Oakland Public Ethics Commission Meeting - December 6, 2021: New Commissioner Selected, Virtual Meetings Renewed, LPFA Audit Presented
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Oakland Public Ethics Commission Meeting - December 6, 2021
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.
Consent Calendar
- Approval of Commission Meeting Draft Minutes: The Commission approved the minutes of the November 1, 2021 Special Meeting and the November 1, 2021 Regular Meeting both by votes of 7-0.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Open Forum: One member of the public commented on public records request response times, alleging delays by the City Attorney's Office and Planning Department, and raising concerns about accountability and misrepresentations by planning staff.
- There was no public testimony on other agenda items, including the audit, new commissioner selection, meeting schedule, or enforcement cases.
Discussion Items
- Virtual Meetings Resolution (Item 4): The Commission reviewed and renewed Resolution 21-01, determining that conducting in-person meetings would pose imminent risks to attendees’ health due to COVID-19. The resolution was approved 7-0, allowing continued teleconference meetings under AB 361. The resolution must be renewed every 30 days.
- Audit of the Limited Public Financing Act (Item 5): City Auditor Courtney Ruby presented the performance audit of the LPFA for the November 2020 election cycle. Key findings:
- The City Council appropriated $155,000 to the Election Campaign Fund, with $10,230 carried over; $153,605 was available to participants and $137,485 was claimed.
- Of 17 candidates on the ballot, 15 opted into the program; 7 qualified and received public financing, and 1 withdrew and returned funds. Each eligible candidate could receive up to $21,857.
- The audit found no instances of candidate non-compliance and concluded that PEC has implemented effective processes.
- The Auditor recommended that PEC consider drafting an amendment to eliminate the biennial post-election audit requirement, noting reduced risk since the program switched to reimbursement-only in 2010. Executive Director Barazoto agreed and indicated she may bring cleanup amendments to the Commission in early 2022.
- New Commissioner Selection (Item 7): Three finalists (Paxcelli Flores, Charlotte Hill, Maria Rapier) introduced themselves and answered questions. Charlotte Hill, a postdoctoral researcher at UC Berkeley with experience on the San Francisco Elections Commission, was selected by a vote of 7-0 to fill the vacancy for a term starting January 22, 2022, through January 21, 2025. The remaining two applicants were referred to the City Auditor for potential appointment.
- 2022 Regular Meeting Schedule (Item 8): The Commission approved the 2022 meeting schedule, moving meetings to the second Wednesday of each month (rather than the first Monday) to avoid holiday conflicts. Approved 7-0.
- Enforcement Case: Annie Campbell Washington (Item 9): The Commission approved a stipulation imposing a $1,000 penalty plus $1,171 in late fees, totaling $2,171, for failure to file a Semi-Annual Campaign Statement for the period July 1–December 31, 2018. The stipulation had been signed and payment received. Commissioner Leavitt recused herself due to prior work on the campaign. The motion passed 6-0.
- Subcommittee Reports (Item 10): The Enforcement Subcommittee (Perteet, Micik, Yan) reported plans for its first meeting. The Recruitment Subcommittee (MacDonald, Klein, Leavitt) was disbanded following the successful selection of a new commissioner.
- Disclosure and Engagement Report (Item 11): Lead Analyst Suzanne Doran presented a preview of a new live data dashboard that tracks public records request performance across City departments. The dashboard, updated every 24 hours, includes metrics on request volume, closure times, and mediations. Staff are developing key performance indicators for a grading system. Commissioners expressed support and suggested that the grading rubric be discussed at a future meeting.
- Enforcement Program Report (Item 12): Enforcement Chief Kellie Johnson reported that since November 1, 2021, one new complaint was received, bringing the total open caseload to 43 cases. She noted that the Jason Overman matter (Case No. 18-14) was pulled from the agenda after the agenda was published due to respondent communication, and will be rescheduled.
- Executive Director’s Report (Item 13): Barazoto noted that two mediations were closed (M2019-16 and M2020-04) and provided updates on legislative priorities, including the potential to amend the LPFA audit requirement. She also reminded commissioners that the January 2022 meeting will include election of Chair and Vice Chair, and discussed uncertainty around whether AB 361 will be extended, affecting meeting format.
- Future Meeting Business (Item 14): Commissioners discussed follow-up on the Housing and Community Development (HCD) Department’s ethics training and systemic improvements. Staff will work with HCD on onboarding processes and report back by the February 2022 meeting, with a potential department presentation in March 2022.
Key Outcomes
- Virtual Meetings: Renewed Resolution 21-01 for teleconference meetings under AB 361 (7-0).
- LPFA Audit: Received and noted; Executive Director will consider legislative amendments to remove the biennial audit requirement.
- New Commissioner: Charlotte Hill appointed for a three-year term beginning January 22, 2022 (7-0).
- 2022 Meeting Schedule: Approved, moving to second Wednesday of each month (7-0).
- Enforcement: Stipulation in Annie Campbell Washington case approved, imposing $2,171 in penalties and late fees (6-0).
- Subcommittees: Enforcement Subcommittee active; Recruitment Subcommittee disbanded.
- Disclosure Dashboard: Ongoing development; commissioners to discuss grading rubric in early 2022.
- HCD Follow-Up: Staff to engage with HCD on ethics training; update to Commission by February 2022 meeting.
- Future Meeting: Next regular meeting scheduled for January 12, 2022, subject to format uncertainties (possible hybrid meeting).
Meeting Transcript
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.
openpublica.com