The Oakland Public Ethics Commission (PEC) held its regular meeting on Monday, March 2, 2020, at 6:30 p.m. in Hearing Room 1 of Oakland City Hall (One Frank Ogawa Plaza). Commissioners present included Chair James E.T. Jackson, Vice-Chair Nayeli Maxson Velázquez (absent), Jill M. Butler, Michael MacDonald, Janani Ramachandran, Joseph Tuman, and Jerett Yan. Executive Director Whitney Barazoto, Enforcement Chief Kellie Johnson, and Deputy City Attorney Trish Shafie were present. The meeting covered enforcement actions, a City Council salary adjustment, and informational reports. Notably, the Commission found probable cause against a building inspector for bribery, imposed a $5,000 fine on Lane Partners for an unlawful contractor contribution, and unanimously approved a 7.1% CPI-based salary increase for City Councilmembers.
So I will ask, are there any staff announcements this evening? Good evening, Executive Director Whitney Barrizzo. I just have a quick announcement, and that is that we are pulling item seven off of tonight's agenda. That is uh in the matter of the City of Oakland Police Department mediation case. So we're pulling that tonight. We'll be bringing that back likely next month. Very good. Thank you. Yes. Thank you very much, Director Barrizotto. Next we're going to the open forum, and I will read a brief statement about the open forum. 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 that 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. The purpose of public comment is for us to hear from you. And I don't know what's going on with the with this commission staff, because this thing should have been dealt with a long time ago. But on page two of this, it were it refers to condition of approval number 23. Scott Miller signed the conditions of approval. Those conditions of approval only have 22 conditions of approval. I've seen it. They don't want to produce it because it should prove this letter is a lie. Scott Miller knows what's in those conditions of approval because he signed them. And they've played the game of, oh, we can't find the conditions of approval. Well, you have to have them because one of the critical parts of the conditions of approval for any planning project in the city is on this one. It was conditional approval number eight, which indemnifies the city for anything that goes wrong with the project. You can't tell me the city doesn't have the signed conditions of approval. And beyond that, they couldn't produce a single record of communications between the city staff and the applicant for the project. I know what goes on up there at the planning department. There's all kinds of emails going back and forth between planners and applicants for projects. I've been waiting for almost four years. September of 2016. And I see all kinds of other things get pulled ahead of this one. I don't know why. I don't know if this commission from what I know right now, the commission does not even have a policy on what gets dealt with first or last. And that needs to change. Thank you. For the record, Gene hasn't vote no on Q tomorrow. The previous speaker just addressed something that the body has been derelict in following up. You should demand from the enforcement chief to bring this matter before. It's ridiculous to think four years to request documentation related to a condition of approval. For all those of you who are lawyers on this body, that should be real simple. Make the demand of the enforcement chief to do the kind of investigation that's required to bring forth the information that the previous speaker has requested. Four years. Explain what is meant by something that's not within the jurisdiction of this body. Don't talk to me or the public about you're interested in public ethics. Don't give generalized sweeping statements. It's not within our jurisdiction.