Oakland Public Ethics Commission Regular Meeting - February 3, 2020
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Oakland Public Ethics Commission Regular Meeting - February 3, 2020
The Oakland Public Ethics Commission (PEC) held its regular meeting on Monday, February 3, 2020, at 6:30 p.m. in Hearing Room 1 at City Hall. The meeting included approval of past minutes, adoption of the 2020 Oakland Campaign Reform Act Guide, amendments to the PEC’s enabling ordinance, and informational updates on campaign finance limits, disclosure and engagement, enforcement, and the Executive Director’s report. Commissioners also heard public comments on ethics and transparency concerns.
Consent Calendar
- January 6, 2020 Regular Meeting Minutes: Approved 4-0-2 (Commissioners Yan and MacDonald abstained as they were not present).
- January 17, 2020 Special Meeting Minutes: Tabled to the next meeting because a quorum of commissioners who attended that meeting was not present.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Open Forum: Two speakers addressed the commission. The first speaker (Ms. Olabala) raised concerns about a private investigation of a police commissioner costing $50,000 and alleged Brown Act violations by the City Council regarding closed session votes. The second speaker (Mr. Hazard) echoed those concerns and urged the commission to investigate the use of city resources for investigations of volunteers.
- On the Oakland Campaign Reform Act Guide: A public commenter questioned the advisory nature of the guide and the cost-of-living adjustment methodology. Another commenter argued the commission focuses too narrowly on campaign finance and neglects broader ethics enforcement as required by Charter Section 603.
- On the PEC Ordinance Amendments: A commenter (Mr. Hazard) noted that outgoing commissioners should not vote on new officers, referencing past practice. Another commenter questioned the commission’s independence given appointment and removal powers by the City Council.
- On Enforcement Report: Mr. Hazard disputed the dismissal of his complaint (Case 19-19) against the City Council regarding Oakland Promise funding, asserting the complaint targeted the Mayor and Oakland Promise, not the Council. He cited a letter from the California Attorney General stating Oakland Promise never filed for 501(c)(3) status.
- Other public comments: Additional speakers addressed aggregation of contributions (related to law firm reimbursements) and the need for broader ethics oversight.
Discussion Items
- Oakland Campaign Reform Act Guide (Action): Executive Director Whitney Barazoto presented the 2020 guide with minor edits, including updating contribution limits from $800 to $900 (CPI adjustment), adding a new section on solicited contributions by City staff, and changing terminology from "expenditure ceilings" to "spending limits" for clarity. The guide is advisory but bound by the ordinance. Commissioners approved the guide with the proposed edits.
- Proposed Amendments to PEC Ordinance (Action): Staff presented draft amendments to align Chapter 2.25 with the 2014 City Charter changes and to codify administrative enforcement and collections procedures. Commissioners discussed whether to change "rules" to "policies" in Section C and whether to strike Section 2.24.040(A) on election of chair and vice-chair, leaving that to operational policies. After debate, the commission agreed to strike the election language and replace "rules" with "policies" throughout. The ordinance was approved with these changes.
- Reports on Subcommittees: The only active subcommittee (Limited Public Finance Policy Development) was not reported because its chair (Commissioner Maxson Velázquez) was absent.
Information Items
- OCRA Contribution Limit and Expenditure Ceiling Adjustment for 2020: Staff published the annual CPI-adjusted limits (e.g., individual contribution limit for candidates accepting spending limits rose to $900). This was informational; no vote taken.
- Disclosure and Engagement: Lead Analyst Suzanne Doran reported on campaign finance filing deadlines, lobbyist registration, e-filing system development (OakApps portal), and board/commission ethics training. She noted over 100 attendees at recent trainings and progress on the opendisclosure.io website for the 2020 elections.
- Enforcement Program: Enforcement Chief Kellie Johnson updated the caseload (51 cases) and highlighted faster case processing. Specific discussion focused on Case 19-19 (Oakland Promise complaint against City Council), which was dismissed as to the Council members but an ongoing investigation against Mayor Schaff regarding allocation of public resources and use of city property was noted.
- Executive Director’s Report: Whitney Barazoto introduced new intern Ryan Sim and noted a presentation to the Alameda County Grand Jury Association.
Key Outcomes
- Approved the January 6, 2020 regular meeting minutes (4-0-2).
- Tabled the January 17, 2020 special meeting minutes to next meeting.
- Approved the 2020 Oakland Campaign Reform Act Guide with staff edits (unanimous).
- Approved the proposed amendments to PEC Ordinance Chapter 2.25, including: (1) striking Section 2.24.040(A) on chair/vice-chair election, (2) replacing "rules" with "policies" in Section 2.24.020(C), (3) adding "before or after an administrative hearing" to complaint procedures, and (4) adding "including the commission" to sections on remedies and judicial review (unanimous).
- No vote on informational items; the Commission took no further action on subcommittee reports.
- Ongoing investigation into Mayor Schaff (Case 19-19 related) was confirmed.
Meeting Transcript
Good evening. It's six thirty-two, and we will begin our meeting. Calling the role, Commissioner Jan, McDonald, Ramachandran, Butler, and Tuminer, as well as Jackson are present, and so we have established a quorum. Are there any staff commission staff or commission announcements? Okay. I will just formally welcome our two newest commissioners, um, Commissioner McDonald and Commissioner Ramachandran. Thank you for being here. Very good. I'm gonna continue with the tradition that was started by a last chair by reading a statement regarding open forum, and so if you will indulge me for just a moment. Open forum is a time for members of the public to comment on any matter within the jurisdiction of the PEC that is not on tonight's agenda. Commissioners cannot discuss the substance of any comments made during open forum, and it's not because we're not interested, but because the item isn't on tonight's agenda. However, we can hear what you have to say. If you wish to speak on an item that is on our agenda tonight, please wait until the item is called. And I will open the floor for public comment on each item. I also want to clarify how we handle public comment, both during open forum and during public comment periods later on the agenda, so that everyone is confident, they'll have a chance to be heard and know what to expect. The purpose of public comment is for us to hear from you. It is not a time for commissioners to talk, answer questions, or have dialogue. It is a time for us to listen. If you speak during public comment, commissioners may ask you a brief clarifying question, such as, how did you learn about this problem? What is the source of this document you've handed to us? But otherwise, public comment is not a time for commissioners to talk or to answer questions. However, after the close of each public comment period, we may address questions or concerns that you have raised. However, once each public comment period is closed, it remains closed until public comment is reopened on the next agenda item when you will have the chance to speak during public comment. If there is anyone who would like to be heard during open forum tonight, I invite you to line up at the mic. Tonight, each speaker will have three minutes. Commissioner Yan is going to be keeping the time, so if you hear the alarm beep, you'll know that it's been three minutes, and it's time for you to wrap up. So with that, I would like to open the public comment. Are there any speakers for open forum? Love life. One of them is an issue that is in this document uh board and commission members handbook. And I got this from your office, public ethics commission office. Within this document, uh it references all individuals who serve as board and commission members can be removed from their positions. Uh that removal as indicated in this document is in the city charter identified in the process. The process is that the city council has authority for any functions, regulations, and appointments of boards and commissioners. Having said that, there's been a violation of the process. There's a member of uh commission who has been under investigation by a private investigator, commission uh by the human resource department with approval by the city administrator. The details of that investigation uh we don't have, but it happened it costs fifty thousand dollars of city uh taxpayer money for a private investigation of a private citizen. So if it happens to a member of the police commission, it can happen to you. You can be investigated. The process, though, doesn't come under you to look at the process, the violation, and holding somebody accountable. Now, this happened more than one time that an investigation of a private citizen. Okay. Now, I'm not filing any complaints because I had one experience with you guys with filing a complaint, and I refuse to go through it again. It was a dog and pony show. My second concern is a violation of the Brown Act. It is the it is a ordinance of the charter. I'm sorry, of the Brown Act, that once you go into closed session, and there is a vote taken that you have to come into open session and reveal the results of the vote and the number of how the vote took place for or against or abstaining. On November the 4th, the City Council had a closed session vote for which the city attorney did not report out the findings or the results of the of the vote. They tried to cover it up on December the 10th, doing revealing of closed session, reporting out what happened on November the 4th, and as if they could do that. But the Brown Act clearly states at that meeting for which the vote is taken, you have to come out and report.
openpublica.com