Enforcement Program

The Public Ethics Commission (PEC) has authority to impose penalties for violations of ethics laws, campaign finance laws, and lobbyist registration requirements. The Commission also can mediate or recommend "cure and correction" for violations of public records and open meetings laws, respectively.

The Law

The PEC conducts investigations, holds public hearings, issues subpoenas, and imposes fines and penalties as provided for by ordinance. The Commission has the primary responsibility and power to investigate and enforce violations under the laws listed below.

Government Ethics Act
Ethics and conflict of interest rules for public servants

Campaign Reform Act
Local campaign rules seeking to reduce the influence of large donors on elections

Lobbyist Registration Act
Registration and disclosure rules for entities that influence public decisions by lobbying

Sunshine Ordinance
Promotes access to government documents and timely notice of public meetings

Limited Public Financing Act
Provides public funding for Council candidates to expand participation in elections

Overview of the Complaint Process

The Commission’s Enforcement Unit investigates and, where appropriate, administratively prosecutes alleged violations of Oakland’s ethics, campaign finance, lobbying, and related laws. Violations can result in the issuance of a monetary fine, a warning letter, or some other remedy to ensure compliance with the law, such as mandatory training or an injunction. Some violations can also be referred to the District Attorney for criminal prosecution.

Enforcement matters begin with a complaint. Formal complaints are submitted on the PEC’s official complaint form and are signed under penalty of perjury. Informal complaints are received in any other manner such as an e-mail or phone call, and are not signed under penalty of perjury. By law, the Enforcement Unit must review all formal complaints and report to the Commission at one of its public meetings whether or not it has decided to open an investigation into a formal complaint. By contrast, Enforcement has the discretion not to review an informal complaint and does not have to report rejected informal complaints to the Commission. Commission staff may also initiate its own pro-active complaints.

Complaints do not automatically trigger an investigation. Instead, they enter what is called Preliminary Review, in which Enforcement staff determines whether there are sufficient legal and evidentiary grounds to open an investigation. This can involve some preliminary fact-finding, usually for purposes of verifying or supplementing the facts alleged in the complaint.

At the completion of Preliminary Review, the Enforcement Chief and the PEC Executive Director jointly decide whether to open an investigation or dismiss the complaint. All dismissals are reported to the Commission at one of its public meetings. Investigations are confidential, though complainants and respondents (the people being investigated) are usually notified that an investigation has been opened. Enforcement will usually confirm the existence of an investigation if asked, but it will not share any of its findings or analysis until it is ready to present them to the Commission or a court.

The Enforcement Chief and the PEC Executive Director jointly decide whether the evidence gathered during an investigation merits prosecution or closure of the case. This internal decision-making process is referred to as Legal Analysis in the case processing workflow. Investigative activity may also continue during this process. If Enforcement recommends closure of a case at this stage, it must present its findings to the Commission at one of its public meetings and obtain a majority vote in favor of closure.

If Enforcement chooses to prosecute a violation, it will usually try to work out a joint settlement agreement with the respondent(s). Settlement negotiations are confidential, and for administrative purposes Enforcement classifies matters at this stage as Seeking Settlement.  Investigative activity may also continue during this process. All proposed settlement agreements must be presented to the Commission at one of its public meetings and require a majority vote for their approval.

If Enforcement is unable to settle a case within a reasonable time (typically sixty days) or otherwise decides that a hearing is necessary, it will file an Investigation Summary with the Commission at one of its public meetings. This document, also known as a probable cause report, lays out the allegations that Enforcement wishes to prosecute, as well as supporting evidence. A majority of the Commission must vote to find probable cause and send the matter to an administrative hearing.

Matters at this stage are classified as Administrative Hearing in the workflow. The Executive Director and the hearing officer will arrange the logistical and procedural details of the hearing. All administrative hearings are open to the public, and may be conducted either by the full Commission, a panel of Commissioners, a single Commissioner, a single hearing officer not from the Commission, or an administrative law judge.

After an administrative hearing, the hearing officer will issue their factual findings and proposed penalty, if any. The full Commission then votes at one of its public meetings whether to adopt the findings and impose the recommended penalty. The Commission may impose a penalty different from the one recommended by the hearing officer.

See Related Links on this page to view the Commission's full Complaint Procedures and Penalty Guidelines.

Public Ethics Commission Impact

Enforcement Actions
A searchable list summarizing closed enforcement cases

Case Results
View statistics and summaries of cases prosecuted by the Enforcement Division

Mediation Program Results
A searchable list of completed public records request mediations