Okay Top, can you start recording?

Welcome everyone to the special meeting of the Oakland Public Ethics Commission.

This meeting is started at 635.

I'm Commission Chair Francis Upton.

I will be presiding at today's meeting.

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

We'll begin by taking the role.

Commissioners, please indicate if you're present as I call your name.

Commissioner Apfeld is not here.

And Commissioner Baiva is also not here.

They both asked to be excused.

Commissioner Brandon.

Present.

Commissioner Fisher.

Here.

Commissioner Mitchik.

Not here.

Uh Commissioner Talk.

Present.

And I'm here as well.

So we have four commissioners and we have a quorum.

Um I will also note that the following staff are present.

Uh executive director Suzanne Duran.

Uh I actually don't see Enforcement Chief Tova Ackerman, but uh I do see Ethics Analyst Jelani Killings and Investigator Van Burke and Ethics Analyst.

No, I don't see Mr.

Thorson and Radu Clock Quirk uh Wana Chadari.

And uh and also Christina Cameron is our uh counsel for this evening.

Uh are then any staff or commission announcements.

Okay, and I don't have any.

So we move to item three, open forum.

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

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

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

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

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

When the item was called and you wish to comment on, please use the raise hand feature on Zoom or press star nine 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 per item, subject to change by the chair based on the number of speakers.

So everyone gets a chance to speak and be heard.

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

Participants on Zoom will be muted when their time is up.

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

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

However, we listen to what you have to say.

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

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

It is a time for us to listen.

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

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

For example, I may ask you to give the staff your contact information so that they can follow up with you to give you information you've requested.

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

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

Or I may ask the staff to explain their procedures.

However, once each public comment period has closed, it remains closed until public comment is reopened on the indexed 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 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 Oakland CA.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 you're participating virtually, please use the raised hand feature on Zoom or press star nine if you're participating by phone.

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

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

Doesn't sound like it's on.

Is it on now?

It's on.

Getting in commission members for all cans.

Um update the mayor's office with the charter reform working group.

I've made two public records requests over there.

They're refusing to provide all the information like agendas and minutes.

The budget, who paid for the budget, who got paid?

How much did they get paid?

Who actually wrote that report?

It's it's a really messy situation because a lot of this work was done by people who are not city employees.

So those records are not on the city system like they should be.

And there's precedent for obtaining those records.

They need to be produced.

What was Sean Dugar doing?

He's a political political operative.

Did he write that whole report?

What was his contract?

Who paid him?

How much was he paid?

He's staffed.

He was the point person for the staffing of that whole group, not a city employee, no city contract.

And the mayor's office doesn't want to tell me what's going on, or anybody else in the city.

All we know is they produced a report.

That's all we know.

We don't know.

The public never had a chance to attend a meeting to have any input into what was produced.

It's completely contrary to both the Constitution and the Brown Act.

And the mayor's office was clearly coordinating everything, overseeing everything.

So does that mean that money is actually a campaign contribution?

Because this is looking forward to having this item put on the ballot in November to go along with the mayor running for re-election.

It looks more like a campaign item paid for by nonprofit organizations.

You can't do that.

It's not legal.

I bring one other thing to your attention.

There was an article last about a week ago about Lee Hanson, the former staffer for Shang Tao, who is suing the city.

What's disturbing in her complaint is the allegation that Kevin Jenkins and possibly others in the city are using signal to communicate.

That's a violation of the Brown Act because there's no record of those communications.

Those are getting destroyed.

And it's illegal to do that as a city employee.

Thank you.

Any other public comment?

Okay.

The next item is item 4A, the approval of the January 21st minutes.

However, I suggest that we are not able to complete that since we only have three people here who are at that meeting.

So I don't think we can have enough votes to approve the minutes.

Yeah, that's my understanding as well.

You are permitted to rely on the work of your staff to have gathered the information about what occurred at that meeting.

Yay, let's do it then.

And is this something where we need uh majority of the commissions of four votes or a majority of those present?

I believe this would be a majority of those present.

It's not a resolution or a final action.

So we could do three of five of us as well.

And I did want to confirm that um in terms of the revisions to the draft minutes, there are no changes to the outcomes or the commission actions from that minutes.

The only change is that uh the order uh in terms of when public comment occurred that we verified that it occurred prior to any commission actions, and the minutes are reflecting that, but there are no revisions that uh impact any outcomes or votes or attendance.

So if that makes sense.

Good.

Uh any uh questions.

I have a question.

Uh so I just wanted to ask uh through the chair staff um if you were able to review the video and just confirm that because I believe last time there was a question as to whether public comment was taken within the legal requirements because it was taken a little differently at that meeting.

I wanted to ask staff if it was taken uh within the legal requirements.

Yes, more uh myself and in addition, uh two other staff members reviewed the video recording and confirmed that public comment was taken prior to any action by the commission.

I think the one thing where it might have been a little bit confusing was the action on the applicants for uh appointment to the commission, but there were it was a little different from our normal procedure.

There was one period taken where it was like, do you have questions for the applicants?

And then there after those were taken and people were answered.

There was another option to uh where the chair asked for public further public comp public comment.

That did occur.

Okay, great.

Thank you so much for checking.

Any other questions?

Anyone want to do a motion?

So move.

Wonderful.

How about a second?

I'll second.

Okay, public comment.

I'm sorry, that's not what happened at the meeting.

The chair asked for questions from the public.

Following that, the public was never given an opportunity to give public comment.

It was a mistake.

I will I watched, I watched the tape.

Don't shake your head.

I know what happened.

I was here during that meeting.

And the chair said, Oh, do we need to have public comment?

Oh, no, we don't.

They already spoke.

I know what happened.

It doesn't change the result, it doesn't change anything.

The point is occasionally mistakes get made under the Brown Act.

And when you make a mistake under the Brown Act, you try to fix it.

With a cure incorrect or something like that.

Staff is just trying to cover up.

I know a mistake was made.

Sometimes they get made.

It's a problem.

The question is, what do you do to cure that mistake?

Thank you.

Any other public comment?

All right, we shall vote.

Um Commissioner Apfel's not here, Commissioner Bayev is not here, Commissioner Brandon.

Hi.

Commissioner Fisher.

Aye.

Commissioner Mitchik.

Aye.

And I vote aye.

So the motion passes.

And now we're on to the next the March 18th, 2026 minutes.

Uh any give people time to look, but any any discussion on that.

Anyone want more time?

I'll make a motion to approve the March 18th minutes.

Second.

Awesome.

Okay, public comment.

All right, let us vote.

Commissioner Talk.

Aye.

Commissioner Zapfeld and Bayber are not here.

Commissioner Brandon.

Aye.

Sure.

Aye.

Mitchik.

Aye.

And I vote aye.

So they are approved.

Okay, we're now at the by annual city attorney salary adjustment portion of the meeting.

Okay, so uh we have a um a memo that was provided.

It sort of summarizes the criteria under the city charter.

Um the salary of the elected city attorney shall be set every two years by the public ethics commission to provide for competitive compensation and equitable alignment take into consideration and account the top of the range of the highest paid professional employee in the office of the city attorney and other comparal positions, such as county council or port attorney in California cities, counties, and agencies selected by the commission.

City attorneys salary may not be reduced during the city attorney's term of office except as part of the general reduction of salaries of all officers and employees of the same amount or proportion.

So you will see I tried to uh to simplify the details in terms of our salary survey are are included in our uh appendix at the end of the memo, but we looked at the public sector attorney uh positions and um found that the range for a comparable size California cities was from two hundred and eighty-five thousand to three hundred and seventy-nine three eighty-eight uh thousand.

The mean annual salary was three eighty-eight.

Um three four, and the median was three thirty nine, um, and found that the current city attorney salary makes third 94 percent of the mean and 94.6 percent of the median.

Um the recommendation gave several options based on our uh conversation from the last uh commission meeting.

There are several options included.

The first is to give us a simple two percent increase that would maintain the current differential between the top uh salary of the uh highest paid um employee of the city attorney's office, uh which would be a two percent increase, or two other increases that are one would be the 5.4, which is more in line with the change in the consumer price index over the last two years, or a 6.4 percent increase, which would be in line with uh with the 20 percent over the highest paid um city uh employee within that office.

So um you can see within the memo, it shows that comparison between how that aligns with the different points within the law, which is one is the the comparison with the top paid employee, other city department heads, um, both of departments that are of similar number or all department heads generally within the city, and then comparable size uh California cities and Bay Area jurisdictions.

So you have three different options there, and uh it's up to the commission to determine which they think is the most in line with the criteria that's in the city charter.

Thank you so much.

Uh questions.

Yeah, I actually have a question.

Um, and looking through this.

Um as far as the increases, if we do the least amount um of increase, what is that impact from a standpoint of the next in-line employee?

Have they already gotten raises?

Are they due for raises?

And how is that gonna you know impact what we give the city attorney?

So what as noted in the in the uh memo at this time, all the the various uh city employee unions are in negotiations with the city, so there are no scheduled increases currently for 2026 or 2027.

So that's in the past we had taken that into account.

If we knew there were scheduled negotiated increases, we would include that, but at this time we um that's not something that we have information for.

So what I supplied was what was the uh you know, you the commissioners could take into account what the increase was in the in inflation during the last two years if you want to prospectively think this could be included over the next two years.

5.4 similar to what we discussed at the last meeting, was the increase that we took into account for the uh city council members was the increase.

So but currently there is no agreement to give any increases to city staff.

And did we give the city council a 5.4 or 5% increase?

It was the minimum.

It was five five percent.

Other questions or comments?

Uh I guess I'll make mine.

I so I would support the 5.4% increase because I think uh it's it gets well within the uh guideline of the ratio of their of their employees, and it's also you know helps keep up with inflation.

Are there other other views um I guess has the city council um released anything publicly about what the city's budget looks like for the upcoming year?

So the draft budget has hasn't been submitted yet.

Um I the reports have been that um there is going to be an adjustment during the mid-cycle to reduce the budget that we adopted in the last at the beginning to reflect the revenue that's been received.

So we're still in a similar situation of having less revenue um than was projected, and across the board, um city departments are being asked to adjust.

But I guess I just would note that for the commission, we should look to the charter criteria um while making this decision, and the charter criteria is the ones that we've outlined.

The um staff in the office, department heads, comparable uh comparable positions in the Bay Area and in uh California cities of similar size.

Yeah, no, I I take your point, but I guess it maybe this is a question for legal counsel about whether those factors are exclusive, or is it a non-exhaustive list of factors that we may consider?

I read them to be um an exhaustive list.

In other words, you should rely on those factors, how you want to weigh them um is entirely up to you.

What um cities or other comparisons in certain of the categories are entirely up to you as well.

Okay.

Yeah, I mean, I guess in my mind, I am very torn.

Um I I see the point of a five percent increase.

I mean technically, I don't think the criteria allow us to take into account inflation um either.

So if we're just looking at um, so we are if we're taking to account inflation, we're already looking outside the enumerated criteria.

Um to me, I think the the overall budget chart of the situation of the city and if all city employees are going to have to you know deal with some pain, hopefully not layoffs, but um it feels weird to increase a salary by more than more than we absolutely need to.

Um so I I feel sort of torn between the two percent increase, which still brings the city attorney within the 15-20 percent um range, and the five percent, which is in line with inflation and is in line with what we did with the city council, but for the city council we were required to do five percent because that was the minimum we could do.

Um so that's just that's just kind of what I'm I'm grappling with, I would say uh yeah.

I'll just add in um I'm I'm in the same vote as uh Commissioner Taloc on this.

Um I I'd like to keep it consistent with um our same principle when we went with the lower increase for the city council um at the same time.

Uh the 5.4% increase is arguably just keeping it steady, it keeps up with inflation.

Um I think that uh you know I came in here leaning towards a two percent increase just given the uh uh general budget constraints of the city, uh the fact that we're making cuts to uh very important services and facing uh an uncertain budget outlook or gloomy budget outlook uh in the mid-year.

Um but uh I uh I wouldn't begrudge um an increase that just keeps up with inflation either.

Um but uh I uh I wouldn't begrudge um an increase that just keeps up with inflation either other comments yeah so I I you know I think I'm more in line with um you know because I really grappled with this as well.

Um you know if we do a two percent increase, it would be right at the 15%, right?

So we would still be in line between the 15 and 20 percent.

If we do the 5.4 increase, you know, hedging the bets, it is you know, keeping up with um you know inflation per se.

Um in addition, one of my questions that I was having was from a standpoint of like we don't know if others may be getting increases, and then we're at the same spot that we were before.

But where my issue really is, and I know that it's said, well, we don't, you know, we shouldn't think about you know the the city budget, but you know that that is something that is a part of a factor um to to think about.

So um I would be more in line with the standpoint of um you know the the two percent increase that still keeps us um or still keeps it in line with that 15 to 20 percent, as well as um you know uh uh it's still competitive to currently uh um you know all of the other uh areas in which we look like it's still in line um within you know what the mean and the median is.

So that's that's what I would say around that.

This is a this is a tough one.

Yeah.

If I could comment also um one of the commissioners, one question that came up was was what has been the change generally in the salaries that we we um survey, and so I did include that in the memo.

So I just wanted to note that there was a uh in your appendix to the memo, it shows the trends and like the change from 2024 to 26 for both the salaries for California cities and the salary for other Bay Area jurisdictions.

But I also wanted to note for the commission, this isn't necessarily a comparison of apples to apples in the sense that all of we look at comparable salaries.

Not all of these positions are elected positions, some of them are appointed, and some of these increases might just reflect uh a change in um as you might be uh aware typically in uh public sector salaries, there are step increases that are just reflect if it's an appointed position, it may the increase overall could just reflect that people moved over two years from one step to another step.

It doesn't reflect that overall salaries were increased in this general area.

So we're not always comparing exactly like to like when we look at these salaries.

That's just something to take into consideration.

I actually had a question on um tables the difference between tables three and five the appendix.

Um obviously table five is Bay Area, table three is comparable cities, but some of the cities are the same between the two, but the numbers are different.

So I'm looking at like San Francisco, for instance, says the survey, the um 2024 survey was 308,000.

And then on table five for San Francisco it says 392,000.

So I was just wondering if there was like a difference between those two.

Okay.

But it's I apologize.

There could be an error there between that doesn't, yes, I see they're different.

Um I would I would want to look back on that.

Okay.

But um yeah, I apologize for that.

Other comments uh I I too uh struggle, but um of course we do want to um be competitive.

My question through the chair is as relates to cities that are basically comparable to Oakland, what would you say the range would be?

So our practice has been to look at the actual salaries of the of people in those offices.

And like at this current time, like literally in like February, March, what was their salary range?

So if you look in the table, um the top salary is what's reflected in the in the memo and in this table, that's the basis of the survey.

So if you looked at the range here for uh city attorney, for example, in the Bay Area, the top is for the county of Alameda, so that's the entire that's the city attorney for the entire county.

And you can see the top level was 415 approximately thousand.

Um, and then goes down from there.

That's that's the range.

But each one of these, um, I think we're kind of liberal in looking at what we call comparable rule, you know, um, positions.

So it doesn't necessarily mean that's exactly the same size of department or or exactly it's not exact in that sense, but we're just trying to give you a general sense of for similar positions in the in the county and uh in local cities what the range is.

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah.

So it's not we don't have that level of precision that every single one of these is not an elected position with exactly the same budget and and responsibility, but it's sort of giving you a sense of for similar comparable positions, what the range is.

I hope that's helpful.

Yeah, somewhat.

Thank you.

Now it's related to the percentage.

We I know we've listed two percent, and you stated there's no minimum requirement.

Actually, that would be uh, I think um if if council wants to uh weigh in on that.

Um generally we've been when looking at the change over the last two years, but um I think what your options are, maybe our council could uh elaborate.

Um so I don't read in the charter that there's a minimum.

In other words, that you're required to give an increase.

You're required to set their salary based on certain factors.

Um, but as I said, how you want to interpret the factors, how you want to interpret what a comparable city is.

Um and you know, just to kind of comment a little bit on Commissioner uh Tiloc's uh comment about projecting what the um staff that are the um serving this particular office, whether you can take that into account.

I don't think it's unreasonable to uh assume that there would be some kind of an increase.

It's just not specific at this point in time, so that the staff could give you that information that is specific or um you know a specific dollar amount, but I still think you can rely on that as a factor.

It's a little bit vague, so you have really a lot of flexibility, like I said, to be defensible.

I would just encourage you to in your narrative to hearken back to the factors that you're asked to look at in your as you're setting that salary.

Okay, thank you.

I do note I believe the minimum is zero.

Uh it can't be less than zero.

It can't it cannot be a reduction.

So you're correct, yes.

Other questions or comments.

Uh one way to skin this cap would be to uh everyone because we got to come up with a number.

And so we can have each commissioner propose a number, we can take the average of those numbers, we can make a motion on that and see if that passes.

Anyone object to doing something like that?

Are we we we I'm open to other other suggestions?

Oh number being a percent increase.

I guess we were we're when is there uh already a motion on the floor?

No, no, I'm just I'm just I'm using kind of I'm making framework because I'm hearing kind of different numbers and different reasons, and so I'm I'm trying to come up with a way to uh maybe get us to a motion.

Uh uh I'll I'll I will happily entertain any motion.

So in looking at this and and looking at the um California cities and the city the uh um I think it's table two, if we can look at table two and the uh annual salaries.

So we're looking at Oakland, which is 320, and then there's some of these other cities which I would say that uh you know the population may be a little bit higher, like Fresno or you know, Sacramento, which are further out.

I'm just wondering if we look at just like what is the mean that's excluding Oakland or the median, which is pretty much kind of in line, they're basically the same, um, or close to by a thousand dollars or something.

And I'm wondering if we look at that and say, okay, if we bring that up to that being competitive, then we do look at that, and basically it's like the closer to the five percent, right?

Five five point four percent that you have.

So one way of looking at that may be like how do we bring them up to the the um the media or the median, which is the basically the same to mid.

Um, and if we do that, then we are falling within the range of somewhere around the five to five point four percent or whatever the number was and the five point four percent, which was uh uh three hundred and thirty-eight thousand two hundred and ninety.

So if we if we look at it that way, that's where we would fall within if we want to bring it up to that and be competitive and just split ball in there.

No, I think that's uh you know, I think we've all kind of expressed our queasiness with the overall city situation, and but we have to operate within that framework, and I I think your point is well taken, and Commissioner Brandon's about this is also about making sure we get you know qualified people going for this very important office in our city.

Um, and if we're doing what we're doing is both making them competitive with the median and keeping up with inflation.

I think that sort of tips me over into maybe 5.4 percent is the way to go.

Um so I'll I'll make a motion to adopt option two, which is a 5.4 percent increase in the city attorney's salary.

I will second public comment.

Oh, also uh for public comment.

If there's anyone who wants you're on Zoom and you want to be heard, um please use the raise hand feature, and if you're on the phone, please do star nine.

Is there anyone on Zoom?

Okay.

Hi, uh Ralph Cans again.

Um first comment would be this commission shouldn't have the obligation of doing these salaries.

It should be a body that's set up to deal with these sorts of things, like in San Francisco one point for the supervisors, they went to the civil service commission to determine what was an appropriate salary, and to dump all this on the ethics commission.

It's not something the ethics commission was set up to deal with.

It should be done done in another way.

Um second thing is the city employees have put a pay raise on the June 2nd ballot, it's called measure E, which is 192 dollar per parcel tax that uh if it gets 50 percent of the vote, there'll be that added to the city budget.

It was a deal cut with the city council where the city council originally was gonna put it on the ballot, but because if the city council does it, it takes a two-thirds vote.

The city unions went out and collected the signatures to put it on the ballot, so it only needs a 50 percent to pass.

So it will probably pass the city council's already pretty much cooked in those numbers.

Everybody I think probably knows what the increase will be.

I don't know what that number is, but there's gonna be increases for city employees.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other public comment?

Okay, we'll call the roll.

Uh shirt to lock.

Aye.

Commissioners Apfel and Bayova are not here.

Commissioner Brandon.

Aye.

Commissioner Fisher.

Aye.

Commissioner Mitchik.

Aye.

And I vote aye.

So the motion passes for a 5.4% raise.

Uh okay, the next item is the same.

It's squeaking a little bit.

Okay.

Uh next item is the same thing for the uh city auditor.

It's also still squeaking a bit.

So Director Duran, would you like to take us through that?

And also with the uh auditor, uh, we have both the staff recommendation and we have an uh a memo that was written to us by the auditor to consider.

I I did want to note that um we did include the city of Stockton in our averages.

I I did want to note that um we did include the city of Stockton um in our averages and uh based on some of the information I got after the memo, I I would uh say that that position isn't really comparable because it's a part-time and it's contracted out.

So I would remove that from our uh averages at this point.

Um and the impact that would have would be to sort of raise that that median a little bit.

Um I can give you the exact amounts, but I just wanted to note that I I thought that was a uh a reasonable uh criticism of the staff analysis.

Um that would raise the the um comparable size cities to 253 uh 641 as the as the mean rather than 22 if if the commissioners want to take that into account.

Okay.

So that would um that would raise the final amount for to that, or no, that's just that one.

It wouldn't raise the final amount, but if you wanted to compare the various options versus the mean, yeah, that would increase the mean for comparable size cities to 253 instead of uh 222,000.

So when you're comparing to see if it's comparable or competitive to to similar size to California cities, they would be higher than what's reflected in the in the staff report.

Okay.

Uh as a matter of process here, we we since we do have a staff report and we also have another opinion from the auditor itself, and I noticed auditor Houston is actually here.

Um would is it appropriate to ask him to present his uh document, should he wish to yes, yes, and and I I did want to note that for both city attorney and the city auditor, I let them know both offices know prior to our discussion last meeting and for this meeting that this would be on the agenda in case they wanted to provide input.

And our auditor here is here to provide some input.

Wonderful.

Please proceed.

Thank you.

Um Michael Houston, the city auditor, um, and also the author of this memo.

Um just I guess I I've just wanted to outline two issues.

One that um based on the criteria or the factors that the city charter has outlined to be considered for the salaries of the city attorney and the city auditor.

I just couldn't see how the recommendations aligned with those.

Um and I think a more formulaic approach would lend a lot of transparency just so that people can understand how those amounts were arrived at based on the criteria.

So um I think I speak more eloquently in the memo than I am here in person.

Um, but I think of the four criteria, the first one was um the highest paid employee in the city auditor's office, not um, and I'm not considering future adjustments.

Um median salary of City of Oakland department heads.

Uh median salary for statewide public sector auditors of similar size cities.

Median salary for Bay Area public sector auditors selected by PEC staff.

So the recommended salaries uh more to three options are all lower than most cities' criteria.

So it just begs to question to what extent were the criteria weighed.

And that's and and I actually did like a an example of one way to weigh it, but I understand that it's not the city auditor's job to propose his own salary.

Um but it's just one example that I outline um that I think is a um a pretty objective way to arrive at a reasonable salary for the city auditor.

Thank you.

Does anyone have any questions?

Uh yeah, yes, uh auditor.

Uh you mentioned that it's of course it's not your job to you know discuss your salary, but if you weren't in the position, um what would you suggest either 252,914 and 87 cents or 260,396 and 56 cents?

Okay.

I'm always so impressed that we speak of salaries uh with the cents in them.

Um other questions?

I'll ask a quick question.

Mostly I just wanted to thank you for coming and for uh presenting this to us uh and for uh noticing that this was in the agenda and uh preparing these materials.

I think it's a thoughtful way of doing it.

Um I uh did want to point out that um I believe that the that the charter uh doesn't actually provide instruction for how to weigh the uh each of the uh uh each of the factors that we're supposed to weigh.

So I was hoping that you could, I know that you go into it in the memo, but if you could just sort of verbally take us through how you arrived at your particular weighing and why you think that's more valid than the way that staff weighed it.

Great.

Yeah, that's um that's uh uh I arrived at that same, I noticed the same thing.

There's no weight supplied, and I think that is your prerogative, right?

Um mine weighs criteria um equally.

So if you consider the average of the four criteria, so the average of 120 percent of the top of the range of the highest paid employee in the city auditor's office, not considering any future adjustments, which are likely um based on past.

Um the median salary for city of Oakland department heads excluding the city auditor, also not considering future adjustments.

And there's two different numbers, so there's a a green and orange one.

One that considers um the median salary for um similarly sized departments, that's 240,488.33 cents.

All city departments is 270,415.08 cents.

Um the median salaries for statewide public sector auditors of similarly sized cities selected by PEC staff, and I believe that's the one that executive director Duran was just um updating the commission on.

So I have the same um same number, so I hope that's comforting.

253,640.95 cents.

And then the median salary for Bay Area Public Sector Auditors selected by PEC staff, 286, 385.86 cents.

So it's taking the same just using all the the um research that staff has already done, that PEC staff has already done, and if you equally weigh them, should that if they were equally weighed, those are the um recommended salaries that I arrived at.

Okay.

Thank you for explaining that.

I I agree that there is a simplicity to that.

Um my question would be um, you know, even if we granted that this was a valid way of formulating the salary, and if you can take off your hat as somebody who's getting the salary and just put on your hat as an auditor and somebody who's uh public policy official, um, this would be a departure from the weight that we just used to determine the city attorney's salary.

Uh so can you think of a reason why we would weigh the city auditor salary differently than we would weigh the factors for the city attorney's salary?

I think that consistency might be a criteria.

Yeah, obviously assumed in that question is that there's this value of consistency, but I think that the main criteria that should be applied are the city charter factors.

Okay, thank you.

I'll go.

Um I really liked your note uh because it was super clear.

And I think to help make this clear about the um uh the weighting, if you look on the agenda page 29, the table at the bottom on the staff recommendations, you can see the Bay Area jurisdictions, for example, are way underwater, you know, minus 13, minus 12.

And the and that is a really big factor, because that's you know, that's what you have to live on.

And if you look at the city attorney, they're not nearly underwater that much.

So I think um that we should look at um what auditor Houston is proposing here, and uh what I actually think would make it really clear is this table on page 29.

If this could be extended to show the ranges, the uh numbers that Otter Houston was was put in there, the extra columns there, then it would make it clear that it's more in line with the Bay Area jurisdictions, which I think is important, and also the auditor salary is much lower compared to the city attorney's salaries.

And also the auditor salary is much lower compared to the city attorney's salary.

So I'm personally I'm inclined to go with with uh Auditor Houston's recommendation of the 252K number.

I do note uh that there is a small error in in in your table on page 39.

I think you took the mean salary and you should have taken the median, but it's only a small difference.

Oh yeah.

I meant to do the mean of medians.

Right, right.

But I think you took the median number in that one number.

So it's a little bit off, and and the corrected number that I have for that is 252, 544, and 78 cents.

There you go.

Okay.

Thank you for pointing that out.

Um and I also I I think uh what what sort of struck me is we're giving a lot of weight to the salary versus the employees in the department, right?

Where's we don't want to make that too high.

And uh my interpretation of the text from uh that was quoted by Director Duran was that at least a 10 to 15 percent range, meaning that's sort of the bottom end.

So if something is 25 percent or 30 percent, that's not necessarily alarming.

So I don't think we should index too much on that.

Whereas if you look at the you know how much auditors are paid in the Bay Area, I think that should be given a lot more weight personally.

And it looks like we're not the staff recommendations were not doing that.

And I think yours is is closer to that.

Chair.

Uh 252.

The number which I think Otter Houston intended would have been 252, 544, and 78 cents.

Okay, thank you.

Other comments or questions.

Anyone care to make a motion?

Yes, uh, Chair, I'll make a motion that um we use the 252, 54478 number.

That would be my motion.

Okay.

Anyone want to second it?

I'll second it.

Okay.

Uh public comment.

Uh I'll make I'll make a comment.

Um I um uh I would oppose that, and it's nothing to say that those points are not valid.

Uh but I have a process concern about shifting the way that we calculate these on sort of an ad hoc basis without uh doing it holistically and without taking a uh uh more comprehensive look at how we do these salaries.

We do re-jigger these every two years, and we can take the time to kind of say if we're doing this uh in a way that uh isn't fair, we can uh uh set a process that's more transparent if we think this isn't transparent enough.

Rather than setting a precedent here of uh of going with, I don't know if we're saying that we want to do the formula that he's suggesting every time, or if we want to just do this because it's not aligned with other department heads as much, and we're weighing that more this time.

Um so it just seems like not the greatest process to me right now.

Um and I'd also point out that I have the same concern about the city budget right now.

Um not to say that uh Auditor Houston is is wrong in his analysis or that he's not worth it.

Um but uh those are my concerns.

So I would I would prefer to do a 5.4 percent increase, but that's that's my position.

Um and I'll just make a comment as well that I'm basically aligned with Commissioner Metchik.

I I think all the points in the memo are extremely well taken.

Um at the same time, given the city's budget situation.

I think the charter is intentional in not saying how we are setting a formula of how we must weigh it for better or worse, and we get to weigh depending on what the situation is every two years.

Um if we were in a budgetary surplus, we might be in a very different place, and I think your points are well taken.

But my my concern is both the budget and also aligning with what's going on for the city and for comparable city department heads.

I think a 5.4 percent increase is is well above the 20 the the top eight employee is basically aligned with comparable department heads in the city.

Um and certainly I take your point is not competitive with as competitive with Bay Area jurisdictions, but is significantly above comparable cities.

I I come out net out somewhere close to where Commissioner Mitchick is.

And if we correct that uh 5.4%, what was that actual number?

I thought someone mentioned 5.4% is 238, 848.

230, which is in the table.

Oh, I thought someone mentioned okay, maybe I'm missing it was more the comparison point.

If you if you wanted to compare it to the uh median or the mean for uh comparably sized California cities, uh at this point, I I think that was a legitimate criticism to take out the uh Stockton, yes, the Stockton one, which would show this is lower, you know, than the comparable size cities.

It's a little bit of a difficulty because we don't have really that it gives us two data points.

If we take the four immediately lower and four immediately higher um cities, we only end up with two, you know, comparable salaries.

So it just makes it yeah.

Okay, great.

I thought I heard that.

Thank you.

So we have a motion that we're in discussion about.

So is there more discussion?

Then okay, we should.

So the motion uh is to increase the city auditor's salary to 252, 54478.

So we'll go ahead and vote on that.

Uh Vice Chair Taloc.

No.

Uh Commissioner Apfel.

Can we take public help take public comment before you vote?

Uh I'm so sorry.

Yeah, uh public comment.

I thought I asked for public comment before.

Oh right after the motion was made.

Oh, okay.

But anyway, uh geez, I didn't think I heard you.

Okay.

252.

Uh the motion is for 252, 54478.

Uh so commissioners at feld and baeva are not here.

Commissioner Brandon.

Aye.

Commissioner Fisher.

No.

Commissioner Mitchik?

No.

And I vote no as well.

So that motion fails.

Um what about splitting the difference?

Can I can I make a motion for 5.4%?

Which is option three.

Absolutely.

Uh staff recommendation.

So uh second.

Okay.

Uh any do we need to do public comment after each motion?

I guess we do, probably.

Let's just do it.

Any public comment?

And discussion.

Uh all right.

I I I yeah, I think I want to make um, and maybe I was reading this wrong, but um, you know, auditor Houston, the salary that he currently has is a little bit lower, and we're trying to bring it up, you know, in a um to alignment.

The 5.4 feels um a little um low, but the 252,000 and being you know, looking out the the deficit seems a little high.

Is there room for us um to maybe increase that a bit?

And we well, we have so we have a motion right now for 5.4 that we we we need to dispose of.

Okay, think sorry about that.

I think go ahead.

Your comments on that motion.

Okay, hearing none, let's vote on that one.

Uh Vice Chair Talok.

Aye.

Commissioners at Feld and Baeva are not here.

Commissioner Brandon.

Aye.

Uh Commissioner Fisher.

Um.

Okay, I'll vote no.

So I don't think we have the votes.

Okay.

Do we have the votes on that?

Did we get four?

No.

Uh oh, yeah.

Oh, sorry, Commissioner Mitchick.

I'll vote aye.

Okay, so that so we do have four then.

Okay.

Yeah.

Uh all right.

So we did it.

Uh next item on the agenda is uh we're now into enforcement.

Good evening, Commissioners.

Chief Ackerman here to present.

Um I am going to start like I did last month with the two referral cases uh jointly, if that's all right with you all.

Um again, even though there are different complainants in these two cases, the uh the process that we followed was the same for both.

Um we looked into this a little bit more this month, and uh the enforcement procedures in the complaint and mediation procedures are consistent with a city attorney, a prior city attorney formal opinion that it is inappropriate for the commission to review complaints against itself for due process reasons because of potential bias or even the appearance of bias.

Um and the PEC investigation and adjudication of complaints against the commission, like I said, would violate due process requirements.

Um so in most cases, we'll decline jurisdiction, close the case, and then notify the complainant of the entity with jurisdiction to handle the complaint.

Um in these two cases, the complaints have been provided with a referral notice that includes the name and address of the San Francisco Ethics Commission and indicates that um the complaint itself has been transmitted to the San Francisco Ethics Commission.

Um and the notice also informs the complainant of the right to pursue any civil actions.

And if I could just make a comment, um you know, if we receive either a formal complaint, an informal complaint, or simply a comment that that would indicate to us that we need to examine our procedures or there's uh a problem that we could cure and correct.

Staff looks at that.

We look is there uh opportunity for us to improve, is there something we should correct?

We don't wait for uh a resolution from an outside body for us to do that.

We consult with the city attorney.

Um so I just wanted the commissioners to have that clear.

Um, if we believe that there was uh something that we need to correct, we would do so.

I'm confident of that.

Thank you.

Other questions?

So uh should so basically we're we're looking at both uh 2603 and 2604.

Do we want to look at the together?

Okay.

Um so uh do we have a motion to adopt the staff's recommendation?

Uh any objections to doing them both together.

We'll take separate, we'll take public comment on each of them.

Uh so uh a motion, uh can I hear a motion to adopt them uh for items seven and eight.

Uh some moved.

Okay, and I'll second it.

A public comment.

Is there anyone on Zoom?

Okay, great.

And no one's on the phone.

Okay.

Uh great.

Let us vote.

Uh Vice Chair Tulac.

Hi.

Uh Commissioners Abfel and Baybra not here.

Commissioner Brandon.

Aye.

Commissioner Fisher.

Aye.

Commissioner Mitchik.

Aye.

And I vote aye.

So those two pass.

So now we're on item nine.

All right.

Um, I am also going to address both of these jointly.

Um, it's item nine, but there's an A and B section.

Um, but they generally concern the same issues.

There are 10 cases in front of you for um recommendation of closure with a warning letter.

Some are for late filers and some are for non-filers, um, though all of the potential non-filers to be responded to in that way are uh no longer working for the city and no longer affiliated with the city.

Um so these are all backlog cases.

Um so usually they would be included in the general backlog memo, but we decided to provide uh specific memos for these two groups because we wanted to give additional reasoning in further than we would usually provide in our case closure memo.

Um just as a note, these are all of the Form 700 2023 cases and most of the Form 700 2024 cases.

There are some residual cases which didn't fit exactly into these two categories, and we're gonna try to tie up the loose ends on those.

I think it's three or four cases by the end of the month, um, and then hopefully we will be all done with uh older Form 700 enforcement.

I do want to stress though that these recommendations that we're making are specific to the backlog process and are they're not meant to be precedential.

Um we uh future late or non-filing matters may be treated differently than these cases, um, and I would argue that they likely would be treated differently, and and um uh so I just want to uh stress that this is part of the case closure plan um and not necessarily what we would do in the normal course of business.

Uh for late filers in particular, we're recommending warning letters because um these undoubtedly were violations, but they were older.

They're older cases, they were cured, and they're disclosure only violations that um there's no showing of intent to conceal misuse of office or any other aggravating ethics violation.

Um, four of the six respondents in this memo also appear to be no longer serving with the city.

Um filings, uh, you know, the filings range, the the late filings range from days late to months late.

Um, some merely required a technical or substantive help, others were other respondents were harder to track down.

Um responding to these with a warning letter is a sort of imperfect solution, but um we believe that resources are better used elsewhere.

Um, and so we are recommending warning letters for the late filers.

For the non-filers, uh, we view these obviously as more serious than the late filers.

We're still recommending warning letters because while these are undoubtedly violations, um, these respondents no longer work for the city of Oakland, and none of them held a high level city role.

Um, in the backlog plan that I presented in May, I explicitly plan to treat former Oakland staff and commissioners more moderately.

Um, solely for the purpose of backlog review, again, this is not precedential, but in order to save resources for cases um in which someone was still active with the city.

Um similarly in these cases, no intent no suspicion of intent to conceal, misuse of office or other ethics violation.

Um I do specifically wanna mention one uh respondent, Taib Aloy, who is a two-time non-filer.

Um this is uh this case is discussed in the non-filer memo.

Um the earlier 2023 case was never brought to a resolution before the 2024 case was brought.

And so, in our estimation, we can't expect that there was any deterrent effect um from the 2023 case before the 2024 case happened, which is why we are similarly uh recommending closure with a warning letter for those two cases as well jointly.

Um for both of these sets of people of respondents, we believe warning letters are proportionate, um, they're administratively fitting, they they record the violations and preserve deterrent effect um while avoiding diverting limited resources to cases that have uh greater public gain.

None of these respondents, notably none of these respondents was out of compliance in the 2025 Form 700 review.

Um and we haven't yet seen the list for the file non-filers um from 2026, so I can't speak to that.

But we did double check the 2025 list, and none of these, uh none of these respondents was on it.

Thank you.

Any questions?

Just out of curiosity, what does the cannabis regulatory commission do?

It's a great question that I cannot answer for you.

Um, I just uh in sort of all seriousness, my question is I guess directed do they have any sort of decision-making authority?

Like, do they issue licenses for cannabis businesses?

Um Alex did this analysis for me.

So without getting into too specific about the regulatory commission, um they're a quasi-judicial body, so they do have some regulatory authority over how permits are considered or reviewed, but um beyond that, I would have to formally review further process and procedures.

Got it.

No, I I'm in agreement that this is not a good use of resources for the enforcement um division.

It it just gave me a little bit more pause that there were two commissioners on that body, and if that body actually can has judicial authority or permit authority, the scope for abuse is somewhat higher than a purely advisory commission, I would say, especially for non-filers as opposed to laid filers, where like eventually you do have the information.

So if I if I could comment a little, I mean the last two uh cycles here for filing.

I mean, this is almost like a pilot, I would call consider these two pilot projects to uh try to improve compliance.

And um, what I would say is that staff is sort of trying to learn from the process.

So, like I you know, one thing I would and I think this is a good topic for us to discuss, maybe our upcoming retreat in terms of best strategies to improve compliance and to allocate enforcement resources when we have two different, you know, both of these goals.

Um I think we want to learn from this in the sense that you know, if uh we want a different deterrent factor, um not really adjudicating this until for several years later shows that there was a bit of a disconnect between capacity versus how soon that we could you know have some accountability to uh increase a compliance.

So um that's some of what's involved, and I think this is a good discussion for us to have as a commission in our uh strategic planning uh retreat.

Um so I understand the uh the justification for warning letters, even for the non-filers.

Um is wondering if you considered anything else that might be if there's anything in your toolkit that's maybe a step above a warning letter, but you know, a step below a fine, because I can see how a fine would be problematic.

Like I was thinking, is there maybe like sort of a standing diversion order that if any of these folks ever wants to serve again, that's kind of there to waiting for them so that they you know know that this is something they have to do and it's something we take seriously, or anything like that that you were able to think of.

I think that's a fair question.

As far as a standing thing, I uh my thought on this was a warning letter can only be given once um for any specific violation or any type of violation, and so if somebody decided to come back into city service, they would already have this on their record and and would be dealt with more thoroughly in the future.

As far as diversion, unfortunately that requires uh a fair amount more resources from the enforcement division because we have to we have to develop a stipulation that gets signed by all parties um in order to put that into effect.

And so a warning letter seemed like a response, possibly not a perfect response, but a response that preserves deterrent value and and um would would sort of for lack of a better word haunt these people if they ever came back into city service, um, but doesn't require the investment of resources that were that negotiating stipulations would require.

That makes sense.

Um that we're wrapping up this project with the uh Form 700 enforcement.

Um are we gonna see some sort of uh post-mortem or analysis of kind of how it went holistically so that we can look at this into the future?

Executive director Doran just uh indicated that we're gonna discuss it at the retreat.

So I I presume that we'll have some uh uh something to dive into in terms of something to look at in terms of how this went.

Yeah, that's my plan.

I'd like to have um some data for you, some numbers, some um uh some information, some more narrative information about how this went.

Um obviously I was not here for these two um prosecutions or groups of prosecutions.

I am here, I have been here for the 2025 group, and so I can definitely speak to that.

And um and Mr.

Van Busker can also help speak to the prior um prosecutions as well.

So we should have something to present to you at the at the retreat.

Thank you.

Other questions?

Yeah, just for information only.

When you issue those warning letters, um if they're serving, they can still serve with a with a warning letter.

Yes, that's right.

But they cannot be given more than one warning letter for a case of a of a uh similar type.

Um and so they basically only get one shot at a warning letter.

So if this were to occur again, um they would be dealt with more more heavily.

Um I'll make a motion to approve the staff's recommendation um to close these cases with warning letters.

I'll second public comment.

Good evening, Ralph Cannes.

Uh regarding my complaint that's getting shipped to San Francisco, I would just say uh you could made the whole thing moot by simply doing a cure and correct, which just mean you hear the item again, and you wouldn't have wasted your time and delayed what the solution is.

And by delaying the solution, you're delaying justice, basically.

It means you're never gonna deal with it properly.

And on a Form 700s, I don't know where these complaints have gone about the redistricting commission, and there was a whole slew of 700 violations around the redistricting commission, and they still haven't come up.

And why is that being delayed?

Is it because it possible that because of those Form 700s?

What the redistricting commission did is not viable because you didn't have like one member, you needed nine votes to approve the maps, and one of those members had never filed a Form 700 before they voted.

And that Form 700 showed a conflict of interest.

And there were multiple members of that commission with conflicts of interest.

And another member of that commission with a 200,000 salary from working in Oakland, they didn't report it.

And that complaint has never been dealt with by this commission.

It's been there for how many years?

And it brings into question the current city council districts.

Something's got to be done because you cannot delay things of that kind of importance.

It just doesn't make any sense.

Okay, we'll vote.

Vice Church Locke.

Commissioners at Feldman Bayver are not here.

Commissioner Brandon.

Aye.

Commissioner Fisher?

Aye.

Commissioner Mitchik.

Aye.

I vote aye.

Next item.

So that passes.

So the next item is the case closure plan.

Item 10.

I'm gonna rely on the memo for this, but I am very happy to answer any questions you all might have.

Anyone have any questions?

Um I had just one question.

Um so for I guess 10B, uh the PEC number 2409.

Um which you're proposing for closure with formal referral to FPPC.

Um I guess is this a sort of one-off or because you refer to the May 21st, 2025 case closure plan, which I candidly don't remember.

Um I guess are you proposing that sort of all backlog cases where there's overlapping authority with FPPC would be referred there.

I'm trying to get a sense of like, are we gonna expect to see more of these and what's your what's your thinking on that?

Sure.

Um, so the the memo in May outlined a plan to, yes, to refer any cases that we can to the FPPC when there's overlapping jurisdiction.

Um the memo said that if there were additional elements that were Oakland specific, we would keep the case open and um determine once the FPPC had dealt with it, whether or not we should bring it back to Oakland and um further prosecute the case.

Um for this case, the the overlap is complete.

Um so we would be referring to the FPPC and then closing the closing this case.

Um the the thing that the F oh the FPBC has asked that we not refer cases, and this is very fair, that we not refer cases more than two to three years old.

Um so uh we'll be we'll be sort of limited, our hands will be tied in that way.

Um, but if we are able to find more cases that we believe the FPBC could also prosecute just as well as we could, then then we will be asking them to take them on.

Got it.

That's that's super helpful.

Um and it's also good to know they're they've requested sort of not more than two to three years old, which is fair.

Um, I guess you know, in terms of your process and prioritization of how you're going about the backlog.

Are you kind of where on your priority list is it to um look for these kinds of cases that could be referred?

Because I'm also cognizant of the longer they languish, it'll it might fall into more than three years old, and then we'll lose the ability to refer the case.

Yeah.

Um we're I believe that we've at least cast an eye over all of the backlog cases.

Um so I I um you know I can I can ask for my team to do that one more time and make sure that we're not timing out on those.

I think that's a fair point, and and that's something we can do.

Great, thanks.

If I could make a comment too, I I'd say uh uh Chief Ackerman and myself, you know, obviously some of these became cases um we weren't we weren't in place at that time.

Um practices uh the uh a non-filer situation like this would have been automatically referred to the FPPC, right?

So um and uh generally if there's not weren't um mitigating aggregate, I guess I would say aggregating uh aggravating factors there, um that's not necessarily something with someone with a I'm talking generally, uh if it's uh someone who is not an elected official, someone who has not a lot of money in their uh committee, um not an active committee, uh like long-term non-responsive person, that is something that in past practice would simply go to the FPPC.

That's not wouldn't be a high very high priority for us because they're not an elected official, they're not you know raising a lot of money.

So this is consistent with that generally.

It's just not um uh a good use of our our resources to focus on someone like that.

And if I could just add one thing to that in the May plan, what I also said was if there is a reason and like a public policy reason for us to retain the case, then we would take that into consideration.

Yeah, no, I I totally take those points.

I just think as a backlog clearing mechanism to get make sure these cases are seen timely, it would be good to just refer the ones we can.

And I don't know how big that universe may be, but great.

Well, I'll do that this week.

Other questions?

Um I'm gonna ask a question um just to get a sense of the process and and because I think it's a question that uh members of the public may have about um how we go through these dismissals and how we review these cases.

And uh so, in terms of uh some of the dismissals upon preliminary review, there's a case from 2021 and a case from 2023 uh that were dismissed for lack of enforcement jurisdiction.

So is you know, on uh sort of on the surface, that sounds like maybe something that could have been determined closer to the time that those were filed, and I understand that's from before you got here.

But can you give a sense of of how a case kind of sits in the backlog for that many years only for it to be determined that it's outside of our enforcement jurisdiction?

Um I think a couple of things.

I think sometimes it does take more analysis than just a facial review to determine that something is outside of our jurisdiction.

Um and we found that to be the case sometimes when we do uh look into an issue a little bit further, we realize that for some technical reason it doesn't fall within our jurisdiction.

I think also in 2109, um you'll see that one of the allegations actually was within our jurisdiction.

Um, but because the case is five years old, this is another backlog issue.

Because the case is five years old, we have no remedy available for the case, and so there just isn't there's no reason to to continue prosecuting because we can't do anything in that case.

We can't have any response.

Okay.

Other questions?

And that's when you say no remedy, the sunshine ordinance provides no sanction if you that's right.

Right.

We can recommend a cure and correctness in the law, but nevertheless, that's what we have.

That's right.

Other questions?

I will entertain a motion.

I'll make the motion reaccept the the uh item 10's actions second public comment, Ralph Cans.

Um this is pretty much outrageous that this complaint from December 13, 2021 didn't get handled in timely fashion.

That particular meeting in the redistricting commission was never noticed.

There was no notice sent to the agenda subscribers of that meeting.

Because I brought a complaint about that, and you're enforcing people at the time dismissed it.

One of the most bizarre rulings I've ever heard.

Now you have another complaint about that same meeting that it didn't allow public comment.

The problem is when Brown Act, you need to deal with it immediately, because when a cure and correct is required, which is what was required for that December 13th meeting.

There's a timeliness issue with it.

And if you blow off stuff like taking my most recent complaint where you didn't properly notice that item, oh, we'll just send it to the San Francisco Ethics Commission, instead of just doing a cure and correct, that's all you do.

You just do a cure and correct.

Mistakes happen under the Brown Act.

And rather than going, oh, we don't remake mistakes because we're the ethics commission, you go occasionally mistakes are made.

And to set an example, we're gonna show you what you do.

You do a cure and correct.

It's like the city council last month allowed Libby Shaft to talk for longer than anybody, any other public speaker.

What beyond her two minutes?

That's a violation of the Brown Act.

You gotta give everybody this amount of time.

And that's the kind of thing that can't be put off.

That's got to be fixed right away.

And you should have in your complaint complaint processes that Brown Act stuff gets dealt with immediately.

It should go to the top of the heap.

It should not be delayed because delay is just killing the item.

Is the as staff says there's no remedy at this point because it's five years later.

The remedy was back in December of 2021 to have a cure and correct.

And that's what did not happen.

Thank you.

Other public comment.

Any other discussion before we vote?

Uh can I request that uh Chief Ackerman uh give her thoughts on uh what uh Mr.

Cannes just spoke about in terms of having a process for uh matters like that.

I assume there's a process in place.

We've talked about this for you know prioritizing certain cases that uh where timeliness is an issue.

Uh what's the current process for looking at things like that in terms of you know taking into account that we've got lots of priorities that we have to balance?

We're reviewing everything as it comes in.

Um I'm I don't disagree with Mr.

Kance that sunshine uh allegations uh have a time factor to them.

I think though we are also weighing um the fact that we have fewer resources to um not fewer resources but fewer uh responses to bring to a sunshine violation case.

And so often the severity of the case does not do not match the timeliness issue, if that makes sense.

So um a sunshine violation we can recommend a cure and correct, but that's not always more important than an ethics violation that we are investigating at the same time.

So I think it's a while.

I do completely agree that there is a time element that is specific to sunshine.

I think it's a little bit more of a complicated um analysis of of what has to come first in priority.

That makes sense.

And and last time we did a uh retreat, we had a very in-depth discussion about enforcement priorities and how we sort of balance these computing uh types of uh uh goals that we have.

So maybe that's something that we can uh go into a little bit too at that time.

Yes, absolutely.

I have a question about this cure and correct stuff.

So say someone comes to you with some complaint and says, okay, this commission did not follow the rules.

Uh if we say, okay, you guys have to cure and correct it, what does that even?

I mean, they don't have to pay any attention to anything that you say about that, right?

I mean, that's not you don't have that procedure to like tell the cannabis commission of the redistricting commission you have to redo this item because someone said that you didn't notice something right.

I mean, we we actually can't do that, right?

I read this recently, and I and the language I believe is that we recommend a cure and correct, although I'm going to defer to our council on this one in case she has more information.

I may not have much more to add.

I will say that um, in general, under uh Brown Act uh, you know, organizations subject to the Brown Act, in the state law, there's also a cure and correct provision, and it um allows for or it it gives an organization that does cure and correct some protection from a writ or other kinds of actions that can be taken against them in superior court.

So there is a remedy that exists in other sets of laws.

So for I don't I can't comment on your authority here to do more than tell an organization that you believe they need to cure and correct in terms of actual remedies.

Right.

I mean, so the best we can do is ask them nicely if they want to cure and correct this, that's then it's up to them.

I guess the one other thing I would say is that you know, our enforcement program is one way to address things, but that doesn't mean that we don't proactively, if we see a problem, contact the person, you know, or agency involved and let them know that we see a problem that we think they should correct, and we do do that.

But we're sort of talking about well, is this the only tool?

No, this is not the only tool, and we don't use the this is the only tool, but I do agree with the comments that if something's not done in a timely way, it it isn't impactful, and I think that's an important thing for us to to recognize and that um complainants can't move on until we know resolve a case is is something important for us to recognize.

So we don't want to hold people back from the other remedies that but I think we've talked about this many times in the commission that our enforcement capabilities are much uh less strong in this area and we have a lot less options, so that is an argument for dealing with things in a in a quick way so people can move on to other options.

But we don't it's in the enforcement procedures right now, we don't have like this little bypass thing where if something smells like a cure and correct thing that you go talk to the committee that did it.

We can you you can't, I mean, so that's part of our procedures right now then.

Uh I don't know that it's specifically laid out in our procedures, but we can and we have.

Um when we've heard of a violation, um we and it and it's an immediate thing that needs to be fixed.

We have in the past reached out to that organization.

This this was not okay.

Please don't do this going forward.

So having that on our procedures one day, since we do that occasionally might be good at some point.

I I guess I'd say it's consistent with our stance generally that if we can have voluntary compliance that we would always try that first.

Yeah.

Okay, we've had lots of discussion.

We still need to vote.

Any further discussion?

Let us vote.

Uh Commissioner Vice Chair Talk.

Hi.

Commissioner Fisher.

Aye.

Commissioner Mitchik.

Aye.

I will vote aye.

Thank you very much.

Yes, I do just want to note that after this meeting, um, we will have closed close to 70% of our backlog.

Not closed necessarily, some we've decided to keep open, but we will have resolved and addressed.

Wow.

Almost 70% of the backlogs.

Yay, so um very happy to report that.

Yeah, very congratulations.

That's that's that's excellent.

Uh item 11, future meeting business.

Any future meeting business?

Uh just um question.

Um we the democracy dollars program.

Uh noticed that we've had a um presentation uh from the organization.

Is that something that we can do again real soon?

Um, because I'm really interested in helping uh um uh educating our community and also I did speak pardon my voice, my allergies are uh kicking in.

Um but the community engagement uh education is important too.

And uh of course I'm just share that I'm volunteer my time uh to go out with our team to engage the community because awareness education is so so very important, and that will I believe produce community involvement.

Yeah, I certainly think that'll be something that we could discuss at our upcoming uh strategic planning retreat.

And um, you know, generally that that is uh updates are given during our our in a regular meeting.

Okay, good.

Any other item item things for item 11?

Um not future meeting business, but just uh to uh add on to what commissioner Brandon just mentioned.

Um just want to say that um uh commissioners and Fisher and I were at the uh police association Easter Fair uh a couple of Fridays ago, and it was a great event and appreciated staff.

Uh and uh uh really nice event and and uh the uh um the city inspector general's office uh in particular had some really engaging kinds of uh materials for the community and uh talked with uh staff about uh trying to emulate that or at least emulate it in spirit for some of our materials.

So uh that was great to see.

Wonderful.

Anything else?

We are done.

Thank you.

All right.