City of Oakland*

The Oakland City Council disregarded expert City staff and an impartial consultant's recommendations to select Becker/OFI over an option that would have paid the City substantially more money with less visual impact. Response: Disagree wholly. Explanation:

Out of public view, the Oakland City Council used a non-competitive process to select a revenue producing billboard provider. Response: Disagree wholly. Explanation: The process of approving a relocation agreement is similar to the process of approving a use permit and legislatively approved development agreement for private development on privately-owned land that also provides community benefits. In such a case, the entitlement requires legislative approval and is evaluated on an individual basis for considerations such as physical impact on the environment, community benefits provided, and overall project viability and benefit to the City.

Out of public view, the Oakland City Council used a non-competitive process to select nonprofit organizations to receive billboard revenue and free advertising space. Response: Disagree wholly. Explanation: See Response to Finding 24-10. The Finding about the City's selection of non-profit organizations is based on a misapprehension and misstatement of the facts. The City did not select any of the non-profit organizations. Rather, the developer selected them as part of their relocation agreement proposal. Under a relocation agreement, a city may allow the removal of existing billboards and the installation of new billboards under any terms it believes are in the public interest. (See Business and Professions Code section 5412). The City Council, in its discretion as the City's legislative body, has the ability to approve or deny such applications so long as it is found they meet the public interest. The City Council chose to approve the Becker/OFI proposal after reviewing the administrative record and hearing testimony from the public. As noted, the Council has not received a formal proposal from Clear Channel since Clear Channel submitted a letter during the final phase of the Becker/OFI public hearing process, approximately 18 months ago.

An Oakland City Council member should have recused themselves from consideration of nonprofit recipients because their spouse has been a board member of one of the organizations and has been a paid consultant to another. Response: Disagree wholly. Explanation: The City's website advises that, under the Government Ethics Act, a Public Servant cannot make, participate in making, or seek to influence government decisions in which they have a financial interest. In such cases, there is a risk of biased decision-making that could sacrifice the public's interest in favor of the official's private financial interests. To avoid actual bias or the appearance of possible improprieties, the public official is prohibited from participating in the decision. (See the City's Conflict of Interest Guidance at the following hyperlink.) In this case, there were no known conflicts of interest necessitating a recusal. None of the approvals would have brought any family member of any Councilmember any direct financial benefit.

The Oakland City Council allowed lobbyists for billboard companies to have undue influence over the process by providing content and language that was inserted verbatim into official council documents. Response: Disagree wholly. Explanation: The Council used its independent judgment as a legislative decision-making body in approving the Relocation Agreement. The Council and CED Committee held public meetings where they listened to and considered public testimony. In addition, any member of the public may submit proposed language to the City Council at any time during such public processes. The City Council has the ability to accept, amend, refuse, or ignore any portion of any language it receives from any party. If, as the Finding claims, lobbyists provided content and language that was inserted into official Council documents, then it is the Council's understanding that such practice is rather commonplace in the formulation of State and local government legislation. For example, with recent State Housing legislation, the State legislature often works with pro-housing lobbyists to propose legislation that is favorable to the production of housing at the local level. The Council is not aware of any law prohibiting such practice. In fact, the practice is rather common in the crafting of legislation at the State and local levels. RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATIONS