Okay, Tom, can you start recording now, please?

Okay, I'm sorry.

Thank you.

All right.

I think we're ready.

K-Top, can you start recording, please?

Welcome everyone to this regular meeting of the Oakland Public Ethics Commission.

The meeting has started at 6 33.

I'm Commission Chair Francis Upton, and I will be presiding over today's meeting.

As a reminder to those in the audience, the Public Ethics Commission is an independent agency of the City of Oakland that works to promote more inclusive, representative, and accountable democracy in Oakland and to provide fairness, openness, and honesty, honesty, and integrity in city government.

We will begin with item one taking the role.

Commissioners, please indicate if you're here when I call your name.

Vice Chair Taloc.

Present.

Commissioner Apfeld.

Commissioner Baeva.

Present.

Commissioner Brandon.

Present.

Commissioner Fisher.

Present.

Commissioner Mitchik.

Here.

And I'm also here.

And we have for the first time in I don't know, two years of something like that, a full uh commission.

So this uh thank you, everyone, for dropping by.

Um we have a quorum also.

I'd also like to note that we have the following staff present.

Executive Director Suzanne Duran, enforcement chief Tova Ackerman, Ethics Analyst Jelani Killings, Investigator Alex Von Buskirk, Ethics Analyst Niels Thorson, and Law Clerk Bwana Chagari.

Did I say that right?

Oh good, thanks.

Uh our parliamentarian for this evening is Oliver Belouby with the City Attorney's Office.

Next is uh staff and commission announcements, and I want to make one announcement here, which is we are now on Zoom so that people uh remotely can call in, and we are also on audio, and so there's a lot of work uh by analyst uh ethics analyst killings to set all that up, and we really appreciate that.

And I think this will be a much better service to the to the community.

And also, I think we have a new investigator in attendance.

Yes, Ben Maher, if you'd like to stand up and we can welcome you to the PDC.

Awesome.

Any other staff or commission announcements?

Okay, the next item on the agenda is open forum.

Before we start, I want to go over the public prom comment process so we all know what to expect.

The 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 on our agenda tonight, please stay seated until that item is called, and when I open the floor for public comment on the item to come to the podium.

Tonight we will also be accepting public comments from participants joining via Zoom and by phone.

When an item is called that you wish to comment on, please use the raise hand feature on Zoom or press the star 9 if you are participating by phone.

When it is your turn to speak, staff will call your name and unmute your line.

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 the chance to speak and be heard.

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

Participants on Zoom will be muted when their 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 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 had 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's 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 to give staff your contact, I may ask you to give your staff your contact information so they can follow up with you to give you information you've requested.

Or I may ask the city attorney for your information about an issue raised in a public comment.

A commissioner may address ask may address questions in a general manner manner to clarify the commission's policy, or I may ask staff to explain their procedures.

However, once each public comment period is closed, it remain 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 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 open forum tonight, I invite you to line up at the mic.

If participating virtually, please use raised hand feature on Zoom or press star nine if you are participating by phone.

Please state your name each time you make public comment if you wish it to be recorded.

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

Anyone want to do public comment.

You will see Gene Hazard.

The anti-injunction clause is a constitutional nullity.

The provisions contained in the Oakland Municipal Code 4.26.130 tied in joining collection forbidden.

It's not simply unconstitutional.

It is legally impossible for municipality to enact.

Regarding 4.26 and your enforcement chief, and you complied you supported the dismissal of my complaint.

It's within your jurisdiction.

This clearly established that 4.26.130 contained in the ballot measure.

It's unconstitutional.

So how could you dismiss my complaint?

It's within your jurisdiction.

And the enforcement chief misled you or you complain you went along with what she said.

Because if you didn't want to do with it, there was no basis in the ordinance where you should have been also dismissing that item.

If you didn't want to deal with it, then it's your jury your authority to then go to a outside of this body to have them address it.

But this clearly establishes, and I'll continue to read, the defect is compounded by misleading the electorate about a tax.

The city attorney altered the ballot measure.

He can't do that, Castle.

It's not within his jurisdiction.

He violated 212 of this city ordinance.

You will also see the defect renders the entire measure void.

That special election, April 15th.

It's nullified.

So how could you, as a body, sit here as a public ethics commission and dismiss my complaint?

There's no basis, there's no authority you have to dismiss my complaint.

You sat there like a bump on a log.

As though I didn't know what I was talking about.

Now you have the exact facts.

And this matter, and I'm requesting this body to reopen that dismissal and do what you're charged to do.

It's within the scope of the Oakland campaign informer.

Everything is right here.

You had no basis for dismissing uh 25 33 and 25 37.

Thank you, Mr.

Hazard.

Any other public comment.

Good evening, Ralph Cannes.

Uh regarding the charter reform working group, which this group discussed somewhat at the last meeting.

Um I've made two public records requests to the mayor's office for documents concerning that since December, I've been waiting for records, which still haven't been produced.

They're hiding all the records of the financing of the working group.

I asked for the agendas and minutes of the working group.

The whole process is totally corrupted, and it's a violation of Section 601 of the City Charter, which requires an advisory group to the city be formed by resolution of the City Council.

The mayor can appoint members of such a group.

But the mayor can't appoint that group, and then I get an email that says, oh, our partners at the city council, Kevin Jenkins and Janani Ramachandran in this action.

It's not an advisory group to the mayor.

It's an advisory group to the city council and the mayor.

It's therefore a violation of the city charter.

For a group to reform the city charter, we're violating the city charter.

Please, somebody here should read Section 601.

It's very clear.

This group is completely, completely contrary to what the Charter requires.

And it's also contrary to the state constitution.

In Article 1, Section 3.

B1.

The people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business, and therefore the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny.

It's not what's going on.

The mayor's office is hiding what's going on.

They're funneling money through nonprofits to run this group in secret.

And the public has no idea what's going on there.

And we don't know like what was Sean Dugar paid?

Who paid him?

He's a political political operative for the mayor.

Who's paying him and how much?

And what about all the other money spent on that program?

The mayor's office won't produce those records.

And I have a right to get them.

So does every other person in this city has a right to know how this program was run.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Cannes.

Any other public comment?

Great.

We'll move on to item four, uh, which is approval of the meeting draft minutes from last time.

And I note that we have a public comment from Mr.

Cannes that was submitted by email today about that item.

Uh which commissioners may wish to take into consideration.

I wanted to note a correction that we need to make to the minutes.

Um the public comment is not recorded in the order that it occurred.

Um so we'll be need to staff will need to correct that.

Um for example, in item six, um, actually the public comment did take place before the vote.

There were two different periods.

Um so staff will be making that correction and we'll be posting the minutes with that corrected.

Okay.

Any other corrections or comments on the minutes?

Can I ask a question?

You sure can.

So the um so the public comments uh essentially alleges that um there was public comment.

Sorry.

My apologies, uh Mr.

Chair, through the through the chair, I wanted to just point out to the commission not to refer to the substance of any complaint that's been filed with the commission since those are currently under investigation.

Is this a formal complaint or is this just a comment?

If you're referring to the comment, that's fine, but if you're referring to a complaint that's referenced in the comment, that would be something you can't do.

Okay.

Um I didn't see anything in the comment about a formal complaint.

Oh, there is a he does mention the complaint.

Okay.

Um so I guess um my question would be um what would the um what would staff and legal counsel recommend in terms of course of action on this to just deferring the um uh delaying the vote on approval of the minutes uh until they are until staff brings them back until the conclusion of uh until a preliminary review um or if we take action on it today, is all of that sort of reversible if uh if uh uh it's found to be substantive the only correction to the minutes would just be the order that public comment is shown in.

Okay.

So are you so are you recommending that we not take a vote on it until uh you revise the minutes?

I think we can take a vote on it.

Yeah, we can we can just vote on it with that correction, that's fine.

Okay.

Okay.

Yeah.

Um but if there's if there is discovered to be some sort of other error with the minutes, um, what would the remedy for that be?

Well, I mean, we're gonna approve the minutes.

It's our job to approve the minutes based on our knowledge.

And and then it's done, right?

I mean, so the minutes are before you right now.

So you are you asking if you approve the minutes and then later want to make a change to the minutes?

Are you able to do that and bring the item back?

Because I believe you can.

Okay.

Yeah, that's essentially my question.

You can, I believe, bring back I can I would have to double check, but I it's unusual to bring back previously approved minutes, but you can, I believe, do so if you need to.

Okay.

Um so my tendency would be just because of, and I won't discuss the complaint here, but just because there's a question about the um uh the legality of the process, and I am just reading this comment now, and I frankly don't remember exactly the order of events at that meeting.

Um my tendency would be to vote against approving these minutes until there's some resolution of uh uh of this complaint or um uh or until I get a chance to go back and review it for myself to try to re to piece together what happened.

Um is there any downside to not approving the minutes at this meeting?

Is that a legal question or a question for staff?

It's a question for I guess it's for staff and for and for legal counsel, like like is the because I know that we've at times not approved the minutes like for months after the meeting.

So I'm just uh I guess I'm not fully aware of if we don't approve the minutes promptly, if that could lead to any speed bumps or any sort of hiccups down the road.

Through the chair, there's no legal problem with delaying approval of the minutes.

Okay.

I guess I also have a question again without getting into the substance of any of the complaints, just taking them at face value.

The complaints seem to go to the actual actually what happened at the meeting rather than the minutes themselves.

So even if we approve the minutes, if the complaint is investigated and sustained, there would be a problem with what we did at the meeting, not the minutes if the minutes accurate accurately reflect what happened.

That's that's my understanding as well.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um Mr.

Mitchick, you're gonna vote no.

Yeah.

Okay, good.

So uh this it was pointless to proceed with this item since we only have four people who can vote on those minutes, one of them is gonna vote no.

And um, so I'll take public comment on this item and then move on, and then we'll uh we'll address it at the next meeting.

Is that okay?

All right.

Uh Mr.

Hazard through the chair.

Uh I would like to get a point of clarification for the new members on this body on this item.

Can I ask the uh parliamentarian?

You're making a public comment.

So please make your comments.

I asked for clarification.

I don't get it.

The public doesn't get a opportunity to ask a point of clarification, which goes to this item.

Go ahead.

So all due respect to the three new members because you did not sit in the December meeting.

You have to abstain from this item.

You can't approve the minutes at all.

That's number one.

And the December meeting, all of you, the four sitting right in front of me, approve the dismissal, which was misleading as noted and what I gave you in open form with respect to the unconstitutional ballot measure.

Which I filed with complaint.

2530 and 2537, I believe it was.

And your enforcement chief dismissed it based upon what?

With no explanation at all.

You need to open, reopen that, reconsider it, because the integrity of this body is called in question.

Thank you, Mr.

Hazard.

Any other public comment.

I did not file a complaint regarding the failure to allow public comment, because I don't think it would have changed the outcome of it.

But the remedy is a cure and correct, which means you do it all over again.

And what happened in that meeting was your chair said, would anybody like to ask questions?

Mr.

Hazard and myself both asked questions.

And later during the hearing of that item, he said, Oh, it's time for public comment.

Oh, but we already heard it earlier.

No, you didn't.

You asked for questions.

You didn't give people three, you didn't give people a chance to respond to what the applicant said in response to those questions, which was would be what the public comment was for.

Therefore, there was no public comment on that item as the law requires.

The remedy is Cure, correct.

I didn't file a complaint, so you don't have to, because it doesn't do anybody any benefit.

Now, with regard to the other item, I have filed a complaint because the agenda item did not explain you were going to discuss the legality of your ad hoc subcommittee scheme.

And then your legal advisor said the Brown Act defines an ad hoc subcommittee ascept ad hoc never appears in the Brown Act, and it's not defined in the Brown Act.

And this gets back to the whole issue of why won't he prepare a written opinion about the legality of this scheme?

And the reason he won't is if he put his name upon it.

It would be an embarrassment because he cannot legally justify this scheme that's been going on for over a decade with this commission.

Put it in writing.

Go look at First Amendment coalition and ACLU versus the City of Fresno.

It's the exact same thing.

It's the exact same scheme.

That's why they're in court about it.

And you're supposed to be leading by example.

And you're you're not.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Cannes.

Any other public comment?

Can I ask a question through the charity council?

Just for clarification.

I don't want to get bogged down in this agenda item.

But setting aside the prudency of whether the new members should or should not abstain, is there a legal requirement that they abstain?

Through the chair.

Thank you for that question.

I was just about to offer that uh you are there's no legal requirement that restricts members who are not in attendance of the meeting from voting on approval.

Uh they can abstain or they can vote yes or no as they so choose, and under the commission's operations policies, if a member chooses to abstain, they just need to state publicly the reason for doing so.

And do they need to state their whether they're abstaining prior to there being a motion, prior to the vote being taken, what stage do they need to abstention is uh would be their reaction to the motion.

I mean they can of course during the discussion of the motion indicate what they're going to do once the motion occurs, but then once they vote to abstain, then they would explain why, if not before.

Well, then I'll make a motion to approve the the minutes uh for the last meeting on January 22nd, 2026.

So a second.

Okay.

All right.

So motion, no second, and so I think we're done with this item then.

Yes, if there's no second to a motion, the motion dies.

Right.

So item five, Oakland City Council salary adjustment.

The commission will take action to adjust the salaries of the city council members according to the increase in consumer price indexes required every two years by the Oakland City Charter, Section 202.

Good evening, Commissioners.

Um I'll say one number four.

Sorry, go ahead.

Good evening, Director Suzanne.

Oh, you need to do your thing.

Good evening, Director Suzanne Doran.

Um I'm just gonna summarize the the staff report.

Um so yes, every two years, the public ethics commission is responsible for adjusting the city council members' salary level, and that's based on the increase in the consumer price index for the preceding two years.

The commission last adjusted the salary for city council members by five percent in uh 2024, resulting in an adjusted annual salary of 108,802 and 91 cents.

Um in the memo in your packet, you'll see there's a table with the history of the uh approved salary adjustments and the CPI change for that year.

So under the the charter, the commission is required to adjust the annual salary according to the change in the consumer price index.

And um according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, uh the CPI rose by 5.4 percent from December 2023 to December 2025.

And since that two-year increase exceeds five percent, the charter requires that the annual salary be increased by at least five percent.

So that would bring their salary to 114,243 and 13 cents.

Now because their the increase in inflation over that two-year period was more than five percent, there's an option at the commission's discretion to increase the salary um up to five percent for each of those two years, but not by more than the total CPI increase per year.

So I hope you're following me on that.

Yeah.

So that section second option would mean that the commission does have discretion if they choose to award an increase of up to the total of 5.4 percent, and that would result in an annual salary of 114,678 and 34 cents.

So I just did a little review of of the past adjustments over the years, and you can see that um just if this is just for commissioners' information, if they want to take it into account, you know, our history has generally been to authorize an increase that matched the pace of inflation.

There are a few exceptions, especially um they were earlier on or a bit higher.

And I went back and read the staff reports, and that was usually to reflect that there were higher uh staff across the board increases, so they wanted the salary for city council increase to match that.

So the staff recommendation is really neutral on the either of those two options.

So I just prevent presented option A, which is to do the minimum that's required under the charter, or option B, which is to increase the salary by 5.4 percent.

Um, and the commissioners also have the option if you want to adjust that to a different number, we would just you can make that motion as well.

Any questions could I ask a question?

Yeah.

Uh so this is to staff through the chair.

Um do we um maybe this is in the memo and I'm missing it, but do we have on hand how much uh uh city employees' salaries have gone up over that time?

Yes, so the um last increase since our previous adjustment was two percent in March of 2025.

Right now, all the collective bargaining um agreements are expiring as of June 30th, so the city's in negotiation with the various unions, so there are no currently there are no um negotiated across the board increases.

Is that two percent on top of a CPI increase or just on its own?

So I guess what I I guess maybe to clarify that the negotiated increases they go to staff and then general, and they're also usually granted to the other uh department heads, etc.

Um, those are negotiated, they aren't necessarily literal cost of living increases that match the CPI.

So the CPI increased over that year.

Um that the they negotiated two percent.

Okay, so that's uh that's all it was.

Okay, thank you.

Was that two percent over the two years or two percent each year?

So total of four.

So there were increases in the prior years, but they were already accounted for in our last in our last uh adjustment for city council.

So this is just there is this one increase that happened after we last adjusted the city council's salary, and that took effect on July 1st of 2024.

Um so I'm looking at the uh chart on the first page, I guess, of this item.

Uh, and we see that the CPI change was 7.5% in 2024, but the authorized increase was just five percent.

I wonder if you have any background as to why it wasn't matched to 7.5%.

I believe that um the discussion at the time, the commissioners were just reflecting that the overall financial state of the city um and that this they wanted to be in line with the cuts that were happening to across the city to services.

Thank you.

Oh, there questions.

Do you have anything more?

Sorry.

Oh, we we were just talking about it, it does depend on the total increase in each year.

Um, I think in that particular year, there was discussion you could have raised it higher because there is a limit of five percent per year.

So, say if um inflation was 10% in one year, you couldn't you couldn't add you the maximum you could do for that year would be five percent.

So we we can't go any higher than the 5.4 percent.

That's correct.

So basically, it has to be the total for the two with a cap of 5% per year.

Right, which works out to be the 5.4 percent.

So basically our choices are about what, 450 dollars apart essentially.

Who wants to make a motion?

Um, I would I would say I would say that um I would make a motion to approve option A, which is the five percent increase, and the reason is the same reason we did this last time in 2024, because the city is still in the same fiscal shape that it was back then, essentially, in the terms of we're still in a declared fiscal emergency.

Um I know that city council members work hard, and I think the five percent increase is uh appropriate for uh some cost of living adjustment, but uh I don't think it sends the right message to be uh going uh above and beyond uh what's necessary in terms of and what's required in terms of a salary increase right now, given to the cuts uh that uh other programs including public safety uh have suffered uh in light of the layoffs that have occurred in light of the uh uh higher ring freeze.

So I would uh I would move to adopt option A, the five percent salary increase.

Is there a second all second?

Awesome.

Right.

Uh this would be a good time to take public comment, right?

Let's have some public comment.

This is a joke.

The citizen worse fiscal crisis than it was two years ago.

And what you approved, and this might my complaint with regards to that special election on April 15th on this unconstitutional sales tax that they want to look at trying to raise 29 million.

That's not gonna happen.

If I have anything to do with it.

Currently, 25 CV 122, 836 is the case I have in Superior Court.

Finally, after almost 300 days, I'm in the right department.

Department 24 for a writ that I filed on May 19th before they certify the election results.

It's real clear.

Because you cannot have a provision in a ballot measure that forbids in joining, forbidding the voter, forbid for not allowing the voter to file a grievance for relief.

That's what 4.26.130 is.

And the audacity.

From July 1 to middle of September.

And they get the 10 to 15 days vacation that all city employees get.

That's three months.

And if this doesn't say you have to give them an increase.

And the lack of knowledge, an argument that you use to justify an increase, Mr.

Mick.

It's unconscionable.

You ought to be ashamed of yourselves.

When the city is in dire fiscal, and you're going to justify giving them an increase?

It's not mandatory.

It's discretionary.

You don't have to approve this at all.

You know, public comment?

Let me say uh for a long time, many of us believe this is not the proper entity to be determining salaries of any city employee.

You should do something like San Francisco did years ago, where the Civil Service Commission determined what are the requirements of a supervisor's job and how much should they get paid.

We the this system is really a mess.

And then when you have the mayor gets paid a whole lot more than a city council member, uh it doesn't, it none of it makes sense.

And then on top of that, we now have the way the city council is never meeting, or they meet Monday at a special meeting when they know nobody will show up.

You go back a number of years, the city council met every Tuesday night.

Every Tuesday night.

Not a couple times a month, maybe.

What is it?

What is it, Gene?

15 times a year, maybe?

That's it.

The board of supervisors in San Francisco meets what, twice a week, I believe it is.

They're not doing their job in terms of managing the city.

That's the problem.

Frankly, I think they deserve to paid a whole lot more than what the current salary situation is if they were doing the job they should be doing.

But the whole the whole thing is such a screwed-up mess at this point.

It needs, you know, this is what a charter reform worker group should be working on cleaning this mess up because it's taken the public right out of the public's process, because we don't have a city council meeting every Tuesday night.

That's what we need to get back to.

The City Council met every Tuesday night.

The committees met during the day on Tuesday, but even that's ridiculous.

They should have committee meetings in the evenings because we have a section in the Sunshine Ordinance that said meetings should be held in the evening.

And the city council isn't doing that either.

When they call a special meeting at 9:30 on a Monday morning.

That's so you won't have any public participation.

And this is supposed to be a what what the public needs, not what the city council members need.

Thank you.

Any other public comment?

Hi there.

Please state your name if you wish to have it uh recorded in the in the record.

If if you don't, it's fine.

Oh, thank you for the consent.

That doesn't always happen.

But anyways, I echo a lot of what the public say, but I also acknowledge Ms.

was saying earlier of like the work isn't easy, but there does should be there should be some accountability and discernment in how we approach it.

I invite the idea of like just giving five percent, I get it.

It's expensive in the bay.

That's a whole other conversation.

But I invite that there should be accountability to get that five percent.

Was that tied to the work and that accountability of what that looks like to uh sorry I do not know your name, um, but what the person before was saying of just the idea of like that consistency of those conversations and being equitable and more open to allow various members for different points to have that.

So I know immediate decisions have to be talked about.

I invite the idea of two percent, but then what does it look like to actually achieve that by percent and kind of ongoing in that regard?

Thank you.

Other problem uh other public comment.

Okay, we have a motion, a seconded motion, so it's time for us to vote.

Um option A.

There's our thing.

So um chair by Eva.

Yeah, it's it's this wrong.

Okay, I have to do this.

Do you have a list?

It's also one of the old ones.

So it's here somewhere.

Oh, there we go.

All right, Commissioner Talak, Vice Chair Tallock.

Hi, uh Commissioner Apfeld.

I Commissioner Baeva.

I think Commissioner Brandon.

Aye, Commissioner Fisher.

Hi.

Commissioner Mitchik.

I vote yes.

So uh city council is getting their raise.

Um next item is item six.

The um I think I'm gonna provide a summary of the upcoming city attorney and city auditor adjustment process.

Yes, good evening again.

Um, so there isn't action required of the commission on this item tonight, but because staff has completed the data collection and we're currently preparing the report, um, we included this item so I could provide some background on the process and an opportunity for input by commissioners and any other stakeholders prior to completing the recommendation.

So that's why it's here.

That's why it's listed as an action item, but it's not there's no action required tonight.

So the relevant charter sections were attached with your agenda packet for your review.

And just to give some context, prior to 2023, both the city attorney and city auditor salaries were set by city council, and the charter included a defined salary range based on the average salary for comparable offices in the three California cities with immediately higher populations, and then the three with immediately lower populations.

But in 2022, Oakland Voters passed measure X, which among other things changed the process for adjusting the city attorney and city auditors' salaries and assign that responsibility to the commission.

Um so, unlike the adjustment process for city council salaries that we just went through, the new measure X process gives a lot of discretion to the commission because it leaves out a specific floor or ceiling for the adjustment, as we had with the with our last process, right?

It also really expanded the factors the commission needs to consider in making the salary adjustment.

So those factors that are outlined um are the top range for the highest paid professional employee under the city attorney or the city auditors direction, the salaries of other city department heads, and lastly, salaries of comparable positions in California cities, counties, and agencies that are selected by the commission.

So for example, for the city attorney salary review, we now have 41 data points, uh, 24 city salaries to look at, and salaries from 17 other jurisdictions rather than six.

So just to give a very broad sense of what the commission has done the the two times that they have gone through this process in 2023 and 2024, was they um found we found out from we followed the city of uh human resources departments methods for um they had been the ones who prepared staff reports for council before we looked to them for the methods and the best practices, and one of the things they that they um conveyed was that the best practice dictates a differential of 15 to 20 percent between a supervisor or manager and their highest paid direct reporting employee.

And in reviewing the last two adjustments, the commission has sort of used that best practice as a floor and then compare the salaries in that range with the salaries that we gather for comparable positions in the city department directors.

So that's the broad strokes, and if you have more detailed questions, I can answer them.

Um but I'm also just interested in receiving any input or guidance the commissioners want to provide to staff as we prepare that recommendation.

Um I'm thinking, are you more interested in maintaining the status quo, or are there other things that you would like us to be looking at?

Um you want more options, for example.

Any questions or comments on that?

Uh thank you.

Do I have to say through the chair?

Go ahead now.

Um I like the options, um, just so we can weigh options.

So if you can give um a range of options similar to you did so what you did and the uh the salaries we just discussed, I would I would appreciate that um along with kind of the historical context in the similar chart you provided in the last section as well, would be helpful for me.

Other comments?

Yeah, in that vein, I know you had mentioned that um we're we're looking historically of what we've done in the past, but have we gone outside to look at other you know, what other cities are doing, or um you know what those ranges are, and when we talk about salaries, do we break it down?

I know you had mentioned the 15 to 20 percent, but do we basically break it down by role and what their low, mid, and high range is um for each of those, and then how they compare to other cities within other counties and the same role and what they're actually being paid and the high and the mid and the the low range from that.

Do we have that data?

Yes.

So when you get the the full staff report, and there'll be also an appendix showing all the data.

We um I'll be providing all the city department head salaries, the high, the low, um, and then a comparison of the both of those offices, city attorney and city auditor, a comparison of where they in relation to to the average for those.

Um then I'll be um sharing you know the highest paid employees salary and then what their differential from that is, and then we take a look at both the we actually expanded it even more than the three uh highest, and then or the three cities in uh that have more higher population than us, and then lower population to actually four.

So um, so we look at California cities, um, we look at San Francisco, Fresno, Sacramento, Long Beach, Bakersfield, Anaheim, Stockton, and Riverside for um to look at uh salaries for comparable positions in those um cities, and then we also look because the Bay Area is very expensive place.

We look at Bay Area jurisdictions with similar or comparable roles.

So we look at the county of Alameda, again we look at San Francisco.

Um every city in the Bay Area doesn't have a city attorney or a city auditor.

So some of them you'll see in the chart, they're listed, but if they don't have a comparable, um, then that's noted.

But um, we do look for the data.

We do a survey that includes the county, San Francisco, Alameda, Berkeley, Fremont, Hayward, Mountain View, San Jose, and Santa Clara.

So those are like the points that you'll be able to compare.

It's uh it's uh try not to keep the memo too lengthy, but to the point, but you'll be able to look at hey, within that range, are they 90% of the average salary for the Bay Area, or are they 80%?

So that all that information will be there for you, and you'll be also be able to compare it to the specific salaries that are all in an appendix.

Uh so I have a question.

Um, so a lot of the I mean, the the charter is actually pretty vague about how this works, right?

Because they just say uh, you know, take into consideration.

And and like I think last time when taken to consideration with the city uh uh staff, it was like the 20% figure, I think was used, uh if I recall the memo from from that.

So um I think what might be good, so so basically what you're gonna recommend or what we're gonna have is okay.

There's fixed data, right?

So it's like average of all these salaries from other cities, does the department salaries, and then what we have to decide is what percentages do we like related to this.

And uh one of the things I want to just make sure we can do in the meeting, maybe if it makes sense is say we want 15% instead of 20%.

Could you do us the math then and so we can help us come up with a number?

And we because we have to come up with a number at the next meeting, right?

Yes, yeah.

In fact, yeah, I uh I have uh a summary table, and you'll be able to see for each of those points the comparison for their current salary, and then um it it if it makes sense, um you know, the 50 what what it would be the 15 percent is 17 percent say it at 20 percent.

And and maybe and then from that you could discern if you you know that hasn't been the direction the commission's gone in the past, but you could discern that you think that that's not enough, but that isn't something that's that the commission has done in the past.

Yes.

Other questions?

Yes.

Um I so I think one, and I don't I don't want to add additional data points, but I think what would be helpful is not just what those salaries are for the city attorney in San Francisco and Santa Clara County Council and others, but maybe for a subset of them where the decision making to increase the salary rests with a body like ours.

What what happened last time?

Did they increase their salaries by like five Santa Clara County Council, for instance?

How much of their salary go up?

I I don't think we need that for everyone, but if we're increasing by figuring out how much we want to increase their salary, given that many other Bay Area cities and counties are in financial crisis, it would be helpful to at least have a sense of what what our peers have done in this space.

Could I offer it might be um more so the way we get this data is I get the the salary schedules that are adopted by every single one of those jurisdictions, and so to um if it if it's acceptable, I think it could be easier to say how it's changed since the last time, like just based on our last data gathering rather than maybe document exactly the changes.

That's that's fine.

What I'm thinking is just a sense of the delta from over that time period, how our peers, what the delta has been other questions or requests?

Yeah, I have a question.

Um do we ever take into consideration performance for a particular position, or it's said just as sort of just as a bracket.

I think we're we're really held to exactly what the charter says.

So that is not an item that is uh part of the consideration.

Um I think the words they use are you know, we're looking at is it comparable?

Are they equitably aligned?

They use words like that, equity equitably aligned, um, and are they competitive?

And I guess one other thing you might consider is that um, you know, we did the language is changed, but in the past, what the range was that they were looking at when they were comparing the salary here to the to the um other areas was 70 percent was their floor, that it shouldn't be below 70 percent of the average, and 90 percent was what they capped it at.

So at that time they thought that range was if it's below 70, that's say uncompetitive, not you know, not comparable to other areas, but they capped it at 90.

So that might be just something that that's not specified here, but it could just be something that you keep in your mind when you think about this.

Thank you.

Other questions.

Um can you just sorry, um, I know that you went through all of this, uh, and I know that I was a part of this process too, but it's been a while and it's a live.

Can you just recap what the um uh what the additional discretion that we have is now and what the additional factories are compared to the last time we went through this process two years ago.

So um it's very short passage.

Um it's just that it's to be set every two years by the public ethics commission to provide for competitive compensation and equitable alignment, and taking into account the top of the range of the highest paid professional employee in the office of the city attorney in the city attorney's case, or the city auditor, the city auditors case, and other comparable positions, so for city attorney that is such as the county council, the port attorney, um, and other California cities, counties, and agencies selected by the commission.

So it doesn't even tell us exactly which ones.

Um then it's that the city attorney, and also that's the same language for city auditor, their salary may not be reduced during their term of office, except as part of a general reduction of salaries of all officers and employees in the same amount of proportion.

So um I'd say that you know, so we were when I think because especially for the city auditor, there aren't city auditors in every uh municipality in the Bay Area.

We kind of expanded the number of cities so that we could get a good enough number.

Um and there's and I don't think we received any feedback from any any stakeholders or that that the cities that were choosing are inappropriate.

They are very much mirror what HR did in the past.

Okay.

Yeah, sorry, I like I'll I'll try to be clear on my question.

My question is were were there changes made to the criteria and the discretion compared to the last time we did this.

No, the only change that has happened since this change went into effect is we did have measure 00 that went we went from initially it was an annual process to do this adjustment, and we went to a biannual uh process, but it didn't really change.

There's been no change in the criteria.

Um it's listed in the charter, and I would say that the commission hasn't really had a motion that that says this is what we're gonna how we're gonna weight this, like the commission's never really taken any positions like that.

Okay, okay, good.

Thank you.

I'm sorry, I I thought I heard you say that the criteria and the discretion changed, and all I require, all I recall changing was the frequency, and so I'm I'm glad that that's oh I apologize that wasn't clear.

I meant from the prior from measure X change discretion because there was little discretion, right?

Right.

Okay.

Um I think um uh I think that the last time we did this, and and the reason why we changed it to two years rather than annually, but was because it is such a large amount of work to go through and collect this data.

Um a lot of it in terms of salaries isn't available readily online, so you have to make calls to places, and and it's a lot as a commissioner and as a member of the public, it's a lot to process when you see all this data and try to uh come up with an appropriate formula uh to try to set uh what seems to be a reasonable uh uh salary and um uh and sometimes there can be some pushback.

So um I think um uh you know, as somebody who went through this process last time uh and all the pitfalls.

Um I'm sorry, when when are when are you planning on bringing this uh this recommendation the next meeting?

Yes, okay.

Um I'd have to review some of what we went over in the in the memo last time, but I'm I'm uh happy to be if you want to have a discussion about it, you know, um in between now and then I'm I'm happy to do that as well.

I'm sorry, I don't have uh I don't have a uh great insight off the top of my head um uh without reviewing that this time and and I wasn't quite sure based on the agenda materials what exactly this discussion was gonna be about.

So um I uh uh I'm happy to uh um uh help with any recollection of uh kind of what the discussion was like last time any other questions okay uh then public comment on this item it's interesting how you selectively could go to the charter when I brought before you two twelve of the charter that spoke to the administrative authority of the city attorney the city attorney had no legislative function, but he altered the special election section to include sales tax and your enforcement chief chose to dismiss my complaint and you sustain what she did that's the charter.

So what happened in 2022 because I'm gonna stretch because I don't think the three new members were watching what was going on in the city regarding the election.

But was hidden in that agenda was salary increases for the city attorney and the city auditor.

The public didn't know about that.

What else was in there?

Was the alteration, the hybrid Robert's rules.

An abstention is a no vote.

And you're not being present.

It's a no vote.

Okay.

You're operating under what the council has approved of voters approved with regards to Robert's rules.

So be careful going forward.

That's in the charter.

That's what the voters approve.

They were misled again.

That was a measure X 2022.

They didn't know this was in there.

I did, Mr.

Katz did.

But the city misled the voters.

Just like they're misleading the voters on June 2nd.

Do not vote for the tax increase.

Voters was misled on measure X.

A the transaction use tax.

It was not a sales tax.

The enabling legislation was AB 155, the state legislature for online purchases.

It was not for over-the-counter sales tax.

And you went along for what your enforcement chief said, dismiss my complaint.

Shame on you.

Shame on you.

Thank you, Mr.

Hazard.

I know what the silver.

Any other public comment.

Okay, so that item is done.

We're gonna move on to the next item, uh, which is from enforcement uh about closing a complaint.

Good evening.

Good evening, commissioners.

Um with your permission, I'm gonna address both 2527 and 2601 jointly.

Um since they both involve allegations that PEC staff did not follow our proper procedures when we dismissed uh previous cases that were brought to the enforcement unit.

Um in cases like this, complaints against the PEC or PEC staff, the mediation and complaint procedures are are very clear.

Within 90 days, we have to send the complainant and the name and address of entities with concurrent or overlapping jurisdictions, and that they have the right to file civilly.

Um the commission then will generally administratively close if the respondent can't be walled off from the investigation, which is just not possible in these cases.

The one is against PE staff PEC staff generally, the other one is about me, but involved actions of everyone in the enforcement unit.

Um and so my recommendation on both of these cases would be to close with no action.

Thank you.

And also, um you don't have to do this as far as I know, right?

You can just go ahead and close it without our consent, according to the procedures.

I don't believe so.

I believe we need commission consent in order to close.

The the language of closure means that we need commission consent.

Awesome.

Thank you.

Sorry for my misunderstanding.

That's okay.

Uh all right.

Uh any questions from the commissioners about these two items.

We will we can take them together unless someone wants to separate them.

I have a couple of questions.

Um, in terms of the um entities with concurrent or overlapping jurisdiction.

Um I guess what what are those?

Is it the San Francisco Ethics Commission that Yes it is?

So we um we checked with the city attorney's office and they agreed that the San Francisco's office could could take jurisdiction in this in these cases, and then we checked with San Francisco Ethics Commission and they agreed to take jurisdiction.

And that's the that's the organization that we referred the complainant to within 90 days of the complaint being submitted.

Okay, and then so my next question is um if it's you know you've checked with San Francisco.

Is it appropriate or acceptable for you to just forward them the complaint, or is it that you dismiss it and it is on the complainant to then refile the same complaint in San Francisco?

Yes, it's the latter.

So the directions from the complaint procedures say that we should give the complainant um the address and the name of the entity that can take over.

Okay.

Um I mean I I see that I guess is there anything to preclude you from just emailing.

Uh I guess my concern here is is for all complainants to make it as seamless as possible to get their complaints to the right place.

Um now that we've identified San Francisco, is there a way for you to just send it on to San Francisco?

Obviously, not commenting on the substance, merits or anything about the complaint.

I think no matter what we excuse me, sorry.

Yeah, go ahead.

Um I think no matter what, we would still have to give the complainant the name and and um uh address of the of the place we were sending it, but I I suppose we could also send it along and just note in our response to the complainant that we have already sent it along.

I I think that would just be sort of um a nice thing to do.

I don't think it's mutually exclusive of providing the complaint at the name, um, but I think forwarding it along is also just makes it more seamless to make sure it gets to the right place.

Okay, absolutely.

Other questions um I'd I'd second that.

I'd I agree that making it more seamless for a complainant uh would be more uh friendly to the public.

Um do we have uh is this something that I know that you're relatively new, but are you aware is this historically what the PEC does when uh we receive the type of complaint?

Is there some ongoing sort of arrangement or understanding with San Francisco that they would be the entity that we would refer to?

As far as I know, it hasn't happened.

I think it's happened only once or twice in the past, and I'm not actually sure who it was referred to at that time.

It was quite a while ago.

Um, but I did see that it has happened in the past.

I can I can find that answer for you if you'd like.

Um I did ask the city attorney's office if they would take jurisdiction and they believed that would be a conflict of interest.

Okay.

Well, I guess what I'm getting at is um uh I guess I'll just ask how how did you arrive at uh referring to the San Francisco Ethics Commission as the entity to refer to?

I mean, I could guess, but uh can you uh let us know what that process was and what that what the decision was based on?

Um that was the city attorney suggestion, I believe because they're uh a local um ethics commission who is similar to ours in structure and um not size, they're bigger than us, but in structure.

Okay.

Do you see um do you think there's any sort of uh conflict or uh any sort of concern related to uh this is a set of individuals that you're in communication with and that you I don't know how frequently you talk to the folks over there, but I know there's a relationship uh and they're uh sort of doing us a favor, I guess you could say by taking this on.

Is there any thought that maybe this is an imperfect process in terms of just making sure that there's no hint of conflict?

I I think that could be the case.

I speak to other enforcement chiefs in the state about once a month, um, if not more frequently to just ask questions or understand how their jurisdiction handles a certain issue.

Um I would say that I believe in the integrity of the enforcement chief in the San Francisco Commission and uh ethics commission, and I I don't believe that we would be getting any special favors um just because we we have a professional relationship.

Okay.

Um and I guess the other question would be what happens to this complaint once San Francisco has it.

Will we find out are we kept abreast of the process, the outcome?

Um what's what happens now from uh from our perspective?

The complaint procedures are silent as to that.

I think um San Francisco has different processes than we do.

Um they don't they aren't as public with their complaint process as we are.

Um and so they I believe they often don't tell complainants when they decide not to take on a case.

Um that is something I can I can ask for them to keep us posted on if um if that's the commission's preference.

But as far as the complaint procedures go, our referral goes out to them, we close down the case, and then that is the end of our involvement in in the matter.

Okay.

Are you aware of any cases that San Francisco has referred to us in sort of a reciprocal or opposite way?

I'm not aware of any, no.

Okay.

Do you know if they refer cases at all to another entity that would be um able to adjudicate those matters or no?

I I excuse me.

I'd have to ask um the enforcement chief in San Francisco.

Um I can I can find out that information and get back to you.

Um thank you.

And then my other question was just you met you alluded to it a little bit.

Um their processes are different than ours.

Uh I guess maybe not to ensure that kind of the rights and procedure afforded to Oakland residents in these complaint processes would not be diminished or lessened by a referral.

Um do we feel good about um San Francisco being able to apply our local rules and uh regulations to uh complaints that happened here.

I would have to ask our parliamentarian if he is aware of whether they have to follow our procedures.

I don't believe so.

That's not in the complaint procedures, but I'm I'm curious if he has an answer.

Uh through the chair, uh well, the complaint proceed procedures are silent on what happens when you use reciprocal ethics agency to investigate your own a complaint against your own agency.

My understanding from various agencies in the state doing that in the past is that they follow the rules of the jurisdiction that they're investigating the complaint for.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

My my question is uh for my edification.

Is there a state agency that we could um ask questions or be referred to?

There is, it's the um FPC, um federal federal fair uh excuse me, fair practices commission, excuse me, um that we could refer them to.

Um I believe that it's more efficient to refer it to San Francisco as the FPPC is also under a case overload.

Um I believe San Francisco is somewhat less so.

Uh but in theory, we could ask the FPPC to take on jurisdiction as well.

Okay, thank you.

And then of course the person who complained is free to file a complaint with any other agency.

Yes, and we remind them that they are allowed to file civilly as well.

They have a right to file civilly.

Um my only additional question or thought following up on Commissioner Mitchick and Commissioner Abfeld's questions is um you mentioned that San Francisco may not make the outcome of their proceeding public, but that that is a practice we follow, and I think would be appropriate for them to do here and taking an Oakland complaint.

Okay.

I can ask them for that.

Thank you.

Other questions?

I just want to point out that it looks like there's some some room to improve our this sort of complaint process, and I know it's fairly rare, so I would ask it some time on your list that you can update the processes to reflect some of the ideas here.

No, no hurry, but uh absolutely I think um there are quite a number of changes that we're thinking of making to the complaint procedures more broadly, and so we can do it as part of that.

Awesome, thank you.

So any other questions?

So what I propose is we we do both of we just do a single vote for uh both of these items uh these uh complaints here.

So uh can I have a motion?

Uh uh pardon me through the chair.

Uh I just wanted to clarify that since there are two items in the on the agenda that you would have to take public comment for both the items prior to the vote.

Perfect.

Anyone want to make a motion I move to uh adopt the enforcement chief's recommendation to close um the actions in agenda items seven and eight.

Anyone second?

I second okay, and we will take public comment um on the first item.

So this is public comment on item number seven.

I'll do item number eight.

Okay.

Anyone anyone for public comment on item number seven?

Okay, now we'll take public comment for item number eight.

I believe this one is mine.

You know, this is what I was recommending back in two and twenty-five.

On 30 uh um 2530 and 2537, you have the authority to refer this out, but yet you went with the enforcement chief to dismiss my action.

So when I file this latest item, she says no action.

We're gonna refer it out.

This should have been done.

All those other two items I filed.

But you don't want to say anything, Mr.

Chair.

You kept quiet.

It's within your jurisdiction to refer when you do not want to handle the item.

I read your rules.

You are misleading the public.

Do I get elevated?

Yes, I do.

Because I don't like liars and cheats and hypocrites.

It's too morally important.

But it doesn't seem morally important to you, Mr.

Mix.

You play lack and you sit on them pompous seats.

But you did exactly what I wanted you to do.

And your enforcement chief said no action.

That should have been done on the previous two complaints I made.

This is not an example to be set.

There's no way it should have been dismissed.

You should have taken action on it.

And now you're sending my recent complaint that you have over to San Francisco.

You could have even sent it to referred it to the grand jury in Alameda County.

You didn't have to go to San Francisco.

But you could have done anything outside of what you did not want to deal with.

Thank you, Mr.

Hazard.

Any other public comment on item number eight.

Complaints went both directions.

We handled some for them.

They handled some for us.

At the time we had executive directors who communicated quite regularly.

It was a pretty they they had a pretty good relationship, and through that they set up a system so that that conflict would be resolved for both for both entities.

So there is precedent for doing that.

Now when I hear that the person would have to refile with San Francisco, that is kind of ridiculous.

It should somebody be forward to San Francisco and they should deal with it.

And regarding Commissioner Abfel's concern about different laws.

Clarification.

Of course.

So I just want to clarify that the complaints that we are sending to San Francisco are merely about the procedure that we used to dismiss the complaints that were filed previously.

They will not address the substance of the complaints that we previously dismissed.

I understand.

So we have a motion.

Yeah, can I ask for a clarification or perhaps a friendly amendment to the motion?

Is would the motion include the direction to staff to forward the complaint directly to the San Francisco Ethics Commission and to request that the San Francisco Ethics Commission disclose its ultimate decision publicly, at least so that we can disclose it here.

Yes.

Thank you.

Okay, so the motion has been amended and approved by the seconder.

Sorry.

I second the amended motion.

Yes.

Sorry, I didn't didn't know which ones.

All right, time to vote.

All right.

Vice Chair Talok.

Aye.

Um, where's the right list here?

Uh Commissioner Apfel.

Aye.

Commissioner Baeva.

Aye.

Commissioner Brandon.

Aye.

Commissioner Fisher.

Aye.

Commissioner Mitchick.

Aye.

And I vote yes.

Okay, so both eight and nine are done.

Thank you.

Sorry, both seven and eight are done, and now we're on item nine, case closures.

Uh for the case closures, I'm gonna rely on what's been published in the agenda, but I'm very happy to answer any questions you may have.

Are there any questions in about the two case closures?

I I can't immediately find it right now, but I believe you mentioned that we are closing like around nine cases, but then only three cases are presented in number item nine.

So if you can reconcile maybe it's somewhat later in your report where like basically the total number of the complaints that we are closing now.

We're we're on item.

I think you're in the enforcement report.

Those are probably the dismissed and the closed complaints at the same time.

Okay, understood.

Okay.

All right, thanks.

Do we have any any questions about uh okay?

And uh does anyone want to make a motion?

I move that we all do it.

I move that we um accept the case closure plan for these two cases.

A second.

Okay.

Um public comment.

The enforcement chiefs just says something.

What the San Francisco Cisco PC is looking at.

She said that they're not going to address the dismissal that embodied 25 30 and 2537.

Then what did you want to look at?

Because what I found addresses that matter.

Which you chose not to take action on, and you sent over to San Francisco.

So then what is San Francisco going to be looking at?

Are they going to just be looking at the attachment that does make reference to your action of dismissing those two items to which I just spoke to?

So the public needs clarification, then what is San Francisco going to be doing after she chose not to dismiss, but to refer to don't look over there.

I know how much time I have left.

Yes, Mr.

Chair.

I see everything.

So I'm a little bit confused about what is the role of PEC in San Francisco related to the referral you just did.

I need clarification on that.

Any other public comment?

Okay, we'll take a vote now.

Um Vice Chair Talok.

Aye.

Commissioner Apfeld.

Aye.

Commissioner Baieva?

Aye.

Commissioner Brandon.

Aye.

Commissioner Fisher.

Aye.

Commissioner Mitchik.

Aye.

And I vote aye.

So that passes.

Okay.

We're now on the enforcement program items.

Thank you.

So for the enforcement report, I am again mostly going to rely on what's published in the agenda.

Um, and I'm uh, of course, happy to answer questions, but I did want to make a few more general updates about enforcement um for you all.

The first is regarding Form 700, which uh is again you know coming up since the deadline is also coming up.

Um I just wanted to give the update that we are hoping to shut down most, if not all, of the 2023 and 2024 Form 700 cases as part of the backlog strategy very soon.

We currently have nine open cases from 2024 and two open cases from 2023.

Uh we are also getting close to finishing the 2025 Form 700 work.

We have nine cases still open, but for a large number of those, we're merely waiting on department or HR confirmation that the perfect person left city services before they needed to file.

Um just to give a preview of what will be coming from us uh at future meetings.

We're reviewing the process and outcomes from the last two years of effort.

Uh and this coming year strategy will have to change.

Attempts thus far have been inefficient and have used up too far too much enforcement time and resources compared to the results.

Um, and so we are considering alternatives and we'll be presenting uh our plan to you at future meetings.

But for example, we pursued 196 non-filers in 2025, and only 60 ultimately filed.

Many of the non-filers um should not have been on our list at all because they had already left city service by the time they were supposed to file.

So as it's running right now, um the process is far too inefficient, and we are working on reforming it.

Is it is it sort of a data process?

I know I know that like there's issues with the or I heard I guess the issues with the clerk's office or or having the records of who actually should form and then matching that up with your data, and it's not very automated and stuff like that.

It's not very automated, and I'm not sure that the records that were I I know that the records we're not working on are that accurate or recent.

Um part of the process is also just tracking people down, which can take time in and of itself.

Sure.

Do you have anything else?

Yes, I do.

Okay.

Uh sorry.

Um so as far as administrative hearings go, I wanted to give you an update on that.

For the Hutchinson administrative hearing, um, we're still trying to schedule that for the next couple of months.

Right now, we're coordinating with the city attorney's office to see if they want to take on the hearing, um, which would which would help us in terms of uh workload.

Um we originally had four administrative hearings to schedule.

Uh and we looked into the respondents and the cases more since the last meeting.

These cases are seven to nine years old, all of them, um which means that we're having some of the same challenges that we're having with the rest of the backlog.

Um, for example, in one case, the deterrent the respondent has since passed away.

Um in another case, we've we've reached out to the respondent and we've reopened negotiations.

Um so you'll be seeing a staff recommendation on on those on the other administrative hearings that we have um set uh at a future meeting as well.

And just a question what are we doing um as far as commissioners for the administrative hearings?

I I remember we I think we talked about that, but I don't remember what what our plan was there.

What the administrative hearing officer would I I believe we'll be asking a member of the of this commission.

Awesome.

Okay, thank you.

Uh any questions.

So I think I was I was in fact on their own item.

So um I think uh you report that you you've closed uh dismissed nine complaints a year to date.

And then there is a list of three complaints being uh uh dismissed.

So I was just wondering what the subset represents.

I believe that would be year to date.

So three commitments right now.

So maybe you can clarify.

So um so the the three complaints that were dismissed that were described, what period like when were they dismissed?

Between the last meeting and this meeting.

Between the last meeting and this meeting.

So presumably there have been six other complaints that were dismissed before that.

Before that, before that last minute, okay.

At the at the last year, excuse me, yes, before the last meeting.

Okay, before the last minute on that.

Thank you.

I have a question about um the second case, David Collins uh 2334.

Um, just curious, it looks like this one would be subject to the closing process, the you know, the kind of backlog process, and here it's not, and I'm wondering what's the difference.

So for cases that we put on the backlog closure list, those are cases that need to be closed versus dismissed.

That is our process in that is if a case has moved into the investigation phase or further, it has to be closed.

Okay.

So there will um there will be included in the enforcement report dismissals, some cases that we processed as part of the backlog.

Got it.

So this never made it into this never made it past the preliminary review.

Got it.

Okay, thank you.

Other questions?

Um I I just wanted to say thanks and acknowledged the uh chart that you prepared on pages one, two, and three following up on the collections in the various shaft-related matters.

I think this was very important given how prominent this was in 2024 to have closure on what we actually collected and what went uncollected.

So thanks for putting that information together.

Uh, just to echo that, thank you for uh providing an update on those uh collection efforts.

I think that's in line with what we expected when we approved that settlement uh that much of it was unlikely to be collected.

Um my question is just as somebody who uh has come in since that settlement was approved.

If you were looking that at that, um did you happen to have any thoughts on uh as a set of fresh eyes on uh ways that we might be able to uh approach something like that in a way that might be more likely to either collect fines or uh uh improve accountability there.

Um I hesitate to answer too many questions about these cases.

I don't want to give um potential respondents more information about difficulties that we had or strategies that we had in this case.

Um so I I'm very happy to have this conversation, but I'd like to suggest that we schedule it after we've been able to consult with counsel about how to do it without providing information that might prejudice pending enforcement matters.

Okay, that's fine, thank you.

Yeah, other questions.

Um and on in that vein, um, I think one thing that it would be helpful to know or for you to consider is when it is appropriate to bring settlements or decisions like that to us in a closed session as opposed to open session.

Um recalling the the discussion about this particular settlement in 2024.

Um I think there were a lot of tough questions, and the fact that it wasn't in a public forum made it a little difficult to kind of help us assess it.

So thank you so much.

I have one more quick question.

Oh, sorry, this might not be possible, but I'm just wondering if um if there's any way to learn a little bit more, not necessarily in this meeting about whether there's ways to get around um entities that avoid fines um by termination or disbandment, uh, if there's any way to go after agents, officers, directors, uh of any entities um just as a way to not necessarily leave those fines uncollected, but it doesn't need to be addressed now.

Uh absolutely and I I think um director Duran and I would be happy to receive questions or requests for information for uh whenever we can discuss this at a at a future meeting.

Um so please send those along.

Okay, sorry, any other questions?

Awesome.

Okay, uh ED report.

Oh, public comment.

Thank you.

It's your job is to help make sure I volunteer with this organization.

I named filed a complaint under my signature.

I hope this is not one of those that the enforcement chief is closing, because I want a response to it.

She thought she was slick to go to the organization to find out if I was authorized to sign on the line.

I was and I'm waiting for the disposition of how she's going to address that item.

I'm not one to take things lightly.

And when I see a miscarriage justice, you're gonna hear from me.

And for two attorneys who are sitting up there and allowing something that's unconstitutional.

Minimally, you should be abstaining or saying no.

No, I'm not an attorney, but I understand the legal landscape.

And I read and I do my research.

So I hope your enforcement chief doesn't play around with the thing that went out, that item that went under my signature.

Because they contacted me.

She's not slick.

I keep my integrity in check.

Because I know that there are those folks who want to find out.

Just the slightest little thing.

There's nothing there.

So when I come before this body, or any other body.

And you're going to be caught in your lies.

And misgivings.

Thank you.

Any other public comment?

Okay, we'll now move on to the executive director report.

Thank you.

I don't have any additions to the report.

I was going to uh respond to some questions about the democracy dollars program that came up at the last meeting at the chair's request.

So at the last meeting, um, if you recall when we were discussing the outreach strategy um recommendations, um there were some questions that came up about who is going to be eligible to give democracy dollars to candidates.

And I guess if I was gonna summary whether the program is targeted at voters or or residents.

So just briefly, um, the commission's tasked with administering and enforcing the Oakland Fair Elections Act in line with its finding um findings and purposes.

So I would direct people like with a question like this, we should go to the Fair Elections Act, and it's explicitly says that its purpose is to build fair elections in the city of Oakland to expand public participation in the local democratic process and empower all Oakland residents with an opportunity to engage meaningfully in the campaign process and prevent corruption and its appearance.

Um other purposes listed are ensuring that all Oakland residents have an opportunity to participate in local elective and governmental processes and have their voices heard in their local democracy, um, ensuring fair elections processes that hold elected leaders accountable to the people of Oakland by strengthening residents' engagement with the City of Oakland government and creating a democracy dollars public finance program to expand the pool of candidates and donors for City of Oakland office and safeguard people's control of elections.

So I think that speaks to it's not um our individual interpretation of what it means to be what a democracy is, it goes back to the purposes of this law.

That's what um that's where the it's coming from.

And um, when we talk about who's an eligible resident under the law, that's also defined in the Oakland Fair Elections Act.

It means a natural person, um, and then who satisfies all of the following conditions.

They must be 18 years old on the date of the election for which the democracy dollars are distributed.

They need to currently reside in the city of Oakland and have resided in the city of Oakland for more than 30 days.

And um they cannot be prohibited from making a contribution under federal law.

And so what that means is that um a U.S.

citizen, a U.S.

national or a person lawfully admitted for permanent residence is allowed to make contributions to local elections under federal law.

So the Oakland Fair Elections Act mirrors that in a nutshell, I think um that's how I would describe the relationship.

Why does speak to not simply to voters but to residents because it's seeking to get more residents involved in the electoral process and more people meaningfully engaged in our local elections?

Thank you very much for answering that question from last time.

Uh any questions about the ED report.

I have one for uh ethics analyst killings.

So I I know I uh looked at the the campaign uh disclosure stuff, and um you said that there were some uh candidates who were late.

And I wanted to know who they were.

And then I went to the portal and I wanted to find them there and I couldn't.

And I'm wondering um, should I be able to?

Should we not list these people to have them appear there as a way to encourage them not to be late?

Um so uh or maybe we've decided about that, but I but I just like to have a little dialogue on that, if you don't mind Charlie have thoughts on this.

Thank you through the chair, uh senior analyst Jelani Killings.

And so that is something that we can consider.

So we are working through what staff has done is we've done the preliminary surface review of all of the file statements and we're working through uh all of the non-filers right now in terms of contacting them and seeking to get compliance.

Um so that is something that we can consider whether in a future report or if the commission would like for that to be something that is publicly disclosed, say on the commission's web page, definitely were open in terms of any commission feedback.

Yeah, I would like to hear ideas if the people think that's a good idea or not.

I could also fill in a little bit on on our past practice.

So I I guess one of our um we sort of have a balance where one is when people are not very late, our our biggest focus is on getting them into compliance is the first thing.

And um and so that wouldn't necessarily be the first thing that we would do would be you know to publish the names.

But um our past practice has been once someone crosses the threshold where we refer them as a non-filer, that does get published on our website.

So um unfortunately where does it go?

Our current um Yes, I know we could make that more obvious, but um, but also I would say, you know, also we have some limitations right now with uh capacity, so uh that one isn't necessarily completely up to date.

I would I don't I'd have to check.

Um yeah.

But that has been our past practice.

Once people are are referred as non-filers, then we do have a public.

And referred as nonfilers means that.

Oh, that's goes it goes to enforcement then?

So our we basically we automatically it's like our um duty as a filing officer that we refer non-filers to the Fair Political Practices Commission through their complaints process.

So that's automatic.

But um for um a very simple non-filer case, it's uh kind of a judgment call is kind of what we've been talking about with enforcement decisions that we found in the past that for depend it I guess they I'd say it's a judgment call based on the the severity, you know, the the harm to the public disclosure, you know, how much money we might be talking about, whether that would also become uh PEC enforcement complaint.

Okay.

Does that make sense?

What I just said, yeah, it makes sense.

And I'm and I and I think that um, you know, I mean you're kind of making the argument, well, you know, these people can make a mistake and they don't know the laws, maybe or or whatever, and you have to help them out, which is all true.

But also if they knew that if they didn't meet the deadline, it would be public information, and that's how we work.

It can be a little more incentive for them to figure it out.

So that's that's kind of the you know, that's kind of where I'm getting at.

And I appreciate I don't want to, you know, I know your staff burdens and and all that, so I'm not trying to do that.

So it's mainly something for you to think about and see if we want to just do it as as more of an incentive.

I well welcome any other any other opinions.

Um I would just say that I support their kind of two-tiered approach, uh, just to give somebody a s got somebody a slack if they're like a couple of days late or whatnot, or it's a first-time file institution, but then establish more like a clear boundary when you know, so use it maybe as a tool potential that we haven't been using and being a little bit more clear on like w when they sort of threshold is called uh you know crossed so that it would be there additional incentive to file in time.

Yeah, so I'd say we we do have that policy, and basically we immediately are communicating with them and we let them know what the time boundaries are and when it gets elevated.

And regardless, they are held accountable because they do have to pay late fees when they are late.

So they don't nobody gets off scot-free.

Yeah.

I do have to note that I I looked on the public ethics commission data page, and the image on the data page is a gavel.

So uh just I think that's the enforcement data page.

Uh those I think yeah, I think the maybe the enforcement data page is a gavel, which I don't like.

Uh any other questions about the ED report or uh So just uh just to follow up on are are you envisioning like um like a prominent link on the website that would say like non-filers or late filers or something like that?

I would say something like that.

We could we could have that.

Okay.

Um yeah, it's it's an interesting idea.

I'm not aware of any jurisdiction that does that.

I mean, yeah, and and I think as staff alluded to, there would be a question where like would you do that if it were hours late, would you do it if it were over a certain threshold late?

Um I don't know.

I'm not I'm not against it.

I'm just not aware of and I've looked at a lot of these.

Um I'm not aware of it being done.

I the where I can imagine it being problematic is like if you're looking up campaign finance data, for example, and you're looking at total sums raised by can't by candidates or looking to see what they've raised, and every candidate has reported up to a certain date and one candidate hasn't, right?

That would provide sort of a skewed view of what's going on because that candidate has missed a deadline.

I can't think of an instance when that's happened with a major candidate, at least not for a significant period of time, but maybe there's some mechanism where if that happens it could be flagged at that point.

Because I I don't think the pushback is um this isn't um uh this is somehow anti-candidate or a bad thing.

I think the pushback would be is this uh the right use of staff resources.

Um so I'd be interested in in continuing that conversation other observations or comments?

I do have a question related to something else in the executive director's report.

Um and so just uh to ask our executive director about the status of our hybrid meetings.

Um is this because I thought this meeting would be able to take remote comment or remote participation is but it doesn't seem like it is.

Anyone on Zoom?

It's happening right now.

I guess we could ask our staff uh if there are any participants, but I I'm assuming that so far no one has raised their hand under public comment or they would have announced it.

Is anyone watching?

Yeah, awesome.

Hi to all the Zoom people.

Okay, I have a I have a recommendation then.

I would recommend that um we make clear at the beginning of each meeting that you are able to participate remotely.

Uh yeah, it was it was a very long thing in the script, yeah.

Oh yeah.

Sorry, I must have been spacing out during that.

Okay, because I was listening for it and I didn't hear it.

So maybe um maybe even during each one, say any remote comment or something like that, because I just think if I missed it, then other people might have missed it too.

Yeah.

I I would just also note that um that Mr.

Killings and Bobna worked really hard uh revising the they revised our whole um agenda template.

They tried to put the information very prominently um in an easy to to understand format for how to participate remotely.

We also updated our meetings web page and add all that same information there.

But um yeah, this is like this is an evolving thing for us, and it's great to to get the feedback so that we make sure that we're we're getting the all the participation that we can.

Yeah, and I also want to say again, um I was you know I looked at the web page, I looked at the agenda and I could see the big changes that you did, and it was all super clear to me.

So thanks for your your professional work on that.

It's really good.

Uh any other comments on the ED report.

I have a different question um which is the all-important question of the budget.

Um I saw the short section about the continued budget deficit, which may mean reductions to the BEC.

So I was wondering if you can give us an update of where things stand in the in sort of the budget process, where we can push back on any attempts to further reduce our budget.

Um yeah, so early early in the process, um I guess I would say a lot of the information is more confidential, and we don't we don't have like a target at this time.

So as that becomes more clear um and impacting us and that we need to make decisions about it, I can I could bring that.

We're not we're not at that point yet.

Anything else?

Other questions.

Uh I do um uh agree as relates to Zoom if we can do a little bit, you know, add something to it, you know, speak to the um our citizens and because not everyone zoom savvy, and uh we would do want to keep it fair to everyone and just kind of remind them that you can press a certain button, you know, to raise your hand or what have you to acknowledge to be acknowledged.

So if we can just do something a little extra, because we'd be have all types of citizens on and some are not technologically savvy.

So we do want to give everyone an opportunity.

On Zoom as well, uh I understand that you you all have the zoom up.

Would it ever be an option to have the Zoom projected in case anybody wanted to be on camera so that we could see them as well?

I don't know if we have those type technical capabilities, but um to the extent the members of the public want to be seen.

Could be nice for us to be able to see them.

Currently we don't have the video feature, um, but we can look in if it's in compliance with uh both state law.

Um I don't think anything in the Sunshine Ordins would be prohibited, but we can check to see if that can be something that can be done.

When people Julani, when people um speak at council meetings, do they or do they appear on the screen when they're speaking through Zoom or it's only audio?

I I can't say 100 percent, but from what I've seen it's only been audio.

And that's I think what we did during the pandemic, too.

It was all just audio.

I don't think we we had we ever turned on the cameras for as I recall.

Yeah, there could be plenty of other reasons why you wouldn't want to allow uh cameras, but uh just curious.

I guess I could note in our council could let me know if I got this right, but I seem to recall if for you though, as commissioners, if you participate remotely, you must be on camera.

So just know that.

All right.

Any more questions?

All right, next item 12 reports public comment.

Public comment.

Mr.

Hazard, have a comment.

The state of Washington, democracy dollars.

They have voters.

Voters are entitled to the vouchers, not residents.

You're gonna call this craziness in DC looking at what we're doing here.

Give them a cause to come after us, giving undocumented folks the ability to get a voucher and give to candidates.

I don't think you want that.

You also face with the possibility of not getting funded, and I won't cry over that because the current fiscal crisis of this city is in dire shape.

So don't look for any funding any time soon.

And this unconstitutional sales tax that went into effect on October 1, 2025.

They want to try to raise 29 million dollars.

Okay.

This is unconscional sales tax, unconstitutional sales tax.

Get that through your head.

I don't know what you're thinking.

Don't just go along to get along.

Because it's not about that.

That's not why you're sitting in those chairs.

Think, analyze.

If they're not watching you on Zoom, I guess it's K Top.

You're going to be held accountable for your actions or your inactions.

And you're misleading the public.

Because you can.

That's what the city attorney did.

When he'd altered the 75 world text in that special election on April 15th.

But no.

You didn't see that as part of your jurisdiction.

Why?

You're complicit in all this cover-up.

And it's going to be revealed.

Any other public comment?

Okay.

No, item 12.

Uh reports on subcommittees and commissioner assignments.

So I'm going to read a whole bunch here.

Uh the according to the PEC operation policy, the commission chair may appoint individual commissioners to perform specific tasks or functions by serving on standing or ad hoc committees.

Standing and ad hoc committee assignments are posted on the commission website.

Commissioners may discuss subcommittee assignments, create new create a new subcommittee or report on work done in subcommittees since the commission's last rate regular meeting.

Commissioners may also discuss assignments efforts and initiatives they undertake to support the commission's work.

And in particular, I I do want to use this time to allow the new commissioners to uh state any interests that they may have in sort of subcommittees or just generally what what you want to do in the commission's agenda item is appropriate for that.

Let me go on.

As discussed in the January meeting, I wish to form a transparency ad hoc committee tonight.

And before making assignments, I'd like to hear from commissioners and their interest about serving on this committee as well as two other potential ad hoc subcommittees.

I'll briefly describe the intended work of the subcommittees.

The uh these advisory committees, this this transparency ad hoc committee subcommittee will review city systems used for public disclosure of information required by any law within the authority of the commission, identify areas for improvements, ways the PEC can foster compliance, and potentially recommend best practices or policy changes that the City of Oakland may wish to adopt.

Two, review areas for improvement identified by the commission in the city's response to public records requests and explore how civic technology or other tools may be leveraged to improve city systems and public access.

The subcommittee may request presentations by the IT department staff and other department staff about their involvement in managing public records and how the city can do better.

Three, plan or partner in facilitating a transparency workshop event or for interested or interested persons meetings with community stakeholders to gather input on the effectiveness of local laws regarding transparency and city systems used for public disclosure of information required by laws within the authority of the commission.

So that's the transparency subcommittee, and that's the one that I'll want to form tonight.

And then the two other ones, which we will not form tonight, are uh charter reform recommendations.

This ad hoc advisory subcommittee would review the charter sections within the PEC's jurisdiction in anticipation of proposed city charter reform legislation in the coming year and provide input and recommendations to staff for eventual discussion and possible action by the full commission should it wish to propose amendments to the charter sections within the PEC authority that may be incorporated into the final legislation.

And the last potential subcommittee is the Democracy Dollars Pilot subcommittee.

This ad hoc advisory subcommittee would discuss and provide input to support staff to support staff activities to craft democracy dollars pilot options for the 2028 election that may be proposed in FY 2027 to 29 budget cycle if reductions are necessary, and we'll also include community engagement.

Because ad hoc subcommittees are requested to one year, if there's interest in the other two subcommittees, I'll be making those assignments in the coming months once we determine the best timing to start them.

So here if you want to be on the transparency subcommittee, which will start immediately, then this is the time to say that.

And if you want to be on the others or have any other comments about what your interests are for where areas you want to focus on within the PEC, this is the time we can have that discussion.

Yeah.

I would um be interested.

Um what I am interested in is like, you know, are we gonna have a subcommittee?

And it may be a part of transparency around any, you know, looking at systems around backlog or anything like that for the complaints.

Um that would not be part of transparency that because that's enforcement.

So that's a whole different thing.

And with uh with and we we have had in the past ad hoc subcommittees dealing with enforcement issues, and I think part of even that work has been to uh precursor work to design the processes that we have now to deal with the backlog.

I mean I'm right there.

Uh I think we did some work on an enforcement committee, which is the genesis of some of this work in clearing the backlog.

Um, I guess I think there are bid subcommittees that help review the enforcement procedures and and suggested amendments and um there could be other other ways to interact around like prioritization in the big picture.

So yeah.

Okay.

But I'm not thinking of establishing a subcommittee for that right now, because I it seems like that's going pretty well.

So if you have interest in that, we can we can consider that.

I do, and I think um Luke does as well.

Not to speak for you, but but um No, and I think it would be helpful to hear from the enforcement chief as well if some sort of subcommittee would be helpful and what sort of information um or or brainstorming or ideation would be helpful to determine whether or not an enforcement subcommittee is necessary.

Absolutely.

Um I do think an enforcement subcommittee would be would be useful.

Um I think it would be helpful to not only brainstorm some ideas for how to streamline our processes, but also to um suggest some just make some suggestions myself and see whether there's there's some potential buy-in that I can then bring to the full commission.

Um I'm also working on coming up with um some information and some maybe um exercises that we would be doing at a staff retreat or a commission retreat um that will be have to do with enforcement, so there will be an opportunity there, I believe, to um think a little bit more deeply about how we prioritize things and and what decisions we're gonna make in enforcement.

Thank you.

I think that subject area is is definitely of interest to to me as well, whenever the chair decides it would be the best time to have a subcommittee and maybe it's once we've done more on the backlog and we it's a good time to sort of have a touch point or whenever I just defer to you, but I do think that that kind of subcommittee would be worthwhile.

The net of this is uh Apfeld Fisher and Taloc are interested in enforcement.

And uh and what I'd like to do is look at kind of all the subcommittees.

So now we've got sort of four on the list, and we have seven commissioners.

So we want to make sure we don't create too many of them so that you know you're having to do too much work.

Um other comments or other kind of subcommittees or work that you're interested in.

Um yes, thank you.

I uh and again, I don't know if there's a way to I'm I'm cognizant of having too many subcommittees uh as well.

Your points well taken.

And I don't know if this is something you could um fit under the transparency committees, particularly when you start thinking about outreach and um you know events, community engagement events.

But something I'm interested in is is just that community engagement, um identifying ways uh to keep folks informed about what it is we are doing and also increase public participation if possible, uh whether that's through community stakeholders, whether that's through schools, plenty of the schools have uh local schools have policy, law, academies, things along those lines, and think it could be an interesting way to um you know get our youth civically engaged.

Um so anything along those lines I'm interested in in brainstorming and hearing from the public on and and just talking about with the other uh commissioners just to figure out ways to to uh you know, especially with new Zoom capabilities as well, access is becoming more readily available, and I want to make sure everybody knows how to take advantage of it.

That that's great.

And we we have in the past have had outreach committees to to get the word out, but also there's a lot of infrastructure now that uh Mr.

Killings has done to uh to allow commissioners to do outreach and you know provide ways of of knowing what kinds of events to speak at and things like that.

And I think maybe we can plug more into that.

I don't see necessarily that having a subcommittee do it is would necessarily add value there, but but certainly we can get commissioners speaking more as a matter of course.

And and and we have done that in the past, where the staff has let us know there's these events that would like speakers and you can register with them and and go give a talk.

Yeah, that sounds great.

Yeah, and I also know on the website that you've done some community work, uh seeing your picture.

Congratulations.

But uh you're involved in a few things.

Democracy dollars, I'm I'm interested in that pilot program.

Um I'd also be happy to serve on the democracy dollars pilot subcommittee.

Um I'm interested as well.

Okay.

Um Mr.

Chair, uh Deputy City Attorney Luby again.

I just wanted to clarify for the commission that uh an enforcement subcommittee would only be plausible for policy recommendations with regards to the enforcement process.

So just at the risk of stating obvious, as well.

I think we generally understand it.

But yes, of course.

Um I just have a question around when you were talking about transparency.

You said um number two was around, can you go through that again?

Of course.

Yes.

So number two is uh review areas for improvement identified by the commission and the city's response to public records requests and explore how civic technology or other tools may be leveraged to improve city systems and public access.

The subcommittee may request presentations by IT department staff and other department staff about their involvement in managing public records and how the city can do better.

And we've we have had previous work in this area.

So IT would be kind of a continuation of that.

Does that interest you?

Yay.

Anyone else interested in transparency?

I've got I I will share transparency.

I'm interested in transparency as well.

Okay.

And then what about please?

I'll I will um uh express interest in charter reform to the extent that's that's uh committee re subcommittee reforming.

Right.

And is that under transparency as well?

No, charter charter reform would be a different one.

Yeah.

So what we'll probably do is uh uh we'll do transparency now, and uh well actually who else is interested in charter reform.

Um I would be interested.

Okay.

Anyone else?

I could do charter reform my paper has filled up very nicely here.

Commissioner Fisher.

Commissioner Fisher's threatening me, so I'll I'll serve on the chart reform.

Oh, we only get a maximum of three.

Oh, good, well good.

Well, good.

Her thread didn't work then.

Yeah, yeah.

Um so uh here's what I have is the list of kind of uh subcommittees and people, and again, we'll only do um transparency tonight.

But um uh for enforcement, uh Apfeld Fisher and Talak for Transparency, uh me, Fisher and Apfeld for democracy dollars, um, Brandon Mitchick and Baeva and charter reform Talak by Ava and Mitchick.

Does that seem did I get everyone?

Okay.

Does anyone else have any comments or other interests that they want to express now for what you think is interesting or and I also I wanna um I want to have this discussion every time we meet to not only do the subcommittees, but also just to if you this is the place to express your interests or questions or concerns about where you want to be what you want to work on.

Um I would be interested in some sort of um engagement with uh city council um and sort of being a little bit more interwined with the city overall.

Um I think a lot of policy that we are working on, you know, we have a lot in common, and it feels a little bit I you know, like sometimes we do have council members present, uh, but um I I wish for something a little bit more active on our hand if even if at the end in some meetings or having them like I don't know, but we can brainstorm but so you you're you you're interested in what more we can do to kind of directly communicate with the city council.

Is that what you're um yeah I don't have a specific idea, but I just feel like we're a little bit in a silo and um like for the like I mean charter presume work you know there is an overlap but um just to think of the opportunities because for democracy dollars for charter reform for a lot of other pro our projects we just more you know intervined and we don't share a lot of communication or context, so a little bit being more involved, maybe initially as bystanders so to say, and then you know, as sort of certain projects come along, we be because at this point we'll be more acquainted, right?

So just be more involved in you know with their work, kind of be introduced to them and because then they will know us and they will, you know.

I think it's important to have them receive us as partners in a way, right?

And if they don't know us, um they would not consider our like because we do provide input in a number of areas, right?

Yes, so that's my recent interest.

Okay, sounds good.

Other expressions of anything.

Uh okay, we um so I hereby establish the transparency subcommittee.

We'll start today with uh me and uh uh Commissioner Fisher and Commissioner Apfeld.

Um public comment on this item.

I'm going to be an outspoken critic on democracy dollars.

I'm going to be an outspoken critic on any tax measure.

The June 2nd, and the only reason that was expedited, that should have been on the November ballot, not on the June.

It's because there's not that many taxing measures on June as there would be in November.

But I'm going to be an outspoken critic on that.

Because the voting public needs to know the hidden agendas behind all of this, including democracy dollars.

Yeah, well, this bid about 16-year-olds could vote.

They can't even sign a contract.

But yet, I think this body support 16-year-olds.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Why?

They still got snot in their nose.

That's not to say we don't have any precocious 16-year-olds.

But voting comes with the responsibility.

When you contribute to a candidate, it comes with responsibilities.

And you're going to have the general population entitled to vouchers.

So what is all this about?

Voting.

And what you have to do in order to vote.

But yet you could contribute to a candidate as a resident.

Give me a break.

Thank you.

Any other public comment.

Good evening again, Ralph Cairns.

I would point you to the 2003 Attorney General Brown Act pamphlet, where it discusses what is an ad hoc subcommittee and what qualifies.

Committee has continuing subject matter jurisdiction, does not qualify as an ad hoc subcommittee.

So democracy dollars is a continuing subject matter.

It does not qualify as an ad hoc subcommittee.

As one example.

Thank you.

Any other public comment?

And now, the moment you've been waiting for the last item on the agenda.

Mr.

Chair, Deputy City Attorney Louby, I just wanted to clarify for the Commissioner for the public that a fixed term for an ad hoc committee transforms it into a standing committee.

So you can't be an ad hoc committee if you have a policy that creates a fixed term.

You do have a limitation in your operations policies that uh ad-hoc committees cannot operate for no more than twelve months, but uh fixed term actually transforms it.

No, it doesn't read the attorney general opinions.

Okay, item 13, future meeting business.

Commissioners of staff may propose topics for action or discussion of future commission meetings.

Anyone have anything to propose?

Um I assume we will be getting some additional clarifications on the um item regarding minutes that we didn't approve.

Right?

That will come up again, I think.

Yes, but I think we were discussing some additional color on what was wasn't said and to process the complaint that we just received, right?

And if there are enough commissioners who are willing to vote yes on them as revised, right?

Then they can be approved.

And if not, they can be comments can be made at that time.

Yeah, I mean, I just uh wish we had some material to consider during the meeting or prior to the meeting so that we can decide one way or another.

Um if there is any additional context that staff um would like to provide in the meantime, I'll I mean I will be seeking advice from council on whether that uh complaint has any impact on those minutes whatsoever.

And so I don't want to talk about the complaint because it's not appropriate in this forum.

Yeah, there were two items, so any color that would be helpful for us to make a decision would be helpful, but I was supposed to be able to do that.

Sure.

Well we'll we'll we will correct what we know needs to be corrected, and if I can get clarity on whether I on whether um the existence of this complaint impacts of the processing of those minutes in any way, that will be explained.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

So if it's just the preference not to approve them until the corrections are made, so you can see it with the corrections, that's absolutely fine.

And and we can do that, we can have them at the next meeting.

Okay.

Yeah, and I guess any other issues that that would preclude that, then we could explain that at that time.

Yeah, and I guess my request would be to provide us as much color on the second portion as well as possible if it's permissible.

As much what?

Color as possible.

I know we were talking about this issue, and I think there were some materials provided in the prior meetings, but it's a recurrent issue, the ad hoc committee.

So um if any color would be helpful to help us get clarity.

Um I I think we're just trying to approve the minutes.

So we just want to approve what happened that what got written down lines up with what we're doing.

Well, it sounded like so Commissioner Bayeba, were you were you just asking for more clarity on that on this topic of subcommittees and our rules around subcommittees?

And like that's something that you would like is as future meeting business.

So that is that's right.

That's right.

I know it relates to this.

Yeah, but that is a separate.

Awesome.

Okay, great.

Noted.

Any other future meeting business?

Any public comment?

Hearing none, we are adjourned.

Thank you.