA had lost because it did not receive sufficient enough uh uh voter participation, two-thirds in order for it to pass. The council, in its own, if it no finite wisdom, decided to only certify that a majority, it didn't say it pass, it didn't say it failed. They certified, which was really uncharacteristic of an action, particularly as it relates to uh voter participation to up in what the voters had approved. And that means that measure AA, which was championed by the mayor. Um educational funds. And it would impose had it passed, uh would it impose 195 partial tax? So for some reason or another, they came up after the voting results were in, showed that it lost, and then they've turned around and done what you what is currently uh happening, which is now resulted in a lawsuit, and I said it then it would result in a lawsuit. Uh you cannot deny the will of the voter. They had ample enough time to uh they said it was 50 percent should have been uh a simple majority, but I think this is a measure uh uh uh that the body, the public ethics need to take under uh future consideration. Can an elected body up in the will of the voter? And so this is I'm bringing this to your attention for uh uh hopefully immediate uh uh consideration. Uh hopefully the city turns around and not uh pursue this lawsuit and come to some uh wisdom that they were wrong in this pursuit regardless because they had ample time prior to because they gathered signatures in order for this measure to qualify for the ballot. It was ostensibly uh sponsored by the mayor and uh uh assembly member Bonta. So I just want to bring that to your attention for something to be considered. Thank you, Mr. Hazard. Any other public comment? Love life. The same concern. I don't understand how the city council had any right or authority to up in the will of the voters. Barbara Parker participating and identifying through uh literature that was made available to the voters, the procedure for parcel tax always had a need for two-thirds voter approval. And for this process to be the way it is happening now, and on December the 4th, in attending the meeting of the council, there was no public notice that they were going to proceed to do what they did in certifying a vote that had already been identified through many sources, including the uh the county of Alameda, that this measure had failed.