Oakland Public Ethics Commission Hearing (PEC Case 23-28) - January 23, 2025
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Oakland Public Ethics Commission Administrative Hearing - January 23, 2025
This hearing, convened at 6:30 PM and adjourned at 8:39 PM, addressed allegations that respondent Michael Dabney, owner of Rainbow Italian Ice, violated the Government Ethics Act by offering a bribe to a city inspector and then providing false information to the Public Ethics Commission investigator. Hearing Officer Karun Taluk presided over the case, with both parties presenting testimony and evidence.
Key Participants
- Hearing Officer: Karun Taluk, Commissioner
- Complainant: Patrick Bears, Oakland City Attorney's Office (representing the PEC Enforcement Unit)
- Respondent: Michael Dabney (self-represented)
- Complainant's Witnesses: Moises Campos (Inspector, Special Activities Permit Division), Nancy Marcus (Administrative Analyst, Special Activities Permit Division)
- Respondent's Witness: Christopher Williams (co-worker/associate of Dabney)
Charges and Penalty Request
- Charge 1 (Bribery): Under OMC 2.25.070 – offering something of value in exchange for an official act. Maximum penalty: $5,000.
- Charge 2 (False Information): Under OMC 2.25.080(C)(7) – knowingly providing false information during a PEC investigation. Complainant requested $5,000.
- Total requested penalty: $10,000.
Key Testimony and Evidence
Complainant's Case
- Moises Campos testified that on August 18, 2023, respondent called him and stated he wanted to discuss business involving paying Campos in cash. Campos stated he immediately refused and hung up, then reported the call to supervisor Greg Minor (email Exhibit E1A). Campos testified he had no personal relationship with respondent, never indicated he could lend money, and had only interacted professionally during enforcement at Lake Merritt. He stated his co-worker Nancy Marcus overheard the call on speaker.
- Nancy Marcus testified that she heard respondent say, "I'll give you the money if you give me the permit" (or similar). She stated she did not hear the word "loan" or any request to borrow money, and she heard no background noise suggesting a vehicle or speakerphone. She confirmed that during the COVID period, mobile vending fees were waived, and no payment to Campos would have been needed for a permit.
- Complainant introduced text messages (Exhibit E4D) showing respondent texted Campos on a Thursday at 5:33 PM asking to talk, but the purpose was not stated. Previous texts in 2020 were about permit status.
Respondent's Case
- Michael Dabney testified that on August 18, 2023, while driving with Christopher Williams on speakerphone, he called Campos and asked for a $500 personal loan because of financial hardship. He stated Campos replied "I can't do that" and hung up. He denied offering money or asking for any official act. He claimed he had no need for a mobile vending permit because he primarily operated at special events, not on city streets. He admitted operating without a permit at Lake Merritt during COVID but said that was no longer his main business by 2023.
- Christopher Williams testified that he was in the vehicle and heard Dabney ask Campos for $500, and Campos declined. He stated he lived with Dabney (since fall 2023 or earlier) and had worked for him for several years. Under cross-examination, he confirmed he did not hear any mention of a permit or cash offer.
- Respondent argued that the city witnesses' accounts are false and that he only sought a loan, not a bribe.
Credibility and Contradictions
- Complainant pointed out that respondent did not mention Williams as a witness during the initial PEC investigation (conducted by investigator Russell Simon around late 2023 or early 2024); the affidavit from Williams was not produced until months later, after the case escalated.
- Both Campos and Marcus testified they believed a bribe was being offered and reported it immediately. Respondent offered no motive for why city staff would lie.
- Respondent's contention that he did not need a mobile vending permit was contradicted by city witnesses who stated that any food vending on public property (including Lake Merritt) requires a permit, and no special event permit covered his vending in July 2023.
Public Comment
No members of the public provided comments.
Key Outcomes
- The hearing was concluded and taken under submission. Hearing Officer Taluk will issue proposed findings of fact and conclusions within 14 days.
- The findings will be submitted to the full Public Ethics Commission at its next meeting (likely March 2025), which may adopt, modify, or reject the findings and impose penalties ranging from dismissal to the maximum $10,000.
Meeting Transcript
Good evening, everyone. If we could please begin the uh audio recording. Today is January 23rd, 2025, and we are beginning this hearing at 6:30 p.m. My name is Karun Taluk. Uh, I'm a commissioner in the Oakland Public Ethics Commission, and today we'll be serving as the hearing officer in conducting this administrative hearing. I'm being assisted at the dais today by Christina Cameron with Devaney Pate Morrison Cameron, who serves as the Commission's legal advisor. Um, the commission's executive director, Nicholas Hyadorn is seated to my right, and he's also present for today's hearing. The case before us today is in the matter of Michael Dabney, PEC case number 23-28. Could each party please identify yourselves by name and who you're representing if you're represented by counsel? Um as this hearing is being recorded, please be sure to speak into the microphone and that your microphone is on when you speak. And to do that, you have to press the little button in front of the microphone. So if we could first start start with the uh complainant. Uh hello, can you hear me? Uh my name is Patrick Bears. I'm with the Oakland City Attorney's Office, and I'm representing the complainant, the enforcement unit of the public ethics commission. Good evening, Mr. Bears. Good evening. My name is Michael Dabney. I'm the respondent. Good evening, Mr. Dabney. Um next, could each party identify um your witnesses for this hearing? Um, just so we have that list, starting with complainant. Uh yes, uh, Commissioner uh Talok. Uh the complainant has two witnesses that will be testifying tonight. Uh Moises Campos, who is an inspector for the Special Activities Permit Division, and Nancy Marcus, who is an administrative analyst for the special activities permit division. Thank you. I'm not represented by counsel. My name is Michael Dabney, and I have a witness. Chris Williams, who's also a co-worker of employee, if you will, of Rainbow Italian Ice, my business. Thank you. And and Mr. Dabney, um, I know you're here representing yourself. Um, will you also be testifying as uh as a witness, you know, providing factual testimony? Yes. Okay. Um next, let's review the list of documents that were provided to commission staff, and I thank both parties for their submissions in advance of the hearing. Um so for enforcement, I believe we've received uh a written argument of 15 pages and seven exhibits. Um exhibit 1A, email to Greg Minor, exhibit E2B, emails uh involving the mobile food vending permit, exhibit E3C, mobile food vending application, E4D, text messages from 2020 to 2023, E5E, log of phone call, August 18th, 2023, E6F, email thread, July 24th, 2023, and E7G Flyer Food Truck Program. Um does that encapsulate all of uh the complainants exhibits. Uh yes. Um and I apologize when I reference those numbers. I believe that's that's how they're organized in the binder that's been provided to both parties. Um and then for respondent, I believe we don't have a submitted written argument. However, we do have uh one exhibit, which is the uh affidavit of uh Mr. Christopher Williams. Is that correct? That's correct. Um right at the outset, I I you know, since we have a fairly limited set of exhibits in this hearing, uh, I'm gonna ask if any party anticipates objecting to the other party's exhibits.
openpublica.com