OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Oakland Public Ethics Commission Special Meeting - September 23, 2024

Public Ethics Commission — Monday, September 23, 2024
BodyOakland, California
SessionPublic Ethics Commission
DateMonday, September 23, 2024
StatusFILED
Video Record
Meeting Thumbnail
⇩ GET FROM SOURCE

STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE

Transcript — Verbatim
6:01

All right, it looks like we have our commissioners here.

6:04

Uh so K Top, let's start recording.

6:06

The time is six thirty-five, and welcome all to the special meeting of the Oakland Public Ethics Commission.

6:14

The commission works to promote fairness, openness, and integrity in city government.

6:20

And uh we have a quite substantive and full agenda this evening.

6:27

Um and so we look forward to getting into it.

6:30

We are going to start by taking the role uh Vice Chair Upton.

6:34

Here.

6:35

Commissioner Gage.

6:36

Here.

6:37

Commissioner Steele.

6:39

Here.

6:39

Commissioner Talak.

6:41

Here.

6:42

And I am the Chair, Ryan Mitchick, and I am also here.

6:46

We have a quorum.

6:47

Um I'd also like to acknowledge our staff here tonight.

6:52

We have our executive director, uh Nicholas Hydorn.

6:56

Uh we have our enforcement chief Simon Russell, um, and I believe do we have uh Alex here tonight?

7:04

Okay.

7:05

Well, thank you to all that are here.

7:07

I'd also like to acknowledge that we have our legal counsel, uh, Farah Hussein.

7:12

Um, I think it's on, but I'll I'll scoot a little closer so you can hear my beautiful voice.

7:23

Thank you.

7:24

Um so thank you all for attending.

7:27

Um I would uh just like to note um before we get into uh open forum and public comments, uh I would like to encourage those are here those who are here to publicly comment to remember to wait for the agenda item that you are commenting on, and I will call for public comment on that item at that time.

7:50

Um so we'll go on to item number two, which is staff and commission announcements.

7:56

Are there any staff announcements?

7:59

Are there any commission announcements?

8:02

Okay, we'll move on to open forum item number three.

8:07

So open forum is a time for members of the public to comment on any matter within the jurisdiction of the PEC that is not on tonight's agenda under the Sunshine Ordinance.

8:17

The commission cannot discuss the substance of any public comment made that does not pertain to an item listed in the agenda.

8:23

Uh the commission also urges members of the public not to make complaints or ask the commission to investigate matters uh at public meetings, since the public disclosure of such complaints or requests may undermine any subsequent investigation undertaken.

8:39

Uh if you have a ethics complaint uh or request for an investigation to make, we urge you to email at ethics commission at Oakland CA dot gov for assistance in filing that complaint, or you can see staff uh after the meeting tonight.

8:58

So uh with that said, and again reiterating that this is only for items that are not on the agenda tonight.

9:04

Um are there any public speakers public comment for open forum?

9:10

All right, you may approach.

9:12

I think we have a place right here for you to come up.

9:15

Uh please state your name if you would like that to be recorded in the meeting minutes.

9:20

And uh you have three minutes for your public comment.

9:28

Okay.

9:36

And I'm here for a comment um that regards to uh our uh Alameda County Grand Jury Association.

9:45

I'm the treasurer of the association.

9:48

And one of the uh things that we do besides supporting the grand jury as retired grand jurors, we're not the grand jury, we're retired grand jurors.

10:10

Ballot titles are the 75-word summary at the beginning of each of the ballot initiatives that people have.

10:18

There are 34 in Alameda County this election.

10:22

And so what the report found was that many times those titles were uh at best marginal as far as uh um explaining it well, and at worst uh misleading.

10:38

And so what our uh Alameda County Grand Jury Association has done is form a group to evaluate titles, and we evaluate titles given a uh roster of um attributes that we'd like to see in the ballot title.

10:56

Um, and I brought, I don't know, hand I have my handouts right here.

11:02

You guys are already having yes, thank you.

11:05

Oh, okay, okay.

11:06

Um so the point of this is actually more informational.

11:10

This is not a you know complaint or asking for action, uh, but we will be sending out our evaluations to hopefully all the entities that have a ballot title and a ballot on this year's uh November ballot.

11:25

Um and the overall idea is with this rating system that we've come up with from zero to five, we are hoping that the public will be stimulated to actually read ballot initiatives, right?

11:42

Uh and one of the aspects that we found is there are literally hundreds of millions of dollars in these ballots that many people have no idea what the money is being used for, or you know, the various uh ramifications of what are in there.

12:01

So we uh focused on the ballot from the uh ethics commission, which is measure zero zero, and I included uh the title, our score, and an explanation of why the score is what it is.

12:22

Um, and again, the idea is to focus attention on this issue.

12:27

Um, and some of the um titles got higher higher scores than others, but what we hope to do is enlighten the various commissions, the various entities, the city councils, all the rest of them, to actually pay attention to these ballot titles because they're usually done by consultants, and they're usually, if you actually read them, especially for bond issues, exactly the same.

12:54

So we would like to see if we could get a little more enlightenment uh for the public in these issues and these ballot titles.

13:03

Uh and we're making an effort to expose these ratings to everybody who's been rated so that's not a surprise.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Campaign Finance█████████████████████████████████████████████48%
Procedural███████████12%
Public Engagement███████████12%
Public Ethics████████9%
Pending Litigation███████7%
Ethics and Campaign Finance█████5%
Public Safety███3%
Sanctuary City Policy█1%
Commissioner Appointment Process█1%
Summary of Proceedings

Oakland Public Ethics Commission Special Meeting - September 23, 2024

The Oakland Public Ethics Commission (PEC) held a special meeting on September 23, 2024, starting at 6:35 PM and continuing past midnight. The agenda included a proposal to increase campaign contribution limits, consideration of five enforcement settlement agreements related to candidate-controlled committees, and routine reports. Public comment was heard on multiple items, with speakers expressing a wide range of opinions on campaign finance and enforcement penalties.

Consent Calendar

  • Approval of July 10, 2024 Minutes: Unanimously approved.
  • Approval of August 14, 2024 Special Meeting Minutes: Approved 4-0-1 (Commissioner Talak abstained).

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Open Forum: Mr. Law (Treasurer, Alameda County Grand Jury Association) described a ballot title evaluation project, giving Measure OO a score. Gene Hazard criticized the city attorney’s office for misleading ballot titles. Asada Olikbala raised concerns about Measure NN and other ballot initiatives. Ralph Kans criticized the agenda length and delayed posting of public comments.
  • Item 5 (Contribution Limits): Gene Hazard opposed the increase, calling it ineffective. Gail Wallace (League of Women Voters of Oakland) opposed applying the change to the upcoming election. Tiffany Rose-Napati Laksado supported the proposal as a bridge while Democracy Dollars is unfunded. Asada Olikbala expressed that voters should inform themselves. Ralph Kans called Measure W an unfunded mandate and argued for eliminating candidate limits combined with stronger anti-corruption rules.
  • Enforcement Items (10-14): Marlene Sachs (complainant) argued settlements were too lenient and that respondents knew the law. Gene Hazard alleged past misconduct and selective enforcement. Jorge Lerma, Jahara, Tiffany Rose, and Michael Wong spoke in support of former Mayor Libby Schaaf, citing her positive record. Asada Olikbala and Ralph Kans criticized the settlements as insufficient and noted conflicts of interest.

Discussion Items

  • Item 4: Approval of Minutes – Approved as noted under Consent Calendar.
  • Item 5: Proposal to Increase Campaign Contribution Limits – Executive Director Nicholas Hydorn presented staff analysis showing the change from $600 to $900 for individuals and $1,200 to $1,800 for broad-based committees, intended as a temporary bridge until Democracy Dollars is implemented. Councilmembers Janani Ramachandran and Kevin Jenkins spoke in favor, arguing that without Democracy Dollars, candidates are struggling to fund outreach. Commissioners discussed concerns about last-minute rule changes, administrative burden, legal risks, and the need for expenditure limits in 2026. After motions and amendments, the commission voted 5-0 to send a letter to the City Council expressing support for the goals but raising concerns about timing, recommending that higher limits in 2026 be conditioned on accepting expenditure limits, and urging collaboration on avoiding administrative complications such as required refunds.
  • Item 6: Disclosure and Engagement Report – No action taken.
  • Item 7: Democracy Dollars Implementation – Report on grant-funded outreach and user interface prototyping. No action.
  • Item 8: Enforcement Program Update – Chief Simon Russell reported on cases and litigation. Public comment raised allegations of non-investigation. No action.
  • Item 9: Executive Director’s Report – Noted limited public financing status and staffing discussions. No action.
  • Items 10-14: Enforcement Settlement Agreements – These five cases (Case 2209, Case 2041, Case 2041.3, Case 1918, and an unnumbered case) involved allegations that former Mayor Libby Schaaf, Doug Linney, Barbara Leslie, Zach Wasserman, OakPAC, and others operated candidate-controlled committees without proper registration, disclosure, and contribution limits. Chief Russell detailed the facts and penalties, stressing that settlements are a compromise. The commission took the following actions:
    • Item 10 (Case 2209): Motion to approve settlement failed 3-2 (needed 4 votes for enforcement action). Motion to direct staff to renegotiate with individual payment amounts passed 3-2.
    • Item 11 (Case 2041): Similar outcome: motion to approve failed 3-2; motion to direct staff to renegotiate with individual amounts passed 3-2.
    • Item 12 (Case 2041.3): After legal counsel for Libby Schaaf withdrew the stipulation, no settlement existed; item concluded without action.
    • Item 13 (Case 1918, Julian Orton): Settlement for $5,000 (no contest) approved unanimously 5-0.
  • Item 15: Subcommittee Reports – Chair reported on recruitment of a new commissioner and formation of a Democracy Dollars outreach subcommittee.
  • Item 16: Future Meeting Business – No specific items proposed.

Key Outcomes

  • Consent Calendar: Approved two sets of minutes (unanimous and 4-0-1).
  • Contribution Limits (Item 5): Commission voted 5-0 to send a letter to City Council detailing concerns about timing, endorsing expenditure limits for 2026 higher limits, and requesting an impact evaluation. The earlier motion to directly support the proposal had failed due to vote threshold confusion, but the letter motion superseded it.
  • Enforcement Cases:
    • Item 10 (Case 2209): Settlement not approved; staff directed to return with specific individual payment amounts (3-2 vote).
    • Item 11 (Case 2041): Same direction to staff (3-2 vote).
    • Item 12 (Case 2041.3): Stipulation withdrawn; no action.
    • Item 13 (Case 1918): Settlement with Julian Orton approved (5-0).
  • All enforcement votes requiring a final action needed 4 votes; those motions failed, leading to directions to staff.

Meeting Transcript

All right, it looks like we have our commissioners here. Uh so K Top, let's start recording. The time is six thirty-five, and welcome all to the special meeting of the Oakland Public Ethics Commission. The commission works to promote fairness, openness, and integrity in city government. And uh we have a quite substantive and full agenda this evening. Um and so we look forward to getting into it. We are going to start by taking the role uh Vice Chair Upton. Here. Commissioner Gage. Here. Commissioner Steele. Here. Commissioner Talak. Here. And I am the Chair, Ryan Mitchick, and I am also here. We have a quorum. Um I'd also like to acknowledge our staff here tonight. We have our executive director, uh Nicholas Hydorn. Uh we have our enforcement chief Simon Russell, um, and I believe do we have uh Alex here tonight? Okay. Well, thank you to all that are here. I'd also like to acknowledge that we have our legal counsel, uh, Farah Hussein. Um, I think it's on, but I'll I'll scoot a little closer so you can hear my beautiful voice. Thank you. Um so thank you all for attending. Um I would uh just like to note um before we get into uh open forum and public comments, uh I would like to encourage those are here those who are here to publicly comment to remember to wait for the agenda item that you are commenting on, and I will call for public comment on that item at that time. Um so we'll go on to item number two, which is staff and commission announcements. Are there any staff announcements? Are there any commission announcements? Okay, we'll move on to open forum item number three. So open forum is a time for members of the public to comment on any matter within the jurisdiction of the PEC that is not on 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 in the agenda. Uh the commission also urges members of the public not to make complaints or ask the commission to investigate matters uh at public meetings, since the public disclosure of such complaints or requests may undermine any subsequent investigation undertaken. Uh if you have a ethics complaint uh or request for an investigation to make, we urge you to email at ethics commission at Oakland CA dot gov for assistance in filing that complaint, or you can see staff uh after the meeting tonight. So uh with that said, and again reiterating that this is only for items that are not on the agenda tonight. Um are there any public speakers public comment for open forum? All right, you may approach. I think we have a place right here for you to come up. Uh please state your name if you would like that to be recorded in the meeting minutes. And uh you have three minutes for your public comment. Okay. And I'm here for a comment um that regards to uh our uh Alameda County Grand Jury Association. I'm the treasurer of the association. And one of the uh things that we do besides supporting the grand jury as retired grand jurors, we're not the grand jury, we're retired grand jurors. Ballot titles are the 75-word summary at the beginning of each of the ballot initiatives that people have. There are 34 in Alameda County this election. And so what the report found was that many times those titles were uh at best marginal as far as uh um explaining it well, and at worst uh misleading. And so what our uh Alameda County Grand Jury Association has done is form a group to evaluate titles, and we evaluate titles given a uh roster of um attributes that we'd like to see in the ballot title. Um, and I brought, I don't know, hand I have my handouts right here. You guys are already having yes, thank you.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com