Settlements for Schaaf Campaign Finance Violations Go Back to Negotiation After PEC Insists on Stricter Penalties
In a night of confused deliberation and voting, the Public Ethics Commission ultimately voted to send back two unprecedented former Mayor Libby Schaaf-linked campaign finance settlements for stricter penalty revisions. The votes prompted Gary Winuk, a lawyer for Schaaf present during the meeting, to withdraw Schaaf’s consent to the third settlement on the Measure AA violations as it was presented, rescinding the settlement before it could be discussed. The Commission moved on from the item without deliberation or vote.
The decisions came after a long night with other critical items on the agenda—including voting on a City Council recommendation for a late election-season increase for candidate fundraising—and detailed explanations of the violations at the heart of two campaign finance fronts for Schaaf that had wide-ranging effects on Oakland’s current landscape. An error in determining the number of votes needed for passage of the settlements caused longer discussions on disagreements and a need to revisit the vote for the Oaklanders for Responsible Leadership settlement [ORL], which appeared to have initially been approved, but had actually failed.
Settlements Frustrate Commissioners
After a presentation from Enforcement Director Simon Russell on the Oakland for Responsible Leadership [ORL] settlement, the scope of the revelations, along with admissions from the culpable parties, led several commissioners to express frustration at what seemed to be considered lenient aspects of the settlements.
As a condition of the settlements negotiated between PEC staff and the respondents, Schaaf and others admitted to a long list of startling violations of campaign finance law. But the terms of the settlement allowed those admissions to be caveated with claims of ignorance of the law that no Commissioner seemed to find credible. Several Commissioners expressed disdain at the idea that Schaaf, Doug Linney, Zach Wasserman, Barbara Leslie and others with decades of involvement in campaign finance and elections would not have known what they were doing.
“There was a lot of like, well, you know, ‘I got bad advice, and I didn't know the law, and I didn't understand’. Bullshit. Libby Schaaf is an attorney, and she was a city councilperson, and she knows what these committees are. And so it's really hard for me to believe that someone who lives with this stuff all the time, can miss [the issue of significant influence],” Commissioner Francis Upton IV said.
Commissioner Alia Gage agreed and noted that Schaaf’s request to be taken off of the email chains for ORL seemed to indicate that Schaaf had some suspicion her involvement was improper.
“It seems to me that she had some inkling that she wasn't behaving properly in that request. Otherwise, why would that request be made?...it's a sentence that gives pause to the ‘I really didn't know theory’,” Gage said.
Shared Penalties Without Individual Requirements
But the crucial point for commissioners was in the way penalties were levied against individual respondents. The penalties in the settlement presented to the PEC are jointly distributed among the respondents, meaning Schaaf could split the penalty with the campaign finance body in question, avoiding paying some or all of the penalty, all out of the public view. All of the five Commissioners expressed frustration with the structure.
Several Commissioners were swayed by arguments by both Russell and the attorneys for the respondents, Jim Sutton [Linney] and Gary Winuk [Schaaf], that it was standard procedure in campaign finance law to have undifferentiated penalties in campaign violation settlements. Winuk’s resume as a former Enforcement Director of the Fair Political Practices Commission [FPPC] may have added weight to these claims. Both Rusell and Sutton, the attorney for Doug Linney, Schaaf’s partner in the ORL malfeasance, also argued that the reputational cost attached to the settlement and the total fine amount would outweigh whatever dollar amount Schaaf pays—especially as she runs for a vacant state Treasurer’s seat next year.
“Remember, this is politics, and if you total up the joint and several liability amounts, that amount will stay with all of these players who are active in the political arena for the rest of their political careers. So even if the exact amount of what they actually pay isn't known, this total amount will be in the public record,” Sutton said.
Winuk and Sutton also suggested that a renewed settlement process might see the issue end up in court.
“I will also point out there are a number of triable issues in this case. It did take a long time, as Mr. Russell said, to reach a settlement. In this case, the standard for substantial influence is not entirely clear. There are issues that can be litigated. And so to break apart a settlement where it's been carefully negotiated like that...I think is unwise. I'd recommend against it,” Winuk said.
Russell, for his part, warned that such litigation would strain staff time and resources for what could be the same—or worse—outcome.
“We could hold out for more, go to trial, very uncertain outcome. At the end of the day, you might end up getting something that looks very similar to this, but you spent years in litigation. I think that under the circumstances, especially considering as staff that we have a lot to do on other cases, this is a very good outcome, I would strongly urge you to approve this,” Russell said.
Issue Splits Commission, Mistaken Counsel Complicates Discussion
Commissioners were wary about the options before them, but a simple majority of three were willing to accept the settlements as is. Gage said she approached approval with “a heavy heart” due to the disappointing level of accountability from Schaaf and others. But only Commissioners Karun Tilak and Vincent Steel remained so unconvinced they were willing to bring their skepticism into their final actions. Steel moved to—and Tilak voted for—sending the parties back to negotiate in order to differentiate the penalties of Schaaf and other respondents, an attempt which at first, appeared to fail. A counter-motion from Chair Ryan Micik to accept the settlement as it was presented appeared to pass. The Commission’s counsel, however, had mistakenly advised the Commission that they would require only a simple majority instead of the charter-directed minimum 4 votes to pass enforcement legislation.
In the middle of deliberating the second Schaaf settlement for an anti-Kaplan PAC “Committee for an Affordable East Bay” in 2020, which appeared bound for the same kind of split, the Commission learned from counsel that they would need to return to the previous vote because she had given erroneous advice on the matter earlier. Ultimately, the Commission vote was split again on the anti-Kaplan PAC but with the correct rules in place, both proposals failed to clear the 4 vote mark and failed. That outcome essentially succeeded in preventing approval of the settlement.
In the extended back and forth upon the return to the previous vote on ORL, Winuk eventually claimed that client Schaaf would pay “at least” $21K as a way to bridge the divide. But the claim alone was not enough to change the minds of Tiluk and Steel.
Ultimately, with the votes to both return and accept failing for both settlements, the Commissioners voted to direct Russell to open negotiations again in an attempt to seek disambiguated penalty structures, the only path forward without effectively negating the settlements. Moments later, as the Commission took on the Measure AA violations, Winuk took the podium to rescind Schaaf’s agreement to the settlement based on the previous votes.
Now, the settlements will go back to Russell’s Enforcement agency to hash out a new settlement where the penalties are individuated, if possible.
Rules Committee Forwards Campaign Finance Limit Increase to Full Council After Tepid Response at Both Rules and PEC
At the same meeting, the PEC took on review of legislation submitted by D4 CM Janani Ramachandran and D6 CM, Kevin Jenkins, that would temporarily increase the candidate campaign finance limits to the levels that existed before the passage of Measure W [Oakland Fair Elections Act]—$900 for individual donors and $1,800 for broad based committees, respectively. Measure W, also known as “Democracy Dollars”, lowered limits, just as it created new tools for individual voters to fund candidates through a city-funded public financing mechanism. Though the latter has not yet come to fruition due to delays for funding issues, the former has been active all throughout the current campaign season. 74% of voters supported Measure W, which stressed lowering the fundraising and expenditure limits as much as creating an alternate funding source for candidates.
Lukewarm Reception at PEC
The ordinance met with skepticism from PEC staff. PEC Director Nicholas Heidorn presented a staff report that recommended against it, citing confusion inherent in changing the rules so late in the process. Heidorn also noted the additional workload for staff and warned that the change would give an inherent advantage to those candidates of the future who begin fundraising during the 2026 contests—the temporary increase reverts back to current level in January 2027.
The Commission was more amenable to the legislation, but split—a motion for the legislation failed to garner a seconder initially. A second introduction with amendment to add expenditure limits for the 2026 cycle also failed to garner the 4 votes necessary to pass—although the 3 to 2 vote actually garnered a bare majority. The Commission voted to send a letter representing the discussion and the staff’s recommendation to Council instead to inform deliberation.
At the Commission, Ramachandran and Jenkins both argued that independent candidates lacking institutional ties and links to independent expenditure committees would need to maximize the spending power of those supporters who can afford the maximum limit. The CMs regularly returned to the idea that raising funds to pay for mailers to individual voters–which can run tens of thousands of dollars per district—was a crucial part of voter information and participation.
“So we have an at large race that is coming up. It's possibly the most important seat on our city council. It's not often that the seat comes open. The candidates together do not have enough to send one mailer, so [that is] $100,000 for at large. And so we want to ask the public to put somebody in who they haven't been introduced to, haven't haven't heard their policies…mailers aren’t getting out there, as frequently as they should be…people should be on their second mailer, the third one should be ready to go out…my constituents have no idea who they’re voting for, or what they stand for,” Jenkins said.
Ramachandran agreed with Jenkins about the importance of limit increases to fund mailers.
“We would have gotten a whole bunch of mailers at this point, but you've really gotten, I think none, or maybe one, compared to all the other races that are flyering people's inboxes…there's probably one or two [candidates] that have raised some amount of money to be able to fund a mailer. But again, you look at the big races, like citywide races, like the at-large race and the city attorney's races, these are ones where constituents don't know who's running precisely,” Ramachandran said.
The Commission also appeared ambivalent about the mailer argument during deliberation.
“I’m dubious of the contention that Oakland voters would appreciate having more mailers in their mailboxes during election season,” Micik said in his comments.
Chief among the concerns by the Commission in their letter to Council is the amount of additional work for staff and potential unintentional errors with the rush to alter the rules, as well as the potential for creating an uneven playing field in the next election for those who did no fundraising while there were higher limits. The Commission and staff were also concerned about the increase in fundraising limits without the attendant increase in expenditure limits.
Split Votes at Rules
Because the ordinance has to do with elections, the subject matter committee for it is the Rules committee, which usually only schedules legislation. A previous attempt to deliberate at Rules on the item was delayed to give the PEC time to review and recommend. At Rules Thursday as the issue was taken up again, there was tepid support from the four person body. Only Ramachandran, the committee member who originated the legislation, voiced purely positive support. Kalb was next closest, saying he would be amenable if the legislation lowered the maximum amount. The new maximum was lowered to $800 for candidates and $1500 for broad based committees by amendment from Kalb’s suggestion.
Little Support from Candidates and Measure W Proponents at Rules
There was also little support from the public at the meeting. None of the Measure W proponent organizations supported the ordinance, nor the concept that higher candidate funding limits produce better outcomes. Representatives of League of Women Voters, California Common Cause and Oakland Rising spoke at the meeting against the legislation.
Gail Wallace, representing the League of Women Voters, noted that the intent of the ordinance set an imaginary optimal level of funding, where none actually exists.
“I think there's a bit of a myth that there's some magic number, and I want to quote from the PEC's report that the current funding limits under the Fair Elections Act are higher than or similar to within $100 plus or minus to those that are in place in San Diego, San Francisco Long Beach and San Jose for city council members. They're managing, why can't we? Especially because raising these limits takes us back deeper into a situation where the candidates most likely to benefit are those already most connected to donors with resources to give,” Wallace said.
Pecolia Manigo, a former OUSD candidate who represents Oakland Rising also spoke out against raising the limits.
“The most important goal of the Oakland Fair Elections Act was to collectively as a city, recommit to the level of voter engagement that residents want and deserve…as a former candidate for school board here in Oakland, I can attest that it costs very little for candidates to directly engage voters, and we want them to because residents deserve that. They deserve door knocking. They deserve seeing candidates out at public events. And although this conversation is based on mailers and ads and other outreach, we believe that the Oakland Fair Elections Act [Measure W] is important to continue advancing as it is,” Manigo said.
David Shore of California Common Cause told the Committee that raising the limits would undermine the goals of Measure W.
“Donors who gave less than $100 made up only 6% of total contributions leading up to this. Oakland's campaign contributions came disproportionately from the wealthiest and whitest neighborhoods. By raising contribution limits back to pre-Measure W status quo, we're only further entrenching this trend,” Shore said.
The PEC had conducted a non-representative poll of 48 respondents that showed majority support for the proposal, including 3 of 4 anonymous candidates currently running for office supporting it. But at the Rules meeting, several current and past candidates were present and none supported it. Both CMs Carroll Fife, a current candidate for re-election, and Nikki Fortunato Bas whose ALCO BOS contest wouldn’t be affected by the changes, evinced skepticism of the logic behind the move.
In addition to Manigo, other former and current candidates evinced little support for the legislation. Ed Frank, a D1 candidate who said he would raise no funds, noted that mailers are actually a burden for voters, not an information source. Tri Ngo, a former D1 candidate, also expressed his support for keeping the levels as they are. Fife and the other candidates, said that most of their support came from engaging through organizing and direct contact through canvassing.
“As a person who ran against a two term incumbent, running from a grassroots perspective, I understand that it is not signs, it is not digital ads, it is not mailers, which people actually get really irritated by, that win campaigns. It's having the conversations with people face to face so you can engage with them, and that is what I found as a grassroots organizer, actually impacts people more than any of the things listed here,” Fife said.
Like others who mentioned the PEC/Maplight report, which found that Oakland’s wealthiest areas are responsible for the majority of contributions, Council President and Rules Chair Bas said she was concerned that the changes would simply reinforce the pre-W status quo.
“We reviewed the Maplight report on Oakland campaign funding, which essentially said a very small number of people, largely those who are wealthier in the hills of Oakland, are regularly contributing to our elections. And I do have a concern, which I would like to hear some responses to, that if we increase the limit, it would sort of preference those candidates who already have raised more money, and that it would also largely be available to donors who are already sort of in the practice of giving money. And so I'm trying to reconcile how this can level the playing field,” Bas said.
Jenkins argued that the increased funds would prevent independent expenditure committees, that have no limits on their financing, would dominate otherwise.
The legislation now brings several issues along with the vote. The earliest the vote can be scheduled with full council participation is October 1 and the vote requires a second reading. If six council members vote for it on the second reading, it would go into effect immediately on October 7. But if fewer than 6 vote for it on the second reading, it wouldn’t go into effect until October 14, less than three weeks before election day. Fife voted no on the amended legislation, and Kalb and Bas seemed luke-warm to the idea even as they voted along with Ramachandran to forward the legislation.
After Months of Deliberation on OPD Pursuit Policy Review Tasked by City Council, Oakland Police Commission Recommends No Changes to Current Policy
Months after Kevin Jenkins and Treva Reid introduced legislation that would require the Oakland Police Commission to review current OPD pursuit policy and issue a non-binding recommendation, the Oakland Police Commission unanimously voted for recommendations to leave the policy as it is.
The OPD's pursuit policy was last changed in 2022 by then Chief Leronne Armstrong after two high profile pursuit-related deaths and injuries—in both, bystanders, not the pursued suspect, were the victims. Agustin Coyotl was broadsided by a suspect fleeing a pursuit on 12th street as they made a legal left turn in 2022; Lolomania Soakai was killed earlier in the year when a suspect fleeing an OPD pursuit hit a parked vehicle, which then struck Soakai and membres of his family on the sidewalk, killing Lolomania.
The changes required officers to get authorization before reaching speeds of 50 mph on city streets. Before that, previous changes had been made to the pursuit policy in 2014, requiring authorization and a consideration of multiple factors. The pursuit changes followed numerous collisions and police-shootings.
Reid and Jenkins formally introduced their idea to the Public Safety Committee and Council, but did not formally take a position, only vaguely noting concern from constituents and the misleading claim that the policy had not been revised in a decade. Council voted to forward the direction to the OPC—the Council can direct OPC activity through an affirmative vote. Regardless, in both instances of the past decade where the OPD changed its pursuit policy, the OPD administration did so without input or process from the police commission. According to the City Charter, the OPC can take up an OPD policy to change, and it has often done so with the participation of the OPD. But the OPD is not required to submit all policy changes to the OPC, and any changes the OPC proposes can be challenged by the OPD in a process ultimately adjudicated by the City Council.
The process of review and community input was handled by a pre-existing “ad hoc” committee of the OPC, the Community Policing Ad-Hoc, which consisted of Chair of the Committee Wilson Riles, Jr., Alejandro Garcia-Acosta and Regina Jackson. The ad hoc held several community meetings in different parts of Oakland, invited subject matter experts, including local police, and reviewed best practices publications from state policing bodies. The ad hoc’s decision to leave the policy as it is was based on approval of the current process of balancing public safety goals with risks to residents from high speed pursuits and a lack of data suggesting there’s public safety benefit to pursuits.
“There seems to be no debate on anyone’s part that increased, more aggressive police pursuits put lives at risk,” the report states, referring specifically to recent killings of Soakai and Coyatl in pursuit related tragedies. “It is also noteworthy that the main thoroughfares where such pursuits almost always take place are in the neighborhoods most heavily populated by low-income people-of-color. These are the neighborhoods in the City with which OPD most needs improved trust and cooperation.”
The report goes on to question the anecdotal quality of claims that pursuit policies embolden criminals with statements from the US Department of Justice publication, “Vehicular Pursuits: A Guide for Law Enforcement Executives on Managing the Associated Risks”
“Research suggests that if the police did not chase offenders, there would be no significant increase in the number of suspects who flee. Additional research suggests that agencies with more restrictive pursuit policies do not have higher crime rates.”
The document was among the police best practices reference materials that the City Council directed the OPC to use as a guide in its deliberations. As noted in OO previous reporting, Oakland’s current rules hew closely to the recommendations in both documents.
At the meeting about 150 residents sent a boilerplate email complaining about the decision and suggesting that Oakand adopt more permissive policies in use in Fremont, a city half the size of Oakland with a 3% Black population. At the dais, one speaker came to the meeting to suggest similar policies, while a handful supported the decision. With very little discussion, the Commission voted to send its policy recommendation to City Council.
The ad hoc’s report back made pointed criticism of commentary sent from Empower Oakland, the local political organization founded by Loren Taylor for its criticism of the Police Commission and the process
“The Community Police Ad Hoc Committee did receive comment on pursuit policy from EmpowerOak [sic], an organization founded by former Council Member and Mayoral candidate, Loren Taylor, that questioned the requirement for Oakland officers to consider 19 risk factors. This communication questioned the value of having a police commission and criticized the paperwork that burdens Oakland police officers as they deal with achieving the reform changes required by the Courts as a result of the Negotiated Settlement Agreement. It is hoped that the looseness of management and oversight that resulted in the dastardly behavior of the Riders and that resulted in the scandals that followed will not be forgotten in the ‘heat’ of politics. And, it is hoped that the 81% voter approval for the latest iteration of the Police Commission (Measure S1) be remembered. EmpowerOak was heard. Yes, the Oakland Police officers are faced with a great deal of scrutiny.”
With Tie-Drama Removed, a New Security Contract Requiring Heavy Service Cuts and Potential for Armed Security Comes into Focus
In an anticlimactic end to a media-sculpted scandal last Tuesday, Mayor Sheng Thao declined to break a tie vote on an extension contract for the City’s security company that had been held over since July due to recess. The City Administrator’s office offered a competing proposal with additional moves to pay off debts to ABC Security, and reduce total payment to ABC Security. Substantially different, the legislation reduced the amount that could be paid to ABC Security due to budget constraints and included payments both for unpaid bills from earlier in the year and the unpaid bridge services over the summer during the post-contract period. Derin Minor, the Building Services Manager, also explained to Council that the parameters of the bridging contract proposal brought to Council didn’t correctly account for budget reductions for City security services. The revised and enhanced legislation made the tied legislation from July moot and Council did not return to it.
ABC, the security company that began service in 2018 has continued beyond a three year contract and extension provisions initially approved by Council in 2018 due to failures to complete a required open bidding process for the City of Oakland security contract. The process failure began in 2022 under Schaaf after former City Administrator Ed Reiskin suggested holding the RFP process to add costs for potential armed security, according to reports and public documents.
Minor explained several other impacts to the process:
“Through the Chair when we started the RFP process, I believe in the summer of 2022 we had to make several addendums for changes that were recommended by the previous city administrator. One of those was adding armed guards. We also had additional guards at locations throughout the city. We had the homeless encampment team that started to use security, so we had to make some modifications to the guard numbers, which could have impacted the proposals after we went through negotiations…
We then had other challenges. We had the change of city leadership at the time, so with it being so close to the new City Administrator coming on board, we pulled the item and tell the new city administrator was there to brief him on the subject and to get his to get him comfortable with the recommendation, or to see if there were any questions. At the same time, we started to consider budget reductions again and started modifying the needs for security. We were contemplating the guards in City Hall, the removal of some of the metal detectors and other security challenges that we had. So at that time, we opted to extend the contract and start a new RFP process. We started that process through public works. However, the director of that department who was starting the process resigned suddenly, so that held us up as well, and we're just now getting this off the ground again with the RFP process.”
Armed Security Raise Concerns at Council
With Thao and much of the drama removed from the equation, however, CMs for the first time grappled with the implications of including an armed officer contingency in the contract, a capability that “could potentially take someone’s life”, as CM Carroll Fife observed.
As City staff explained, the armed officer contingency was carried over from the original RFP in 2022 and was meant to add the cost and capacity of armed security as an added option for the City.
Assistant City Administrator G Harold Duffey described the addition of a contingency for armed guards as a “menu” item in the contract, not a capacity that would necessarily be used.
“The armed guard component is nothing more than a menu item…The contract does not obligate you to have an armed guard in any of the services. It just spells out the cost associated for an armed guard,” Duffey told CMs.
The possibility met misgivings among council members.
“I'd like someone to make the case that here's a rare exception that we should have a private armed guard…but by and large, I don't want to see a bunch of private armed guards that the city is paying for. We're asking for trouble there,” Kalb said.
Additionally, the security budget was reduced from $7.4 MM in the new fiscal year, to $4.9 MM and entailed a reduction in security coverage at City Hall. More cuts from security services at the Library, parks and rec and for homeless encampment actions will need to be implemented in the coming months.
The legislation was passed, with added direction to the City Administrator to provide Council with a scope of work to make the service reductions and armed guard potentials clear, and a comparative costing for other city’s security contracts. The current RFP was posted in early September, and bids are due in late October. Minor told Council Members that a proposed contract with a final contractor should be available in the first calendar quarter of 2025, and possibly in January.
Comments ()