Oakland Public Ethics Commission Meeting – December 2, 2019
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Oakland Public Ethics Commission Meeting – December 2, 2019
The Oakland Public Ethics Commission (PEC) held its regular meeting on Monday, December 2, 2019, at 6:30 p.m. in Hearing Room 1 of City Hall. Chair Jodie Smith presided, with Commissioners James E.T. Jackson (Vice-Chair), Jill M. Butler, Gail Kong, Joseph Tuman, Nayeli Maxson Velázquez, and Jerett Yan (absent). Staff present included Executive Director Whitney Barazoto, Lead Analyst Suzanne Doran, Enforcement Chief Kellie Johnson, and Investigator Simon Russell. Deputy City Attorney Ravi Patel attended in place of Trish Hynes. The meeting covered five action items (including three stipulations and three mediation closures), a discussion on board/commission agenda compliance, subcommittee reports, and informational updates.
Consent Calendar
- Approval of Minutes (November 4, 2019): The minutes were approved unanimously (5-0, with Commissioner Butler abstaining as she was not present at the prior meeting). No public comment.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Open Forum (non-agendized items):
- Joanne Finney and Alexis Schroeder raised concerns about the Planning Department’s handling of small wireless facility applications. They alleged that the city’s ACELA database restricts public access to application documents (requiring credentials), that public records requests take far longer than the 10-day Sunshine Ordinance target, and that a director’s report (issued August 21, 2019) is not being implemented. They provided a handout showing an incomplete city form for a cell antenna at 399 Grand Avenue, suggesting potential errors in fee collection and missing information.
- Mark Howen, a high school student, spoke about inequities in park maintenance and public resources between wealthy and poor neighborhoods in Oakland, urging the Commission to consider how resource allocation affects communities.
- Ralph Cannes criticized the Planning Department for what he called a pattern of obstructing public records requests, including a three-year-old complaint filed with the PEC. He alleged that the department destroys emails and uses a credential system that violates the Public Records Act.
- During Action Item 5 (Shotspotter): Ralph Cannes commented that the contractor contribution ban (enacted after a 1998 grand jury report) only penalizes contractors, not the officials who solicit contributions, and noted the lack of a contractor database to help campaigns identify prohibited donors.
- During Action Item 8 (Mayor Schaff mediation): Ralph Cannes, the requester, stated that the Mayor’s office violated the Public Records Act, destroyed public records (Government Code § 6200), and possibly misused city resources for campaign purposes. He expressed hope that the separate formal complaint would still be investigated.
- During Action Item 9 (Planning Department mediation): Ralph Cannes urged the Commission to eliminate the mediation step for public records disputes, citing state-level rejection of mandatory mediation (SB 615).
Discussion Items
- Boards and Commissions Agenda Posting Compliance: Executive Director Whitney Barazoto presented a staff review. Initially, only 19 of the city’s 31 active boards and commissions were posting agendas online; after staff outreach and direct assistance, all 31 achieved compliance. The report identified three key issues: (1) high liaison turnover and lack of formal training; (2) liaisons’ desire for more support, including a manual; and (3) confusion over the city’s two agenda-posting systems (Granicus and the new website template). Recommendations included quarterly or semi-annual liaison trainings (currently annual), a comprehensive liaison manual, and consistent web-posting guidance. Commissioners supported following up with the City Administrator’s and Mayor’s offices to ensure sustained compliance.
- Subcommittee Reports:
- Limited Public Finance Policy Development (Commissioner Maxson Velázquez): Held a workshop with the ACLU and Alameda Labor Council; participants expressed newfound interest in campaign finance reform. The policy solution is being crafted independently by the Bay Area Political Equality Coalition.
- Partnerships (Commissioner Kong): No update.
- Commissioner Recruitment (Chair Smith): 14 applicants were interviewed for two PEC‑appointed vacancies opening January 2020; six finalists will be publicly interviewed at the January 6, 2020 meeting.
Key Outcomes
- Action Item 5 – Shotspotter, Inc. (Complaint No. 14‑29): The Commission approved a no‑contest stipulation with a $5,000 fine (joint and several) for violations of the Oakland Lobbyist Registration Act and Campaign Reform Act. The violations included unregistered lobbying by executives Ralph Clark and Joe Hawkins to renew and expand ShotSpotter’s contract in 2014–2015, and two $100 contributions to Councilmember Rebecca Kaplan’s ballot measure committee during the contractor contribution blackout period. Commissioner Jackson recused himself. Vote: 5 in favor, 1 abstention (Jackson). The fine incorporated aggravating factors (lack of transparency, pattern of conduct, willfulness) and mitigating factors (no prior record, full cooperation, some interactions were in response to councilmember requests).
- Action Item 6 – Jumoke Hinton Hodge (Complaint No. 17‑07): Approved a streamlined stipulation with a $500 fine for failure to file a 2016 semi‑annual campaign statement. Staff had provided extensive assistance before enforcement. Vote: 6‑0.
- Action Item 7 – Joseph Betesh (Complaint No. 19‑07): Approved a streamlined stipulation with a $2,000 fine for failure to file a major donor committee statement in 2018 (over $79,000 in expenditures related to Measure AA). Staff noted the respondent left town for months despite promised filings. Vote: 6‑0.
- Action Item 8 – Mediation: Mayor Libby Schaff (Case No. M2019‑02): The Commission closed the mediation without further action. The requester sought actual copies of Nextdoor posts (endorsements posted by the Mayor’s office during the 2018 election) but received only a spreadsheet; staff learned the posts were deleted by the Mayor’s Director of Communication and could not be retrieved. Commissioners expressed concern about the underlying ethics issues but acknowledged the mediation’s limited scope. Vote: 6‑0.
- Action Item 9 – Mediation: Housing and Community Development Department (M2019‑06): Closed without further action after the department released all responsive documents related to a property at 2451 Ivy Drive. Vote: 6‑0.
- Action Item 10 – Mediation: Councilmember Dan Kalb and Department of Transportation (M2019‑11): Closed without further action after all documents (regarding the “Worst Streets Program” paving priorities) were released. Staff noted that the requester’s office had appropriately redirected the request to the cognizant department. Vote: 6‑0.
Meeting Transcript
Good evening. It's 6:30, and the December meeting of the Oakland Public Ethics Commission is has come to order. We have five commissioners present this evening. Commissioner Yan is absent, and Commissioner Maxon Velasquez will be joining us shortly. Are there any staff or commission announcements to begin this evening? Commissioners. Staff. Then our next item is open forum. An open forum is a time for members of the public to speak on items that are not on our agenda this evening. Commissioners cannot discuss the substance of any comments made during open forum. And that is not because we're not interested in what you uh have to say, but it's because it's not agendized, and we um are are not permitted to to have substantive discussion on items that are not on our agenda. Um but we do hear what you have to say. Um and thank you for for coming to speak. If you are here to speak on an item that is on the agenda tonight, please wait, and when that item is called, I will open up public comment at at that time on that item. I'd also like to clarify briefly how we handle public comment at the public ethics commission. And this applies to both the open forum period and then later during discussion for for each item. Um so the public the purpose of public comment is for us as a commission to hear from you as the members of the public. It is not a time for commissioners to uh to talk or to answer questions or to have dialogue. But it is a time for us to listen, to listen to you. So if you speak during uh one of the public comment periods, um a commissioner may ask a brief clarifying question of you. Um for example, how did you learn about this problem or some clarifying question about it? Any document that you may have brought with you. Um, but it is not otherwise a time for the commissioners to talk or answer questions. Um however, after the close of each public comment session uh session, we may address questions or concerns that have been raised by the public at at any prior point um in the evening's meeting. So I may ask the city attorney to clarify an issue that has been raised. Um a commissioner may address some of the the questions in a in a general manner. I may ask staff to um clarify a pr uh policy or procedure of the commission. Um or I may also ask you to give uh staff your follow-up, uh your content information if follow-up would be um would be helpful. However, once each public comment period is closed, it remains closed until I have opened it again for the next agenda item when you will then have a chance to speak. So this evening I do have two cards for open forum. If you would line up at the mic here, you'll have three minutes, and uh Commissioner Jackson is our timekeeper. I have a card for Joanna Finney and Alexis Schroeder. And if there is anyone else to speak in public in the open forum, if you'll just line up behind them behind the rail. Thank you very much. Thank you. Good evening. I am Johanna Finney. I, along with other Oakland residents, have found a conflict in public transparency. The planning department implemented a director's report on August 21st of this year, which gave guidelines for small wireless facilities applications in the public right away. At least three conflicts have appeared that we want to make the public ethics commissions aware commissioners aware of. Please allow me to share them now. First, the website managed by the city called ACELA contains the information regarding applications to the planning department, including those for cell antennas. As part of the public transparency component of the director's report, the public was to have access to the applicant's filings, including applications, maps, photo simulations, proof of community outreach, radio frequency emission reports, as well as a compliance checklist. In our research, many of these components are not available for review or uploaded to the database. A member of the community wrote to the Isella group and asked how one could get access to those documents which were restricted. She was told to get credentialed. This process requires you to submit your personal information, and you need to be a property owner or a building contractor. Then you are verified after submitting paperwork to validate your identity. The public should not have to register themselves in order to have access to these public records. I went to the planning department and after waiting over two hours to speak to a planner, was told that these records were only available via public records request.
openpublica.com