Are we ready to go?

Awesome.

Okay.

Welcome to the uh special meeting of the Public Ethics Commission.

First item of business is a roll call on determination of quorum.

So vice chair by Eva.

Commissioner Gage.

She is, I believe, under the weather and will not be attending.

Commissioner Mitchik.

Commissioner Steele.

Commissioner Talok.

This is expected not to be here.

And I'm here.

You're just supposed to push it, so I think.

I have a commissioner applicants in the audience tonight, and I just wanted to welcome them.

Oh, okay.

So this is working now.

It's working.

Okay.

I have one.

As I've done in all the meetings that I've attended this year since the current administration has been in office, I feel the need to comment on the actions of the federal government, even though this is outside the scope of the PEC.

Sadly, the government continues to exhibit blatant corruption and flagrant violations of federal laws, often to the detriment of the most vulnerable people in our country.

Having a student in OUSD schools, I got a text message this morning warning of ICE presidents in West Oakland and assuring parents that their children in the schools are safe from ice and that the schools near the ICE presence were on a secure school protocol.

It is surreal that our Federal our local governments have to protect people from potentially illegal actions of members of the federal government.

And I'm grateful to OUSD for taking steps to protect our students.

I'm heartened by our city's participation in the recent No Kings protests, seeing so many people who are not accepting what's going on, and I hope continued pressure and awareness by our residents will help bring an end to this sad chapter in our national history.

Any other announcements?

Okay, then the next item is open forum.

And I have a new thing to read for this.

So uh before we start open forum, I want to go over our public comment process so we all know what to expect.

A member of the public may speak on any item appearing on the agenda.

If you wish to speak during open forum or on an item that is on our agenda tonight, please stay seated until that item is called.

And when I open the floor for public comments on the item, come up to the podium.

Speakers are generally allotted one three-minute turn to speak per item, subject to change by the chair based on the number of speakers.

So everyone gets a chance to speak and be heard.

Please leave the podium promptly when your allocated time is up.

I want to clarify how we handle public comment, both during open forum and during public comment periods later on in the agenda, so that everyone is confident that they'll have a chance to be heard and knows what to expect.

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.

Commissioners cannot discuss the substance of any comments made during open forum.

Not because we're not interested, but because the item isn't on tonight's agenda.

However, we listen to what you have to say.

The purpose of public comment is for us to hear from you.

It is not a time for commissioners to talk, answer questions, or have dialogue.

It is a time for us to listen.

Again, public comment is not a time for commissioners or talk to talk or to answer questions.

After the close of each public comment period, we may address concern questions or concerns that you raise.

For example, I may ask the city attorney for information about an issue raised in public comment.

Or a commissioner may address questions in a general manner to clarify the commission's policies.

I may ask the staff to explain their procedures, or I may ask you to give the staff your contact information so we can follow up with you to give information that you've requested.

However, once each public comment period is closed, it remains closed until public comment is reopened on the next agenda item when you will again have the chance to speak during public comment.

Lastly, while you're free to express yourself, the commission urges members of the public not to make complaints or ask the commission to investigate alleged legal violations of public meetings, since public disclosure of such complaints or requests may undermine any subsequent investigation.

Please contact staff at Ethics Commission at Oakland CA.gov for assistance in filing a complaint.

If anyone if there's anyone who would like to be heard during public during open forum tonight, I invite you to line up at the mic.

Please state your name each time you make public comment if you wish to be included in the meeting minutes.

And again, you will have three minutes, and there's a timer so you know when it's time to wrap up.

Mr.

Cannes.

Good evening, members of the commissioner.

Ralph Cannes.

Uh this meeting is an example of why the Sunshine Ordinance, which is now 20 years old, needs to be changed.

This is being called a special meeting, and therefore there was only three days of notice.

But in fact, it was a regularly scheduled meeting.

It just the date got moved.

And there's no reason you couldn't have provided ten days notice for this meeting.

It just staff decided to take the shortcut of waiting till the last minute.

And this is a problem that's going on with our city council currently.

To give you an idea, this month, the city council, the entire city council as a group will have one meeting.

One meeting in the entire month of November.

It was a special meeting at 9 a.m.

on November 4th.

The only reason for that is to limit public participation in the process.

And it's a real problem of the city council.

They're doing everything they can to prevent public participation.

They just came out of their new rules, which should have been sent to this commission for review, because that's part of your purview.

But that didn't happen because they don't want to have the public involved in the decisions they make.

And basically it's become into one big consent calendar.

Go back 25 years, which I know none of you know about, but you go back 25 years, and the city council met every Tuesday night, not just once in November.

They would have had three meetings this month, and the public had a chance to participate.

There was no consent calendar.

Everything that got heard in a committee meeting got heard at the full council, because committee meetings were held during the day, and all council meetings were held at night, as is required in the Sunshine Ordinance, but it's being ignored again and again and again because the city council keeps calling 9 30 a.m.

and 9 a.m.

special meetings to get around noticing and allowing the public to participate in the process.

And it's time for this commission to make a statement.

Thank you.com and go to my blog.

I want to ask you, members, do you know what section 208 of the city charter is?

Do any of you know?

You don't?

Well, that refers to special meetings and when they are held.

You can only call a special meeting when there's a cited one item.

On September 15th, 2025, on Number 4th, 2025.

There were two illegal special meetings.

Go look at the Brown Act, don't look at the Sunshine Act.

And go look at the city charter.

It specifically says special meetings can be called for one item.

On September 15th and November 4th.

They went through a whole agenda.

And this body needs to call them on the carpet.

Don't let staff give you a bunch of crap.

This is something within your jurisdiction.

Read 208 of the city charter.

Read the Brown Act.

Read the Sunshine Act.

Ask the city attorney.

And then go look at November 9th, 2017.

The legal opinion from Barbara Parker.

Only a single item.

So staff does a half ass job with investigation.

And that leads me to another item.

I got a dismissal from 2020.

Regarding Oakland Promise.

Oakland Promise has never been a nonprofit.

I got a letter from then Attorney General Xavier Busaire indicating there's no indication that Oakland Promise was a nonprofit.

So how did staff come back?

What?

How many years since 2020?

And give me something in the mail indicating that's closed.

That's not closed.

Go look at that letter from Xavier Busaire, which was I think part of my uh complaint.

It's shameful of what you do.

And what I just gave you, and I'll conclude, is regarding Measure A, the transaction and use tax.

Staff ignored AB 155.

Look at the highlight.

Staff ignore.

Any other public comment?

Okay, next item on the agenda is uh approval of the draft meeting minutes for the minutes for September 17th, 2025.

Um, yeah, I have another comments on the minutes.

Yeah, I have an observation.

Is my mic on?

Yes, it is.

Yes, so for um commissioner recruitment ad hoc subcommittee, just wondering if commissioner still was uh also part of that subcommittee because it's mentioned so uh in the minutes.

I'm sorry, could you speak up?

I couldn't hear.

Yeah, yeah, it looks like my mic uh okay.

Let me just move.

Yeah, so for the um uh commissioner recruitment ad hoc ad hoc subcommittee, um, item 11.

I don't believe we have um it's probably should be a separate item 11 D.

Um so the um language says that um commissioners upton still may have agreed to be part of the subcommittee.

So I think we probably meant to say uh Commissioner Misik instead of still, think you will note that correction, and I would just add also 11D, just to separate from the executive director subcommittee.

Okay, thank you.

Any other corrections to the minutes?

Um I have a motion to approve the minutes as amended, uh so moved.

Second, second.

Okay, I'll call the uh and uh any public comment.

Okay, I'll call the roll.

Uh by Chair Baeva.

Aye.

Commissioner Gage is not here, Commissioner Mishik.

Aye.

Commissioner Steele, aye, Commissioner Clark, aye.

And I vote aye.

So uh the minutes are approved.

Okay, the next item is um the Public Ethics Commission regular meeting schedule for next year.

You want to present on that?

Yes, uh good evening, Commissioners, and good evening, everyone who's here tonight.

Um, as part of our operations policies, the commission adopts a calendar of regular meetings for the upcoming year that we then post on the website.

So in your agenda packet is a staff memo outlining the proposed regular schedule for 2026.

It is consistent with our schedule this year, a meeting the third Wednesday of every other month, and we have a confirmed hearing room for those dates and time.

I also just wanted to note, based on comment here, we we understand that there was a desire to allow public comment remotely via Zoom.

And so we are intending to implement that in 2026.

But I wanted to invite our council here to explain the rules around that because they are regulated by state law, and I think we should all hear the impacts beyond simply allowing public comment by Zoom before you decide on the schedule.

Yay, please proceed.

Oliver will be with the city attorney's office through the chair.

It actually requires remote public comment being enabled for if you are opt into the alternative teleconferencing rules under the Brown Act.

Did you want me to give you a brief summary of those rules?

Yeah, I was hoping you could just describe how it also impacts commissioner attendance and that what happens when we can't if we have to interrupt a meeting because it's interrupted.

Through the chair, uh so currently there's long-standing uh teleconferencing rules that the that are in place.

Um they're burdensome because they require the a member who's teleconferencing in to notice and also have public access to the location from which they're teleconferencing, so it's somewhat rarely used.

But uh in the post uh 2020 uh 2020 era, there are new teleconferencing rules that allow they're more uh easier to work with.

The main one of the main requirements of those rules is that remote public comment for the public be enabled.

And uh there is a number of there's an amendment this year actually to the rules, a number of different changes, but just in short, for a body that meets uh once per month or less, two times per year, members can invoke uh just cause circumstances to enable them to participate remotely.

There still needs to be a quorum in present of the of the members, and uh uh the member who's teleconferencing in has to have their video on, they have to disclose if there are any persons of uh age 18 or older in the room with them and the nature of their relationship, and they also have to provide uh to the body a description of which form of just cause under the Brown Act that they're relying on to appear remotely, and that the section of the Brown Act that they rely on for that.

There's several different uh types of just cause, but the section has to be noted in the minutes as well, and then lastly, like with the traditional uh teleconferencing rules, all votes would have to be by roll call.

That's basically the main requirements.

The biggest requirement, of course, is that remote public comment be enabled.

So I I understand that.

I guess one question I had.

If we are all present physically at the location, can we still do public have the option to do public comment remotely?

I understand the the owner's requirements if one of us wanted to appear remotely, but if we were all here, could we do just have public comment also available by Zoom?

Through the chair, thank you for that question.

Uh yes, in fact, if you opt to uh invoke this, uh it makes remote public comment a requirement for every meeting going forward.

So even if a members are not remotely teleconferencing in, it basically would permanently allow uh remote public comment.

And we have the we'll have the technology to do that, presumably.

Yes, we'll staff that.

Okay.

Other questions?

Okay, um, I guess one question.

What what when you say a staff that what does that entail?

So we'll need somebody to monitor the participants on Zoom and um enable them to speak as participants.

So we'll have to make sure we have an additional staff person available to do those duties during meetings to make sure that that works smoothly.

And I guess the other point was that if we did have an interruption in service for some reason, we would actually we didn't need to adjourn the meeting at that point or wait until it's restored.

Through the chair, uh you wouldn't need to adjourn the meeting, but the board would not be able to take further action on items appearing on the meeting agenda until the public uh access is restored.

Other questions?

Um, just to clarify, did you say that um uh we still need a quorum of members actually physically present to hold the meeting?

In other words, uh a remote attendee wouldn't count toward quorum.

Through the chair, the remote attendee council's quorum, but not that not for purposes of the physical quorum requirement or the brown act that would still be required.

So you still need four members physically present here uh to allow a fifth or another member pass the four to teleconference in.

Okay, something else.

Um is there a motion to uh public comment on my thing is after the motion, but thank you.

Um is uh someone want to make a motion that we adopt this uh meeting schedule?

I can move.

Thank you.

Sorry, is the motion also to approve the zoom meetings or is that just a discussion?

Um I have it on my list as something that wants a motion, so um uh I'm taking this to be an action item.

Is that I included it there in case you had any reservations about it, since it it causes um there's some impacts to it beyond simply allowing public comment by Zoom.

So the recommendation would be for this schedule with the understanding that we're gonna implement public comment uh by with Zoom starting in 2026.

So that's your motion.

One second, just a second.

We'll see if that's your motion, yes.

I would like to move um to adopt the calendar and public participation and remote attendance by Zoom.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, and um now it's time for public comment.

Gene has it, go to CleanOakland.com.

What's the purpose of public comment?

The purpose of public comment is to bring to your attention what there's been violation of, but all you sit there like you got constipation, because you don't give any comment when the public is speaking, particularly and presenting material facts.

So what's your purpose?

To talk amongst yourselves as though you're doing something that's in compliance with what your mission is.

No, you're not, Mr.

Chair.

I brought and my colleague over here has brought on many occasions items where you have ignored what's in the guidelines in the statute, what's in the Brown Act?

Because you allow staff to give you a sanitized version.

I just passed out to you regarding measure A, the transaction and use tax.

Okay?

Clear violations.

Staff has ignored.

For the record, AB 155.

That's enabling state legislation adopted in 2011.

Use tax, not sales tax.

This bill will also require such retailer that it's not required to collect use tax.

The sales and use tax law also authorizes the state board of equalization to require the filing of reports.

Section 212 of the city charter.

Limits the city attorneys, ministerial, city attorney, asks city attorney over here when it comes to ballot measures.

They don't have any legislative authority at all.

It's clearly stated in 212 and 404 of the city charter.

Why are you ignoring the governing regulations?

Why don't you speak to that?

But you look at each other, though you are doing all this great stuff, and the comments and the public is bringing you verifiable material facts, which you continue to ignore.

You're not serving this community at all when you ignore the material facts.

Thank you.

Any other public comment?

You need again Ralph Cans.

I really question whether you can get all your work done properly in just six meetings in a year.

There's just too much there to give it the time and effort that it requires.

This is the same thing as going on with the city council, cut back, cut back, cut back.

And the real reason you're cutting back is that's what staff wants.

Staff doesn't want to have to notice meetings.

In the meantime, you're holding committee meetings in violation of the Brown Act because they're not noticed.

You call them ad hoc, which it's a total is not a real thing.

That's exactly what the ACLU and the First Amendment coalition sued the City of Fresno about, because they were having an annual meeting about the budget, and they call it ad hoc.

And it's been said, if you're doing it all the time, it's not ad hoc.

Ad hoc is like one thing that is specific, a specific item that will never be done again.

So when you do democracy dollars, you do pick members, they're all going on and on and on.

Those have to be noticeed public meetings.

Just because staff doesn't want to have to do that, it doesn't matter.

It's what the you're supposed to be serving the public, not serving your staff.

Frankly, I've been raising this issue for years, and nobody on your legal department has the guts to do a written opinion about these ad hoc subcommittee meetings violating the Brown Act.

Why don't you ask the city attorney to give you a written opinion on it?

Because I can tell you, it will tell you what you've been doing is wrong.

If it doesn't, it's gonna get challenged.

So when are you gonna do that?

I've been asking you for years, and all I get is blank stares and silence.

It's time you do it the right way.

It's time you serve the public and not serve the staff of this commission.

Thank you, Mr.

Cats.

Any other public comment?

Okay, so we have uh moved and seconded motion for the um uh adoption of the meeting schedule and also can I just make a brief comment on some of the uh topics that were brought up uh during public comment?

Um you may, yes, okay.

Uh so um I I share some of the concerns uh Mr.

Cannes about uh the limited meeting schedule limiting public participation.

Uh we had this discussion last year when we moved from uh 10 meeting a month schedule, 10 to 11 meeting to the to the sixth meeting a year, uh sorry, 10 meeting a year scheduled to six meetings a year last year.

And uh, you know, I don't take the trade-offs lightly.

Um I was chair back then and we had a uh in-depth conversation about the the pros and cons of moving to uh every other month, but I would point out that uh we're likely to have, we're quite likely to have more than six meetings next year.

We're going to have likely special meetings come up when we have to.

I know that staff makes every effort to provide additional uh notice of those beyond the statutorily required three days.

Um, and uh uh I think that we have a good track record on that.

Um and the addition of the remote attendance is uh and the remote comment is uh at least in part an attempt to address the uh public access uh uh and offset the uh limits of public access that we have by by holding fewer meetings.

So I hope that uh you appreciate that.

I know that when we moved to uh uh in-person meetings you had brought up that uh uh when we were doing Zoom meetings that was easier for you to give comment uh and we're hoping that uh allowing public comment uh via Zoom or remotely going forward will allow a uh broader uh spectrum of the public to weigh in, even then uh holding additional in-person meetings would.

Um and uh with regard to the uh subcommittee meetings we've made additional effort to have greater transparency on those in the last couple of years by having those meeting minutes uh uh brought up at regular meetings so that anything that is uh discussed in subcommittee meetings can be commented on uh at the regular meetings, and uh uh I do believe we're on very solid legal ground when it comes to that.

Um so those are not we're not doing this.

Well, you're not solid.

So so for those for so for those reasons I'm comfortable supporting uh the meeting schedule going forward next year.

Thank you.

Um can I ask a point of clarification as to the motion on the table?

Sure.

Um are we locking ourselves into doing Zoom all year, or if there are issues with it, you know, and the you know we'll try it and hopefully it works out.

But if there are issues, would we have the opportunity to revisit it?

You know, three months three meetings into the year.

I think Mr.

Luby had a uh can you answer that?

Once you invoke it, I believe it maintains.

I'm not aware of a process for uninvoking it.

Um I could look into that for you, but uh once it's supposed to be indefinite once once you invoke the rule.

Through the chair.

Thank you.

Any other uh questions?

There's still a motion on the floor.

Discussion.

Um I know I already moved for this, uh, but uh Mr.

Lobe, I just wanted to confirm through the chair that um what we have um in the agenda in terms of the calendar is sufficient to also uh approve the remote participation.

Because I don't think it mentions the remote participation.

So I just wanted to be sure that we can vote on something that is not explicitly in the agenda.

Through the chairs, the question whether or not you can take a motion if it's sufficiently noticed to take the motion, is that the question?

Um moment I'll let me look at it.

Well, I'm sorry, um uh my reading of this it says commission meetings will be available, will be stated will will be available via teleconferences posted in the meeting agenda as well as for uh future viewing online.

So it looks like this document does have the provision for uh uh teleconference, right?

I think there's a difference between saying it's available, like our our meetings are available to view on Zoom versus commenting.

So I'm just a little bit concerned that it's not yeah, some concern that it's not explicitly mentioned in the agenda.

I think if we make a motion to do something, then it doesn't matter that it's if it's emergency, I think we can do that.

But yeah, unless maybe Mr.

Lovito advice us.

So then we should not since that's not been on the agenda that we should not have that part be part of it then.

It may be wise to save it for a subsequent agenda.

Would you care to revise your motion?

Yes, I'm updating my motion to remove the remote participation part.

So I move to approve the calendars presented uh in the agenda.

Okay, and who is the second?

Awesome.

Okay.

Uh now it's any further discussion.

Okay, it's time to vote on the motion.

Uh Vice Chair by Ava.

Aye.

Uh Commissioner Gage is not here.

Uh Commissioner Mitchik.

Aye.

Commissioner Steele.

Aye.

Commissioner Chalak.

Aye.

And I vote aye, so the motion passes.

Okay.

Next item on the agenda is the proposed amendments to the conflict of interest code.

Uh Ms.

Duran, would you like to present on that?

Sure.

Good evening, Commissioners.

Um Director C.

And Duran.

Um, so in your meeting packet uh is the proposed amendments, the conflict of interest code.

They were forwarded to us by the commission for review and comment.

Um the city clerk in collaboration with the city attorney's office has prepared these amendments to ensure the designation of positions covered by the code align with the current organizational structure of the city of Oakland.

So you you see you have the amendments with in the strikeout and underlined mode.

It's all really um just listing out positions in those departments and then what level they're at in terms of disclosure.

Um so as commissioners are aware, the city charter requires that when amendments to any law that the commission has the power to enforce or proposed, they must be submitted to the public ethics commission for review and comment prior to passage by the council.

So the commission may review, discuss, and adopt comments on these proposed amendments for forwarding to city council prior to adoption.

So in terms of a motion that we would make here, would it be that we would offer some comment if someone wants to do that?

I think that's your choice.

Um our council could could clarify the options, but um I don't think you must make a comment, but if you were going to, we'd want to have a motion.

Say we didn't want to do anything.

Uh your uh through the chair, your director just clarified what your options are.

You uh you're there's no requirement under the charter that the commission actually respond to uh but if you're gonna provide comment, you would make a motion tonight to do so.

You don't you're not required to do so under the charter.

The charter uh mandates been satisfied by providing the the draft legislation to the commission and giving you an opportunity to comment and what you do at that point is within your discretion.

Okay.

Does anyone care to make a motion to comment on this?

Hearing none, then I think we're on to the next item.

Uh which is the 2025 case closure plan.

Um do we need public comment if there's not been no motion?

Public comment is required before prior to taking action on an item.

And we're not taking action.

Then you wouldn't it's not required if there's no action.

Okay, okay okay next item is uh the case closure plan.

And I believe also uh there was one public comment submitted in writing today um by uh um Brenda Harbin forte uh in the matter of uh one of her comments is uh related to the Jim Chanin uh case uh so that comment is relevant to this we won't read that comment it's available on the website people people have uh the comments here but that could be part of the discussion do you need help with the the microphone's not happening off with the oh okay yes that works thank you um so just a note on why some of the complaints are being presented for closure and some have been dismissed on our own authority um we have the authority to dismiss complaints that are outside of our jurisdiction or don't have enough information to support a violation on our own authority however um there are about three reasons that I have decided to bring these complaints for closure um one is that a complaint has progressed past the preliminary stage in the investigation and into the investigation stage um which is common practice for our office um two that there is some evidence that a violation may have occurred but we are proposing closure anyway so we're requesting some action and three that we are recommending a response to the violation um and that's why we are presenting some of these to the commission for a vote um so that's that's just an explanation of why certain cases have complaints have been presented for a vote and certain complaints are merely on the enforcement report as being dismissed um yeah what can we do for saying what these are going to close this one sorry sorry I'll say that all again this is a question for you what specifically do we get to vote on for do we get to do it on a case by case basis or could we do the whole thing?

If you choose to vote on a case-by-case basis that's fine you can also adopt it um writ large great thank you um I just want to make uh I think most of it is is fairly clear I'm happy to answer any questions that come up about any of these cases um you'll but I do specifically want to mention um 1813 which is in the matter of Desley Brooks um alleging in uh kickbacks from a farmers market and I do want to say when I presented this case closure plan I I did say that there would be some edge cases some cases that are difficult to close this one I would count in there this is the kind of case that had it been recent we would pursue it thoroughly because it is a core um allegedly a core violation of GIA um but we believe because of the nature of the case and also the age of the case um it at this point it it isn't in the interest of justice to pursue it but also that trying to pursue it at this late stage would require more resources than we are able to give and I'm happy to answer any question questions about any of the other cases as well any questions about any of the cases or any of this I've got a question.

Please regarding the uh first case on the list uh regarding Kat Brooks um was there evidence that um the respondent took part in any committee decisions or discussions about uh providing funding for that nonprofit.

We didn't find any evidence of that.

Okay.

How much, how much in investigative time went into this?

I know it occurred before you were there, but how much was there a substantial amount of materials on this, or would it was it just sort of set aside?

Um I would say there was a medium amount of materials we had um previous staff had collected her resignation letter, had um reviewed the decisions that had been made.

I'm trying to think if uh and I believe also interviewed her.

Um part of the reason that we're deciding to close it is it's it's nine years old, over nine years old, and she attempted to remedy it about a month and a half into the conflict of interest.

Um and as soon as she received word that it was a conflict.

Um is the age the reason why there's a low probability of substantiation here?

Yes.

Okay.

Um at any point was it considered by you or by prior staff of closing it with a warning letter.

Um my position on these cases, and I'm I'm open to having that challenged, is that um if we have proof of a violation in the file, and there hasn't been a curing, um, in some way, that I I want to recommend some kind of action like a warning letter.

Um in this case, I made the decision to close with no action uh merely because she did attempt to cure it as soon as she realized that it was an issue.

Okay.

Other questions?

I have uh some um based on my based on the public comment um by Harbin Forte uh in the matter of Jim Channan.

Um in the uh one thing that that uh Ms.

Harbin Forte mentions is the um possibility of a Form 700 violation, which apparently was not mentioned in the original complaint, and my uh so um how would that be handled?

Yeah, um so it was not uh mentioned in the original complaint.

I would still recommend closure based on the four corners of the complaint that we did investigate thoroughly.

Um and I would take her public comment as um I would process it as we would process any incoming information.

Um so it's you know, I I can't sort of speak to how we would investigate it or what we would necessarily do with that information, but we will process it according to our procedures.

Okay, but so one, but I mean, if we're we're voting to close this thing now, so so for example, one thing you could do is treat it as a separate complaint or something for the Form 700 by the option.

Yes, and then just another question about that.

Um the issue of overstaying the selection panel be on five years, that's is that's not what we do, right?

I mean, that's not it with that wouldn't be within our jurisdiction.

Okay, great.

All right, thank you.

Uh that's all from me on this one.

Um any other questions then?

So would anyone care to make a motion?

I'll do it.

I move that we uh accept the staff recommendations on these closures, second.

Okay.

Uh now it's time for public comment.

Any public comment?

Do any of you commissioners know what the city ordinance is 2.20.150?

Is that yes or no?

You see what I mean about constipation?

That's a yes or no.

To the city attorney, can you read what section 2.20.150 for the edification of the public who's not here and for the presence of the commissioner?

I would ask that you not do that.

Um that's that's outside of our policy and rules for public comment.

You may say what you want to say, and we were not gonna have dialogue with you.

See, that's what I mean.

That's exactly what I mean.

I'm going to read it to you.

Gosh, your silence is deafening.

Oakland City Ordnance 2.20.150 concerns public testimony at regular and special meetings, mandating opportunities for the public comment and setting minimum time.

Local bodies must allow each person wishing to speak on an agenda item to speak, okay?

This is a kangaroo court, and it has been for years, because you continue to silence, you talk about public comments, but you don't do anything to what?

Transparency and accountability, and you go through the motions.

As though just because you sit in these seats, but you are out of compliance with the ordinance, with the charter, with the sunshine act.

I asked do the chair respectfully, and you denied that opportunity for clarification.

I generally have the information anyway.

I just want to see what you're going to do through the form.

You stay silent.

You don't want clarification for the public who are watching this, it's not just this empty chambers.

You deny the residents of Oakland from getting a fair response to issues that impact them.

Thank you, Mr.

Hazard.

Any other public comment?

Once again, Ralph Cannes, this is just getting you need to do something about complaints that get so old that they're not viable anymore.

And there should be some process for catching them before they get too old and so they get dealt with in a timely manner.

And it seems to me this commission itself should be looking over what the staff is doing and making sure that's getting done right because a nine-year-old complaint, and it hasn't been dealt with.

And just for your record, 2.20.150 public testimony at regular special meetings.

Every agenda for every regular or special meeting shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address local body.

This is just there's a chronic problem in this place with how the public is involved in the city government, and it's getting worse, it's not getting better.

Have any of you gone to a city council meeting lately to just see how bad it is because it is wretched at this point?

I've never seen it so bad.

In like 27 years of closely following that council, I have never seen the public so pushed out of the process as they are right now, and you're supposed to be overseeing that and looking at that, and you're not and by the way, with regards to city clerk, the city clerk never bought you brought you the records retention policy earlier this year that they should have brought to you.

Because that's a really scary piece that the council passed.

It allows the city clerk to designate city records for destruction without any oversight.

And this is something the commission should have had a chance to comment on.

They didn't.

That's what I wanted to talk about on that item.

So you need to call back the records retention policy because prior to that, everything that got destroyed had to be noticed through a city council meeting, so there was public notice of what was being destroyed.

We no longer have that with what was passed.

Which means is it gonna be like the Epstein files?

We're going, what was it?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr.

Luby, um I asked earlier on the uh previous item about the conflict of interest since there was no action taken.

Are you standing by that?

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I was at best about uh uh correct myself.

Uh while the sunshine ordinance does say that the public comments require but prior to taking action, a lack of taking action doesn't necessarily mean doesn't mean that the public comment isn't required, so I would recommend after this current item that you reopen the item to allow public comment, and it makes sense to do it that way because for instance the public comment may be about urging the commission to take action, for instance.

So, yes, if there's an item on the agenda, there should be public comment on it.

Right, and we have not started the enforcement report item, so what we'll do right now, and this is this is my mistake, I apologize.

Uh we will uh uh have public comment on item eight on the on the conflict of interest code.

Any public comment on that item?

Uh Ralph can't here.

Uh uh I just noted that uh members of the uh staff of the public ethics commission have different standards of reporting and wondered why they didn't all have the same standard of reporting, um and uh I'll go back and say the records retention policy is never brought to this commission, and you need to get and look at it and understand what's going on with that because it's potentially a nightmare.

Thank you.

You could avoid the embarrassment of your ways, because if the public is asking for clarification at the beginning, and your arrogance push them aside only to see what the public asked in the beginning could have been addressed right then and there, then be rather than be dismissive of the public, that's what's so shameful of this body, what is it why you can't ask for clarification?

That's all the public is asking for, but you create this title wave, because you choose to be non-compliant, and there are those of us who are gonna hold you to the fire, even if you reject.

Like I said, we already got the information available.

It's not for our edification.

One is for your edification.

More importantly, it's for the public.

This is supposed to be a public ethics commission.

Won't you be in compliance with what your mission is?

Thank you.

Any other public comment?

Okay, next we will move to the enforcement program report.

Do we need to go?

I don't think you need to.

You need to vote on the motion.

Um on items seven, the yeah, I believe we did.

Yeah.

Oh, we didn't?

No, we didn't.

No, I think there's a motion and a second.

Oh yes.

Oh, I'm so sorry.

Yes, we.

Oh, we didn't take the vote.

Thank you.

Okay, we've had our comment.

We've all right now, time to vote.

Commissioner Vice Chair Baeva.

I uh Commissioner Gage is not here.

Commissioner Mitchick?

Aye.

Commissioner Steele.

Aye.

Commissioner Taloc?

Aye.

And I vote yes.

Okay, so that's done.

All right, now.

Enforcement program report.

Are we ready for that?

Great.

Someone could.

There we go.

Okay.

So we have had some movements on uh cases in the last two months.

Um, in particular, I'm pleased to report that the total number of open matters, which in May I reported at 152, is now down to 135.

Um, even though new cases have been coming in multiple times a week.

Uh I'm happy that the that the direction is that it's moving in the right direction.

I know that we have more work to do in order to get this to a manageable backlog or imagine manageable caseload, but um I I am happy with enforcement staff for um getting us to where we are on this.

Um I do also just want to say I'm pleased to report that we have hired Mr.

Van Buskirk as a full-time permanent investigator in the enforcement team.

And we've also hired a part-time uh law clerk, Bhavna Chabdari, who is in the audience today.

Um both of them have been incredibly helpful to the enforcement team, and I'm excited that we're building capacity um in order to keep handling this this uh backlog that we're that we're under.

Um other than that, I'm happy to take any questions on the dismissals uh and um I don't I don't think there's anything in particular I wanted to raise, so I'm happy to take any questions.

Okay, and I know we had uh public comment from uh Ms.

Harbin Forte on uh the matter of Jenkins.

Um are there any questions or comments?

Um in light of the uh public comment we we received from the uh complainant in the uh Jenkins case, would you mind just sort of briefly walking us through that and um um and uh um how you came to the conclusion that you did?

Absolutely.

So um the uh the the issue here is private gain.

Um the quote is private advantage benefit or economic gain gain to themselves or any other person.

Um in my estimation, these issues were personnel related and work related, but they were not personal.

Um, and that's why we made the decision that these are outside of uh our jurisdiction.

Um we are not we are not here to adjudicate uh alleged bullying.

Um that is just not our purview, and um so we I stand by the dismissal saying that it's outside of our jurisdiction because there was no allegation of private benefit, and no proof of private benefit, so the um uh so Ms.

Harbin Fort A.

Uh says that um the staff applied sort of an overly narrow interpretation of that, and the ordinance also covers retaliation.

Um is that something that you looked at?

Is that or is does the ordinance cover that in your view?

I I wouldn't say that it does.

Um I think that is you know, we we give a fair amount of deference for how people do their jobs, um, how elected officials do their jobs, um and absent some personal gain, um I wouldn't I wouldn't consider retaliation as as something that um is within our jurisdiction, and the uh the Brown Act portion of this complaint.

Um, could you just sort of briefly go over how you viewed that?

Yes, um so this was this was handled earlier this year.

Um and basically we decided that uh the complaint be dismissed because it did not allege a violation of law within the commissioner's enforcement jurisdiction, and or in the interest of justice because the complainant had withdrawn the complaint, which does not mandate our decision, but it does inform our decision.

The low likelihood of proving a complaint and the PEC's limited enforcement resources to prosecute the complaint compared with the low level of public harm from the alleged violation.

So we have very limited power to enforce the Sunshine Act, and our evaluation found the potential violation as de minimis.

And on the uh and on the point that she raised that she did withdraw it, and that uh she asked that uh you dismiss it on their request rather than on the merits.

Um what was uh what was your thought process in terms of deciding to dismiss it on the merits rather than at the request?

Um I wouldn't say we dismissed it on the merits, I would say it was outside of our jurisdiction.

Um but also it's in our uh policies in our complaint procedures that a person retracting their complaint does not force us to do anything.

We can take it under consideration, but we still can proceed with the case as as much as we want.

Um we felt that it was important to finish out the review of the case since we had already started with the with the sunshine violation, um, and so we we did that here.

Okay, thank you.

Oh, go ahead, please.

Um just a quick question on the the cases.

You said 152 to 135, the the cases went down in degrees.

Is there any one thing you uh attribute that to in particular or just a combination of things?

Um I think well, I will say I think we'll be able to go even faster now that we're bulking up enforcement staff.

Um I think that we have made the decision this year since in my tenure to focus on uh closures rather than focus on new cases that are coming in.

So we do have new cases coming in.

We try to um uh we try to analyze them for jurisdiction very quickly, but we're not opening up any new investigations as as we're working on this um complaint backlog.

Um so I think I think shifting focus and being willing to sort of put some things on hold in order to really address this backlog and get ourselves out of this hole has been the main reason that we're moving in the right direction.

Other questions?

Yeah, I do have a question about the backlog and our sort of methodology.

So um I understand there were a few similar cases that we received.

Um how do we in general protest complaints that are similar?

So do we immediately um dismiss them if there is a duplication or if there is a different substantiation for each complaint, we sort of look at them uh as new?

Um we look at each complaint that comes in.

Um so even if it seems substantially similar to a complaint that was uh sent in previously, we would still look at the new complaint and decide if there was any new allegations in there, any new information that we should address.

Um so I would say that we don't just dismiss a complaint based on it being somewhat duplicative or even uh even duplicative.

We would still address that complaint um specifically in our dismissal.

Thank you.

So um essentially anybody can send as many complaints on one particular subject matter as not really.

There's a um there's a complaint procedure uh that says that after four non-meritorious complaints in a calendar year, that we can start sending all complaints that come in from a certain person to the chair for review before we process it.

Um we haven't made that decision on any of our cases yet, but it is a possibility.

Yeah, and I'm also raising it in part because we are so concerned with closing the cases, so I'm just want to make sure that we think about, you know, just in general, uh, brought us in a guest.

Any duplications should they come along?

Absolutely.

I I will say again that any complaint we come in, we we analyzed on his base already.

Okay, thank you.

Just a couple of questions.

So I guess the first question I had was about the memo that was attached to the enforcement report, which I thought was really excellent and and you know super easy to follow and understand.

But I was wondering sort of what were your reasons for providing sort of that level of detail and sort of an attached memo for these particular dismissals as opposed to other ones, and what when we should expect kind of an analysis like this.

Sure.

So in this case, I wanted, I made sure that the complainant received that memo as well as you.

Got it.

That's that's super helpful to have that context.

Um is a memo like this sort of generated in your ordinary course, or was this a specific one given the particular particularities of this?

Yeah, this is a specific one that was generated for this purpose.

Um I would say that we we generally won't be providing a memo like this unless we believe that the commission needs to have more information than was in the dismissal notice, and that's that was the case this time.

Okay, that's that's totally fine.

I can tell it probably takes a lot of effort to put together memos like these on every every closure.

Um my only other question was um in response to Commissioner Steele's question, you talked about sort of focusing on closures, um, and that you do a preliminary review just as to jurisdiction.

Um, as part of that preliminary review, do you make any assessment as to the time sensitivity of the complaint?

And is there any room in your protocols to actually open up a case if it seems particularly time sensitive?

Yes, um, so we we uh definitely review a case for whether it needs to be worked on immediately.

Um we have cases like that and we have moved forward on that, but in for the most part, we are we are keeping our energy for case closures unless necessary to pursue a different case.

Any other questions?

Uh one additional question um related to another case closure with regard to Oakland Promise.

Um the allegation was that uh Oakland Promise was not a legal nonprofit at the time of the contract award.

Um I looked it up via the IRS website, and my understanding is that Oakland Promise is a legal nonprofit and was at that time, although it did change its name.

But in the event that it wasn't a legal nonprofit or in a different case where there was a contract awarded to a uh entity that misrepresented itself in that way.

Um it seems like you're saying that's that also wouldn't be under the PEC's jurisdiction because it unless it involved some sort of personal gain or um uh somebody using their position to secure private benefits or advantages, right?

So uh would that be something where you would refer it to another body or where what jurisdiction would that fall under?

That's a fair question.

Um I suppose I might ask the city attorney's office to look into it.

Um but I also think that um that may be an area where where just the political process has to play out.

Um it's just definitely not within our jurisdiction to um to enforce where money goes unless it's uh for personal gain.

Um we did look into, as you did, we did look into the the status of the um of the organization, and we decided to stick with the jurisdictional issue that is ours, which is personal gain.

So it doesn't matter to for our purposes whether or not it was a nonprofit or was not.

Um there was just no evidence of personal gain, which is what GIA requires.

Yeah.

I think some of the frustration from some of the folks filing these complaints is that you know, we sort of say, well, this doesn't follow, this doesn't fall under GIA, this doesn't fall under sort of the narrow scope of of what we prosecute.

Um is there uh and I think I asked this to the previous uh chief as well, um, but is there a practice of, you know, this doesn't fall under our our jurisdiction, but you know, here's a body that might be able to help you with this, or you might want to submit it here.

We don't, you know, we don't police bullying, we don't police, you know, folks misrepresent themselves in this way, but but here's who does, right?

We do, I uh we don't have a policy on this, but we do try to refer it, we refer it ourselves.

I I did that on a case today, um that was in this dismissal list.

Um so we do try to refer when possible.

Uh I think I think it would be worth considering a policy on this um to try to make sure that things aren't ending up in a black hole at the PEC, and that we're doing what we can to uh serve the Oakland public.

Yep.

Anything else?

I have a couple questions about the uh Jenkins um one.

Um this was uh brought up by um uh Miss Harbin Forte.

So uh one thing, do we do anything with a Brown Act or a CPRA violation?

Um that's not under our purview, but that's not uh the Sunshine Act is, although there's some overlap between the Brown Act and the So I was curious when I looked at the complaint form, so I found the complaint form for that complaint through the Oakland slide article.

And the first checkbox is is Sunshine, Brown, and CIPRA on the complaint form.

And to me, that that would indicate that the C that the PEC is concerned them with Brown and CIPRA and and so I guess it's not supposed to CPRA, so it was different.

Um anyway, um we might want to look at that.

If you know if we don't actually do anything with Brown or CPRA, then there probably shouldn't be a box on the form to that would imply that.

I'll take a look at that.

I I think people do often use Brown Act and Sunshine Act synonymously, so it may it may be more to that that that people know it as the Brown Act often and not the Sunshine Act.

Right.

But I I'll I'll definitely take that under consideration.

And then the other thing is uh just but I I uh read the comments today and um there was some uh uh potential GIA issue in the Jenkins um case, which uh if in uh section 22560 uh two, it talks about any person getting any private advantage.

So if you have a close friend or someone that you're trying to impress or or whatever and doing something for that, I think that was uh potentially Ms.

Harbor Forte's point.

So it's not a monetary thing, but it is a so did you look at that angle as well?

I thought about that today when the public comment came in.

I think my response to that would be that even if there was an attempt to impress someone, it was still within the boundaries of work.

It was a it was a work decision, it was a work the the alleged uh attempt to impress someone was still within the confines of of what I would consider a work decision.

Um and any impressiveness that came out of it would would likely reflect back on the work decisions and not necessarily on his personal life.

Um, but I mean, if say say you would say in wanting to impress someone, you would want to make a particular work decision go a certain way.

Wouldn't that be a vi a geo wouldn't that be a violation?

I wouldn't consider that a violation.

I think it could be considered an edge case, but again, the substance of what was being talked about was work stuff, and it wasn't there was no indication or allegation that there was any that anything happened in his personal relationship with this person because of what happened.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yes.

All right.

One other question.

Um I just wanted to check.

Um, you know, I understand that there is a case where at the last meeting we found probable cause, and you were going to look to schedule a hearing.

If you could give us an update on whether you found a hearing officer and progress towards scheduling a hearing, I asked particularly because I remember that the allegations in that complaint were also quite old.

They were.

And the reason we still brought that forward was because it had been consistently investigated.

So I think there is still some way to discern between those and what we're presenting today.

Um I have not set up an administrative hearing because I have been in contact with the respondent.

Any other questions?

Public comments.

On September 4th, 2020, the city uh uh Oakland Public Access Commission sent you a letter stating that it had received a complaint against uh alleging you uh had violated one or more laws under our jurisdiction.

Purpose of this current letter is to inform you that we have completed our preliminary review and have decided uh to dismiss the complaint.

The complaint is searched, that's me, that in 2020 the city council allocated in the amount of one million one hundred and fifty thousand dollars in financial contract to Oakland Promise.

Oakland Promise has never been a nonprofit.

Go check and what I had as part of my material fact, a letter, email from then Attorney General Xavier Pazair.

They have never been a nonprofit, they were initially had a fiscal agent, Oakland Public Education Fund.

They bifurcated, left and turned everything back over to Oakland Promise, which is a non-association.

They have never been a nonprofit.

East Bay College Fund changed its name to Oakland Promise.

They still are operating under 554 2103 707.

That's East Bay College Funds nonprofit since 2003.

Oakland Promise under Libby Shaff has never been a nonprofit.

And so staff has done a half-assed job with investigating, going back to then Xavier Bissaire, the attorney general state of California.

If you want me to produce the documents, I will.

The city gave one million one hundred and fifty thousand dollars to an entity that was never and still to date has never been a nonprofit.

Shame on you.

Why don't you ask me questions?

I could give you time, date, and circumstances with regards to.

So I will respectfully ask you, don't dismiss this case because it's gonna come back and bite you.

Trust me.

Because the evidence is really good.

Thank you, Mr.

Hazard.

Thank you.

Oh, please.

Ralph Cans again.

Um, just for a little background, 20 years ago when I was chair of this commission, we purposely incorporated the Brown Act and the Public Records Act into the Sunshine Ordinance so that they could all be enforced together.

It's right in the opening part of the Sunshine Ordinance.

Uh that was very specifically done so that this commission has authority to enforce both the Brown Act and the Public Records Act.

Uh and I I anyway, that's the history of it.

Uh I just I have concerns again about how long these complaints are getting to be dealt with.

I have one that's I don't know, three years old, two, three years old, evolving the redistricting commission, and I believe the results of that will be that the work of the redistricting commission wasn't valid over things like failure to fill out Form 700s and conflicts of interest, and it's not doing the city any benefit to be sitting on that, and it may be even a bigger problem because it took nine votes to set new council districts, and they got nine votes, and some of those votes may not have been legitimate, which means we're not working on legitimate council districts at the moment.

What does that mean?

I don't know, because we had a whole mess in District 4 and 5 with the school board election around that whole issue.

So there needs to be some process by where you prioritize things that need to be dealt with immediately, as opposed to things that can sit around a little bit, because there are some things that need to be done immediately, and I don't see any effort to do anything like that out of this commission.

It's just like, yeah, it took nine years, okay.

And the implication is if it had been dealt with right away, maybe there would have been a much different result.

Thank you.

Any other public comment?

Thank you.

Now it's time for the executive director report.

Thank you.

I don't um really have much to add except that I just wanted to note that um we discussed the programs and priorities chart that we'd had, so I I did go back and revisit what were uh listed out as a 2025 priorities at the beginning of the year.

And I have this with the draft mark because I wanted you to look at it as a working draft, um, to get feedback from you.

I tried to simplify it and reflect, you know, uh a little bit more differentiation between what are special projects and what are routine matters and kind of list out outcomes from those.

So um, if you have any feedback on that, um that would be appreciated, uh, so that we can have something that's maybe more useful and engaging for us in the coming year.

And that's all I'm happy to answer any questions.

Anyone have any questions?

Uh, one question.

Um, so uh it occurs to me that uh as we look at this, and thank you for for bringing this back up the uh our chart of programs and priorities.

Uh it occurs to me that um, you know, that sort of process of of reviewing uh these kinds of bigger picture things is one thing that uh we try to do at uh retreat periodically.

Uh, do you have any thoughts on when we might be doing another one of those?

Um, and when I know that uh staff time is uh is tight, but uh do you have any thoughts on when that might take place?

Well, in a way, the January meeting always we give a year-end roundup, you know, and that's sort of a bit of a preview of of what we've accomplished over the prior year.

Um, and then usually our timing is we'll we'll have our annual report coming out around March, and I think so that the timing for retreats is usually been in late spring, early summer.

Um, that kind of makes so kind of makes sense from that perspective that we'll have a really full picture of what we've done in 2025, and we can maybe look back and see how that looks over the last several years.

I think the other thing that would be helpful is um we might have more information in terms of what's coming up.

Um we know there are some there's discussion of some ballot measures that could impact us in some way.

Um there could be mid-cycle budget adjustments, which were significant last time.

So having that information when we do the retreat more later towards the end of spring, early summer, I think would be the a good time for that, thank you.

Other questions?

All right, thank you.

Uh public comment.

I think your office has moved from the first floor.

It's been almost two months now, right?

Am I correct?

You moved over across the street?

Well, why don't you change the message on the machine?

Not only are you at, you're not at 200 Franco Gabo Plaza, you at 250 Franco Gabo Plaza on the fifth floor.

So every time somebody calls in and gets an answer machine, it says 200 Franco Gabo Plaza.

So what are you gonna change it?

I hope it's changed tomorrow.

Two months you've been over there, and you've been carrying the same message.

And it takes a while before they get a return call.

That's how reckless someone is in this office, and that's not talking about the selective dismissal that staff makes when you have the material facts, but staff could give you that and you rubber stamping.

I appreciate your comments, Mr.

Mix, regarding open promise because that's serious.

They are not a nonprofit, and they never have been check the records.

See who OK Public Education is, their first fiscal agent.

That's why they were able to collect money, but this one million one hundred and fifty thousand dollars, they were with the public education fund they were out here, and assembly person Mia Banta was the recipient, because she was the CEO of this association, and the city gave them one point one hundred and fifty thousand dollars here again, Ralph Cance.

Uh, just a little history on mediation for public records.

I was chair of this commission when we first put that section into the Sun Trump ordinance.

Originally the intent of that was that if records weren't being produced, you could approach the public ethics commission and they would do a little mediating, not formally, just a little informal thing.

It would be overdone quickly.

And there was never a limitation on filing a complaint.

That came from the city council at the last minute when Jane Bruner introduced an amendment to say you couldn't file a complaint until you filed for mediation.

Which has led to just massive delays of production of public records.

This commission could go back and change that and just say we're gonna do, you know, you have 15 days to mediate if it's not done in 15 days file a complaint.

There's no reason I had one that went two years in mediation and two years as a complaint.

That's not the prompt disclosure of public records, which is what it's supposed to be all about.

I'm right now fighting with planning a building again.

I'm over a month out on a request.

I've got one of the city administrators passed due.

And we don't have them what you don't know about is when John Russo was city attorney, we had Michelle Abney who came out of the city clerk's office in John Russo's office, and this was before we had mediation in the Sunshine Ordinance, and you could call up Michelle Abney and say they're not producing the records, and she would get on the phone or the email or whatever it took, and you got your records, because Michelle knew how to do things, and she knew how to prompt people to do what they're required to do, and that's what we need.

We don't need a mediation that takes two years and never produces any records, and then another two years to find out.

Oh, there were more records, but we don't even sure, you know, by then who knows what's happened to all the records.

The the whole process needs to be cleaned up and it needs to be fixed so that it benefits the requester, not the city.

Thank you, Mr.

Gance.

Uh next item is the reports on subcommittees.

And first one is the revenue options ad hoc subcommittee, which has uh we met once in October and we finished.

Uh, are there any questions about the force there?

Yes, I would like to learn a little bit more about your decision to um close the subcommittee and to not pursue the ballot measure that you so skillfully drafted.

Uh let me just look here.

I think Suzanne, do you want to help me with this?

Well, I invite other members of the subcommittee to speak too, but I think we had uh a discussion about all the many factors that would be required to have a successful ballot measure, and what what would be um things that we would need to move forward in terms of gathering support for that to make it likely to get on the ballot, to make it likely to be able to be passed, and um and kind of out of that discussion amongst the commissioners, um, the consensus was that right this moment is not the moment to try to push that forward.

Um, and so that's why the recommendation was to continue looking at um that this is a very important issue for the commission.

The idea of in um our independence is really tied to being able to get resources and that them not being political essentially.

So this is an important issue, and this is one way that we could pursue that, that there could be other ways.

So I think that's why we had the recommendation that we should not abandon this issue, it's an important one that we should keep looking at, but there's a lot of other information that we need to make a good decision about when to move it forward, and I think also we felt that um uh the since the city's gonna try to get money through various other means for other purposes, and uh, and if we were to do ballot measure, it'd have to go through the city council and all that, and and what we've learned from last time is that it was unlikely to get support given this climate.

So we we the com uh the committee did a lot of good work to figure out what could a parcel tax look like, which would still apply at some point in the future, potentially.

But is that your question?

Yeah, and uh other thoughts on um, so I know the subcommittee is closed, but um like when you decided to close the subcommittee, what uh like what I wonder if you were also debating whether to maybe focus on other sources of funding, or you just concluded it at this time.

Well, it partly time.

I mean, the couldn't have gone longer than a year, and it was for this particular purpose.

So we we didn't feel it was worth it to try to go further.

If we want to do that at some point in the future, we make a new committee.

Okay, all right.

Thank you.

I think you partially answered it.

I think the question is what other options were you looking at to raise funds if if it's not going to be that uh the main one the main one we looked at was the parcel tax.

Right.

And uh I we may have discussed early on, I don't remember, and there's minutes posted about it in the very early meetings.

I think we may have looked at other options, and we decided to not consider those.

I don't remember even what they were.

Um, but it looked like the parcel tax could have been possible a year ago or whenever it was.

I'll I'll just I'll just add um and I think uh uh Suzanne and um or excuse me, executive director Dorian and uh Chair Upton have uh explained it very well, but um in terms of um uh you know the whole issue of of how the PEC is funded, um, you know, the the charter requires the city to fund us adequately.

Um, and I think that's um we do need to be clear about that when we uh go and uh advocate for ourselves in terms of the budget.

Um but in the meantime we have produced uh material through the subcommittee and um uh over the last several months in terms of potentially uh having a revenue raising measure that would independently fund the PEC, which uh is uh which would have important benefits as well.

So um as uh was alluded to, we are not giving up on that idea at all for a variety of logistical and and practical reasons.

Uh this isn't the time to move on it.

Um but uh I think the work that we did is being memorialized, and we're and it's uh you know, the the conversation that we had in the subcommittee was in terms of leaving it in a place where uh uh future PEC or uh some of our same staff in the future can pick it up where we left off and and uh push forward adequate funding for this body in the future.

Thanks.

Any other questions?

Okay, uh public comment?

This discussion about a ballot measure is comical.

Where staff dismiss my complaint regarding the special election ballot measure, measure a the transaction and use tax?

Staff said it was not in their jurisdiction when the city attorney altered the 75 word text and inserted sales tax into that ballot measure unilateral on every ordinance, the city's attorney's stamps approved for format and legality.

How hypocritical are you?

Talking about a ballot measure, which staff dismissed my complaint regarding Measure A, the transaction and use tax, which was for online internet purchases, not a general retail sales tax.

Staff dismissed it, and you went along with it.

And now you're talking about a tax that you want to not deal with for funding reasons.

That's a good example of what I'm saying and happened saying how hypocritical this body is.

That special election, April 15, 2025, and the ordinance that was passed on January 9, 2025.

138 33.

And when the city attorney filed with the Alameda County Voter Register that he is authorized to insert after the city council approved the ballot measure on January.

That was on January 16, seven days after the council authorized the proposed ballot to go to the April 15th.

You need to reopen that.

Cause staff misrepresented the facts.

Shame on you.

And the public is watching you.

Don't talk about transparency to me.

Don't talk about accountability to me.

It's not transparent.

Oh, yes, it is.

It's showing the lie, it's showing the misrepresentation.

That staff is complicit in the cover up.

Thank you, Mr.

Hazard.

Any other public comment?

Okay, next is the democracy dollars engagement ad hoc committee.

Um I'll defer to Commissioner Baeva with the admission that I have been directing my duties as to the um subcommittee and Commissioner Baeva and Commissioner Gage have been really carrying the water and doing a lot of important work.

Um, so Commissioner Baeva.

Um, thank you.

So I believe we are also coming to an end of our activities.

Uh we are not yet disbanded that subcommittee.

We are still sort of working on the uh we are working on finalizing our review of the local policy lab um outreach plan.

Um, and that's I think in the last month we've met a couple of times, and that was the I think the cracks of our like the main sort of cracks of all activities uh was um on that.

Um I don't know if you have any specific questions about you know the report or anything else about the subcommittee.

Any questions?

And the only thing I'll add is uh local policy lab is preparing uh uh very detailed uh report for an outreach plan.

We've um sort of reviewed and provided some feedback on that, and so I think that will be part of the work product coming out of the uh out of the subcommittee, um, which I think will be incredibly helpful.

I think we'll also, I think it's fair to say uh a big concern of the subcommittee members is that it's great to have an outreach plan, but we want to think about a map to actually operationalizing and getting funding for democracy dollars.

So even though that's not technically, you know, we were focused on the outreach plan, but in the back of all of our heads is that broader concern um, which which might be animating some of the questions that we had about um the parcel tax, all right.

Uh public comment.

I just want to reiterate it.

Don't talk about a ballot measure, don't talk about a parcel tax when the enforcement chief had dismissed my complaint on a ballot measure because they said it was outside their jurisdiction, but yet tonight you're talking about a parcel tax for a ballot measure, the special election ballot measure a the transaction and use tax will fall into the same category for which you're discussing tonight.

Shame on you, you must think the public is a fool, and what echoes out of the city attorney's mind is sackosaur, approved for format and legality.

Where's the integrity in all of that?

A bold face line, and you sit up there and accept it.

How can you?

Those are the clear legal facts.

Measure A is illegal.

They started collecting that sales tax on October one.

I'm not finished with it yet, they were personally served on October 29th.

They have till November 29th to answer or demur.

This body is gonna have mud.

I want to say something else, but I won't on the face, because enforcement chief chose to dismiss a unilateral decision by Ryan Richardson to alter the tax and mislead the voter, misrepresented the transact and use tax as a sales tax.

Why don't you discuss that?

No, but you're gonna remain silent, as usual.

Shame on you.

Where's your integrity?

This is supposed to be a public ethics dimission, thank you, Mr.

Hazard.

Uh next is the uh commissioner recruitment and selection finalist for interviews subcommittee.

It's a long name.

Um met once, and uh some of some of the product of our work is in the audience now.

Uh we had uh eight applicants and five were very qualified, and uh we decided to advance all five to the full uh commission for uh their interviews, and uh we likely won't meet again.

So, any questions about great uh public comment?

Whoever the applicant is, they may want to reconsider.

Based upon some of the comments that were presented tonight.

Why would they want to participate in a body?

Who ignores this purpose for which it came into existence?

On behalf of the public, you are misleading and shortchanging the public.

Under the hubris of public ethics.

You violated public comment rule?

2.20.150 of the city ordinance.

You violated the special city council meetings under 208 of the charter.

You could only have a special council meeting when one item is discussed on September 15th and on November 4th, 2025.

Enforcement team.

They violated it.

I sent you the videos of both of those meetings.

They went through a whole city council agenda.

18 to 25 items.

Read 208 of the ordinance.

It's real clear.

Read November 9, 2017.

The legal opinion of then City Attorney Barbara Parker.

One item.

Not multiple, one item.

You can't vote on anything, consent or non-consent.

So what are you gonna say about that?

Let counsel on this commission say something.

All right.

Where's the standard of law?

You ignore it.

Thank you, Mr.

Hazard.

Any other public comment?

One more time, Ralph Cannes.

Uh, city charter requires that appointments by this commission follow a public recruitment and application process.

When you have a secret ad hoc subcommittee meeting, that is not public.

Prior to Whitney Barrosoto becoming the executive director of this, the entire process for selecting commissioners was public.

It was publicly noticed.

The public could show up at the meetings where potential candidates were interviewed.

They could ask questions of those candidates.

They could see what questions are being asked of the candidates.

The whole process was transparent.

You do this every year.

It's not an ad hoc subcommittee.

It's the committee that's there every year.

This is exactly what the ACLU and First Amendment coalition sued for about serial ad hoc subcommittee meetings.

You need to lead by example, and you're not.

Thank you, Mr.

Cans.

Um next item is future meeting business.

Anything for future meeting business.

So we can vote.

And if I might suggest it it would be helpful to get a little bit more clarity on like once we invoke it, is it forever more, or are there sort of conditions where we could revisit?

Because I think that that's something I'm kind of concerned about, especially as we're trying this, and I would love for it to work.

But technology is technology, so great.

Yeah, and I would just add anything else relevant for kind of our consideration that we didn't have a chance to review today.

Sorry, considered the yes, I would also be interested in reviewing anything else that is relevant to um in addition to technology, any other consideration that could be relevant to us, just so that we can we could have a full sort of reach discussion and consideration.

We will have a big fat agenda in the future.

Exactly, I guess.

Any other future items, future business?

Uh can I request that um staff uh look into and um uh come back with um uh their opinion on the matter that was brought up by public commenters today regarding the uh city council uh special meetings and the single subjects uh uh rule if that is a rule um as well as um the um let's see right the um yeah I guess that's the only I guess that that encompasses uh what I'm asking for just the uh the city council meetings and whether those are uh following uh the law while while we're on that train uh I'd also like to get uh with the ad hoc uh get more clarification on the ad hoc uh uh setup that we do and make sure that we're we're good with that um and also on on uh commissioner mitch's point um even if if the city council is not doing the right thing the sort of two parts you know are they doing the right thing and is it our problem that they're not doing the right thing?

Is it some violation of something that we that's in our jurisdiction?

Would be nice to know.

If I can respond, uh Charter Section 208 is not within the jurisdiction of the commission.

Okay, we believe we're meeting a city attorney in November 9th, 27.

Any other future meeting business?

Public comment.

See what I mean about selective comments.

So through the chair to the city attorney, are you familiar with November 9, 2017 of the legal opinion of then city attorney Barbara Parker, who also reiterates only one item, no multiple items.

They cannot vote nor discuss on the consent calendar, nor the non-consent.

And they must cite the particular agenda item.

That's all that could be discussed.

So through the chair, ask the city attorney is he familiar with November 9th, 2017, the legal opinion of then bar city attorney Barbara Parker, who was very clear in terms of what can be contained in a special city council meeting.

One item.

So the city attorney was clear to make some comment about 208.

Let him make some comment about the legal opinion of November 9th, 2017 of City Attorney Barbara Parker, with related specifically to special city council meeting and what could be contained at those meetings and what could be discussed and or voted on, only that one item.

Thank you, Mr.

Hazard.

Any other public comment?

I'll just I'll just add that if it's out of our jurisdiction, then I withdraw my request for staff to come back on that.

But I would hope that if the city attorney is aware of any violation by the city council, then they would uh uh deal with that appropriately.

Just uh for the commission's awareness and for the public's awareness, uh Charter two hundred eight special meeting scheduling is a particular type of special meeting scheduling.

It does not encompass all, does not cover all special meetings that are scheduled by the council.

It's only two it and the twenty seventeen legal opinions clear about that.

It's uh refers to special meetings scheduled pursuant to two hundred eight, which is a special type of charter scheduling that allow that this allowed under the charter.

It's uh doesn't govern all special meetings of the city council.

Okay.

Um I would uh amend uh my request though to uh look at um if uh records retention policy was changed at the city council meeting if that is something that uh the uh uh the charter or uh any city rule would normally uh uh ask for the ethics commission to have some jurisdiction over that um if that took place and uh if so um what our options are there.

You can follow up on that.

Thanks.

Any other future meeting items?

We are oh please.

The city council is currently doing Zoom meetings.

You might get some input from the city clerk about how that whole system works that might help you in figuring out how you want to do that.

Um can you speak up, Mr.

Candle?

Oh yeah, okay.

Thank you.

Uh I would suggest getting with the city clerk about how they run the system of Zoom comments, because they do it at every city council meeting.

Um and it goes pretty flawlessly, pretty seamlessly.

It works really well.

Um the other thing is the problem with this 208 analysis is the city attorney is sitting here with a conflict of interest because he's trying to protect the city council and you need independent uh legal advice to deal with that issue.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other public comment?

We are adjourned.

Thank you.