Public Ethics Commission Special Meeting – November 19, 2025
Public Ethics Commission Special Meeting – November 19, 2025
The Public Ethics Commission held a special meeting on November 19, 2025, addressing administrative matters, a case closure plan, enforcement progress, and subcommittee reports. The meeting included public comments, discussion of proposed rule changes, and unanimous votes on minutes, the 2026 meeting schedule, and case closures.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Ralph Cannes criticized the meeting's special designation (only three days' notice) and argued it should have been a regular meeting with ten days' notice. He also claimed city council special meetings in September and November violated the city charter and Brown Act by having multi-item agendas, and urged the commission to investigate.
- Ralph Cannes also questioned whether six meetings per year are sufficient for the commission's workload, called for better handling of aged complaints, and noted that ad hoc subcommittees may violate the Brown Act. He suggested consulting the city clerk about Zoom meeting procedures.
- Mr. Hazard repeatedly accused the commission of ignoring material facts, violating the Sunshine Ordinance, and being a "kangaroo court." He cited specific complaints (Oakland Promise not being a nonprofit, Measure A transaction-and-use tax misrepresentation) and demanded the commission enforce city charter Section 208. He also criticized the commission for not allowing dialogue during public comment and for being dismissive.
- Brenda Harbin Forte submitted a written comment (not read aloud) regarding the Jim Chanin case, raising a potential Form 700 violation and questioning the closure.
Discussion Items
- Approval of Minutes (September 17, 2025): Commissioners noted a correction (Commissioner Misik instead of "still" in item 11D). Minutes approved unanimously.
- 2026 Regular Meeting Schedule: Staff proposed six meetings (third Wednesday every other month) and noted plans to implement remote public comment via Zoom. City Attorney Oliver explained the Brown Act's alternative teleconferencing rules: if invoked, remote public comment must be enabled at all meetings, and a quorum of members must be physically present. After discussion, the commission voted to adopt the schedule without the remote participation provision (removed from motion). Motion passed unanimously.
- Proposed Amendments to Conflict of Interest Code: Presented by Director Duran. City charter requires the commission review before council passage. No motion to comment was made; the item was passed without action. Later, the commission reopened public comment for this item after realizing the omission. No further action.
- 2025 Case Closure Plan: Enforcement staff presented 10 cases for commission vote, including a 9-year-old complaint against Desley Brooks (alleged kickbacks from a farmers market). Staff recommended closure due to age, lack of evidence, and respondent's attempt to cure the conflict. Another case (Jim Chanin) was discussed: complainant alleged personnel issues and retaliation, but staff determined it was outside PEC jurisdiction (no private gain). Commissioner questions touched on time sensitivity, referral practices, and Form 700 issues. The commission voted unanimously to accept staff recommendations for closure.
- Enforcement Program Report: Staff reported open matters reduced from 152 to 135, and announced hiring of a full-time investigator and part-time law clerk. Discussion included how similar complaints are handled, the policy on referrals, and the possibility of a written policy for referring out-of-jurisdiction complaints.
- Executive Director Report: Staff presented a revised programs and priorities chart for feedback. Commissioners asked about scheduling a retreat; staff suggested late spring/early summer 2026.
- Subcommittee Reports:
- Revenue Options Ad Hoc: Completed work, recommended not pursuing a ballot measure at this time but keeping the issue alive. Discussion focused on the challenges of a parcel tax and the need for alternative funding.
- Democracy Dollars Engagement Ad Hoc: Finalizing review of a Local Policy Lab outreach plan; still active.
- Commissioner Recruitment and Selection: Advanced five of eight applicants to full commission interviews.
- Future Meeting Business: Commissioners requested staff to clarify whether the remote participation rule can be revisited once invoked, and to research the city council's single-subject rule for special meetings (later withdrawn after city attorney said Charter Section 208 is not in PEC jurisdiction). Also requested information on the records retention policy change and whether it required PEC review.
Key Outcomes
- Approval of September 17, 2025 minutes – unanimous.
- Adoption of 2026 regular meeting schedule (without remote participation provision) – unanimous.
- Approval of 2025 case closure plan (10 cases) – unanimous.
- No action on conflict of interest code amendments (no motion to comment).
- Enforcement report accepted; staff to bring back information on remote participation rule and records retention policy.
Meeting Transcript
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.
openpublica.com