Oakland Public Ethics Commission Special Meeting on Thomas Espinosa Penalty - June 30, 2021

The Oakland Public Ethics Commission (PEC) held a special teleconference meeting on June 30, 2021, beginning with a closed session at 5:30 PM to discuss the Executive Director's performance, followed by a public session at 6:30 PM. The sole public action item was determining the penalty for former building inspector Thomas Espinosa, who was found to have committed 43 violations of the Oakland Government Ethics Act. During the meeting, Espinosa called in and claimed he had no memory of the events due to a stroke, prompting commissioners to express concerns about due process and to continue the item for further investigation into his medical claims.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Ralph Cantz spoke during Open Forum regarding a separate matter (Case No. 16-22), urging the commission to subpoena records from the Planning Department that he said had been withheld for five years.
• Thomas Espinosa, the respondent in the main action item, called in during public comment and stated he had no recollection of working for the City of Oakland or of the alleged violations, citing a stroke and memory impairment. He provided the names of two doctors who had written letters about his condition, though staff noted they had not previously received documentation of a stroke. Espinosa became agitated when asked about waiving medical confidentiality and ended the call.

Discussion Items

• In the Matter of Thomas Espinosa (Case No. 16-14) – Penalty Determination
  • The commission reviewed staff memoranda, the Hearing Officer's recommendation, and a spreadsheet of penalty options. The Hearing Officer found 43 violations and recommended a $215,000 penalty ($5,000 per violation). Staff had originally recommended $200,000. Commissioners discussed the possibility of imposing fines up to three times the unlawful amount for certain counts.
  • The unexpected participation of Thomas Espinosa raised concerns among commissioners. Several commissioners expressed discomfort with proceeding without verifying his medical claims, given that his participation throughout the investigation had been minimal and mediated by his brother-in-law.
  • Deputy City Attorney Trish Shafie advised that the commission could proceed regardless, as administrative proceedings do not have a competence requirement and due process (notice and opportunity to be heard) had been satisfied. However, commissioners Arvon Perteet, Avi Klein, Ryan Micik, and Joseph Tuman indicated that the medical situation could affect penalty considerations.
  • The commission debated whether to separate the findings of fact from the penalty, but ultimately decided to continue the entire matter to allow staff to investigate Espinosa's health claims.

Key Outcomes

• Motion to Continue: Commissioner Klein moved to continue the item at staff's discretion for scheduling, seconded by Commissioner Perteet. The motion passed unanimously (5-0) with all present commissioners voting aye. The item will be discussed at the August 2021 regular meeting, where staff will report on scheduling a potential special meeting in September or returning the item in October.
• Staff was directed to:
  • Investigate Thomas Espinosa's medical condition, including attempting to obtain medical records or a waiver.
  • Reach out to family members (e.g., the brother-in-law) for more information.
  • Provide the commission with a timeline of staff's knowledge of Espinosa's health claims and the notices provided.
  • Clarify whether all penalty factors in the guidelines must be met to impose enhanced fines.