Oakland Public Ethics Commission Meeting - May 20, 2026
Oakland Public Ethics Commission Meeting - May 20, 2026
The Oakland Public Ethics Commission (PEC) held a regular meeting on May 20, 2026, addressing public comments, a presentation on local public financing, proposed charter amendments regarding council member compensation and non-interference, case closures, and enforcement updates. The commission voted on salary-setting amendments and defined its enforcement role for charter section 218.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Gene Hazard criticized recent appointees for voting on a ballot measure dismissal without full knowledge, discussed a writ related to the April 15, 2025 special election, and warned of upcoming issues concerning a tie vote on the protected tree ordinance.
- Ralph Cans cited a Fresno County ruling against ad hoc subcommittees, arguing the PEC's similar practice violates the Brown Act, and called for independent legal counsel due to a conflict of interest with the city attorney representing the mayor.
- During public comment on the local financing presentation, Ralph Cans questioned the efficiency of Seattle's voucher program, noting administrative overhead exceeded funds to candidates and that independent expenditures have not decreased.
- On charter amendments, Gene Hazard argued against salary increases given the city's fiscal crisis and criticized the process, while Helen Hutcheson (League of Women Voters of Oakland) supported placing the full charter reform proposal before voters.
- Regarding case closures, Gene Hazard listed past 218 violations and alleged conflicts of interest, and Ralph Cans (complainant) disputed the characterization of a redistricting commission agenda notice error as inadvertent.
Discussion Items
Open Forum (Item 3)
- Commissioners received public comments from Hazard and Cans on various procedural and legal concerns. No commission discussion followed due to open forum rules.
Staff and Commissioner Announcements (Item 2)
- Executive Director Duran announced potential dates (August 12-13 or 19-20) for a strategic planning retreat special meeting.
Local Public Financing Update Presentation (Item 4)
- Dee Azarmi (Common Cause California) presented an overview of public financing models (grant-based, matching, vouchers) nationally and in California. Key examples: Los Angeles (6-to-1 matching, increased small donor participation), San Francisco (matching with oversight), and Seattle (voucher program with four $25 vouchers per resident). Highlights from Seattle: 88% of voucher users were first-time donors, large contributions over $250 dropped 93%, and the program was reauthorized with increased funding despite budget pressures. She noted Oakland passed Measure W with 74% support but faces implementation challenges due to budget constraints.
- Commissioners asked about minimum age (18), outreach strategies (trusted messenger model, bus campaigns), and comparative efficacy of matching vs. voucher programs. Questions also addressed administrative costs and dedicated funding streams (Seattle uses a parcel tax).
Charter Amendments (Items related to sections 202, 218, 300, 603)
- Preston Kilgore (Deputy Chief of Staff to Mayor Lee) introduced the proposal: modernizing section 218 (affirming council's right to inquiry for constituent services while prohibiting coercion), defining council service as full-time, and aligning salary-setting for all elected officials under the PEC. He emphasized equity and requested the commission support the salary amendments and continue discussions on section 218.
- Executive Director Duran presented staff analysis supporting the salary amendments (standardizing process, adding city administrator/consultant assistance at PEC discretion) but expressed concern about expanding PEC enforcement to new duties under section 218 A-C, noting it overlaps with existing GIA provisions and could lead to inappropriate mediation of political disputes.
- Commissioners debated:
- For salaries: Support for aligning all officials on the same cycle (every two or four years), clarifying consultant authority is at PEC discretion, and recognizing the city's fiscal condition. A motion passed (6-0) to support the salary amendments with added language encouraging consideration of a four-year cycle to depoliticize and conserve resources.
- For section 218: Most commissioners opposed PEC enforcement of sections A-C (communication pathways) but were open to keeping enforcement for section D (non-interference/coercion). A motion passed (6-0) to support section 218 as proposed but limit PEC enforcement authority solely to new section 218D, with direction to staff to work with the mayor's office and city council to align language with GIA and make necessary technical amendments.
Case Closure Plan (Item 7)
- Enforcement Chief presented two cases for closure without action: one where the respondent is deceased and the organization defunct; another regarding alleged failure to send redistricting commission agendas, deemed an inadvertent list maintenance error with no intent to deceive, stale evidence, and reduced public value.
- Commissioners approved the closure plan on a motion (6-0).
Informational Items
- Oakland Campaign Reform Act Guide for 2026: Senior Analyst Jelani Killing presented the updated educational guide for candidates and committees. Commissioners praised its thoroughness.
- Enforcement Program Report: The enforcement chief reported 16 preliminary reviews completed year-to-date (adjusted methodology). Two dismissed complaints: (1) a 2018 whistleblower retaliation allegation against the former city auditor – PEC lacked enforcement mechanism under current law; (2) a 2020 allegation that then-Mayor Schaff used a city mailing list for endorsements – low probability of substantiation and resource concerns. Commissioners noted the need for improved education on misuse of city resources and better coordination between enforcement and program teams.
Executive Director's Report
- Duran provided updates: Mayor Lee's proposed 2026-27 budget includes no cuts to PEC staffing and allows filling vacancies, though democracy dollars startup funds for the Maplight contract were cut (absorbable for 2026-27). Office renovation and case management software projects are on hold due to budget constraints. Strategic planning retreat will be combined with the mandatory August special meeting for limited public financing distribution.
Subcommittee Reports
- Transparency Committee: Chair reported meeting scheduled for the next day.
- Democracy Dollars Pilot Ad Hoc Subcommittee: The subcommittee met to develop options for a limited pilot of the voucher program in 2028, given current unfunded status. They are revising talking points and gathering materials to build consensus and advocate for funding.
Key Outcomes
- Salaries: Motion passed (6-0) to support the proposed charter amendments related to elected official salary-setting, with amendments to align all officials on the same cycle (preferably every two years, with encouragement to consider four years) and clarify that use of city administrator/consultant assistance is at PEC discretion. Staff directed to work with authors on these clarifications.
- Section 218: Motion passed (6-0) to support the proposed changes to charter section 218 but limit PEC enforcement authority to new subsection D (non-interference/coercion), removing sections A-C from PEC jurisdiction under 603B. Staff directed to work with the mayor's office and city council to align section 218D with GIA and make necessary technical amendments.
- Case Closure Plan: Approved (6-0) closing two backlog cases without action.
- Next Steps: Staff will continue budget advocacy, finalize the campaign reform guide, and prepare for the August special meeting and strategic planning retreat.
Meeting Transcript
That's very loud. Is that better? Okay, it's still loud. Someone fixing it. So I'll remind people, as we have comments if the uh if they're on Zoom, to uh go ahead and make the comment. So we're going to now move on to item three open forum. Before we start, I want to go over the public comment process so we all know what to expect. A member of the public may speak on any item appearing on the agenda. If you wish to speak during open forum, or on an item that is uh or on an item that is on our agenda site, please stay seated until that item is called. And when I open the floor for public comment on the item, please 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 and you wish to comment on that you wish to comment on, please use the raise hand feature on Zoom or press 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 to speak per item, subject to change by the chair based on the number of speakers. So everyone gets a chance to speak and be heard. Please leave the podium promptly when your allotted time is up. Participants on Zoom will be muted when their time is up. I also want to clarify how we handle public comment, both during open forum and during public comment periods later on in the agenda, so that everyone is confident that they'll have a chance to be heard and knows what to expect. Open forum is a time for members of the public to comment on any matter within the jurisdiction of the PEC that is not on tonight's agenda. Commissioners cannot discuss the substance of any comments made during open forum, not because we're not interested, because the item, but because the item is not on tonight's agenda. However, we listen to what you have to say. The purpose of public comment is for us to hear from you. It is not a time for commissioners to talk, answer questions, or have dialogue. It is a time for us to listen. Again, public comment is not a time for commissioners to talk or answer questions. After the close of each public comment period, we may address questions or concerns that you have raised. For example, I may ask you to give the staff your contact information so that they can follow up with you and 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 commission's policies, or I may ask staff to explain their procedures. However, once each public comment period is closed, it remains closed until the public comment is reopened on the next agenda item, which you will again have a chance to speak during public comment. Lastly, while you are free to express yourself, the commission urges members of the public not to make complaints or ask the commission to investigate alleged legal violations at public meetings, since public disclosure of such complaints or requests may undermine any subsequent investigation. Please contact 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. And if you're participating virtually, please use the raise hand feature on Zoom or press nine if you wish if you're participating by phone. Please state your name each time you make a public comment if you wish it to be recorded. Again, you will have three minutes and the timer is there, so you'll know when it's time to wrap up. And I also note we have one written comment as well. Does anyone want to make any public comments? I'll ask me that. Oh, okay. Gene has it. When the most recent three members were appointed to this body, they came in and they voted on something they knew nothing about. There were three dismissals I had put forth. And it's an installed to the public when you don't even know what you're voting on. And that related to the ballot measure. When the enforcement chief, that the special election ballot measure, April 15th, 2025, which the enforcement chief summarily dismissed it. It's within the jurisdiction of the body, ballot measures. And what happened during that time in the court, they miss routed my writ that I filed on May 19th, 2025, right before the city council certified the election results. They could not do that. But because it was rerouted to a general civil matter and not a writ, a temporary restraining order, for 333 days, I've been dealing with this.
openpublica.com