The Public Ethics Commission (PEC) held a regular meeting on Monday, December 6, 2021, at 6:30 p.m. via teleconference. The meeting included a guest presentation from the City Auditor on the Limited Public Financing Act audit, the selection of a new commissioner, approval of the 2022 meeting schedule, and action on an enforcement case. All seven commissioners were present.
All right, good evening. I'd like to call this regular meeting of the Oakland Public Ethics Commission today on Monday, December 6th to order. We do have a quorum of the body. So we'll go ahead and get started. Our first order of business this evening is roll call and determination of quorum. On the roll call, Commissioner Tooman. Commissioner Tooman, you're muted, but I see you, so I'm going to mark you as here. There you go. Commissioner Pertit. Here. Okay, Commissioner Michik. Here. Commissioner Levitt. Here. Commissioner Klein. Present. Vice Chair Yan. Looks like he's absent, and I too am present. So we do have six members present and staff with us tonight. We have Director Barrizotto. Here. Chief Johnson. Here. Analara Franco. Here. Simon Russell. Pleasant. And Deputy City Attorney Shafi. Good evening, President. All right, excellent. Are there any staff or commission announcements at this time? Any staff or commission announcements? No staff announcements. Thank you. Perfect. Well, that brings us to our open forum. And open forum is a time for a member of the public to comment on any matter within the jurisdiction of the public ethics commission that is not otherwise included in tonight's agenda. Under the Sunshine Ordinance, the commission cannot discuss the substance of any public comment made that does not pertain to an item listed on tonight's agenda. So Mr. Kantz will get the timer the timer up in just a second. So shortly after the meeting, I made a public records request to the city attorney's office for an example of such a document. Uh and the city attorney's office took, I believe it was 17, 18 days. So they went well beyond the limits of the public records act to respond. And they finally responded on the 23rd of November, saying there were no records responsive to my request. And they said they were forwarding it to the planning department, who later that day responded they had no records responsive to my request. So in other words, the city is approving projects where the city is accepting liability for the malfeasance or the misactions of a developer or a property owner in developing a property. And the statements made by planning department staff last week are not consistent with the facts. I, as a complainant, have to sign a verification under penalty of perjury that everything I say is true. Yet a planning department member can get up there, somebody in the planning department get up and make misrepresentations of fact that in Mercamp's situation, he's been an employee there for at least close to 20 years at a minimum. He knows what's going on.