City of Oakland*

The Oakland City Council disregarded expert City staff and an impartial consultant's

Out of public view, the Oakland City Council used a non-competitive process to select a revenue producing billboard provider. Response: The Mayor is not able to agree or disagree with the Finding because she was not a decisionmaker or voting member in the City Council's decision, nor was she part of any alleged "non-competitive process" outside of public view. Any response would be speculative. As such, the Mayor must disagree with this Finding to avoid making speculative assumptions as to the state of mind of the Councilmembers other than what is already adduced from the administrative record. The Mayor lacks personal knowledge to respond to this Finding since she was not a party to any conversations or correspondence that were "out of public view" between any billboard company and a specific Councilmember. Requiring the Mayor to respond to this Finding would require her to assume facts that she cannot verify with personal knowledge since she was not a party to any of the purported communications involving a "non-competitive process" as alleged in the above Finding. As stated above, the Mayor did not participate in the Council vote to approve the billboard proposal of Becker/Outfront Media. Nevertheless, the Mayor authorized the City Administration to voice concerns through a publicly available City Staff Report, urging the Council to conduct an open competitive bidding process given the Clear Channel proposal appearing to offer more monetary value to the City than the Becker/Outfront proposal.

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: The Mayor is not able to agree or disagree with the Finding because she was not a decisionmaker or voting member involved in the City Council's decision, nor was she part of any "non-competitive process" outside of public view. To respond would be to generate a speculative response. As such, the Mayor must disagree with this Finding to avoid making speculative assumptions as to the state of mind of the Councilmembers other than what is adduced from the administrative record. The Mayor lacks personal knowledge to respond to this above Finding since she was not a party to any conversations or correspondence that were "out of public view" between any billboard company and Councilmember. Requiring the Mayor to respond to this Finding would require her to assume facts that she cannot verify with personal knowledge since she was not a party to any of the purported communications involving a "non-competitive process" as alleged in the above Finding. Nevertheless, the Mayor and City Administration did voice concerns through a publicly available City Staff Report, urging the Council to conduct an open competitive bidding process given the Clear Channel proposal appeared to offer higher monetary value to the City than the Becker/Outfront proposal.

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: The Mayor is not able to agree or disagree with this Finding because it states a legal conclusion that is outside of the purview of the Civil Grand Jury to assert and of the Mayor's Office to develop a response. In addition, the Mayor lacks information as to the identity of the specific Councilmember cited in the Finding. Notwithstanding the above, if a Councilmember was considering to vote on a matter where an organization stood to benefit from that decision and where the Councilmember's spouse served at the time as either a board member or paid consultant of the organization, the Mayor believes it would appropriate that the Councilmember consult with the City's Public Ethics Commission ("PEC") and the City Attorney's Office before engaging in any public discussion, hearing or decision on the item, in order to determine whether a recusal was either legally required or at least recommended under the Fair Political Practices Act ("FPPA"), Council rules, and/or another law, rule, or guideline. The Mayor lacks information as to whether a particular Councilmember sought advice from the PEC and/or City Attorney's Office prior to voting on the matter and whether the unidentified Councilmember decided to follow their advice (if it was sought in the first place).

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: The Mayor is not able to agree or disagree with the Finding because she was not involved in, or witness to, any communications between any Councilmember and a billboard company. Any response would be speculative. As such, the Mayor must disagree with this Finding to avoid making speculative assumptions as to any communications a Councilmember may have had with a billboard company. The Mayor does not have personal knowledge as to whether a billboard company transmitted to a Councilmember any content or language that was inserted verbatim into official Council documents since the Mayor was not a decision-maker or sponsor of the legislation that was approved by the City Council As such, it is not appropriate for the Mayor to respond to this Finding given her lack of personal knowledge as to what communications may have occurred between lobbyists, any billboard companies, and Councilmembers.