Oakland Public Ethics Commission Meeting - September 18, 2024
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Oakland Public Ethics Commission Meeting - September 18, 2024
This meeting of the Oakland Public Ethics Commission (PEC) focused on enforcement settlements, subcommittee reports, and clarification of voting procedures. Key actions included the withdrawal of a settlement agreement with Mayor Libby Shaf's campaign committee, approval of a settlement with a developer, and updates on commissioner recruitment and new committee formation.
Public Comments & Testimony
- No public comments were recorded during the meeting.
Discussion Items
- Settlement with Libby Shaf Committee (Case involving candidate-controlled committee): Enforcement staff recommended a $9,500 settlement ($4,500 for failing to register as a candidate-controlled committee, and $5,000 for accepting a $100,000 contribution from Orton Development while the company was negotiating a city lease). Staff cited a previous similar case (Susan Montauk, $500 penalty) and the respondent's reliance on incorrect legal advice as mitigating factors. Gary Winnick, representing Mayor Libby Shaf, withdrew the stipulated agreement, stating that given the commission's previous actions, the case should be remanded back to enforcement staff. The commission acknowledged that no settlement agreement remained to vote on and closed the item after public comment.
- Settlement with Julian Orton / Orton Development (Case 1918): This case involved the developer who made a $100,000 contribution to the Oakland Fund (a candidate-controlled committee). Enforcement staff recommended a $5,000 no-contest settlement, noting that Mr. Orton likely did not know the fund was candidate-controlled. Commissioner Gage asked about criteria for accepting no-contest pleas; Chief Russell explained that no-contest pleas preclude the respondent from using admission as a mitigating factor, increasing the penalty. The motion to approve the settlement passed unanimously (5-0).
- Commissioner Recruitment and Selection Subcommittee Report: The subcommittee reported receiving 10 applications for the vacant commissioner seat, narrowing to 6 finalists, with interviews scheduled that week. The goal is to present 2-3 candidates at the October meeting to fill the vacancy through end of 2024 and for the full term starting January 2025.
- Charter Review and Outreach Subcommittee Updates: The charter review subcommittee is preparing closing documentation to guide future charter amendments. The outreach subcommittee has been sunset; a new Democracy Dollars outreach committee will be formed to focus on public education for the program. Commissioner Steele and Gage expressed interest in serving, with a third slot open for a new commissioner.
- Reopening of Item 5 (Contribution Limits Vote): A commissioner moved to reopen item 5 (a previous vote on a council proposal to raise contribution limits) after questioning whether the vote threshold was correct. Executive Director Hyderan clarified commission rules: Section 2.24.020 requires a majority vote of the commission (4 votes) for any motion or resolution, while policies/procedures require a majority of members present. Since the earlier vote on the contribution limits measure was 3-2, it did not meet the required 4-vote threshold. The motion to reopen was withdrawn.
Key Outcomes
- The Libby Shaf settlement was withdrawn; the case is remanded to enforcement staff for further proceedings.
- The Julian Orton settlement was approved (5-0), with a $5,000 penalty and no admission of liability.
- Commissioner recruitment advanced: six finalists will be interviewed, with candidates presented at the October meeting.
- A new Democracy Dollars outreach committee will be formed; commissioners to volunteer before the next meeting.
- The previous vote on contribution limits (item 5) was not revisited; the 3-2 result was confirmed as insufficient for passage under commission rules.
Meeting Transcript
The candidate controlled ballot measure committee of Libby Shaf. The committee and Libby Chef are not admitting to liability. However, they are willing to settle this case with us. And there are two counts they're willing to settle without admitting liability. The first is as usual the um count for failing to register as a candidate controlled committee. In this case, we are recommending a penalty of $4,500, which is $500 less than the maximum for two reasons. Number one, as I mentioned earlier tonight, we did have a previous case involving the principal officer of the Measure AA campaign, Susan Montauk, who paid a $500 penalty. So we're deducting that. Also in the course of uh speaking to another um person affiliated with the Measure AA campaign, its treasurer, uh Gene Zahas. He informed her that the Measure AAA campaign had done something similar for another elected official in a previous election. And so based on that information, Libby Shaf thought that this was legal and there was no issue with it. Um so in light of again that was incorrect, but in light of you know her perhaps good faith if negligent um reliance on the word of a non-attorney um and uh Susan Montauk's prior payment were recommending a 4,500 settlement on count one. And for count two, uh count two involves a contribution uh given by a development firm called Orton Development and its um head Julian Orton in the amount of 100,000. Um I believe it was actually Julian Orton himself who made the contributions, uh totaling 100,000, but his company at the time was negotiating a lease of city owned land with the city for purposes of a development project. Um we are recommending here that Libby Shaf pay and the committee pay a $5,000 uh settlement amount uh without admitting liability. Um for much the same reasons that uh we arrived at similar numbers in previous cases. So saying that, uh, that's the agreement for you tonight. I strongly urge you to approve this agreement. This is something that we've negotiated over a long time. It is, I think very significant that Libby Shaf is willing to at least not contest these allegations, and we've which means we've gotten these facts out to the public. She will be paying some money in this case. And um I think that's the best that we can hope for um under the circumstances, given our giant caseload, our extremely small staffing, and the fact that we need to get these cases done with. So I would strongly urge you to approve this settlement with $9,500. That brings Libby Shaf's total that she is jointly liable for to over $51,000 across these three cases. Again, that's roughly three times the next highest penalty that an elected official has ever paid to our city. Thank you. Good morning now. Uh Gary Winnick representing Libby Shaf. Um, given the commission's previous actions, we're gonna withdraw our agreement on this. Uh and we ask that the case just be remanded back to the ethics commission enforcement staff. All right. Um is there uh any questions for uh any of these entities, any of these individuals. Uh is there public comment? All right. Um I will entertain a motion, or I will just actually make a motion to uh remand this back to enforcement with similar instructions to um uh hopefully have it uh to uh enumerate the amount of uh uh fines for each entity for each respondent. There's no more agreement, right? Yes. Yes, but that's well, we can still provide direction on it, right? I mean, is there anything that's uh yeah, one moment, hold on. Chief Russell, can I ask uh what the balance of funds are for the Oakland fund? I believe similarly Oaken Fund is zeroed out. I believe similar to Oakland fund is zeroed out of the okay. Let me just want to make sure we're clear about what's happening. So is the is there a withdrawal to consider the stipulated agreement at this stage. Again, Gary Winnick representing Mayor Schaff. I don't presume to tell you what to do in any way. My suggestion is since there is no stipulated agreement anymore, there is nothing to vote on since there's no stipulation. But again, I'm not a city attorney and I don't deal with those issues, so I'll leave that to you. And Chief Russell, is that also your understanding? That is correct.
openpublica.com