Okay, can we start recording now?

I guess I guess that's silence is yes.

Uh welcome everyone to the special to this special meeting of the Oakland Public Ethics Commission.

Uh the meeting is started at 6 33.

I'm commission Chair Francis Upton, and I will be presiding at today's meeting.

As a reminder to those in attendance, the Public Ethics Commission is an independent agency of the City of Oakland that works to ensure compliance with the city's government ethics, campaign finance, transparency, and lobbyist registration, as well as to administer the city's public financing programs.

We'll begin with item one taking the roll.

Commissioners, please indicate if you're present by calling uh when I call your name, uh Commissioner Baeva.

Not here.

Commissioner Gage.

Present.

Commissioner Michigan here.

Commissioner Steele is not here.

Maybe he's ill.

Commissioner Talok.

Present.

And I'm here.

So we have a just barely quorum.

Um we also have uh members of the staff, executive director Duran and uh and everyone else.

Yeah, we have a couple new faces.

Um this is our commission assistant, Melanie Newcombe, who's assisting tonight, and um Bob Chowdhury, who is our legal um clerk right now.

Awesome.

And also counsel uh Luby to help us out here.

Uh all right.

So uh there any staff or commissioner announcements.

Okay.

Uh next item is open forum.

Before we start, I'd like to go over the public comment process so we can all know what to expect.

Member of the public may speak out on any item appearing in the agenda.

If you wish to speak during open forum or on an item that is in our agenda tonight, please stay seated until the item is called, and when I open the floor for public comment on the item, come to the podium.

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

So that everyone gets a chance to speak and be heard.

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

I want to clear also want to clarify how we handle public comment, both during open forum and during public comment periods later on 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 is not 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 to talk or answer questions.

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

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

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 that they can follow up with you to give you information you've requested.

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

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

Please contact the staff at ethics commission at Oaklandca.gov for assistance in filing a complaint.

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

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

Again, you will have three minutes and the timer is there, so you'll know when your time to wrap up.

Anyone for public comment?

I also note that we had a written public comment from uh Mr.

Cannes, which you can find on our website.

Good evening, Ralph Cannes.

Uh I would point out that my comments were not sent to the public.

They were not sent to everybody on the agenda list.

I know I didn't get it.

I don't know why I sent it in yesterday.

Normally they are.

It relates to the fact that the wrongdoings of this commission that were pointed out in my comments, my written comments.

And this goes back to interaction we had last month regarding your continuing violation of the Brown Act by holding ad hoc subcommittee meetings, which need to be publicly noticed.

Just for your benefit, Mr.

Misek, I provided some legal analysis for you.

If you think it's wrong, put it in writing.

What's wrong with my analysis?

Because my analysis is right.

I think about a whole lot more I can add to that.

That's just the tip of the iceberg.

This commission has been holding illegal committee meetings for years.

Your process of selecting new commissioners must be done in public.

It says so in the charter.

Not just that the Brown Act requires it.

The Charter specifically says it's supposed to be a public application process.

That means a public meeting where this where the public gets to watch what questions you ask of potential candidates.

The public gets to ask their own questions.

And on top of that, an ad hoc committee cannot make a decision.

An ad hoc committee, it doesn't use the term ad hoc anywhere in the public in the Brown Act.

But it says a committee that's not noticed, must consist solely of the members of the committee.

As soon as there's a staff member or somebody from outside that committee involved, it's a public meeting.

And your minutes from the last few meetings show clearly every one of those had staff or a member of the public involved, or both.

See all kinds of legal analysis about about the problem.

And this commission is supposed to be leading by example, then you're not.

So at this point, I want to know what you're gonna do to have public meetings for the selecting of new members of this commission.

Ms.

Duran, you've been part of this for a long time, and you didn't even know last month.

Not a single member of this commission or any staff member knew that when an agenda item is not heard, it still has to allow for public comment.

That was an embarrassment, a true embarrassment.

And on top of that, you had a legal advisor who had a conflict of interest, which is something that's never been cleared up.

It's not the first time, and until this commission has their own independent legal advisor, independent of the city attorney, that's going to recur again and again.

The police commission has that.

Why not this commission?

Thank you, Mr.

Kans.

Mr.

Kans, I do note that the public comments that you provided in writing are do appear on the website, including yours.

They did send an email out to the government.

I understand.

Thank you.

At the last city council meeting.

I mean, excuse me, commission meeting.

I approached the issue regarding special council meetings.

And your enforcement chief and the city attorney seem to be dismissive of my concerns.

Let me read you from the legal opinion dated November 9th, 2017.

Legal opinion, city attorney.

Scope of special council meetings call pursuant to city charter section 208.

And Mr.

Ruby tried to say that's not important.

This opinion addresses the following question.

Who has the authority to call special meetings?

Whether special meetings call pursuant to charter section 208 are limited to discussion of a single subject.

Whether council president or the city council can add additional items to the agenda of a special meeting call pursuant to charter section 208.

Turn it over.

Question.

Who has the authority to call special city council meeting?

City Council meetings pursuant to city charter, Section 207, Sunshine Ordinance, Section 2.20.070, and the Brown Act.

Government Code Section 54956.

The council president pursuant to the Sunshine Ordnance 2.207 and Brown Act and Government Code.

Three council members pursuant to city charter 208.

The mayor and the city administrator.

Question Are special city council meetings called pursuant to section 208?

Yes.

City Charter Section 208 explicitly and unambiguously mandates that special meetings called pursuant to that section shall be limited to a single subject.

City Charter Section 208 specifically authorizes three council members, city administrator or the mayor to call special meeting to address special subject using the word subject in a singular form and then provides that notice of such meeting shall state special subject.

Does the council president or city council have authority to add item to the agenda of special meetings called pursuant to section 208?

No.

Neither the council president nor the city council may add items, special meetings called pursuant to charter section 208, whether those items are on the same or different subject.

The city charter is the city's constitution and it's the supreme law of the city, subject only to conflicting provisions in state or federal constitution.

A charter city may not act in conflict with this charter.

It's real clear.

So your enforcement chief, when they have, because I've already filed on the special meeting on September 15th as well as on November 4th, special council meeting.

Those should be void and nullified.

I'm tired of the enforcement chief trying to reconstruct what's in the law.

And you have an obligation to make sure that that law is enforced.

And so those acts that were approved at those said meetings that have already done a public records request for all special meetings from 2022 to 2025.

So we will expect the public will expect, and I will be posting this on CleanOakland.com.

So you won't be able to push this under the table.

And it doesn't take long to look at what the law says and what those two meetings of September 15th as well as November 4th speaks to.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And I'll be back to continue this.

Any other public comment?

Okay.

Our first and only action item on the agenda is the proposed amendments to the Oakland Campaign Reform Act.

Under the City Charter, any amendments to laws that the Commission have the power to enforce or administer must be submitted to the Commission for review and comment prior to the passage by City Council.

Draft legislation amending the Oakland Campaign.

The Oakland Campaign Reform Act to amend Section 3.12.045 to increase the contribution limits to officeholder funds to match the temporary increase limits to candidates and candidate controlled committees and extend the sunset date.

And two to amend Section 312150 to clarify office that officeholder expenditures may not be used for mailings within three months of any election for which the elected officials running for city office have been submitted to the commission for review.

The commission will review and may decide to provide comment on the proposed legislation.

Mr.

Ram, would you like to present your staff findings on this issue?

And I also note that there's a public comment by two people on this that are also on the website.

Good evening, commissioners and everyone joining us tonight.

I'm Suzanne Doran, Director for the Public Ethics Commission.

And as our chair just stated, we're reviewing a proposal from Council President Jenkins to amend the Oakland Campaign Reform Act tonight.

If you recall, in May of this year, considering the likely postponement of Democracy Dollars public financing, there were a number of amendments passed to the Oakland Campaign Reform Act as well as the Limited Public Financing Act.

One was a temporary increase in the contribution limits for candidates.

They were raised back to the 2022 levels with a sunset date of June 30th, 2029, or if there is public financing available at specific thresholds, then they will censor at that time.

And the limited public financing act was reinstated for the next two elections or until democracy dollars are implemented.

At that time during the public debate over the amendments, members of council had requested some further amendments, and that's what's being returned to us tonight.

So to just go over them, I won't go into as much detail as the memo, but I'll summarize.

And as some of you may be aware, if you are an incumbent, you have the ability to have a second account for fundraising that can uh incumbents can use for governmental purposes, charitable purposes, and things like this, but they are prohibited from using that money for any campaign related spending.

So that gives them the ability to get additional donations, and those are on an annual limit instead of uh per election cycle.

So each year a donor can give to them at the maximum rate, should they want to.

So this would include they would increase those from the measure W rates to the pre measure W rates of uh $900 maximum uh contributions from an individual or 1,800 from a broad-based political committee.

So in this case, uh I think there's more to look at because what we know is that elected officials in Oakland raised most of their funds from large donors, and um a staff analysis of uh donor donors to the officeholder funds found that while 21% of the contributions from individuals were at the maximum limit, they actually made up the majority of the funds raised.

So increasing contribution limits would definitely provide the greatest advantage to officeholders who already have access to networks of wealthy individuals or businesses who can afford to donate at those levels, compared with officeholders who raise most of their funds from small contributors whose giving would not change.

I also wanted to note that back in May, the commission took a neutral position on the amendment to temporarily increase campaign contribution limits, but they the commission did vote unanimously to oppose the amendment to increase the annual ceiling for total contributions to officeholder funds.

And at that time, the commission had cited its concerns that raising the limit would allow large donors additional opportunities to give more money to officials, increasing the risk of perception or real conflicts of interest, that the benefits were unclear, given that officeholders can already solicit unlimited amounts to worthy organizations through behested payments, and that current laws governing the use and solicitation of office holder funds could be perceived as insufficient to prevent misuse.

So on the other hand, this is a temporary um increase.

So I I think that it's it's not clear that this advances the purposes of OCRA in any way, but if it is to pass, I think it's really important that the commission follow up with probably a report at the end of each election cycle documenting you know the patterns, how this impacts the patterns of donor activity, and at that time we would be able to have uh uh evidence-based recommendation in terms of um whether current laws governing the use and solicitation of these funds are sufficient to prevent misuse.

And then the last um amendment would be a bar on mailers paid for with officeholder account funds within three months of a city candidate's election.

So um staff is supportive of this amendment because it adds additional guardrails to make sure that um incumbents aren't getting any any campaign-related advantage to being able to do extra communications with constituents prior to an election, and it's consistent with FPPC guidance and the guidance that staff typically gives officials.

So with that, thank you very much.

Uh what I'd like to do to organize our discussion is take each of the three items separately because I think they the level of controversy on each item will be different.

Uh and perhaps we can uh take them in, uh, take the first item uh, which is the extension of the uh date, and the third item, which is the uh mailing thing as the first two items, and then lastly discuss the middle item, which would likely be the more controversial one.

So, um does anyone have any comment on the first item, which is extending the date.

Does anyone want to uh anyone want to support that item?

I mean, I guess one thing I'm not clear about the justification, like to me it's not clear why it matters that 2026 and 2028 candidates should be treated the same.

It's more important that all 2028 camp uh candidates have the same deadline.

So some 2028 candidates aren't advantaged over others with respect to the particular political race that they're in.

Um but that being said, a six-month extension doesn't seem particularly problematic.

So I'm pretty neutral on it.

Okay.

Anyone else?

Uh can I ask uh a question to uh uh executive director Doran on this?

You may ask a question as well as you like.

Thank you.

Uh so when the uh council came before us in May, uh originally proposing this, and um at least at that time we had some representatives of the council here who drafted this.

Uh so this time I'm just relying on your you reporting your communications with them.

Uh but when we uh initially took a position on this in May and we decided not to support the um uh temporary limits to the uh contributions um we did provide some feedback that we felt as a body that it should be contingent on candidates accepting expenditure limits and that the sunset date should be December 31st 2026.

Um did the council implement expenditure limits to go along with this and um did you hear any feedback from them on why they disregarded our recommendation to sunset it in 2026.

So yeah I believe that um the they did when they had the final amendment now we reinstituted the process that we had pre-measure W, which is that to raise funds at the higher limit you have to agree to limit your spending they do that through uh a form that they file with the public ethics commission they can't accept any donations at the higher level until they've done that.

So um that would basically apply here.

Okay.

In terms of the why they didn't choose that date um I don't I don't recall at the time why they um so I don't want to misspeak by speculating but I I guess I would say that I did invite um council president jenkins to to come and um share the reasoning um why they have this but it his memo to council is included and also if when you read through the legislation also you can see that in through the whereas you can see the the arguments that they're they're making for why they think this is important.

Okay.

That's all my questions.

Commissioner McGage.

I don't think I have a particular um a particular opposition to the six month extension that's being proposed um I think there's a question in my mind about uh due to the sort of lack of controversy maybe and uh the the fact that I think we're getting feedback from folks that are sort of candidates themselves on what would be most useful then for them to wrap up their their sort of accounting and reporting uh I don't know that we as a commission need to take a position on on that proposal.

Um but it it it is striking I think among the four of us there is generally a consensus not to oppose.

I didn't get sorry yeah uh I was saying that uh I don't have an issue with what is being proposed in the first item yeah okay that's right um but I don't know that we as a commission need to also uh either um provide support or opposition on that we can we can do any of it else we can we can be neutral it sounds like we're neutral on that item um this is that good for you Commissioner Richard um I'll go along I'm against it um I don't think the contribution limits should have been increased in the first place um the uh council disregarded our instructions related to sunset related to the sunset date and didn't provide any explanation to us and um the uh you know my my opinion is that uh if they would like the um uh you know I don't think that this is uh in line with measure W to begin with but are you are you um against this the just the very first item though?

Yeah, yes, okay, right.

So you're against it and uh we have three.

So just to clarify the the item before us, this first item is about a six-month extension to the current uh what was adopted right last time.

Yeah, and so just wanted to state I I think your opposition dates back to sort of an original opposition to the item um rather than to the sort of the six months now, and yet it doesn't change your position to oppose it.

No, I don't think that uh the contribution limits should be this amount for six months or any period.

Yeah, thank you.

I guess I'll fully clarify.

I guess I hadn't appreciated and I should have looked back in May that our recommendation then, which made sense to me was to extend it to 2026 to see if we had democracy dollars in 2026, and they went ahead and extended it to 2029.

Um I take Commissioner Michigan's point that at some point it's just a slippery slope of like, are we just gonna keep getting six-month extension requests?

Um when this A shouldn't have been done in the first place, or B should have been limited to 2026, because we currently don't have democracy dollars.

Um I am persuaded by that, and so I think I also now end up against it.

Um especially when you know they did have the opportunity to come here and explain answer our questions about why we went from 2026 to 2029 in the first place.

Yeah, I don't I'd also point out that it's not clear to me why if they wanted it through December, I mean why it wasn't just uh proposed in the first place, and I think it's indicative of um I frankly thought it was clear when we received the the presentation from the council in May that this whole proposal wasn't thoroughly thought out or considered, and that frankly our own staff did a more thorough job and uh more thoughtful job of reviewing it than the council had.

Um I it it's frustrating that um uh that they aren't here tonight to defend these uh uh particular proposals and it's frustrating that um you know our review and comment doesn't seem to have been taken seriously in May.

Um I do have one additional question and it's based on um the uh comment that we got from common cause and they asked if the temporary $900 uh oh I think this is related to sorry, I think is this related to um if the temporary 900 dollar contribution limit for campaign accounts is extended to 2029, we respectfully request adding language to the ordinance specifying that the higher limit will sunset earlier if the city's democracy dollars program is implemented before 2029.

So can you clarify, is that language already there or would that need to be added?

Yes, it's already there.

Um basically if even if we did a partial version of democracy dollars, if we meet that threshold where uh candidates would have up to $30,000 of funding available through public financing, that for those offices then the contribution limits go down to the measure w levels.

So for example, if we do the full program and it was in 2028, at that point all of the contribution limits would go to the measure w levels.

If we do a modified version where we're only doing, for example, council districts, then if we have thirty thousand up to thirty thousand dollars of public financing available, those races would have the lower measure w limit apply.

But the the people um or the candidates who are not able to have democracy dollars funding, they would stay at the pre-limit, although regardless of what happens, it will sunset um in 2029.

So even if democracy dollars is not implemented, it will sunset at that point.

Uh, Commissioner Mitchik, I uh I don't mean to speak for the council, but I wanted to just offer my memory having watched the meeting that I think was held in June.

I do think they actually addressed our um request or suggestion uh a strong suggestion to have the sunsetting happen in 2026 by saying, I think what my recollection is, and I know um our chair was at the meeting, was that they thought it would essentially be a waste of time to have to uh at that time extend again through legislation that they thought it was more efficient to do it all now.

Uh that would encapsulate both the 2026 and 2028 election cycles with the language about uh democracy dollars happening earlier, potentially sunsetting it.

Uh and that was the explanation that I recall.

I think in general, um your frustration at feeling that our input wasn't taken seriously.

I share, um, and I think is generally concerning.

I felt they had a generally dismissive attitude towards the letter we wrote, but I did recall them, you know, giving really addressing the feedback, and I think maybe I hear you tonight kind of wondering why they didn't address it, and I just had a memory that they did.

Other comments?

So it sounds like um I'm sort of still neutral on it, and um, but sounds like the other three commissioners here are not.

And uh and at least two of us are at least two, uh uh and uh and but also I think since we're commenting, I think um it's not necessary as far as I know to have a unified comment from the commission.

I think we can we can express the views of the different commissioners.

The we just need to come up with some text around it since it's an action item.

Um Commissioner Mitchik or uh um, do you want to provide a sentence or two that we can uh put as our as your comments?

Since we need to actually say something in this meeting and have it be.

How many how many votes do we need?

What is the vote threshold on this?

It's a majority of those present.

Okay.

For policies and for regulations, uh otherwise is a majority of the council, so for this it would be four votes.

This will be four votes?

Yes.

Okay.

So um do you want to?

I mean, of text.

Yeah, okay.

What why don't you why uh you think of text, and maybe we can move on to the next item, which is the other theoretically non-controver or less controversial item, which is the uh the issue of the um uh uh sending out mailers uh three months before.

So is there uh any comments on that?

Uh I'm supportive of that language.

It's common sense.

Anyone opposed to that one?

Okay, I'm supportive of it as well.

Um so I think in that one we can probably just say we support it.

Uh and so then now this brings us to the issue, the the middle issue, which is the uh increase of the contribution limits.

Uh who would like to begin in saying they don't support it.

Uh through the chair, um if I could ask uh executive director Doran some questions about this item.

Um so again, going back to our conversation and discussion when this was proposed to us in May, um we did provide the council some feedback and some questions.

We um uh we requested some substantiation on how behested payments from existing officeholder fund limits are not sufficient to achieve the purpose of being able to direct resources to specific council districts.

Um we asked the council to uh propose guardrails uh uh for the use of such funds to ensure that they weren't used as essentially as slush funds um if the limits were increased uh and uh we requested more information about the administrative burden of administering the funds, and uh I believe we expressed that to council member Houston in person when he was here, and we also delivered that in writing to the council.

What uh response did we get back from that?

I don't believe there was any formal response to that, no.

Okay, and now they're uh they're back in the requesting to further loosen the limits.

Um and uh we got uh some feedback from Common Cause who is against this, pointing out uh and your staff report pointed out this as well that the uh that what they're asking for um doesn't which uh purportedly aligns with the regular campaign finance limits actually would be a much higher limit because it's an annual limit as opposed to a per cycle limit.

And the uh and common cause points out that uh this would actually increase the uh total increasing the limit to $900 would actually increase the total to $3,600 over a four-year election cycle uh more than five times the allowable contra uh uh limit to campaign accounts.

Does that align with your analysis as well?

Did you see that comment?

Yes, yeah, I'd say it does.

I mean it's kind of similar to what we said in the staff report that that obviously the the purpose of this is to raise the limits is so that they would be able to raise more funds, and that um the main people would apply to would be the high the people who are able to do uh donations at the at the high limit, and that would logically then magnify their uh influence.

Okay, so I'm against this.

Um I uh uh I think even more strongly on this one that our feedback was not considered.

We have the statutory uh obligation of providing review and comment on these, and uh while I don't expect the council to always do what we say, I do expect them to take it seriously.

We take our job seriously in this position as does our staff, and um we do it because uh Oaklanders uh don't have time themselves to follow everything the city council is doing, and uh we uh have these come across our radar because it's our job to do that, and uh when the council uh doesn't take our feedback and doesn't take our input seriously, it impacts Oaklanders as a whole that way, and I'm dismayed and disappointed that they didn't do that and that they've come back with a even more uh flagrant plan to uh uh to go well beyond the limits that uh were in place and were there for a reason.

So um I'm very against this one.

Thank you.

Other views.

Uh so I'll uh I'm really not sure about this because I um it I see there's a bunch of opposition to the officeholder accounts, but also I I feel like they're pretty transparent, and you know, they have to really account for all the money they spent.

And you can see it, and I'm and there was a recent Oakland site article that detailed all the expenses there.

And in the scheme of things, it's not that much money.

So I'm not really afraid of politicians being bought with this stuff.

And you know, the argument that they make is these limits have not been increased in a very long time, and you know, considering inflation and so forth, and this this seems reasonable.

So, but there are people that believe officeholder accounts just shouldn't be at all, and and so any opportunity to squash them or dampen them down or whatever will be will be taken.

And uh so I would say that I'm kind of neutral in this way.

I don't see the downside of officeholder accounts, and this seems like a reasonable proposal if they uh if they do it.

They are there is strict reporting on the disbursements and contributions, right?

Uh uh Director Dryan?

Yeah, it's the same disclosure requirements as you have for campaign committees.

So anybody who contributes $100 or more has to be disclosed, you know, and their employment, their um their occupation.

Um they also have to report all those expenditures and how they use it.

So um it's in their report on the same cycle as as the campaign committees.

So I guess I I would make one comment.

I mean, in some ways that um the Hested payment disclosure is quite a bit different.

You know, it doesn't kick in until um it's over five thousand dollars in a year.

And so in that sense, anything under that is is not visible to the public, right?

Um, as compared to this, whereas any, you know, $100 or more.

So I, you know, it's not I'm not advocating for it, but I'm just pointing that out.

That that is one area where uh campaign contributions are more transparent.

Yeah, and I guess like if the council doesn't want to pay attention to us, it doesn't that's their prerogative, you know, if they can listen to, you know, so I'm not particularly offended by that.

Go ahead.

Well, they don't have they don't have to pay attention to us, but I think they should be held accountable when they do ignore us.

Um they have their prerogative and they have their uh uh uh charge and and so do we, and so it's as you know, the as the body that's supposed to be the watchdog and looking after these folks, um, you know, we should take that seriously.

And you know, maybe we should look at the behested payment rules because I'm sure they're doing both.

Um I'm sure that they are uh uh being influenced in a lot of ways.

And $3,600 may not be a lot of money to some people on this commission, but it's a lot of money to a lot of people, and um it's a lot of money to the council members, or else they wouldn't be seeking this uh seeking this amendment.

So there's a reason why common cause is against this, there's a reason why uh a lot of us were against this, and there's a uh a reason why this sort of thing is controversial and it hasn't just been controversial in Oakland, it's been controversial in a lot of cities where uh uh where politicians have used this sort of special interest money uh as essentially slush funds to pay for personal uh travel uh and uh other expenses.

And uh, you know, they let's not, you know, let's not kid ourselves that there's a reason why you would want to distribute this money yourself and not just have other folks in the community distribute it, you can uh it's good politically to uh be able to sprinkle favors to your own groups.

And uh when council member Houston was here, uh he justified it by saying that well, he wants to uh he wants to uh be able to take the money and give it to folks instead of just facilitating direct contributions from uh from funders because he wants to have oversight over the funds, and we have we asked him to uh come back with us and and provide us with details of how he was providing that oversight, and he hasn't, and neither has anyone from the council.

So uh, you know, the uh uh the idea that all of these funds are being used uh in a transparent way, uh and in a way that is motivated by good government.

Um they don't even seem to be making that argument to us, uh, and we're the representatives of the people, so I don't uh I don't see a reason to endorse a uh uh a measure that they're not even willing to defend themselves as being a transparent and good government measure.

Other comments.

I think I just have a a relatively short one.

So I oppose this as well, um, and I think in part because we haven't been satisfied in terms of having the series of questions we included in the last letter, um, be uh, you know, be addressed and those concerns um be mitigated in some way.

But I think here my thoughts really are that it is difficult when essentially voting for this uh as a council person, uh a council person stands to sort of benefit from the outcome.

Um and I think that's where you know we as a commission, we don't have uh a sort of dog in this fight in a personal way.

We do it on behalf of the residents of Oakland.

Um but when the council votes and it it means that they're going to have uh access to money they wouldn't otherwise are, you know, increased amounts of money at their disposal.

I think it is uh it is less palatable, I think, to just sort of accept that vote and and not have there be more analysis and more justification, especially when behested payments exist as an alternative.

Um so I uh I do uh oppose this.

I think I would be uh maybe more open if um $900 was the limit that could be contributed uh within an election cycle as opposed to annually.

There would be greater alignment, but I you know, I I'm not even sure that I want us to go into that detail as a commission in the letter.

Um just recognizing as it's been said before that this essentially allows contributions much greater than can happen um as part of a campaign.

Um and I won't belabor the point, but I also oppose um this proposal for the same reasons as uh Commissioner Mechuk has so uh excellently detailed.

So, um I I believe that uh I can facilitate a unified opposition here, uh, and uh I would ask Commissioner Mitchick to come up with some text for us uh in our statement of opposition.

Um, and uh from my point of view, you're free to uh call out the council and they're uh uh not paying attention to our requests and for more information so that we can better advocate for that.

Um I think uh we'll need we'll need text before we vote on.

We also need to get public comment before we vote on anything.

Um, I just want to uh offer that I think if we can come to consensus amongst us on the position, we can also rely on staff to really draft the language.

I think it's how we've done previous letters.

So maybe just wanted to lower the burden on commissioners so to do perfect uh articulation kind of on the fly.

Does that sound right?

That's fine with me.

So okay with our executive director.

Right.

So um let's uh so for the first item, uh we have we have a mixed uh uh you and I are neutral and and uh the outer commissioners are opposed.

Uh and then the second item is a unanimous, sorry, the third item is unanimously supported.

Uh that's the the um uh mailing thing, and then the the middle item is will be we'll have the votes in a minute, but uh we'll be unanimously opposed, and uh hopefully there's enough information to capture the text on that.

Um any other comments before we take public comment on these?

Is there any public comment?

Sorry, I'm oh, I think they're doing it over there.

Yeah, it's a whole this is an interesting discussion.

Uh the clarification, are you using candidates and council interchangeably?

Because candidates, we don't know who candidates are.

So that's question number one.

Are you using that in the same vein when you talk about candidates and council members or what?

Also, the office holder account.

What's the purpose of the officeholder account?

Is it to give money that the council member choose to give the recipient?

And are there any limits to what they do?

Or is that a slash fund?

Because I don't see any purpose of an office holder account, and it disadvantages would be candidates anyway, because that council person could speak to, oh, I did this for this group of individuals or this particular group.

So I'm confused why all this discussion and why.

What's the real purpose of the officeholder account?

Is it to advantage the council member over would be candidates or what?

Can somebody speak to that?

And I'll take my answers sitting down.

And out of that report came the rules on officeholder accounts and the rules about contractors doing business with the city.

And those laws got rewritten by the council right after that, and have barely changed since that time.

They're that old.

So all these exceptions you see in the contractors doing business and the officeholder account was from that time.

But more critically, the grand jury said there's really no reason for these accounts.

They're acknowledging their vote buying slush funds.

That's what an office holder account is.

Plain and simple.

That's why it's being written this way.

They know the state of the budget in this city is such that there will be no democracy dollars in 2028.

And beyond that, it's even questionable.

And given the history in Seattle of how expensive that program is, and I don't think any of you have ever read the reports out of Seattle, but when over 46% of the funds go to administrative overhead, not to public financing of campaigns, it's a problematic situation.

It's quite problematic.

And this commission has yet to deal with that fact that the democracy dollars program is prohibitively expensive.

There's better ways to distribute public financing to candidates.

That's what you should be looking at because in Seattle, not only does it the city spending 46% of the money on the overhead, candidates have to spend an additional amount to do all the paperwork goes with it.

It's well over 50% of the money goes to administrative overhead, not to campaign purposes.

Thank you.

Good evening, commissioners.

Thanks for the opportunity to speak.

My name's Diaz Army.

I submitted the public comment earlier on behalf of Common Cause California and just wanted to speak a comment as well today.

So as you read, we respectfully oppose raising the annual contribution limits for office holder accounts.

Oakland already provides district specific public funds for constituent services and office holder accounts to add a separate stream of resources on top of that.

Because these accounts are reset every year.

Increasing the per donor limit would meaningfully expand the total amount an elected official can receive from the same contributors over term, and this heightens the reality and the perception of donor influence and pay to play.

So I understand and appreciate that some believe that higher limits can help officials respond to community needs more effectively, but again, as we've been discussing this evening, based on the data showing office holder accounts rely on heavily heavily on larger donors, increasing the ceiling risk, deepening that dependence rather than broadening community access and participation participation.

Because not all candidates have equal access to wealthy donor networks, higher limits inevitably skew fundraising power towards those who do, potentially worsening inequities, and who can mount viable campaigns and what communities are heard.

Further, you know, as was discussed with behested payments and uh for bona fide charitable or governmental purposes, those already allow officials to partner with community organizations when additional resources are needed.

So for those reasons we urge the commission to reaffirm your previous position, and uh and we also support the amendment to prohibit officeholder-funded mailers within uh three months of the election.

Um this guardrail is consistent with state guidance and helps preserve public trust.

Um finally, we did just want to uh speak to the importance of at least exploring um the funding of the democracy dollars program and hearing the last comment that was made.

Um, you know, though the report uh is is available available for review, but you know, Oakland is not Seattle, and those uh, you know, those same approaches uh they don't have to be uniform and it doesn't have to be you know done the same way here.

So very much appreciate the um the raising of the cost of administrative fees, and also very much want to um encourage y'all to continue to explore um that avenue and um and advocate will continue to advocate as well to the city.

So thank you very much for discussing this matter and for your leadership on this topic and for the opportunity to speak.

Thank you.

It's nice to see you're uh back here.

Uh, you worked on the uh public records uh report where you were a student at uh Cal.

So uh I did, I did so.

It's good to see you before us again.

Yes, absolutely.

Thanks.

Thanks.

Um any more commissioner comments.

Uh yeah, it occurs to me from the comments that maybe we didn't fully kind of describe at the beginning of this, like what actually the point of an office holder account is.

Um, we have a little description of what they are in our uh agenda materials, but um uh executive director Doran, do you want to provide sort of like a very brief layman's terms neutral uh uh description of the point of an office holder account and how it differs from a campaign account.

Sure.

Um so in the Oakland Campaign Reform Act, um, in section 3.12150 B, there's a list of the allowable uses of officeholder funds.

The idea is that they can be made for any political, governmental, or other lawful purpose, but they may not be used for any campaign purposes and types of um items that that are allowable are purchasing office equipment or furnish furnishings or office supplies, office rent, uh salaries for additional part-time or full-time staff, expenditures for consulting and research or similar services, as long as they don't have anything to do with campaigns.

They could be uh spent to attend a conference or a meeting to pay for travel to attend a conference or a meeting.

They can be spent on meals or entertainment if it's directly proceeding during or following a governmental or legislative activity.

So you kind of get the the gist, the idea is that rather than using the public city funds for activities like these, that's what the office holder fund is for.

Thank you.

So it's a it's a very wide range of things you can use it for.

You just can't use it for your campaign.

Right.

I mean, so like an example could be paying the rent for you know an office in your district that constituents can come and visit you at, or something like that.

Those are the that's the rationale for the office holder account.

Other comments.

Um okay.

So what I like to do then is uh um state for all three items what our positions are, and then we'll take a vote on the whole thing.

Is that any objection to that?

So it'll be a motion.

There'll be a motion, and the motion will require staff to uh do words.

So on the first item, the extension of the date, I don't think we have a consensus with the commissioners.

Two commissioners uh oppose it and two are neutral, um, and staff will write up why consolidate the comments about why why the why it's opposed.

Uh on the second matter, uh I think there's uh unanimous consensus in opposing it and for the views that have been stated, and on the third matter, there is uh unanimous consensus for supporting it.

So uh that's effectively the motion that we ask staff to make those comments and uh from us.

Um is there a uh would someone like to make the motion?

I guess I can make the motion.

So I make that I I I move.

Would someone like to second that?

I'll second the motion, okay.

And so we will call the roll.

Uh Vice Chair Bayebus is not here.

Commissioner Gage.

I Commissioner Mitchik.

Aye.

Commissioner Steele is not here, Commissioner Talok.

I and I vote aye.

Uh so that is done.

I do want to note that if we don't like this thing so much, uh, this is our law.

Uh I mean, right?

OKRA is OKR is one of the ones that we are supposed to take care of as a commission.

So uh you know, we're we're expressing our displeasure by saying no, you can't make it any bigger, but if we think it should go away, uh it's within our purview to um do some action to make that proposal.

I mean, that's what part of what we're here for.

And of course, the council will do what they want with it, but we could spend the time to take a if we want to take a statement on that and do work there.

And I'm not sure where this is in our priorities, but this is something that we should potentially consider for a future meeting.

Um, next item on the agenda is an informational item having to do with uh uh remote commenting on meetings uh by Zoom, which an extensive staff memo was prepared for.

Would you like to introduce that?

Sure.

Um, so this is returning to us uh last at our last meeting, we voted on the schedule for 2026, and based on input from commissioners, um, on their desire to have more ability for public uh participation by um including um an ability to participate online.

Um there was a suggestion in there to do that for 2026, but uh there was some questions raised to want more detail about how that could impact our commission operations overall.

So in your packet, there is a brief summary as well as a very detailed um FAQ prepared by the city attorney.

Um I'm not gonna go deep into the the impact of commissioner participation because I think the intention is really that we want to expand public participation in the meetings, but just that commissioners need to understand that that could have some it has some outcomes for our meeting, so to be to have the understanding that once we create the uh expectation that there's going to be online participation, that that we need to honor that.

That expectation will be there if it ceases for some reason that's outside of our control.

You have the commissioners, I just want to make sure you understand that we would likely need to pause uh the meeting or or recess until that could be restored.

But on the whole, allowing the uh public comment online will also add a lot of flexibility for commissioner participation in the future because really the the basic uh Brown Act requirements for teleconferencing are very impractical for us, and I I think we've in the last several years never successfully used it for a commissioner who is not able to attend in person.

So, so it has um I think overall positive benefits and um it will require a bit of uh commitment from us in terms of staffing for the for the meeting, additional staffing, but I think it's certainly uh in the spirit of our uh desire for public participation and openness and also commissioner participation to uh make that commitment.

Thank you.

And and we don't uh this is information, so we're not doing anything with this right now.

Uh what action would we take in the future about this?

Well, what I was yes, so you don't need to take action, but what I was hoping for is commissioner input um to know if there's a consensus that we should move forward with this, then staff will make it happen.

Um, if there was strong objections or you needed more information, then we would we would pause and we can continue the discussion at future meetings, or we could table it.

So the intention is just to give you the information so you can give staff input and then we can implement what you desire.

Does anyone not wildly love this proposal?

I only had one question for clarification.

Um, so the the just cause piece and the limit on the number of times we we can participate remotely.

That's only for us, right?

That's not for like the public Zoom.

Public Zoom can be for every every meeting, right?

Through the chair, that's correct.

Yeah, the just cause uh uh option for teleconferencing applies to a member invoking it, and there's a lot of restrictions on that and so forth.

So there are a number of different uh types of just cause but it's uh start effect it's up to the the member to invoke it.

Any other I have a couple of questions.

Sorry, I always feel very short when we're here in council chambers.

Um I had three I think three questions for staff on this.

Um the first was uh whether or not you have consulted with KTOP or the the city's uh IT department um on their capacity to really pull this off, maybe relatedly.

Are there any other commissions that are doing this?

And the third, um, will there need to be additional staffing at meetings who will be essentially sort of monitoring the zoom room, making sure that that happens without you know zoom bombing and uh, you know, dealing with the sort of permissions of letting speakers in and that sort of thing.

So um, so yes, we have consulted with with K Top.

I mean, we already stream the meetings on Zoom.

Um, we also do that because sometimes if there are conflicting meetings, our meetings aren't broadcast on on K Top, and so that's why we we've had the Zoom webinar going, but it isn't open for the public to participate.

So we already are doing that.

Um, and in terms of the um staffing, I think that to be managed well and not to prolong our meetings and make them you know difficult.

Um, I think it is important that we have a staff member dedicated to monitoring the public comment and keeping that orderly.

So it would require, you know, an additional person who's not a per because I would say it's like someone like myself or Mr.

Killings or Mr.

Van Busker, like we're participating in the meeting, we need to be actively listening to you and responding.

Um, and I don't think that that would be uh effective if uh we're also trying to run a zoom meeting at the same time.

So um, so that's the impact, but but I think um I think we can do it, so yay.

Other comments?

Sorry, just to follow up if any other commissions are doing this yet.

That I I don't know.

That I don't know.

But I think um, as a public commenter had mentioned at our last meeting, you know, council has been doing this now for several years.

They do a very professional job, and and um I think we would probably model what we do after after them.

Thank you.

Other comments, and one other question.

Um, I think I raised this at the last meeting.

If we do this, are we like forever committing to doing Zoom meeting or Zoom public uh comment, or if it really doesn't work out, can we revert back to how we do it now?

So uh it's if the commission goes this route, the main change is that you have to have uh to a uh you basically have to have a hybrid meeting where you allow members of the public to be able to participate remotely, so and that would require, of course, noticing that on your agenda and so forth.

Uh you wouldn't be able to roll that back for a noticed agenda, but if you could decide to to discontinue hybrid meetings for sub for future agendas, but it's a rec in order to for a member to take advantage of the the just cause circumstances, you have to have the main requirement is that it's a hybrid meeting for the public.

Okay, so if we invoke just cause we have to have hybrid, once we notice it, we have to have it.

But if we go through like January, February, March, and those meetings don't go well in April, we could decide we're not gonna do Zoom anymore.

Anyone make one more comment?

I just want to say that though I yes, I think if you know we could react if we find out something's really impractical and doesn't work, but but I don't I think we should assume that that that's we're not gonna do that.

Um that you know, because we're once we create that expectation for people to be able to participate that way, I think we're gonna want to fulfill it.

Anyone have any objections to this?

So we can give the sense that we support this the sense has been given.

Uh we do we need public comment on this one?

Probably should have that.

So let's have some public comment.

If I may, Mr.

Chair, go back to the last vote you had.

I don't know what did you vote on.

You know, those three items.

What did you vote on?

If you could answer that for the public consumption, gosh, you took a vote.

Also, you didn't consider in that when we were talking about the uh officeholder fund.

Remember each council member when they go on these junkets somewhere, they get reimbursed by the general fund.

And the public never hears what went on when they go to these various conferences.

There are those of us who have been asking for a report when they leave, and so and then what was described in terms of the use of the office holder fund, some of that can be used for the expenses when they go to these various conferences.

Uh so can you explain to the public what you voted on because sounds like I'm in agreement with but I don't know what I'm in agreement with any other public comment.

And I will I will answer that question then to summarize what we voted on which is essentially on the first point we had a mixed reaction that two commissioners were neutral and two commissioners opposed it.

On the second point the um increase of the amounts the uh it was entirely opposed and staff will be writing comments about why it was opposed and on the third item uh uh regarding the mailing before the um uh an election uh the commission unanimously supported that item so you can find them all together yes there was one motion for the whole thing that's for our okay any other items any other commissioner announcements we are done thank you