Oakland Public Ethics Commission Regular Meeting - August 5, 2019
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Oakland Public Ethics Commission Regular Meeting - August 5, 2019
The meeting was called to order at 6:32 p.m. with Commissioners Jodie Smith (Chair), James E.T. Jackson (Vice-Chair), Jill Butler, Gail Kong, Nayeli Maxson, and Jerett Yan present. The meeting covered approval of minutes, a stipulation for a campaign contribution limit violation, closure of a mediation case, and information reports. The meeting adjourned at an undisclosed time after 8:44 p.m.
Consent Calendar
- Approval of June 3, 2019 Minutes: Approved 5-0. Commissioner Jackson abstained as he was not present at the May meeting. A typo on page four was corrected.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Open Forum: Gene Hazard criticized the practice of dismissing complaints when information is not forthcoming. Love Life (Ms. Olegbala) expressed concerns about misrepresentation of ballot measures and the commission's independence. Ralph Kates complained about delays in public records requests and questioned the mediation requirement.
- Item 4 (Lobbyist Disclosure): Love Life and Ralph Kates spoke, with Kates raising a three-year-old complaint about solicitation of campaign contributions not being disclosed.
- Item 6 (Schaaf Stipulation): Gene Hazard urged the commission not to approve the stipulation without knowing the treasurer from the 2014 case. Love Life argued the mayor's office was not present and the investigation was incomplete. Ralph Kates alleged the 2014 campaign knew of illegal contributions before the election and did not return them.
- Item 7 (Mediation M2019-01): Requester Marlene Sachs provided detailed testimony, alleging the Mayor's office withheld records related to Measure AA polling and consultants. She urged the commission to open an enforcement investigation, noting the mayor's office refused to participate in mediation.
- Item 10 (Enforcement Report): Gene Hazard questioned the dismissal of his complaint about a special meeting, citing a Brown Act limitation on salary discussions. He requested further review.
- Item 11 (Executive Director Report): Love Life asked about annual reports and the timeliness of complaint resolution.
Discussion Items
- Item 4: Guest Presentation – Survey of Lobbyist Disclosure Requirements: Intern Casey Petersen presented research on lobbyist filing practices in other cities, highlighting gaps in Oakland's electronic filing and public data access. Commissioners discussed the benefits of e-filing and the IT department's approval of a pilot system.
- Item 6: Stipulation – In the Matter of Libby Schaaf For Mayor 2018 (Case 18-19.1): Enforcement Chief Kellie Johnson presented the stipulation, recommending a $2,400 forfeiture and a $600 fine for receiving $2,400 in excess contributions from 11 West Partners and affiliates. The violation was the second aggregation issue for the Schaaf campaign. Commissioners debated the fine amount, noting mitigating factors but also the repeated nature. Commissioner Jackson moved to accept the stipulation with a modified fine of $1,000 (the baseline penalty). The motion passed unanimously (5-0), with the matter to return for final approval after party feedback.
- Item 7: Mediation – In the Matter of the Office of Mayor Libby Schaaf (Case M2019-01): Staff recommended closing the mediation without further action and referring the remaining Government Ethics Act complaint to Enforcement. The requester had requested closure due to the mayor's office's non-cooperation. Commissioner Yan abstained due to a potential conflict of interest (his firm representing the city in Measure AA litigation). The motion passed 4-0-1.
- Item 8: Subcommittee Reports: Commissioner Maxson reported on the Limited Public Finance Policy Development Subcommittee, noting that the public campaign finance reform may move forward via ballot initiative. Chair Smith reported on the Partnerships Subcommittee, with Commissioner Kong to provide an update at the next meeting.
- Item 9: Education and Engagement Report: Lead Analyst Suzanne Doran reported on new features: a subscription alert for disclosure filings (www.opendisclosure.io) and progress on a lobbyist e-filing system with a pilot expected in January 2020. She also mentioned an advisory on social media use for city employees.
- Item 10: Enforcement Program Report: Enforcement Chief Johnson reported that since June 3, 2019, one formal complaint and three mediation requests were received. The total caseload is 50 pending matters, with 26 cases closed this year. She noted the commission received a $100,000 one-time allocation for election-related expenses in FY2020-21.
- Item 11: Executive Director’s Report: Executive Director Whitney Barazoto highlighted the FY2019-20 budget of $1.16 million, a pending mayoral appointment of Joe Tuman to fill a vacancy, and the filing of performance appraisals. She also noted the commission's ability to expand its authority through future ballot measures.
Key Outcomes
- Approved June 3, 2019 minutes with a typo correction.
- Accepted stipulation in the Schaaf campaign case with a modified fine of $1,000 (instead of $600), plus forfeiture of $2,400. The matter will return for final approval after the respondent is notified.
- Closed mediation Case M2019-01 without further action, and referred the remaining Government Ethics Act complaint to Enforcement for preliminary review.
- Noted progress on the lobbyist e-filing system and public data portal, with a pilot expected in early 2020.
- Reported that the commission has 50 pending enforcement cases with one investigator, and 26 cases have been closed so far in 2019.
Meeting Transcript
Good evening. It is six thirty-two, and the meeting of the Oakland Public Ethics Commission is called to order. Seeing that we have a quorum of five commissioners, we call them call the meeting to order. Good evening, everyone. Thank you for being here and for your interest in how the government of the city of Oakland runs. We appreciate your time and your uh your attention uh the this evening and for the comments that that you may want to offer during our meeting tonight. Um we will take any staff and commission announcements to begin. There are any from commissioners? Any from staff? Okay. So commissioners cannot discuss the substance of any comments that are made during open forum. And that's not because we're not interested, but it's precisely because they're not on tonight's agenda that we can't discuss them. However, we can and we do hear what you have to say in open forum, and thank you in advance for any comments you would want to offer. If you do want to speak on an item that is on our agenda tonight, please wait until I call that item and you will have an opportunity to speak at that time. I also want to clarify how we handle public comment, uh, both during open forum and during public comment on each agenda item later in the agenda. So that everyone is confident that they will have an opportunity to speak and knows what to expect. The purpose of public comment is for us to hear from you. It is not a time for commissioners to talk or to answer questions or to have dialogue. It is a time for us to listen. So if you speak during public comment, commissioners may ask you a clarifying question about something that you have said, but otherwise public comment is not a time when commissioners will uh will speak or answer questions. However, after the close of each public comment period, we may address questions or concerns that are raised during that comment period. So I may ask the city attorney for information or to um to address an issue that was raised. I may ask staff to explain procedures, or I may ask you to give staff your information if you there's something that you would like follow up about. Um, once each public comment period has closed, it remains closed until the next agenda item is called up, and then you'll have an opportunity to speak again. If there is anyone that would like to be heard during open forum tonight, I invite you to line up. I have a couple of speaker cards already for open forum. But if you if anyone else has not given a speaker card, if you would go ahead and make your way to the mic, we have um Mrs. Olegbala, Ms. Olegbala, and Mr. Hazard. Okay, Mr. And you will have three three minutes, and our Vice Chair Jackson will be keeping time tonight. For the record Jean has it. You know, although there's an item that's being addressed on the agenda this evening, but I want to speak in a more general term in terms of the practice of the enforcement chief to dismiss items when information is not forthcoming. If there's been a complaint that's been submitted by the public regarding a particular uh activity of a particular individual, for the enforcement chief to summarily dismiss it because those individuals who were supposed to give the information are not forthcoming. So to close an item up on a complaint that's filed from the public, I don't understand that. Because the legitimacy in the in asking for the information, then you need to be looking at your procedures and actually penalties associated with those individuals who are not forthcoming with the with that information. Because that information is relevant to the complaint that's been submitted by the complaint. So I don't I don't quite understand. Is that in your I know it's not in your policies? It may be in your practice, but it's not your policy. And if it is in your policy, then you need to let the public know that. But I don't believe there's a policy that speaks to when information is not forthcoming and no reflection on the enforcement chief, but you need to find some other method, even if you have to file legal action to get that in the courts. That's what I would say, but to dismiss it as though it has no merit at all, uh is wrong. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Aligbala. Uh love life. Remember the red summer of 1919.
openpublica.com