The Oakland Public Ethics Commission held its first regular meeting of 2022 via teleconference on January 12, 2022, at 6:30 p.m. The meeting included the renewal of virtual meeting authorization under AB 361, election of new officers for 2022, approval of a stipulated enforcement case against former lobbyist Jason Overman, and approval of proposed amendments to the Limited Public Financing Act. Commissioners also created a new Public Records Performance Subcommittee and heard year-end reports from staff.
All right, good evening. I'd like to call this regular meeting of January twelfth, two thousand and twenty two, our first regular meeting of the new year to order. Our first order of business is our roll call and determination of quorum. So we do have a quorum of the body present. Welcome to the members of the public watching at home and commissioners. Happy new year to everyone. Welcome back. I hope everyone had a nice holiday season. So we will go ahead and start with roll call. On the roll, Commissioner Tooman. Commissioner Pertit. Commissioner Michak? Here. Commissioner Levitt. Commissioner Klein. I don't think I saw him absent. Vice Chair Ian. Present. And I too am present. Five present, and we do have a quorum of the body. Staff or commission announcements. No staff announcements. Thank you. 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. Is there any public comment at this time? All right. And we'll get the timer up. And each speaker will have three minutes. Perfect. Mr. Cannes, I'll go ahead and allow you to speak now. You should be able to unmute yourself. Hi, good evening. This is Ralph Cans. Um I don't know if any members of the commission have been following the redistricting commission, which has been at work for what, at least about a year now. Um the redistricting commission is having a it's not going well. But adding to that is uh in December, the December 13th meeting of the commission where some important decisions were made. The redistricting commission did not send the agenda to agenda subscribers. And I happened to hear about the meeting in the middle of the meeting and got on the meeting and brought up to their attention that it had not been sent out, which staff pretty much confirmed that it had not. Which means the meeting was not properly noticed, which means you've got to take do the meeting over of pure and correct. On top of that, near the end of the meeting, at the end of the meeting, the redistricting commission took a vote without allowing public comment before that vote took place. And uh because they really didn't do anything about it. I filed a complaint with the ethics commission on December 23rd. The problem we have now is that this meeting should have been cured and corrected immediately. And now you have this meeting that a lot of subsequent decisions are based on that meeting. And you have a commit uh redistricting commission that's gone over their deadline. You have the city attorney filing an action in Superior Court in Alameda County because of this that cites the December 13th meeting as in the papers. The real frustration here is once I brought that complaint to the ethics commission, it seems like there should have been some action to tell the redistricting commission you need to cure and correct. And I emailed staff and said what's going on, and I didn't get any response. Uh the real frustration here is there's really no excuse for what's happened and the ethers commission who should be the ones pushing the redistricting commission to do the right thing, hasn't done anything.