OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Oakland Public Ethics Commission Supports Fair Elections Act, Renews Virtual Meeting (April 13, 2022)

Public Ethics CommissionWednesday, April 13, 2022
BodyOakland, California
SessionPublic Ethics Commission
DateWednesday, April 13, 2022
StatusFILED
Video Record

STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE

Transcript — Verbatim
3:46

Welcome to the April twenty two twenty twenty-two meeting of the Oakland Public Ethics Commission.

3:52

We will start with roll call.

3:54

Um Commissioner Hill.

3:58

Commissioner Levitt.

4:01

Commissioner Mitchell.

4:03

Present.

4:17

Also for staff, we have Director of Arizona.

4:23

Present.

4:23

Good evening.

4:25

Miss Doran.

4:27

Present.

4:28

Chief Johnson.

4:30

Here.

4:31

Miss Laura Franco.

4:34

Here.

4:35

Mr.

4:35

Russell.

4:37

Present.

4:41

Good evening here.

4:42

I don't know why my hand is up.

4:44

I apologize.

4:45

That's okay.

4:47

We can see maybe I can.

4:48

Oh, you took it down.

4:50

Good.

4:50

Great.

4:51

So we do have a quorum, and we will start the meeting.

5:00

First item of business staff and commission announcements.

5:03

Are there any other staff or commissioner announcements?

5:08

No stop announcements.

5:10

Thank you.

5:14

And I see we do have attendees in the public.

5:18

Are there any?

5:21

We'll now go to open form.

5:23

Open form is a time for a member of the public to comment on any matter within the jurisdiction of the PEC that is not otherwise included in tonight's agenda.

5:33

Under the Sunshine Ordinance, the Commission cannot discuss the substance of any public comment made that does not pertain to an item listed on the agenda.

5:42

Is there any public comment?

5:47

And for tonight, uh, because we do have a number of speakers and we do have a pretty significant agenda item tonight.

5:55

Um the time will be two minutes.

5:57

I see one hand um and recognize Mr.

6:02

Cannes.

6:04

And you are unmuted, and we will you do have two minutes.

6:08

Okay, good evening.

6:10

Um this is a follow-up to last month's item regarding the redistricting commission.

6:17

Um just to let you know, last night the redistricting commission sent out the agenda for tonight's meeting, another violation of the law.

6:27

Um, this is a direct result of what happened last month.

6:31

And the biggest issue here is the commission did not even follow the requirements of the charter, which says final enforcement action, final enforcement action by the commission on a matter including but not limited to the imposition of fines or dismissal of a case shall be by an affirmative vote of at least four members.

6:53

That did not occur.

6:55

Staff dismissed the complaint, and in fact, staff said they had discussed the matter with me before the dismissal.

7:02

That is not true.

7:04

Staff dismissed the complaint on February 23rd and did not talk to me until February 24th.

7:10

It's in the record.

7:11

I've tried to get further records about that, but the staff has not produced the records pursuant to the public records act.

7:20

So the commission still has not made the required vote under the charter to dismiss that complaint and can't dismiss the complaint because it was a violation.

7:34

The commit the registering commission did not notice that meeting according to the law.

7:42

Beyond that, staff made the statement that there was nothing the commission can do about it, even if they did find there was a violation of the law.

7:54

And in fact, that is not the case.

7:57

The Okaminos code says in event the public ethics commission upon conclusion of a formal hearing conducted pursuant to its general complaint procedures, determines that a local body violated any any material provision of this chapter or took action upon an item of which the agenda related material was not timely filed.

8:18

The local body shall agenda is for immediate determination whether to correct and cure the violation.

8:24

Okay, Mr.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Campaign Finance██████████████████████████████████████████42%
Public Engagement████████████████████████████28%
Budget and Finance██████████10%
Public Ethics███████7%
Procedural███████7%
Public Comment████4%
Executive Director Report1%
Open Meeting Laws1%
Summary of Proceedings

Oakland Public Ethics Commission Meeting Summary – April 13, 2022

The Oakland Public Ethics Commission (PEC) held its regular meeting on April 13, 2022, via teleconference. The main agenda item was a presentation and discussion of the proposed Oakland Fair Elections Act, a comprehensive campaign finance and public financing reform measure introduced by the Bay Area Political Equality Collaborative (BayPEC). After hearing presentations, public testimony, and commissioner deliberation, the Commission voted 4-1 to support the proposal and to create a subcommittee to work with staff and the coalition on further amendments. The Commission also unanimously renewed Resolution 22-01 to continue virtual meetings under AB 361, approved prior meeting minutes, and received updates on enforcement, disclosure, and the limited public financing program.

Consent Calendar

  • Renewal of Resolution 22-01 (Virtual Meetings): The Commission renewed its determination that in-person meetings pose an imminent health risk due to COVID-19 and elected to continue teleconferencing under AB 361. The resolution passed 5-0 (Commissioner Tuman absent).
  • Approval of March 9, 2022 Regular Meeting Minutes: The minutes were approved 4-0-1 (Vice Chair MacDonald abstained due to absence; Commissioner Tuman absent).

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Open Forum: A member of the public (Mr. Kanz) alleged that the redistricting commission had violated the Brown Act and argued that PEC staff dismissed a related complaint without the required commission vote. He urged the Commission to take action.
  • Item 6 – Oakland Fair Elections Act: Numerous speakers expressed support, including:
    • Council Vice Mayor Rebecca Kaplan (via aide) and Council President Nikki Fortunato Bas (via chief of staff) voiced strong support, citing equity and engagement benefits.
    • Representatives from the ACLU of Northern California, Asian Law Caucus, Bay Rising, and other coalition members spoke in favor, highlighting the program's potential to increase grassroots participation and diversify candidate and donor pools.
    • Katie Oakland and Helen Hutchison also expressed support, emphasizing the need to involve low-income and communities of color.
    • One public speaker (Scott Law) opposed the proposal, arguing that it solves a nonexistent problem, is overly complex, and that installing term limits would be more effective. He also noted the absence of Commissioner Tuman, who has campaign experience.

Discussion Items

  • BayPEC Presentation of the Oakland Fair Elections Act:

    • Jonathan Mehta Stein (California Common Cause), liz suk (Oakland Rising), and Gail Wallace (League of Women Voters Oakland) presented the proposal. Key elements include:
      • Replacing the existing Limited Public Financing Act with a Democracy Dollars program providing each voter with four $25 vouchers ($100 total) to donate to certified candidates.
      • Reducing individual contribution limits from $900 to $400 and small contributor committee limits from $1,800 to $800.
      • Extending the post-employment lobbying ban for city officers from one year to three years.
      • Creating a public online repository for independent expenditure communications over $1,000.
      • Funding: $4 million per cycle for vouchers, $1.25 million per cycle for administration, plus $700,000 in startup costs and four additional PEC staff positions.
    • Commissioners raised questions about cost, staffing, timeline (targeting 2024 implementation), coordination with the Registrar of Voters, and benchmarks for success.
    • Renee Lebeau, Seattle Democracy Voucher Program Manager, spoke about Seattle's experience, noting a tiered implementation approach and the importance of community outreach. She confirmed that the timeline is tight but feasible.
    • PEC Executive Director Whitney Barazoto highlighted the need for adequate funding for administrative costs (including mailing, production, and outreach) and suggested reconsidering the biennial budget structure for staff salaries.
  • Reports on Subcommittees:

    • The Enforcement Subcommittee (Chair Perteet, Commissioner Micik) did not meet in March but will meet again in April.
    • The Public Records Performance Subcommittee (Vice Chair MacDonald, Commissioner Leavitt) met with staff and is awaiting appointment of a third member from the City Auditor's office. Executive Director Barazoto announced that the Auditor had made an appointment, and the new member will be sworn in soon.

Key Outcomes

  • Support for the Oakland Fair Elections Act: The Commission voted 4-1 to support the proposal (Commissioners Hill, Leavitt, Micik, and Vice Chair MacDonald in favor; Chair Perteet opposed, citing financial concerns). The motion also included creating a subcommittee to work with staff and BayPEC on technical amendments and to report back to the full Commission. The subcommittee will be chaired by Commissioner Hill, with Chair Perteet also serving.
  • Virtual Meeting Resolution Renewed: Resolution 22-01 was renewed unanimously (5-0) for the next month.
  • Minutes Approved: The March 9, 2022 minutes were approved with one abstention.
  • Future Meeting: The Commission will hold a retreat on April 21 and 22, 2022 (5:00–8:30 p.m. both days), which will be virtual and open to the public with opportunities for comment.

Meeting Transcript

Welcome to the April twenty two twenty twenty-two meeting of the Oakland Public Ethics Commission. We will start with roll call. Um Commissioner Hill. Commissioner Levitt. Commissioner Mitchell. Present. Also for staff, we have Director of Arizona. Present. Good evening. Miss Doran. Present. Chief Johnson. Here. Miss Laura Franco. Here. Mr. Russell. Present. Good evening here. I don't know why my hand is up. I apologize. That's okay. We can see maybe I can. Oh, you took it down. Good. Great. So we do have a quorum, and we will start the meeting. First item of business staff and commission announcements. Are there any other staff or commissioner announcements? No stop announcements. Thank you. And I see we do have attendees in the public. Are there any? We'll now go to open form. Open form is a time for a member of the public to comment on any matter within the jurisdiction of the PEC 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 the agenda. Is there any public comment? And for tonight, uh, because we do have a number of speakers and we do have a pretty significant agenda item tonight. Um the time will be two minutes. I see one hand um and recognize Mr. Cannes. And you are unmuted, and we will you do have two minutes. Okay, good evening. Um this is a follow-up to last month's item regarding the redistricting commission. Um just to let you know, last night the redistricting commission sent out the agenda for tonight's meeting, another violation of the law. Um, this is a direct result of what happened last month. And the biggest issue here is the commission did not even follow the requirements of the charter, which says final enforcement action, final enforcement action by the commission on a matter including but not limited to the imposition of fines or dismissal of a case shall be by an affirmative vote of at least four members. That did not occur. Staff dismissed the complaint, and in fact, staff said they had discussed the matter with me before the dismissal. That is not true.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com