We're waiting for a quorum.

There it is.

You have that big huge book.

All right.

Suzanne, are we ready?

Jelani, are we ready?

Okay, great.

Uh K Top, can you start recording, please?

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

The meeting has started at 635.

I'm Commission Chair Francis Upton.

I'll be presiding over 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 with item one, taking the role.

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

Present.

Present.

Present.

And uh Commissioner Mishuk is not present, and I am present.

So we do have a quorum just barely.

Next is uh and we have uh the following staff present.

Executive director, Suzanne Duran, enforcement chief Tova Ackerman, ethics analyst Shalani Killings, and Ethics Honest uh Wada Shawrari.

And our pollen parliamentarian for the meeting is Deputy City Attorney Oliver Luby.

Are there any staff and commission announcements?

Good evening.

Um thank you for director Suzanne Dorren.

I did just want to um welcome one of our newest staff members who's gonna be starting next week.

Um Dylan Bazerty, who's joining us as an investigator.

We're very excited about that.

And I'll just acknowledge a few of the other staff who happen to be here.

We've got uh one of our our new analysts uh Neil Thorsen, we have Ben Marr, uh our other investigator, and uh Katherine Stein, who's joined us as our management intern.

So great.

Welcome.

We we always like it when there are more investigators.

Um also note that uh we are going to move item six uh of the agenda to right after the approval of the minutes so that uh Auditor Houston can uh not have to wait for other action items uh in his presentation.

Um the PEC meetings are now in hybrid format and public comment is available both in person and via Zoom.

Detailed instructions for participating are provided on the commissioner's meetings web page and at the end of the agenda.

Uh we'll now move 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 on an item that is on our agenda tonight, please stay seated until that item is called.

When I open the floor for public comment on the item to come to the podium.

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

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

When it is your turn to speak, the 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 that 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 the agenda, so that everyone is confident that they'll have a chance to be heard and knows what to expect.

Open forum is a time for members of the public to comment on any matter within the jurisdiction of the PEC that is not on tonight's agenda.

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

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

However, we listen to what you have to say.

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

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

It is a time for us to listen.

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

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

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

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

A commissioner may address questions in a general matter if they clarify the commission's policies, or I may ask staff to explain their procedures.

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

Lastly, while you are free to express yourself, the commission urges members of the public not to make complaints or to 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 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 participating virtually, please use the raise hand feature on Zoom or press star nine 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 is time to wrap up.

Are there any uh public comments for open forum?

Gene has, and you go to CleanOakland.com in your opening remarks, Ms.

Upton.

You said honesty and integrity.

Over the years, that's been the least what you've done with this body.

The enforcement chief consistently tried to dismiss my complaints as though it's being vexatious.

This right here, what I gave you.

This is being found in the federal court.

And your enforcement chief dismissed my concern when I brought that tree ordinance before you.

So now they're suing on the same issue I brought before this body.

And then some in federal court, and they're going to prevail.

Cas the city violated their own procedures.

And in another instance, your enforcement chief dismissed my writ I filed on May 19th, 2025 on the transaction and use tax.

A ballot measure with this, which is in the jurisdiction of this body.

And the court dismissed my demur without leave to a man.

But I was already prepared for that on May 19, 2025.

So I'm preparing my opening brief for the appellate court.

Your enforcement chief said it wasn't within your jurisdiction.

Ballot measures are within your jurisdiction.

And my writ address the constitutional issue in the ballot measure, 4.26.130.

You cannot have a provision like that in a ballot measure that crosses and denies a person from filing a grievance.

There are three levels of government executive, legislative, and judicial, and they don't cross over in terms of their jurisdiction.

But your enforcement chief dismissed it, and you went along with it.

Like Faircon said, forget being politically correct.

Yes, I'm angry.

Because you go along with the crap.

But wait until my opening brief.

Thank you.

Any other public comment?

Okay, we'll move on to item four, which is the approval of the minutes from the May meeting.

Um everyone had a chance to look over the minutes.

If so, I will uh entertain a motion.

I'll make a motion to approve the minutes.

A second.

Okay.

And uh we we take public comment here, right?

Uh deputy attorney Luby, yes, that's correct.

You do take public comment.

Let us do that.

Any public comment.

I'm gonna continue my remarks when I said I'm going to appeal the ill-advised order dismissing my complaint.

No, actually, my opposition to the city's demur.

That's the only thing they filed in 366 days since May 19th.

Only one item.

But they thought they were shutting the door on me.

What they did was gave me an opportunity.

Let me read to you some of the statutes.

California Court rules 3.1114.

California rules of the court 3.1207.

Uh rules of the court 3.1205.

The Constitution, Article 1, Section 7, the due process cost, the clerical error, Civil Code of Procedure 4.2472 C 473D, when there's an error, a clerical error that could be corrected, they got to do the correction.

When I filed a notice of motion to vacate the case management, because they put from day one, my matter in general, civil matter.

Department 23.

It should have been in Department 24, where writs and TROs are heard.

Interesting enough, on the case register, it has Department 24 at the top.

But yet the court clerk put us in Department 23.

Then I filed an action personally because the city attorney never answered the writ on May 19, 2025.

Here we are, 390 days later, and only thing they're doing was doing a demur.

That's the only filed document.

No, I'm not an attorney.

I have no legal background, but I understand the legal landscape, and I do my research, and I find the find the appropriate documentation to support everything I say.

And your enforcement chief only says it's not within our jurisdiction.

She don't even state a ground.

And you go along with it.

And when the three more recent members came in their first meeting, you went along with their crap.

Thank you, Mr.

Hazard.

Thank you.

Okay.

Next is uh sorry?

Oh, we have to vote.

We have to vote.

Uh let us vote.

Um.

Commissioner Apfeld.

Hi.

Uh, Commissioner Baeva and Brandon and Mitchick are absent.

Uh, Commissioner Fisher.

Aye.

And I vote yes.

So the uh meetings are approved.

We are now on item six.

Uh, the presentation by um our city auditor, Michael Houston.

Ultimately.

Sorry.

Okay Top, can you go ahead and put the slides on the screen?

Good evening, commissioners, um, staff, members of the public.

I'm Michael Houston, the city auditor here to present our recent report on our City of Oakland ethical climate survey that we conducted at the end of 2025 and the beginning of 2026.

And I'm also here this evening with senior performance auditor Mark Carnes, who is the principal contributor of this work.

So thank you for indulging us.

Um the survey is designed to provide an overview of the health of agencies' ethical climate, including the capacity for ethical decision making, um, both by the organization and by individuals within the organization.

The Office of the City Auditor previously issued ethical climate survey reports using the same survey instrument in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2014, and 2020.

And this report is informational, right?

There's no recommendations.

So, but this is the correct slide right here.

Um ethical climate survey was developed by the Institute for Local Government and is divided into three sections.

The first gathers uh opinions on the ethical environments of employees, the second on the ethics of management, and the third on perceptions of the ethics of city um elected officials.

We had 555 responding employees.

Um they rated their perceptions of frontline employees and management's ethical environments higher than their perceptions of elected officials, um, ethical environment, which we'll we'll talk a little bit more about in coming slides.

Overall survey respondents rated the city's ethical climate in a medium score of 222 out of 300, according to the Institute for Local Government.

This score indicates that the city is in a good place but has room for improvement.

178 respondents provided open-ended answers to the prompt.

Please feel free to add your comments and our ideas on how to enhance the city of Oakland's ethical climate and culture, and select quotes from that open-ended prompt are included throughout the report, which hopefully is included in the packet.

Yeah, I saw it in the packet.

Employees who responded to the survey's open-ended prompt, um, they provided actionable insights into how the city could improve its ethical culture by enhancing organizational transparency and communication, increasing management and supervisor accountability, and addressing the city council um conduct and governance, among other items as we'll discuss.

So this is the survey.

Um this is the scoring guide.

The survey asked participants to indicate their levels of agreement with each statement in the survey, using the responses always, almost always, sometimes rarely or don't know.

And based on the Institute for Local Government's weighting scheme, responses were weighted on a scale of zero to 10 after the number of responses to each statement was calculated.

The higher the number, actually, the higher the number, the stronger the agreement with each statement.

After weighting each statement, the climate rating score was calculated by dividing the total weighted score by the total number of responses to the statement.

Blank and don't know responses were excluded from the analysis.

So next slide, please.

Um here are the results.

Um results by employees' tenure with the city.

Employees rated their perception perception of frontline and management employees higher than their perception of the ethics of elected officials.

The section on employees scored 78.

The section on management scored 77, both of which are rated high within the Institute for Local Government scoring rubric.

Elected officials scored 67, which is a medium score.

And new employees gave the city's ethical climate higher ratings than employees with more tenure.

Employees with less than one year of service rated employees management and ethics and elected officials with higher scores than it did employees who had worked for the city for more than one year.

Regardless of the tenure, employees perceive ethical environments for employees, section one of the survey to be relatively high.

Ethical culture among elected officials received the lowest overall ratings, as shown here in exhibit one, also in the report as exhibit one.

The elected officials section received significantly more don't know's than the staff of management sections.

And 34% of the answers in elected official section were don't know compared to just five and 11% of the questions in the staff and management sections, respectively.

So this indicates greater knowledge of or confidence in staff and management's ethical behavior than that of elected officials, which makes sense because there's only 11 elected officials in the city of Oakland, but hundreds upon hundreds of management and frontline employees.

So next slide, please.

So we we have select quotes from open-ended questions from the open ended um prompts.

And we've included several of them in the report, particularly we included ones where obviously we didn't want anyone to be identified from their quotes.

So we selected ones that were kind of representative and kind of interesting and pointed to some like themes that we found.

Um and this is one of them.

There's a lot of talk about how we should improve the ethical climate, but when it comes to action, there's not a lot of action.

Next slide, please.

So we reviewed the 178 quotes based on sentiment and content and grouped them to identify actionable insights.

And that's what's shown here.

It's exhibit three on the report.

Please don't try to read it from the screen.

Um, but it is more clear in the actual report.

Um shows um common themes for improving the city's ethical culture as identified by the respondents, included enhancing organizational transparency and communication, increasing management and supervisor accountability, and addressing city council conduct and governance.

Next slide, please.

And staff identified opportunities for improved transparency and communication through making policies and decisions clearer to staff through improved and consistent communications from leadership, implementing standards for responsiveness to communications and clear policies for reporting ethical concerns.

Staff also identified uneven workloads stemming from budget constraints and uneven performance appraisals as contributing to negative ethical pressures and impacts on employee morale.

Additionally, staff described organizational disconnects within the and across departments that contribute to lack of transparency in decision making and direction.

So over half of the open-ended responses were negative in sentiment.

So this is just a breakdown of, and we had to make that call by reviewing the open-ended responses.

And but we did have some neutral, right?

56 were neutral, 109 were negative, 21 were positive.

Uh nine were unknown.

So next slide, please.

So the first section, as I stated earlier of the survey, focused on how employees perceive the ethical climate they work in.

And this is exhibit four.

Um this section received a score of 78 out of 100.

And per the institute for local government, this is a high score, and this score suggests that City of Oakland's ethical expectations of employees is relatively clear.

Rating expectations of themselves, employees indicated treating everyone fairly and equitably as a common expectation.

Um, the lowest scoring indicator of ethical climate related to feeling encouraged to report questionable ethical behavior or policy.

So that's the one that scored lowest.

Next slide, please.

So the section uh the second section of the survey on employees' um perception of management.

This is exhibit five.

Um, this section received a score of 77 out of 100.

Considering management, respondents indicated that managers are likely to refuse gifts andor accept special treatment from those doing business with the city of Oakland.

Um, but respondents felt that management were less likely to appoint and reward people based on performance and contribution to the city's goals.

Next slide.

Um the third section of the survey focused on the perceptions of um the ethics of elected officials.

Exhibit six.

In this section, received a score of 67 out of 100, part of the institute for local government.

This is a medium score, and this score shows employees perceived the ethical climate of elected officials, um, has room for improvement.

No notably, um, many employees indicated that they did not know like we talked about this before, they did not know of how their elected officials felt about certain things.

For example, 49% said they did not know whether elected officials refuse to accept gifts or special treatment from those who are doing business with the city.

42% said they didn't know whether elected officials use public resources only for agency purposes and not their own personal or political purposes.

Of the questions with the most affirmative act uh answers, just over half indicated that elected officials treat the public and civil with civility and respect always or almost always, but 20% felt that elected officials rarely create an environment in which staff feel comfortable raising ethical concerns.

So these tables, they're all in the report.

Encourage you to take a closer look at them.

And um, with that, um that that's that's the end of my prepared remarks.

Happy to entertain any questions that you may have.

Anyone have any questions?

Sure.

Um thank you for this report.

Um yeah, I thought it was it was really interesting.

What what maybe not surprising in some places, what people's sentiment was.

Um I guess one question I have is you know, this report is obviously of interest to this body, but I imagine is of interest to others in the city.

Um how how else does this report get used?

Is it just posted on your website?

Is it sort of distributed department heads?

Because even though this is informational, I mean it seems like there's actionable information here about like employees feeling like management isn't giving, you know, isn't clear about when they should raise ethical issues or things like that.

So I'm just interested how how else this um report gets used.

Yeah, thanks for the question, Commissioner.

Um, well, uh a few different ways.

One, we are like a big part of the charge of the city auditor's office is just providing information.

Normally it's about us publicly reporting um on how um services and programs are performing, but this one is really kind of different because it's like um reporting on how people think, you know, or their their perceptions of how the city's um the city's ethical climate.

Um we received uh one uh real, I think, uh potentially useful resource that we included as part of this report was um uh a guide in the back in appendix B for folks to um outlining some of those channels in the city where people could go to with concerns because a lot of people really revealed specific issues or concerns in their responses.

So we thought it would be useful to take the opportunity to educate um employees about where to go with certain specific kinds of concerns.

Um, secondly, I I hope that management in particular or elected officials reading this would uh take that opportunity to um identify things that need to be um that they need to reinforce with the people they're interacting with, whether they be peers or um subordinate employees.

Um like for instance, the um in that the last one about the elected officials um people thinking that they're not providing an environment where folks feel comfortable raising concerns.

I would hope that that would send a message that you know that we have to be proactive in making sure that people know that here are these channels for for raising concerns, right?

But as far as recommendations that we follow up on, like we do with our audits, um, we're not gonna be doing that for this one.

Got it, thank you.

That's that's super helpful.

So, like, for example, for appendix B, is that is there like an email that's gonna go out to employees being like, here are some, or you know, how are they gonna know that these resources in appendix B are available to them?

Or how is management gonna know, like, oh, or like elected officials, like, hey, this the survey found like employees don't feel like there's a culture of that.

Um, yeah, just curious about how how as you mentioned, there's hundreds of managers throughout the city, like how do they learn about this kind of information?

Right, yeah.

That we we actually issued this to the workforce.

So um we blasted it to the entire workforce.

Um, so they have this.

So I'm hoping that people have opened it.

Um that answers my question.

Thank you.

Thank you for the uh this report, it's very thorough and uh great to see the direct quotes because as people read it, I think it's always nice to see that if not their words, one of their colleagues' words is reflected.

So appreciate that touch.

Um I had two questions.

The first is I noticed that this has been done in the past at least five times, but the kind of frequency in which it occurs is uh a bit sporadic.

Um any reasoning for that, and is there any uh any thought that this will will happen again in a set period of time, or it's more driven by kind of what's going on in the city and whether or not there's a need for it.

Thank you for that question, Commissioner.

Um yeah, that's uh that's something um it's interesting because really what accounts for the unevenness of us um surveying the employees is who the city auditors have been.

Um Courtney Ruby um was the one who started to spec in 2010, and she thought that this was something that needed to be done on a recurring basis, and she wanted it to you know have a baseline so we could compare um like how have how has the cities um or the people's perception of the ethical climate changed over time.

However, um we've done some methodological changes to it.

So I I don't feel comfortable making those kinds of comparisons about like what used to like how employees used to feel versus uh back in the day versus currently because of some methodological methodological changes we made, but also because it's not necessarily representative sample.

We did get a lot of folks um who responded to it.

Um 500 page five, that's actually that's a pretty good chunk of the workforce, but we don't know how we don't know it's not really representative.

So I being I guess I'm being long-winded, but just saying that I don't know um what the benefit we're not necessarily um going to benefit by having it done on a um specific cadence.

Okay, that makes sense.

I suppose, and you know administrations change, preferences change, but maximum possible impact uh for a report like this would be to carry over methodologies to the extent possible so that to the extent comparisons are warranted, they can be done.

But as you point out, it's not always practical.

Um my second question, and I guess it sort of pertains if this is done again.

Um I'm a bit worried about the percentage of don't know responses as it pertains to the elected officials.

Um and I'm I it maybe is not even a question or even a suggestion, but I'm wondering if that's a question uh wording of the question issue.

People don't think that they have knowledge of these things, if it's an access issue, certain people don't have access to elected officials, and if so, whether there's a threshold question that could be asked at the outset, you know, if you have interactions with elected officials, then you answer this point, and then you wouldn't get that, you know, up to 50% I don't know's, and you could get some more reliable data on that point, but just something that was was noticeable to me.

You did um did say we do that in the instructions and said if it does not apply to you against or don't know.

Okay.

And that in previous surveys methodology was different or a little different.

And they actually we just see that they need to we did not weigh the don't know answers, um, whereas in the past we know they did at least ones.

Or so um yeah, that is that was a big intention they don't know, so we discussed it thoroughly.

That was actually the methodological the biggest change was we didn't lower the scores for the don't knows this time, but in the past that had been, right?

So that's actually you just identified the the biggest issue.

Wonderful.

I actually did weigh it with the chair upton.

My apologies, uh presenters can't uh be heard by the online public if they're not speaking to the mic.

Um if you would you mind speak just speaking into the mic please?

We want to hear from you, but we want to make sure that that is recorded too.

So what I was saying, so we did also weigh the don't knows.

We did that's not what we reported, but we did do that just to see what it would show us.

And when we did weigh the don't knows, um the scores went way down where so that the for the employees and management, they were instead of being high, they were medium, and elected officials were low.

So it did make a huge difference in the scoring by not using the don't know answers.

So I just wanted to make sure that was clear.

Yeah, that's very helpful.

Okay, thank you.

Uh just a follow-up on that.

So when so it seems that was the significant methodological change.

Would it have been possible to look at the data from the previous surveys and recalculate recalculate it such that we can compare?

Because it would be useful to know um how we progressed.

Or is that too?

I don't know if we have the data from I mean, we have it from 2020.

But from the 2010, 11, 12, and 14.

I don't believe we have access to that data at all.

It's we we just don't have it.

Okay.

And and I just want to add too on Chair Upton.

Um that's actually what gives me the the concern too, as far as we don't know who like the respondents were, right?

So I would be if we it the if we had the consistent methodologies, we would be able to kind of generally describe trends, but then there would be so many caveats because they're not the same people, and we don't know what the representation is across the different work units or the you know, um so I would be kind of reluctant to do that.

Are you done with your questions?

Because I go ahead.

Okay, yeah.

Uh I um but then you say you're essentially saying that the just can never be compared, then no.

Well, that's what I'm I'm trying to understand.

Well, um we we could we could compare what like the the Institute for Local Government has like this whole they've um identified what the scores mean and we could compare our what the respondents say versus that, right?

Right.

Um I think that's like that's the biggest objective of this was just to assess the ethical climate just to take a snapshot of the workforce.

And does the uh uh whatever that organization is that what you just make the institute of local do they have um do they go further in like answering questions about the methodology for don't knows and things like that so that so that this whole survey that they have some process for standardized comparisons?

Um we did email them.

Um unfortunately we had not heard back from them before publication, and as far as I know, we still haven't heard back because there we even did our own research and there was no real answer whether you do use it or you do not use it.

Um it was it's so we what we chose is not to use it just because it was it didn't apply to to the person the person's answer don't know it mean meant it didn't apply to them, so or they didn't apply, so we that's what that's what our decision was.

Um okay, and I assume that that from now you'll be set up maybe in the future for comparisons, the data will be kept somewhere and stuff like that, so that so that maybe if this is gets done in a couple of years, we can start to because I mean you know, you talk to people on the street and they say the governments of Oakland is corrupt and unethical, right?

I mean, all the time.

So I think having things like this and having things like this be compared is pretty important.

Yeah.

So um, anyway, I mean, and also really thank you for doing it.

I don't want to, sorry, I'm I'm I don't want to be starting out negative.

Uh that means it's a it's a great work.

Um another so what is the response percentage?

What I mean, what is 555 people of the total 17.

Oh, so it's 17% okay of the 17% of the um uh fully staffed positions.

So there were we we pulled the staff from the staffing report in February or in March for February 1 this year, um there were about 3200 fully staffed positions in the city.

So 555 divided by that is 17 percent.

Thank you.

Um it would it would it would be um in the future it would be useful to include uh I know I read the report and in the slides it would be used to include uh that percentage.

We did.

So I was in there, yeah.

Oh, I I missed that.

Sorry.

No, no worries.

Um it would it would it would be um in the future it would be useful to include I know I read the report and in the slides it'd be used to include uh that percentage we did so oh I didn't know yeah oh I I missed that sorry no no worries and then my uh uh my other question is um I noticed the big deal was transparency and um and people I think were talking about transparency within the city government right that the people didn't know what they were wanting to know not so much public transparency um it would be very interesting I mean because we're doing some work in transparency to kind of understand uh really specifically what people are having to say about that um or even if there are people that we could talk to because I think there is probably considerable overlap between transparency requirements within the government and transparency you know to the public and if we can work on those things together I think that would be really useful so I don't know what we can do like if if we can contact you and get more information or something like that on like any more data about that is that would that be possible preliminarily yes yeah chair up to yeah that sounds like a great idea and this is actually one of those um results that we're hoping for from this too so ideas to be generated from this right yeah well we're we have a transparency subcommittee and we're one of the things that we're planning on doing um in conjunction with what's open oakland yes uh is is kind of having a transparency forum and um and so I think uh the intra intergov intra government transparency could also be addressed there too and we can use this as kind of an impetus for that right sounds good yeah I just have a uh one last question is um I know that you said that you've actually emailed this out to everybody so it's a blast that went out to everybody and they have an opportunity to um read it is there any um are you planning on other than just um sending out the email to potentially look at like talk to like have a road show where you share this with like the different department heads or things like that so you know that they actually get that information because sending it out in the email I don't know if you know if they actually open it it's a lot of data to digest so is there any plan to go all right we want to make sure that some of these department heads actually see this data so they know what's what's going on yeah thanks Commissioner Fisher um we actually did reach out like we we contacted the different department directors and uh council members and uh you know offered to brief them and then also um asked if there were a forums where we would be able to present this so yeah that's that's a great idea we always look forward to sharing our our work with folks other other questions thank you so much really really appreciate your work and appreciate the presentation great thank you all right uh now we are on to what public comment public comment you know when the enforcement chief gives you whatever their finding is you don't even answer any questions it's not supported by the facts it's not supported by the records for instance the city attorney exceeded his lawful authority by altering the ballot language without authorization rendering the challenge conduct reviewable 212 of the Oakland City Charter in Purden Parts states if an ordinance is significantly altered after this initial introduction other than minor clerical corrections the five day waiting period restarts before it can be approved this rule is designed to ensure transparency and gives the public time to review the proposal uh the proposal but she dismissed my complaint she didn't look at 212 of the city charter it's factually clear but y'all went along with it you didn't ask you any questions what legal authority do you have for your position and what you did with mayor shaft three meetings she was supposed to be fine 5000 and then somebody up there said well she can't afford that how do you know you didn't ask her for her bank account and she ended up paying five thousand so and then the enforcement chief wants to say that I'm a vexatious claimant

She was supposed to be fine 50,000.

And then somebody up there said, well, she can't afford that.

How do you know?

You didn't ask her for her bank account.

And she ended up paying 5,000.

So, and then the enforcement chief wants to say that I'm a vexation.

Claim it.

There's no such thing when the record is clear.

She can't use that as an excuse to dismiss a uh complaint.

There's no integrity here.

There's no honesty here.

But yet you want to jump on that maxi in the beginning.

What the ethics commission is supposed to be about.

As the enforcement chief when she brings a decision from our office.

Other than oh, it's outside the jurisdiction based upon what.

Thank you, Mr.

Hazard.

We're now going to move on to item five, which is the case closure plan.

With enforcement chief Ackerman.

Good evening, Commission Enforcement Chief Tova Ackerman.

Tonight I'm planning to rely on my memo to you, but I I certainly welcome any questions from the commission.

I can I have some questions.

So it looks like there's there's three different cases.

Um starting with the matter of David Silver.

So there's sort of two rationales that are given.

One is that as I understand it, even if the allegations were true, it wouldn't constitute a violation of GIA.

Is that because you say because both roles were not public offices, this does not violate yeah.

To be clear, there were two um two codes that we were sections that we were looking at it under.

So incompatible public offices was one section that we looked at, and um because they were not both uh public offices, that was it it was not true that that was a violation.

Okay.

Um but then there was the other potential violation, which was um more about um being instrumental in uh giving contracts in in an organization that he was a part of, um, and that we're saying um it's it's frankly it's it's too old.

The the alleged actions were nine to eleven years old, our nine to eleven years old, and so our argument here is just that it's um it's too stale to to support investigation.

Got it.

Okay, because that was gonna be my second question is is you because you say there's limited remedial or deterrent value, and I was gonna ask sort of what the basis for that concludes conclusion.

Yeah, I mean, I think I've said this before to the commission.

I think if this was a case that was brought up recently, it's it's something that we would pursue.

I mean, we would take it very seriously if someone was instrumental in giving themselves government contracts.

Um but it I think in the end it came down to the advanced age of the case, and um that that pursuing it at this late date um has very little just just has very little benefit benefit for the public.

Do you know one way or the other if Mr.

Silver has any positions with the city or is involved in any organization seeking business before the city?

I don't know about it involved in any other organizations.

I don't believe that he currently has a role with the city.

Um those are my questions on silver.

I don't know if anyone should just go through my um my so the second one.

So I'm struggling a little bit with the the second one, the the police commission.

Um this one's not as old, it's four years.

Um like one of the one of the rationales you give is that you know uh at the end of the day there may be a potential sunshine ordinance violation, but if that were established, the PEC has limited enforcement authority.

But that's true of any um sunshine ordinance violation, so I struggle with that as a rationale for why to close this case with no action.

I think that's always a factor in our judgment of the seriousness or the our ability to respond to a case is is what enforcement action we can take on a particular code.

I think that's I would say that's what I mean by that.

The more important issue that I think is is relevant here is that because this was a closed door meeting we would have to rely purely on eyewitness testimony for a four-year-old issue um that may not have risen to people's minds as something that's particularly memorable.

Sting that what the complainant said happened did not happen.

And so because of those two things um we determined that um and and the the the fact that at this late date and also in general sunshine violations give us very little recourse um as a as a commission um we recommend closing with no action got it can I ask a follow-up question just your statement there sunshine violations give us very little resource um I recourse sorry yes no you you you said it the right way not me um and uh but the so I guess what is the most we can do I mean can we like ask whatever the body is very nicely to please uh fix this which they probably won't do we can't even go that far we can advise them to put it on their agenda to determine whether to cure and correct the violation.

So why do we even investigate them?

Yeah so I think the law needs to be fixed.

And uh I think that might be something that we should and sunshine does fall under the transparency work.

So maybe this is something we can look at uh proposing some changes in the law so that we can do because I hear this all the time people complain about this.

Yeah.

And there and truly there really isn't much we can do legally.

Yeah.

And if we change the law that could be better right I mean what's your what's your opinion on that I have mixed feelings about this.

I don't like having sections within our jurisdic or codes within our jurisdiction where we where our hands are tied this much.

I will also say that sunshine violations are quite complicated sometimes and um difficult to determine whether there is a violation um and so having more enforcement authority and having to address them with the same amount of resources that we give to cases that we have author like um enforcement reactions to um I I worry about our caseload if if we change the law on that way.

I think it is part of our determination of how serious a case is how much we can do in response to it.

Okay.

And I I just want to be really clear that what we're saying here is an ethics commission or is that it's basically a law that's not enforceable essentially so if people want to violate it and and it's and it's easy to violate you know with messing up meeting notices and agendas and you have bodies that are volunteers and amateurs and and stuff like that.

So it really doesn't give us a lot of help.

I will say on the less serious allegations um you know we can also reach out and say like your agenda didn't go out on time you should think about republic you know like there are there are things we can do short of an official formal commission action that that can help remedy the issue without prosecuting it as fully as as other violations.

But I I totally understand I take your point.

Yeah yeah and and well I think part of like part of uh what we do is train the people is train the commissions right to to know how to run meetings and and do all that stuff.

I wonder if we can have some kind of help with when things seem to go wrong there.

You know maybe someone makes a complaint or whatever that's I don't know a fast track or a something that that can get back to the group that's having the problem quickly.

Because I think that's that's a lot of the problem here is these things are you know they go through this whole process and and usually these are very time critical matters right if someone messed up an agenda or whatever and then they're cure incorrect is needed then it should be done soon.

Yeah I I completely agree with that.

I think um I think time is out of the absence with these particular violations I think that might be another reason that it's it's um it can be helpful to be less formal with these investigations and reach out for compliance first rather than going through the whole process.

I think that might be another reason that it's it's um it can be helpful to be less formal with these investigations and reach out for compliance first rather than going through the whole process.

Right.

Um so I think yeah, I think that's that's very true that that these need to be addressed very quickly, yeah.

Yeah, so I'd like to to um come back to this at some point uh and to see what might what might be done in our processes to uh make this better.

And and I I don't think the answer is more penalty.

Because I because then it's too late and you have to go through this big process, but I think the answer can be kind of more help and particularly help when things go wrong more quickly.

Yeah.

So if we can address that in some way, uh has some system for that, that would be uh good.

Yeah, I I agree and I appreciate that.

I think I think the idea of yeah, more penalty is is not has has problems to it.

Um I have concerns about that, but I yeah, I would say that's the same.

Well, you know, because generally these are well-meaning people and they're trying to do the right thing and you know, and they're making a mistake.

Yeah, and we want to make sure that we help them and help the right thing get done and help the public get served.

Yeah.

I mean, I guess like it it troubles me here that the police commission is in a body that meets regularly is of great interest to the Oakland public.

And what we're saying here is, well, too late.

Like we're I mean, because even if we can't penalize, there is some value in saying, hey, you messed up, like and that that I think is concerning that we are taking the view that you know we just it it doesn't really matter because what what are we going to be able to do at the end of the day?

Yeah, I to be clear that is not my most pressing justification for closed no action.

Um I agree that if they violated closed session rule, sunshine rules, that's a that's a big issue.

Um I think I think what I would say our main problem is at this point is proving that.

Um and I just think at this late date, trying to reconstruct eyewitness testimonies, which will inevitably have faded over the four years that this has been pending, um makes it feel like there's a very low probability that we can that we can actually prove a violation here.

And you said you talked to two eyewitnesses who not not previous staff.

Um when this was investigated, uh I think in early 2023, I'm not sure exactly, but in our case file, um there were two uh interviews with um, I believe it was um Commissioner Melile and then also the the attorney who was uh the attorney for the commission who was also present um and both said that the tool was not discussed, it was only the um the inspector general herself.

Got it.

And I guess is that in your mind insufficient for you to find there was no violation?

And I guess why is it coming to us as like you're closing it as opposed to closing it without you know further investigation as opposed to saying we've talked to some people, we don't think there's enough there in terms of showing a violation.

Yeah.

I want my work to be thorough, and I worry that relying on old interviews um old interviews when we haven't I uh there was no final determin to determination made by prior staff.

Um and to me that means there was an open question to be answered.

Um I don't take I don't take that lightly, and I think um I think there was still some investigation to be done on why the inspector general was told this information.

Um and and I if it if it was a case I was pursuing now, I would want more eyewitness testimony.

Got it.

Okay, thank you so much.

Oh, and sorry, one other small thing.

I when I say sunshine, I would include Brown Act there too.

Absolutely.

Okay, yeah.

So I guess what what are the remedies right now for someone who thinks there's been a sunshine or brown act.

It is that we can make a recommendation for them to agendize it as quickly as possible to determine whether to cure and correct a violation.

And is is the only remedy through us, or can they file a writ or like I think they can do it themselves, right?

Right.

Yeah, I mean, can like yeah, yeah.

Can someone who thinks there's been a brown act violation, do they have to come through us or do they have their own?

Um I might have to defer to our parliamentarian on that.

Um I'm not sure if there's a civil remedy available on a sunshine violation.

There's there it if it was a violation of the Brown Act as well, it could certainly be sent to the FPPC.

Right.

Um just just to chair Upton's point about penalties versus and Brown Act has no penalties either, right?

I don't know about the Brown Act.

I'm less familiar specifically with the Brown Act than Sunshine.

I think, but I don't I don't remember for sure.

Uh Sunshine allows a judicial remedy for a private uh complainant.

So you don't have to go through the PEC.

You can file in court if you want to about a violation.

But Brown Act?

The Brown Act is uh uh not it is the state law.

Right.

But there but there's no like if you violate it, is there is there a yes, there's remedies under the Brown Act as well for that you can file a criminal complaint, you can file a civil lawsuit.

Okay.

Oh, okay.

Uh other questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Public comment.

Oh, uh oh, we have to, oh, we have to uh right.

I'm not good at my job tonight.

Okay.

So we need a motion to uh approve this thing.

Anyone want to move?

Uh I move to uh adopt the enforcement chiefs recommendation.

All second and now hold up, I should say recommendations.

Okay, and now we'll have public comment.

So you do make comment after the staff report.

You need to go back and revisit every one of this missiles that the enforcement chief that you sustained when I presented my complaints.

One of complaints included the legal opinion from former city attorney, John Russo, and Barbara Parker with respect when there's a tie vote.

That matter is concluded, it cannot go any further.

There are two instances when President Jenkins and Rama Chandra on December 16th 2024-25 when they suspended Rule 29 to affect their charter change.

They can't do that because the mayor did not break the tie.

But y'all let the enforcement chief give you smoke and mirrors, and you sustain that.

The other one had to do with the tree ordinance 1236, protect the tree ordinance on April 14th.

2025.

They couldn't go any further with that because the mayor refused to break the tie.

That was advanced to another public hearing on May 5th.

I filed a complaint.

They couldn't go any further with that.

Because when there's a tie, and it's not broken, that matter is concluded.

Read the legal opinion from both city attorneys.

But no, y'all didn't want to spend time doing that.

Where's your honesty and integrity?

Those were my complaint.

And you sustained enforcement chiefs.

Documentation.

Shame on you.

Every one of you.

That you don't ask the legal opinion.

Oh, where's the documentation?

I know about the Sunshine Ordnance.

I know about the Brown Act.

I also know the charter.

And you sit up there to get along.

Thank you, Mr.

Hazard.

Now we'll have a vote on the uh case closure plan.

Uh Vice Chair Talk.

Aye.

Commissioner Apfeld.

Aye.

Commissioner Fisher.

Aye.

And I vote aye.

Commissioners Brandon, Mitchick, and Baeva are absent.

So the motion passes.

We'll move now move on to the information items.

Item seven, limited public financing overview in 2026 guide.

Is that is that yours?

Yes.

Thank you.

Good evening, Commissioners Jelani Killings, ethics analysts for the Commission.

So tonight you have an informational memo uh outlining uh the limited public financing program and just given an overview of the program's implementation and some upcoming dates uh that the commission will need to be aware of.

So just in terms of background, the limited public financing program provides limited amount of monetary assistance to candidates who are running for local elected office.

Uh this program is uh restrained to only district city council candidates.

Uh so for this election cycle, it'll be for candidates running for uh city council district two, four, and six.

And the commission is responsible for administering the program, uh, including developing all of the procedures, publishing the application forms, uh, and ensuring candidates meet the eligibility require uh requirements, and then also we also issuing payments by way of reimbursement.

Uh so currently there is approximately 155,000 in the election fund to be distributed to candidates.

Uh in the memo, we have outlined uh really a timetable in terms of the program's implementation.

Uh and so the nomination period uh for candidates to uh qualify for the ballot uh commenced uh this past Monday, July 13th, and will go through August 7th.

Uh once the city clerk certifies candidates for the ballot, that is essentially when the limited public financing program begins, in which we are able to move forward with those who will be eligible to participate in the program uh to be able to seek funding.

Uh one thing that I just want to highlight is that there will be a special committee commission meeting uh that will take place in August on a date to be determined, uh, in which the commission will have to determine the disbursement plan.

So the table that you have here uh reflects the number of candidates that uh currently are campaigning for district city council offices and effectively what the maximum potential LPF amount would be for each candidate if the program was fully funded.

And so depending on how many candidates qualify for the ballot um and become eligible for the program, we will need to uh be able to create a pro-rata distribution basis to split the money evenly amongst all the candidates that opt in.

And so that determination will be made at a special meeting of the commission in August.

Uh so this memorandum is just for informational purposes, just to outline and give an overview of the program.

Uh and then also we updated our limited public financing guide uh for all participants just to be able to have an easy access uh guide for people to use as a resource to navigate the program and administration.

Uh but with that I'd be happy to answer any questions that the commission has.

But once again, this is informational, and in August, we'll bring back the item in terms of the action for how the funds will be distributed in the upcoming election.

Thank you very much.

Thanks for your work on this, by the way.

It's very clear.

Any questions?

Okay, then uh we'll have some public comment.

If I have not mistaken, Mr.

Killings, uh, you omitted the mayor.

Uh isn't that seat up as well in November?

And why if that why isn't the mayor's seat included?

Cass, uh if I'm not mistaken, two Ford Six and the Mayor's race is should also be included.

Is there a reason why it's been excluded?

I'll take my answer sitting down.

Go ahead.

Yeah, thank you through the chair.

Uh so the limited public financing act uh as written is only uh available and applies to district city council seats uh in terms of those who are eligible for public financing.

So there definitely are a number of uh citywide seats that are uh up this year, including the mayor's office, the city auditor, as well as school district races for districts two, four, and six.

But the limited public financing program, uh only candidates uh participating or who are eligible are those running for district city council seats.

Thanks.

Okay, next item is the enforcement program report.

Hello again, commissioners.

Um I am again mostly gonna rely on my report tonight, but as always, I'm happy to answer questions.

There are two things that I did want to uh mention.

In 2306, um you have received uh in you you've received a print uh public comment tonight on this case uh that's from the complainant.

The complainant has three open cases with the public ethics commission, and we recently reached out to him on another of those three cases.

The information that we've asked him to provide on that other case has no bearing on whether or not the this particular complaint is within our jurisdiction.

So the one that we are dismissing tonight, we maintain is outside of our jurisdiction and um would not be affected by any information that he could give us um about this other case that we have uh open from him.

Uh we did explain this to the complainant soon after sending the dismissal notice in this um case, um, and I just wanted to make that all clear for you because I think there may be some misunderstanding about what we closed and um and why.

Uh so he's referring to 2306 in his note.

Is that mistaken then?

Or no, it's the case that we're dismissing is 2306.

Okay, yeah.

Um, but I would say that the only question in that public comment that's relevant to this is how we determined whether it was in or out of our jurisdiction.

Um when something's out of our jurisdiction, we simply don't investigate it.

Um so that particular question, for example, is is not relevant in this case.

Um it is relevant in some of his other cases that we have open, but as you know, I can't talk about open cases.

Um and so um what I can say is that this case is clearly outside of our jurisdiction and and we have no power to enforce any part of it.

Um thank you.

Oh, and sorry one other thing, yeah.

Yes, one other thing, thank you.

Um I do want to additionally note um a sort of new thing.

One of our dismissals fell under the repetitive unmeritorious complainant process, um, which I'm happy to answer any questions from the commission about um about that process.

Questions just so that it's clear for everyone, um, what is the that process?

Like what does that process look like?

How do you make that determination and how are those complaints handled?

Absolutely.

Um so when a complainant submits four complaints with the commission within a 12-month period and has had each complaint determined adversely to them, um, they're thereby that makes them a repetitive unmeritorious complainant.

So this is all in our complaint procedures, and it's laid out how we process those complaints when somebody meets that threshold.

So what we do according to the complaint procedures is that um we send that complaint to the chair for essentially a facial review of the complaint um to determine whether um the chair believes we should or the the chair concurs with our recommendation on whether we should move the case forward for preliminary review or whether we should dismiss it outright.

Um so in this case, we wrote a recommendation memo, we sent it to Chair Upton, Chair Upton signed and agreed with our recommendation, um, and that's how we and and we're reporting it as a dismissal on on this enforcement report.

Great, thank you.

Um another uh thing not specific to any of these cases, but um uh the once the complaint has not been dismissed, it can later be closed with no action, uh, which is what we've done in the closure in your previous thing of the the case closure plan, right?

Um Commissioner Taloc and I were were talking about we're both a little bit confused about the examples for no action because once presumably it's been accepted in the jurisdiction, but then uh no action means that can you just explain the no action thing a little bit more?

Yeah, yeah.

So we recommend no action for a number of reasons, um, including some you've seen today that something is too old and stale, things like that.

Um we put something on the closure memo for closure no action, what we generally mean is that it is that it is within our jurisdiction, but for one reason or another, we recommend um closing it.

Um so we we have discretion to to dismiss things um that we sometimes put on a closure memo.

Um but in an effort to be as transparent as possible and to give the commission we in on the decisions on on the the most important decisions that we're making in this backlog closure um project, we have been putting those cases onto the closure memo rather than dismissing them outrig under our own discretion.

Okay, and the um it so any so if if you look at a uh case and it's clearly within our jurisdiction, but it's also clearly not right, you know, whatever the facts are wrong, or to the point where you would want to dismiss it.

Is there is there a thing like that?

Can you do that, or does it have to become if it's identified as in the jurisdiction, then it becomes a case, and the only way it can be closed then is no action, or can you you don't want to say Yeah?

This is something that we're internally talking a lot about, um, is where we do and don't have discretion.

Um, and I hope to have a report for you all soon on how we um plan to use that discretion.

If I may I thought I just make one point that might clarify a little bit.

If if uh commissioners want to review the the complaint procedures, you'll see there's um there's a number of clearly outlined reasons for dismissal.

One is not being within our jurisdiction, right?

There's several others.

So when something's meeting those criteria, then generally you're gonna see that they're dismissed.

But if um if there's other factors going into it outside of those clear reasons for dismissal, but it's not uh doesn't merit further investigation, then that's when you're getting the recommendation, say to close with no action.

Yeah.

So um, so if it's outside of those specific reasons that we can dismiss, then we're not gonna be dismissing it.

If that would make sense, yeah.

Oh, and I guess the one other point I was going to let's see, now I'm losing it right.

Go go ahead.

My mistake.

Um, I I was just also gonna add that um, you know, anything that has progressed past the into the investigation stage, we don't have discretion anymore to dismiss.

So often on the case closure memo, you'll see you'll see cases that that we just don't have the power to dismiss anymore without bringing to you for closure.

Right.

I I'm mainly talking about kind of brand new cases.

So, you know, if it comes in and uh and I I did I did actually look at the complaint procedures to see what no action was in the dismissal things here, and it was just still not very clear to me.

Um on a new complaint, you could dismiss it even if it was within the jurisdiction if there were if there was reasons too.

So it's not very clear to me in those cases should it advance to a case or not.

But I assume you're gonna take care of that in revising the procedures and um I will I will say that's something where we're talking about internally, and and I agree that there's some confusion there in the procedures.

We're trying to pin down our internal processes on that.

This is great.

We're all aligned that it's a little bit confusing at this point.

Okay.

Thank you.

Other questions public comment this goes to the core of my concern for complaints in a year, it's an arbitrary decision.

Complainants just don't file a complaint just to be doing it, particularly when there's documentation, either the city charter, Sunshine Act, the Brown Act, or general law.

So by using this arbitrary number to try to silence the public, because that's what this is, it's deny them their process to be heard on something that's legitimate, and for the enforcement chief to use her abuse of discretion by making statements with regards, it's outside our jurisdiction, and when the complaint has provided the documentation, which is uncontroverted.

So you need to reassess this four complaints, because I tell you, I will continue to file complaints where I see a violation, and I just don't take it lightly.

But obviously, you do because having that arbitrary decision of four complaints in 12 months, that's the basis for denying a complaint.

Give me a break.

Don't talk to me about integrity and honesty.

Stop reading that in the beginning.

Because what just was presented is totally contrary to those words.

Let them keep doing what they're doing in this city.

Thank you, Mr.

Hazard.

We'll now move on to the ED report.

In addition to the written report, I just thought I would go over a little bit more what happened with the um proposed charter amendments that the commission uh reviewed and provided comment on at our last meeting.

So as I mentioned in the report on June 12th, uh the council voted to approve an amended version for the November ballot.

So it is going to go to the ballot.

Um it did pass without changes to the effective date for salary adjustments that that impacts uh the PEC.

So if it is approved by the voters, those changes would go into effect in 2027.

That's that will be uh a major activity.

Did they did they're um did they take the recommendation to align the years so that we they did they did not they did not amend it um okay in in accordance with the with the recommendations by the PEC any of them or we pro yes I'll come to that but yes so um yeah staff presented on on the PEC's recommendation we provide them in writing um and uh thank you to uh Vice Chair Talak who um gave public comment regarding them during the during the council meeting, but um no, they did not um choose to amend it um in terms of the the salary adjustment uh to align it so that we would be doing it all on the same schedule that it's gonna stay staggered and it's gonna start it would start in 2027 if it's approved by the voters.

They did accept um the language that we proposed to clarify that when we're doing the process that it would be at our discretion to ask for city administration support or outside consultant report.

So that was part of the amended version.

Um we, if you recall the commission had also recommended that that the new elements added to Section 218 on non-interference not be part of our enforcement authority because they more had to do with administrative interactions with elected officials, but um those that remained as well.

That was not changed, although they they did remove one of the new provisions, which was the one to have a uh a liaison from every department to the council.

So um, so that is where we're at, and if it is passed, um you know there'll be a uh staff report, you know, a complete staff report prepared explaining what the impacts are and what the next steps for implementation will be.

Um and I think unless there's I'm happy to answer any questions.

I don't have anything in addition to that.

Questions.

Um did you see the public comment by uh Michael on the democracy dollars?

Yes, I did.

Yeah, uh I know him and he knows what he's doing.

Uh so I hope this can find its way into the processes a little bit.

And but he one of the points he made was um that he noticed a bullet point has disappeared um uh from your you know the kind of the planned items on your on your ED report.

Um I do in kind of in response to that, I think I wonder if it would be good if when goals are dropped or shifted if that's called out is you know you you kind of give a snapshot of where you are now, but if it you know, if the snapshots different from the previous time, if those changes were you know were part of the record, so that something just doesn't disappear and then no one questions it because it's easy to fall through the cracks and and uh it was caught this time and and uh uh but do you do you have any kind of response to uh his uh sure?

I mean, I guess, and I would just point out that that chart is not meant to be an exhausted list of staff activities, it's more to signal major staff activities that are coming up, particularly ones that are statutory requirements so that the commission has a sense of of uh you know really important things we're trying to accomplish.

And so in this case, I would say um, and this kind of goes a bit to you.

That um, you know, that is not an imminent decision.

It doesn't mean it's disappeared, it doesn't mean that we don't know that it's happening.

It um there's been a lot of research into this already.

It's just not something imminent that's going to take major staff time in the next six months, and so that's that's why it's not reflected there.

Great.

Thanks.

Um, questions then?

Okay, public comment.

The Brown Act 549 5464.

With regards to amendments at the last city council, when they did an amendment, I think Wayne, council person wing did an amendment.

The parliamentarian did not intercede.

What's the purpose of having a parliamentarian?

When they're violations of the Brown Act.

Go look at what 549-5464 says.

When there's an amendment, the legislative party cannot proceed until after public comment.

They ignore public comment.

Nobody said a damn thing.

The parliamentarian, that's your role, Mr.

Luby.

Not in that instance.

Julie, if you're sitting as a parliamentarian.

You suppose to advise the legislative body when they breach the charter, sunshine, or the brown act.

But they went along us, though.

It's normal procedures.

I will be filing something later on with regards to that.

And let the enforcement see uh chief deny it.

No action.

But I'm occupied with the open uh this opening brief.

You need to go revisit every item that the enforcement chief that you sustained that dismiss my complaint.

Because in those documents, those complaints, I have the supported documentation.

And I come before you just to get it on a record.

That's why I don't remain silent.

You're digging a deep hole for yourself.

And it's gonna come back to bite you.

Thank you, Mr.

Hazard.

I realize I have one other question about the ED report uh related to the mediations.

Uh, a couple of the mediations have to do with text messages.

And um what do we know the process for uh getting text messages?

Is it something that that like IT is involved with, or is it more is it if if you ask a department for text messages with the person, is that department supposed to fulfill it, or how does that work?

I'll let our senior analyst Mr.

Killings answer that, or we might have to come back to you if we don't have all the information.

Okay.

And thank you through the chair.

So in terms of the mediation process, so uh effectively the department will go through uh EDDR request through IT.

Um, and then after that, if there's no responsive documents that are in the possession of the department, right?

Um then effectively they'll notify us and let us know that they don't have any responsive documents.

We don't go any further in terms of trying to get access in terms of the cellular provider or anything like that.

We're just looking for the documents that are within um the possession of the department, and so that's the extent in terms of at least with the mediation that we go the department says they don't have access to any of those records, then that's effectively where our mediation would stop in that process.

EDDR includes is email and text then if if the if the employee I guess is still with the city and there's a record of those in their possession, then yes, but outside of that, no.

Okay.

I guess does the city provide its employees city phones, or are they using their personal phones for text messages?

It would vary.

So every every city employee does not receive a yeah, because I'm just wondering how I like for emails, like obviously IT like can go into outlook and collect them.

For office phones, maybe it's easier for them to go in.

So I'm just wondering for because if a city employee conducts city business on a personal phone, that's the discoverable record.

How are those collected?

I think maybe it's your question.

Yeah, and we can.

I know this is something that is gonna come before the transparency subcommittee.

Yes.

We can dive even more with IT in terms of that specific aspect of public records uh request responses.

Yeah, we will we will make sure we can cover that.

I was just curious.

Okay, thanks so much.

Uh all right, uh reports on subcommittee and other commissioner assignments.

So hang on.

I'm supposed to read something here.

Um commission chair may appoint individual commissioners to perform specific tasks or functions by serving or standing on ad hoc committees, current standing and ad hoc committees or posted on the commission website.

Commissioners may also discuss uh subcommittee assignments, create a new subcommittees or report work done on subcommittees.

Commissioners may also provide updates on assignments, efforts, and initiatives to undertake and support the commission's work.

Um so committee is the transparency ad hoc subcommittee.

And uh we met back in May, and the minutes are included there.

Um that was mostly just kind of overview of what was done before and and getting people up to speed uh and kind of what what we're thinking about doing.

And then we met uh also on uh I think June 9th.

And where's the oh yeah, the minutes there, and there is where we um uh we actually did most of the work to draft a uh invitation uh to the IT department to come in and talk about a lot of things we were interested in because in the previous departments that we brought in um planning and police and fire, they all kind of pointed to issues with with related to IT.

So we wanted to hear from them.

And um and director Doran suggested that we um add an extra step, which which I agreed with, which is to say let's bring someone from IT and informally to the subcommittee.

Let's talk with them informally, get a lot gather more data, and then as a second step, we would go and and have them you know present to the commission.

So that's what we're doing.

And the minutes of the June 9th meeting reflect the the questions that we had originally put in that memo.

So this is just basically capturing our thinking at this point.

And um uh and then we're going to meet, I think on July 30th, right?

Uh um you you requested uh the the final date, and I think we've all got a we've uh it it will be sent out, but uh the dates within everyone's uh uh availability that has been reported to me.

Uh that'll be our next meeting, and there we're gonna uh discuss uh what we'll do with Open Oak Oakland and uh whatever you decide.

Uh any questions for about the ad hoc the transparency.

And then okay, then the next report is uh from the democracy dollars.

Uh we're not we're not done with the item, thank you.

Uh we'll get there.

Uh the democracy dollars uh committee, and no one who's a member of that committee is here right now.

So um I'm not sure there's anything to say about that then public comment.

Right to comment on amendments.

The public must be allowed to provide comments on any posted agenda item either before or doing consider its consideration.

If substantive amendments are proposed during the meeting, the public must be given an opportunity to comment on those specific changes prior to the vote.

That's the Brown Act 54954 point three.

That meeting that the council had and did that amendment is illegal.

They did not allow the opportunity of the public to make comments.

They went on as usual, denying the public an opportunity to comment.

It's disgraceful.

And the parliamentarian sits up there and let it happen.

They should know it better than I.

And wherever I see a violation, I'm going to speak to it.

And present the statute, the law, or the regulations.

And I defy you to counterdict.

Stop going along just to get along.

I know what the sole issue is about on the ballot measure.

Cost I'm messing with $30 million annually for 10 years.

That's $300 million.

So they can at least afford to have this to go forward.

But I'm resolute and persistent.

I said back on April 15th, if I got to go to the State Court of Appeals, that's what I'm going to do.

And the city attorney thought they were closing the door when they did the demur.

They opened the door wide open.

Gave me the opportunity I was seeking.

Thank you, Mr.

Hazard.

Not item 11, any future meeting business.

Okay.

I have one thing.

At some point, I think it was a couple sessions ago, we talked about potentially creating a subcommittee.

An enforcement subcommittee.

And perhaps we can talk about that next meeting to see if there's still interest in more pressingly, if there's things that our enforcement chief thinks that she might benefit from a subcommittee on.

That would be good to hear.

Great.

And should that occur, then I can just do that even before the meeting if needed.

So if people have interest in uh working on that committee, I'll okay.

I actually did have one future item.

Um I know we had also at some point discussed potential dates for a retreat for the commission.

I know there was some discussion about dates and schedules.

Um I don't know if that's something maybe next meeting we can have an update on or sure.

Yeah, I guess part of the problem is we kind of came up into this summer and um it's made scheduling more difficult.

And then also, as you saw from the report that we're onboarding a large number of new employees, so that's sort of affecting.

That's why I haven't proposed new dates yet.

Um I think we're probably looking at the fall at this point.

Okay, thanks.

Other future meeting business.

Public comment.

Any public comment?

We're done.

Thank you.