CITY OF OAKLAND PUBLIC ETHICS · PDF filerecruitment subcommittee met twice in November to interview Commissioner candidates for ... to serving as a law clerk in the ... ideas rising

CITY OF OAKLAND

PUBLIC ETHICS COMMISSION

One Frank Ogawa Plaza (City Hall)

Regular Commission Meeting

Monday, January 6, 2014

Sgt. Mark Dunakin, Hearing Room 1

6:30 p.m.

1

Commissioners: Lloyd Farnham (Chair), Aspen Baker (Vice-Chair), Roberta Johnson, Benjamin

Kimberley, Monique Rivera, Eddie Tejeda, Jenna Whitman

Commission Staff: Whitney Barazoto, Executive Director

City Attorney Staff: Alix Rosenthal, Counsel to the City

MEETING AGENDA

1. Roll Call and Determination of Quorum.

2. Staff and Commission Announcements.

3. Open Forum.

CONSENT ITEMS1

4. Approval of Commission Draft Minutes.

a. December 3, 2013, Special Meeting Minutes (Attachment 1 – Minutes)

5. Proposed Meeting Schedule for 2014. (Attachment 2 – 2014 Meeting Schedule)

ACTION ITEMS

6. Review and Selection of Two New Commissioners. The Commission’s ad-hoc

recruitment subcommittee met twice in November to interview Commissioner candidates for

two PEC-appointed vacancies. The subcommittee reviewed 11 candidates and selected four

to appear before the full Commission. A copy of the application and resume for each of the

four selected candidates is attached to this agenda. Each of the following candidates will

take a few minutes to introduce themselves and respond to questions by the Commission,

and the Commission will vote to select the two new members. New member terms begin

January 22, 2014. (Attachment 3 – Applications and Resumes)

a. Mai-Ling Garcia

b. Marc Pilotin

c. Stephen Shefler

d. Carol Wyatt

1 Consent items will be voted on all at once, unless a Commissioner requests removal of an item from consent prior to

the vote.

http://www2.oaklandnet.com/w/oak044634




hhttp://www2.oaklandnet.com/w/oak044299

hhttp://www2.oaklandnet.com/w/oak044299





CITY OF OAKLAND



Regular Commission Meeting

Monday, January 6, 2014

Sgt. Mark Dunakin, Hearing Room 1

6:30 p.m.

2

7. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair of the Commission. Commissioners will elect a chair

and vice-chair for 2014.

8. Records Management Policy. The Commission will consider a draft letter providing a

summary of public comments, and Commission analysis and recommendations on the

Records Management program as presented by the City Clerk at the Commission’s

December 3, 2013, meeting. (Attachment 4a – Memo, Attachment 4b – Draft Letter and

attachments)

9. Transparency Report. The subcommittee on Access to Public Records presents its

analysis and summary of recommendations for enhancing transparency in City government.

The Commission will review and consider approval of the subcommittee’s report, Toward

Collaborative Transparency. (Attachment 5a – Memo, Attachment 5b – Draft Report)

10. Complaint/Enforcement Program. An updated list of pending cases is included.

Commissioners may discuss the complaint process in general and may discuss any of the

complaints listed in the attached spreadsheet. (Attachment 6 – Complaint Log)

a. Complaint 13-02 (Parker) (Attachment 7 – Staff Report and Copy of Complaint)

INFORMATION ITEMS

11. ED Report. The Executive Director repo rts on activities of Commission staff in

December. (Attachment 8 – Report)

The meeting will adjourn upon the completion of the Commission’s business.

A member of the public may speak on any item appearing on the agenda. All speakers will be

allotted a maximum of three minutes unless the Chairperson allocates additional time.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate

in the meetings of the Public Ethics Commission or its Committees, please contact the Office of the

City Clerk (510) 238-3611. Notification two full business days prior to the meeting will enable the

City of Oakland to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility.

Should you have questions or concerns regarding this agenda, or wish to review any agenda-related

materials, please contact the Public Ethics Commission at (510) 238-3593 or visit our webpage at

www.oaklandnet.com/pec.

12/20/2013

Approved for Distribution Date









http://www.oaklandnet.com/pec

CITY OF OAKLAND DRAFT



Commission Meeting

Tuesday, December 3, 2013

Hearing Room 2

6:30 p.m.

1

Commissioners: Lloyd Farnham (Chair), Aspen Baker (Vice-Chair), Roberta Johnson, Benjamin

Kimberley, Monique Rivera, Eddie Tejeda, Jenna Whitman

Commission Staff: Whitney Barazoto, Executive Director

City Attorney Staff: Alix Rosenthal, Legal Counsel

SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES

1. Roll Call and Determination of Quorum.

The meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m.

Members present: Commissioners Farnham, Baker, Johnson, Kimberley, Tejeda, and

Whitman.

Staff present: Whitney Barazoto and Lauren Angius.

2. Staff and Commission Announcements.

There were none.

3. Open Forum.

There was one speaker: John Klein.

CONSENT ITEMS

4. Approval of Commission Draft Minutes.

The Commission approved 6-0 the October 3, 2013, Regular Meeting Minutes.

ACTION ITEMS

5. Records Management Policy.

LaTonda Simmons, City Clerk, and Deidre Scott, Records Manager in the City Clerk’s

Office, presented the Records Management program proposal to the Commission for review.

The Commissioners asked questions and discussed the program elements with Ms. Simmons

and Ms. Scott.

There were three speakers: Katherine Gavzy, Barbara Newcombe, and John Klein.

CITY OF OAKLAND DRAFT



Commission Meeting

Tuesday, December 3, 2013

Hearing Room 2

6:30 p.m.

2

6. General Complaint Procedures.

Chairman Farnham presented a revised draft of the Commission’s Complaint Procedures

and explained the development process of the Complaint Procedures subcommittee in

creating the revised procedures.

The Commission discussed and approved 4-2 the revised General Complaint Procedures,

with minor amendment. Commissioners Johnson and Tejeda voted no, having expressed

their approval of the procedures as submitted, without the minor amendment.

There was one speaker: John Klein.

7. Creation of an Oakland Ethics Ordinance.

Commission staff announced that the Commission’s legal counsel, Alix Rosenthal, is

drafting a comprehensive local ethics ordinance pursuant to the Commission’s desire for

such an ordinance outlining ethics laws applicable to Oakland officials and staff and

granting the Commission the authority to enforce the laws. Commission staff recommended

the creation of an Ethics subcommittee to assist with the initial drafting of the ordinance.

Chairman Farnham appointed Commissioner Kimberley and Whitman to the newly formed

Ethics Subcommittee and noted that one of the new commissioners may want to join the

subcommittee upon appointment in January.

8. Subcommittee Reports.

Vice-Chair Baker, who chairs the Access to Public Records Subcommittee, announced that

the subcommittee would be releasing its Transparency Report for discussion at the

Commission’s January regular meeting.

Complaint Procedures Subcommittee Chair Farnham announced that, because the amended

General Complaint Procedures were approved by the Commission, the ad-hoc Complaint

Procedures Subcommittee is now terminated.

Vice-Chair Baker, who leads the Recruitment Subcommittee, announced that Commissioner

interviews went very well and that the subcommittee has invited several qualified candidates

to present to the full Commission at its regular meeting in January.

9. Complaint/Enforcement Program.

The Commission took the complaint log under advisement.

The meeting adjourned at 9:36 p.m.

CITY OF OAKLAND

Public Ethics Commission

Lloyd Farnham, Chair

Aspen Baker, Vice-Chair

Roberta Ann Johnson

Benjamin Kimberley

Monique Rivera

Eddie Tejeda

Jenna Whitman

Whitney Barazoto, Executive Director

One Frank Ogawa Plaza, 11th

Floor, Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 238-3593 Fax: (510) 238-3315

TO: Public Ethics Commission

FROM: Whitney Barazoto, Executive Director

DATE: December 19, 2013

RE: 2014 Regular Meeting Schedule

Below is a proposed schedule for regular Commission meetings in 2014. Unless otherwise

specified, meetings occur on the first Monday of each month.

2014 REGULAR MEETING SCHEDULE

DATE TIME ROOM

January 6, 2014 6:30 PM Hearing Room 1

February 3, 2014 6:30 PM Hearing Room 1

March 3, 2014 6:30 PM Hearing Room 1

April 7, 2014 6:30 PM Hearing Room 1

May 5, 2014 6:30 PM Hearing Room 1

June 2, 2014 6:30 PM Hearing Room 1

July 7, 2014 6:30 PM Hearing Room 1

August Recess

September 2, 2014 (Tuesday)1 6:30 PM Hearing Room 1

October 6, 2014 6:30 PM Hearing Room 1

November 3, 2014 6:30 PM Hearing Room 1

December 1, 2014 6:30 PM Hearing Room 1

1 September 1, 2014 is the Labor Day Holiday.

1

City of Oakland – Public Ethics Commission Answers to Supplemental Questions

1. Why do you want to serve on the Public Ethics Commission? My interest in serving on the Commission is two-fold. First, because the public vests its resources and authority in government, I believe it is crucial to build and maintain the public’s trust in our civic institutions. For most of my working life, I held public sector positions in which I was able to work directly toward these goals. From serving as a page in my hometown’s public library to serving as a law clerk in the federal judiciary, I took seriously the obligation we had as public servants to demonstrate our diligent stewardship of the resources and authority the public afforded us. Now that I work in the private sector, service on the Public Ethics Commission is a way for me to maintain my commitment to fulfilling this obligation. Second, my grandmother instilled in me a passion for serving my community. During my childhood, my grandmother told me about how, as a teacher in the Philippines, she helped her town’s children and assisted her neighbors. She pushed me to do the same. To that end, I have spent my professional career working in public education and fighting for the rights of individuals, including students, consumers, and employees. Work with the Public Ethics Commission will allow me to give back to my community, bringing to bear my experiences as a lawyer and a public sector employee. 2. What skills and experience will you bring to the Commission? To the commission, I will bring the skills and experience I have gained through my jobs as a University of California (“UC”) administrator, public school teacher, and lawyer. I will also draw upon my experience serving on various committees. Each of my jobs has required me to adopt a set of goals; assess problems in light of those goals; and develop, consider, and implement solutions. For instance, as a UC administrator, I was tasked with running a department that needed to expand its services during a period of budget retrenchment. With these circumstances in mind and through leveraging technology, we made our department more efficient while augmenting student services. I applied the same goal-oriented, problem-solving skills as a fourth-grade public school teacher. There, I was required to implement standardized state curricular standards in a classroom of over 26 students who had a diverse set of needs. Again, through careful assessment, thorough planning, and dedicated implementation, we were able to improve student achievement. Finally, in my legal career, my daily work focuses on identifying and implementing efficient solutions to complex problems. I have applied these problem-solving skills to my work on various committees, including the curriculum committee at my law school, the Committee on Preparatory Education for the University of California, and the board of directors for the Filipino Bar Association of Northern California. On each of these committees, I worked collaboratively with fellow committee members, making group decisions that reflected an amalgam of each member’s ideas. Based on my previous committee work, I believe firmly that directed, organized discussion, in which

2

participants feel comfortable with contributing, results in the best ideas rising to the top. I hope to facilitate these types of discussions on the Commission. Separate from these problem-solving and collaborative skills, as alluded to already, I will bring my experience as a public sector employee. Through all of my positions, I keenly understood the need to maintain the public’s trust and guard vigilantly against any impropriety or any appearance of it. Each of my public sector jobs required me to adhere to principles of fairness, openness, honesty, and integrity. My understanding of working within these principles as a public employee will provide me a perspective that will assist me as a Commissioner in fulfilling the Commission’s goals. 3. What issues, projects, or goals would you like to pursue while serving on the Commission? As an overarching issue, I would like to focus on enhancing community education and outreach. One of the Commission’s charges is to ensure openness in Oakland government, which can lead to accountability and better civic services. Openness cannot be achieved without public engagement. As a more specific matter, I am deeply interested in the Commission’s current goal to expand its authority and capacity. As it stands, it appears that the Commission lacks significant power to ensure compliance with ethics-related laws. Having worked on various projects to develop new programs, which required careful planning and earning the approval of stakeholders, I would be excited to work toward improving the Commission’s ability to meet its goals. 4. What else would you like the subcommittee to know as your application is considered? I have lived in Oakland for over six years, and I am excited about the opportunity to play a greater role in serving our community. I believe passionately that the City has the potential to be better than it already is, and that this potential can be met in part through keeping our government free of improper influences, increasing public participation, and maintaining the public’s trust. I hope to serve as a Commissioner to help improve our City.

Marc A. Pilotin

[email protected]

438 W. Grand Avenue, Unit 615Oakland, CA 94612

415/350-8832

EDUCATION

University of California, Berkeley, School of Law (Boalt Hall) Juris Doctor (J.D.), May 2009 Publication: Finding a Common Yardstick: Implementing a National Student Assessment and School Accountability Plan Through State-Federal Collaboration, 98 CALIF. L. REV. 545 (2010) Journals: California Law Review, Supervising Editor; Berkeley Journal on Employment and Labor Law, Executive Editor Activities: Graduate Student Researcher to Professor Gillian Lester; Moot Court, ABA Appellate Advocacy Team; Teaching and Curriculum Committee, Student Representative; University of California System-wide Committee on Preparatory Education, Graduate Student Representative; Pilipino American Law Society, Co-Chair and Treasurer; Juvenile Hall Outreach Program, Volunteer Instructor; Workers’ Rights Clinic, Volunteer Honors: Moot Court Oral Advocacy Award University of California, Los Angeles, Graduate School of Education and Information Studies Master of Education (Ed.M.), June 2005 University of California, Los Angeles, College of Letters and Science Bachelor of Arts (B.A.), cum laude and College Honors in Political Science & Psychology, June 2001 Honors: Phi Beta Kappa, College Honors Programs Scholarship, UCLA Alumni Ass’n Scholarship, Commencement Speaker

PROFESS IONAL EXPER IENCE

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP October 2011–present Associate Participated on trial team that prevailed following six-week antitrust trial. Take depositions for antitrust cases. Communicate with clients and opposing counsel regarding case matters. Write motions and other court filings for antitrust, employment, mass torts, and qui tam cases. Investigate and evaluate potential cases. United States District Court, Northern District of California (Oakland, CA) September 2009–September2011 Law Clerk to the Honorable Claudia Wilken Assisted in drafting of orders and opinions. Drafted bench memoranda for sittings on the Courts of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the Federal Circuit. Collaborated with Alternative Dispute Resolution unit to create program for home foreclosure cases. University of California, Berkeley August 2007–December 2008 Graduate Student Instructor / Academic Support Program Tutor Led small sections for Professor Goodwin Liu’s Constitutional Law course, Professor Jonathan Simon’s Criminal Law course, and Professor Paul Schwartz’s Torts course. United States District Court, Northern District of California (San Francisco, CA) August 2007–December 2007 Judicial Extern to the Honorable Edward M. Chen Assisted in drafting of orders and opinions on discovery disputes, constitutional law, and habeas corpus relief. Ninety-Sixth Street Elementary School (South Los Angeles, CA) August 2004–July 2006 Teacher / Grade Level Chairperson Implemented instructional plan for thirty fourth-grade students in Watts community of Los Angeles. Elected grade level chairperson after first year at school. Served as mentor teacher for teacher interns. UCLA Center for American Politics & Public Policy (Los Angeles, CA) June 2001–August 2003, July 2004–August 2005 Administrative Director Managed research center with a $300,000 annual budget. Served as interim director from July 2004 through August 2005 while working as a full-time teacher.

PROFESS IONAL HONORS AND AWARDS

Rising Star, Northern California Super Lawyers – 2013 Finalist, Consumer Attorney of the Year, Consumer Attorneys of California – 2013

CITY OF OAKLAND Public Ethics Commission

Lloyd Farnham, Chair Aspen Baker, Vice-Chair Roberta Ann Johnson Benjamin Kimberley Monique Rivera Eddie Tejeda Jenna Whitman Whitney Barazoto, Executive Director






RE: Records Management Program

Overview

The Public Ethics Commission will discuss its review of the City Clerk’s proposed

Comprehensive Citywide Records and Information Management Program, as presented to the

Commission in December 2013, and the Commission will consider approving a draft letter to the

City Clerk providing a summary of public comments, analysis, and recommendations on the City

Clerk’s proposal. Attached is the draft letter, and below is background information about the

Commission’s review process.

Background

On Friday, November 22, 2013, the City Clerk’s office submitted a proposed Comprehensive

Citywide Records and Information Management Program to the Public Ethics Commission for

review. The request for Commission review by the City Clerk is part of the policy development

process outlined by City Council resolution 82908, passed in July 2010. (Attachment A –

Resolution 82908). The resolution articulated the need for a records management program for

the City and required the City Clerk to create a Citywide Records Management Program within 6

months and consisting of the following elements:

1. A definition of “City Record,”

2. A retention schedule,

3. Vital and historical records management,

4. Electronic records management,

5. Forms management,

6. Files management,

7. Records conversion, and

8. Disposition of City records.

Pursuant to the resolution, the City Clerk must “present the… proposed Program to the Public

Ethics Commission together with a request that the Commission hold a public hearing and

thereafter provide a summary of any public comments, analysis, and recommendations

pertaining to the proposed Program.”

2

The resolution further states that “60 days after the Public Ethics Commission has transmitted the

summary of public comments, analysis, and recommendations pertaining to the proposed

Program, the City Clerk shall submit the Program to the Rules Committee and City Council for

adoption.”

The Public Ethics Commission held a public discussion of the City Clerk’s submitted

Comprehensive Citywide Records and Information Management Program at its public meeting

on December 3, 2013. City Clerk LaTonda Simmons and Records Manager Deidre Scott

presented the information to the Commission and engaged in a dialogue about the details of the

plan. Members of the public also participated in the discussion.

The Commission is being asked to review the records management program proposed by the

City Clerk and to transmit a summary of public comments, analysis, and recommendations

pertaining to the proposal.

Recommendation

Commission staff recommends the Commission review and discuss the attached draft letter, and

to suggest changes to the letter or the approach and/or approve the letter for transmittal to the

City Clerk.

One Frank Ogawa Plaza, 11th Floor, Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 238-3593 Fax: (510) 238-3315

DRAFT

January 7, 2014

Honorable City Council Members

City of Oakland

1 Frank Ogawa Plaza

Oakland, CA 94612

Dear Council President Kernighan and Members of City Council,

The Public Ethics Commission offers recommendations on the attached City Clerk’s Comprehensive

Citywide Records and Information Management Program to the City Council pursuant to City

Council Resolution 82908, passed in July 2010, requiring the City Clerk to develop a records

management program for review by the Commission and submission to City Council. Below is the

Commission’s analysis of the City Clerk’s proposal, based on discussion and input received at two

public meetings, one on December 3, 2013, and another on January 6, 2014. The Commission

expresses its gratitude to the City Clerk’s office for presenting the proposal and engaging in

thoughtful discussion with the Commission and the public around the goals and actions outlined in

the proposal.

City Council Requested Records Management Program

In passing resolution 82908 in July 2010, the City Council expressed its desire for a records

management program that provides “efficient and economical management policies for the

collection, creation, utilization, maintenance, retention, storage, preservation, retrieval and disposal of

City records.” The goals articulated in the resolution included “reducing administrative costs,

improving efficiency and productivity, ensuring regulatory and legal compliance, minimizing

litigation risks, safeguarding vital information, and supporting better decision-making.”

In the 2010 resolution, the City Council outlined the outcome sought: “a records management

program that is centralized, professional, cost effective, preserves vital and historical City records,

and guarantees its citizens access to public records of the City.”

The Public Ethics Commission reviewed the proposed Comprehensive Citywide Records and

Information Management Program (CCRIMP) through that lens: whether the proposal will produce a

centralized, professional, cost effective system that preserves vital and historical City records and

guarantees its citizens access to City public records.

2

PEC Analysis of the Proposal

The proposed CCRIMP submitted by the City Clerk begins to lay out the elements necessary for a

records management program. In particular, the Commission finds the table on page 9 of the draft

agenda report, and the subsequent description of program implementation phases, of most help in

understanding the plan for operationalizing the CCRIMP elements. The CCRIMP document alone,

however, is not a records management program. Rather, it is a plan for how the program will become

established.

Based on the information in the table on page 9 of the CCRIMP, and on the information provided by

the California Secretary of State (Local Government Records Management Guidelines, beginning on

page 6), it appears that the foundational elements of a records management program are as follows:

1. Citywide Inventory of Public Records – a spreadsheet document that includes the following

(SOS offers a Records Inventory Worksheet STD Form 70 to assist agencies in creating an

inventory):

a. Record Series (ie. subject area, similar activities, or special form of documents)

b. Media (form of the record, such as paper, microfilm, electronic, etc)

c. Years Covered

d. Activity Level – the amount of activity

e. Volume

2. Appraisal and Scheduling – process to determine the immediate and future usefulness of the

records, which should be retained only as long as they serve the purposes for which they were

created; this is the assessment stage that will aid in establishing necessary retention periods.

3. Retention Schedule – a spreadsheet for each department that outlines how long each type of

record must be retained; this serves as the agency’s legal authority to certify the life, care, and

disposition of all agency records.

4. Disposition of Records – once records have fulfilled their administrative, fiscal or legal

function, they should be disposed of in accordance with the Records Retention Schedule.

In addition to the above elements suggested by the Secretary of State, the following pieces also are

necessary:

1. Identification of who is responsible for records retention and maintenance for each

department

2. Creation of a quick overview document outlining what is required of staff in maintaining City

records

3. Records management training for administrative staff responsible for maintaining City

records in each department

3

4. Consistent and clear guidance and communication of expectations from the City Clerk’s

office to staff working with records

a. Incorporation of electronic records management into the training and guidance

provided

5. Ongoing communication between department staff and the City Clerk’s office

6. City Clerk’s office reporting to the City Administrator regarding staff or department failure to

comply with records management requirements

7. Establishment of additional programs identified by the City Council in resolution 82908,

including the following:

a. Vital and historical records management

b. Forms management

c. Files management, and

d. Records conversion

Only when these documents and systems are created and in place will Oakland have a records

management program.

The Commission appreciates the City Clerk’s attempt to address all of the elements requested by City

Council in the proposed CCRIMP, particularly within existing resources. The Commission is

concerned that the approach outlined in the proposal attempts to do too much at one time. It is

ambitious and multi-faceted, yet the City Clerk has only one FTE Records Manager position

dedicated to this project.

Given how much work is needed to establish a well-functioning records management program, and

given the lack of staff capacity to put all of the necessary components into place expeditiously, the

Commission suggests the City Clerk prioritize the above activities and ensure that the Records

Manager accomplishes tasks in relative order of priority. The order of the activities as listed above is

a natural starting place for determining prioritization.

We believe this step-by-step approach is a more manageable method to accomplishing the objective

of producing a centralized, professional, cost effective system of managing and preserving City

records within our City’s current resources. Even with this approach, it will take several years before

we see notable realization of the objectives sought.

If the City Council wishes to achieve better records management results sooner, then additional

resources should be devoted to the endeavor. However, in the absence of additional resources, the

Commission recommends the modest priority task-focused approach outlined above.

Records management is not an easy process. It will require bolstered capacity, cooperation from

departments, effective management and consequences – including disciplinary action – for failure to

comply. It will take time, but it is not impossible, so long as concrete actions are identified,

accomplished, and noted.

4

Recommendations

The City’s current records management system needs effective management that ensures compliance

with records retention requirements, proper training and communication of expectations for

recordkeeping staff, accountability by the City Clerk’s office and communication with the City

Administrator’s office around what is and is not working, and ongoing assessment of compliance and

needs.

To that end, the Commission offers the following observations regarding the City Clerk’s proposed

Program and what is needed to ensure an effective records management program is established.

1. Keep it simple – Prioritize program tasks identified in the CCRIMP and begin working to

accomplish the first two or three program components.

a. Begin with the creation of a Citywide inventory, as recommended by the Secretary of

State (SOS offers a standard Form 70 for this task)

b. Establish records keepers in each department who will serve as the Records Manager’s

key team-members, establish ongoing communication with these key individuals, who

also will be instrumental in creating the Citywide inventory

c. Create and conduct effective training, designed around the user – make it easy for

people to comply

i. Focus on clear standards, update docs to reflect procedures for electronic

records going forward

d. Identify problem areas – prioritize and focus on correcting problem depts./staff; report

up the chain if unresponsive

e. Identify additional areas that need attention once the inventory, effective lines of

communication, and training is in place; these may include conversion, historic

records, transfer to offsite storage, to name a few

i. Articulate projects and costs of contracting or need for additional FTE’s

2. Leadership – The Records Manager in the City Clerk’s office is a critical leader in the

management of how records are maintained in the City. The Records Manager should serve

as the chief educator, consultant, and compliance officer to ensure the system is set up to

support staff in their effort to properly maintain records, and to report up the chain when

expectations are not being met.

3. Training – Training of staff is of the utmost importance. Keep the training materials and

sessions simple and clear – lay out exactly what is required of records keepers. Incorporate

checklists for actions required.

4. Accountability – The City Clerk has the responsibility and opportunity to manage

compliance with records management requirements. To ensure accountability, the City Clerk

should report to the City Administrator, with a copy sent to the Executive Director of the

Public Ethics Commission, when staff fail to comply with the records management policy and

do not respond to the Records Manager or City Clerk.

5

a. The City Administrator should issue a Records Management AI/policy to enumerate

the requirements of staff, and the City Administrator should stand behind the policy in

cases where the City Clerk’s office reports instances of failure to comply.

5. Long-term structure – With each task, the Records Manager should document the process

and add the description to a working Records Management Manual that will eventually serve

as a guide to the City’s records management program. This can be posted online to assist in

educating staff and also to provide a method of benchmarking program developments for

interested members of the public.

The Public Ethics Commission recommends the City Clerk begin to take the first two steps on the

task list above as soon as possible: 1) identify records-keepers in each department and begin to create

a citywide inventory using the Secretary of State’s STD Form 70 or similar framework, and 2) create

a simple, introductory training document on how to maintain City records, along with an easy-to-use

checklist for records-keepers in each agency.

The Commission recommends that City Council support the Clerk’s ability to take the above actions,

beginning with the creation of a Citywide records inventory and establishment of effective training

and guidance for staff. The Commission also expresses its concern about the time it has taken to

receive this plan by the City Clerk’s office and suggests the City Council consider ways to provide

additional resources to the City Clerk’s office to accomplish the goals of a records management

program more expeditiously.

The Commission further recommends that the City Administrator issue an Administrative Instruction

to clarify the rules that staff must follow in maintaining City records, and to uphold the policy when

and if the City Clerk reports instances of non-compliance.

These initial steps will provide the City with the foundational elements needed to begin the

manifestation of a records management program that the City Council sought in passing resolution

82908.

Summary of Public Comments

The recommendations outlined here are a result of multiple discussions with the Commission at

recent public meetings, staff in the City Clerk’s office and other City departments, and members of

the public. A few public comments at the Commission’s meetings about the City Clerk’s CCRIMP

focused around appreciating the magnitude of the project and suggesting ways to take more of an

incremental approach to accomplishing project objectives. One suggestion was to pilot the program

with one or a few departments in order to break the project into more manageable pieces; however, in

reviewing the Secretary of State’s suggested elements of a local records management program, the

Commission chose instead to suggest the incremental approach outlined above that focuses on

specific tasks, such as a Citywide inventory, that flow naturally from one to the next.

Another comment suggested providing information online about how program elements are being

implemented in order for the public to see the City Clerk’s office progress on completion of each

task. The Commission also would appreciate staying abreast of progress made on this project, and

Commission staff commit to working with the Clerk’s office to determine the best way to track the

progress of records management program development on the City’s website.

6

A third commenter noted that, as a member of the public, he generally receives good service

regarding records from many City staff, but that certain staff fail to comply. In response to this

concern, the City Administrator’s issuance of an Administrative Instruction will be instrumental in

ensuring that City policy is clearly articulated, along with disciplinary action against City employees

who fail to follow policy. The Commission suggests a reporting vehicle for the Clerk’s office to

report to the City Administrator and Public Ethics Commission on issues of noncompliance so that

staff noncompliance can be addressed; this is included in the recommendations above.

Public comment also suggested a personal approach to records management training. The

Commission agrees. An annual training to multiple departments may be effective once a robust

records management program is in place, but in the initial stages, the Records Manager will have to

develop close personal relationships with each of the key records-keepers in each department, and

will have to serve primarily as an educator. This is not impracticable, as the list of key records

keepers may number a dozen or two, but it will take time and may diverge from the traditional

records management role. The City should support any professional development needed in the

Clerk’s office to ensure staff are equipped with the skills needed to effectively educate others on City

policies and procedures.

There also was some discussion among the public, Commissioners, and City staff around the question

of whether an ordinance is necessary. At this time, the Commission believes that the necessary

program elements can and should be implemented as part of the City Clerk’s and other City staff and

officials’ existing responsibilities under federal, state, and local law. The need for an ordinance was

originally discussed in prior years, and an ordinance was adopted by City Council yet never codified.

While that uncodified ordinance should eventually be “cleaned up,” it is not a prerequisite for a

records management program and would undoubtedly slow the process of putting the program in

place in the City Clerk’s office. Rather than spend time determining the appropriate ordinance

language, the one staff in the Clerk’s office should instead focus on taking the actions identified

above. Once an effective program is in place and has been adjusted through an ongoing, iterative

process, then the Clerk may wish to draft an ordinance if deemed necessary for long-term structure

and authority.

We offer the above recommendations for your consideration as you determine how to support the

City Clerk’s office in creating an effective records management program. If you have any questions,

please contact Whitney Barazoto, Executive Director of the Public Ethics Commission, at (510) 238-

6620.

Sincerely,

Lloyd Farnham

Public Ethics Commission Chairman, on behalf of the Commission

(This letter was approved by the Public Ethics Commission at its meeting on January 6, 2014.)

Attachments:

A. Comprehensive Citywide Records and Information Management Program, submitted by the City Clerk

B. Secretary of State Local Government Records Management Guidelines, February 2006, p. 1-11 only

C. Resolution 82908, passed by City Council, July 2010

Item: __________ Rules & Legislation Committee November X, 2013

AGENDA REPORT

TO: DEANNA J. SANTANA FROM: LaTonda Simmons CITY ADMINISTRATOR SUBJECT: Recommendations for A DATE: September 28, 2013

Comprehensive City-Wide Records And Information Management Program

City Administrator Date Approval ___________ COUNCIL DISTRICT: City-Wide

RECOMMENDATION Discussion And Possible Action On Recommendations For A Centralized Comprehensive City-Wide Records And Information Management Program For The City of Oakland And A Proposed Implementation Timeline To Achieve Full Program Activity EXECUTIVE SUMMARY At the July 20, 2010 City Council meeting resolution 82908 C.M.S. was adopted directing staff to develop a Comprehensive City-Wide Records Management Program to accompany proposed Records Management policy recommendations. After extensive effort, the Office of the City Clerk has established general program framework for a centralized Comprehensive Records and Information Management Program (“Program”). Prior to program approval, resolution 82908 C.M.S., requires the Public Ethics Commission to conduct a 60 day public review and refer the program to the City Council for approval. This report outlines a local program structure in accordance with the Secretary of State’s Guide for Local Records Management Programs; discusses continuing efforts to address management of electronic records, records conversion and establishment of a Historic Records Program. Additionally, a scalable implementation plan has been prepared to phase in all components of the program to activate true records management activities citywide. OUTCOME The proposed Program will establish clear policy and standards for citywide tracking and management of records information according to best practices for Records and Information Management (RIM). The Program will also provide for effective management, improved organizational credibility, validation of business decisions, reduced legal expenses, and public accountability. The program will update and enhance existing elements of records management in the City, improve how the City responds to public records requests, and include all required practices for management of City records.

Deanna J. Santana, City Administrator Subject: Comprehensive City-Wide Records and Information Management Program Date: X, 2013 Page 2

Item: __________ Rules & Legislation Committee x, 2014

BACKGROUND/LEGISLATIVE HISTORY In September 1991, the Oakland City Council adopted an ordinance "Establishing a City-Wide Records Management Program", Ordinance No. 11370 C.M.S. As the City of Oakland recovered from unprecedented structural damages caused by the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, City officials recognized how denied access to City offices and information impacted City operations. Upon restoration of the offices and staffing, program implementation commenced in September 2002 with execution of a contract for the implementation of a Records Retention Program. The offsite storage contract was amended in February of 2003, with completion of a records inventory and delivery of a retention schedule for paper records. Additional deliverables were also defined. In 2004, contractor services were discontinued and program implementation was suspended. In 2006, the Office of the City Clerk resumed planning for a records management program. Ordinance 11370 C.M.S. provided for development of eight (8) specific elements for the establishment of a Records Management Program, however no administrative infrastructure existed to engage work and no funding was earmarked to advance program activity. In 2007, Program IP63 – “City-Wide Records Management Program” was established to reflect records management as a priority. In 2008, the Citywide Records Manager classification was restored in the Office of the City Clerk. With administrative infrastructure in place in December 2009, the Offices of the City Attorney, City Auditor, City Clerk, Mayor, and Public Ethic Commission introduced amendments to Chapter 2.20 of the Oakland Sunshine Ordinance and Ordinance 11370 C.M.S. (Attachment A) to solidify citywide policy on records management. Adoption was deferred until the City-wide Records Manager position was filled. In July 2010, resolution 82908 C.M.S. was adopted directing staff to develop a Comprehensive City-Wide Records Management Program to accompany the revisions to the Sunshine Ordinance. A working group convened meetings soon thereafter, but those meetings provided little traction for program development. At this point the Office of the City Clerk began to assess department records practices to measure activities against best practices to form recommendations for the program. ANALYSIS Setting the foundation for a comprehensive city-wide records program requires an extensive collaborative effort. As a result the Office of the City Clerk continues to engage many City departments and offices to perform the following:

o Informal surveys of each Agency as it relates to onsite active and inactive records management ;

o Tour City properties to locate, identify, assess conditions and storage environment of onsite records (At city restructurings and typically upon departmental notice of records issues);

o General assessment of companies offering a wide range of records management services;



o A review of various software systems to manage all records inventory regardless of records location or medium;

o In depth review of the current offsite storage facility resulting in reconciliation of unassigned records to establish ownership for every box;

o Work with Agencies and departments to assess practices and provide guidance to increase knowledge of Records management;

o Meet with city staff and DIT to initiate identification of specific record types requiring additional tracking, preservation, and/or conversion;

o Meet with DIT and staff in the Office of the City Attorney to assess electronic records needs, technical capacity and discuss solutions for email archiving

o Partner with Building Services to locate, establish ownership, package, and transfer abandoned records found in vacated City offices into the master inventory;

o Serve on the Continuity Of Operations (COOP) Steering Committee to develop Vital Records initiatives

o Serve on Public Records steering committee with Code for America to assist with development of systems, guidelines, policy and procedures

o Draft RFP for offsite records management vendor selection The Office of the City Clerk determined there were many inconsistencies across departments and a lack of knowledge of full records management activities. Key observations include:

1) No documentation noting the creation of new records 2) No schedule for the transfer of inactive files to onsite or offsite storage locations 3) Storage of records onsite within conditions not suitable for the preservation of records 4) Storage of records onsite without controls for access to file locations 5) Storage of records onsite within boxes and improper containers lacking proper

identification 6) Electronic systems implemented, administered, and managed separately from DIT 7) No systems, procedures, or technical document for the conversion of records 8) No procedures for the change of controls for records requested for audit or litigation 9) Inconsistent use of offsite records storage location

The above records management practices highlight incomplete cycles for the processing of records and information, creating liability in the identification, preservation, tracking, and disposition of City records. PROGRAM The program proposes framework to deliver a regulated full scope records management program. The program addresses the eight elements set forth in Ordinance 11370 C.M.S. and Resolution 82908 C.M.S.; (1) definition of a City Record (2) update to the City’s Retention Schedule (3) establishment of a Vital and Historical Records programs (4) proposals to address the



management of Electronic Records; (5 and 6) Forms Management; and File Management [referred to as a File Plan]; (7) Records conversion, where applicable; and (8) processes for disposition of records.

1) Definition of a Record Definition of a record was proposed to be amended in accordance with the recommendations of the December 2009 report. The amendments to Sunshine in section, 2.20.410 are as follows:

1) "City record" is currently defined as "all books, papers, letters, documents, publications, maps, plans, photographs, sound recordings, automated systems, or other documentary materials, regardless of format or characteristics, made or received and retained by any office, person, or agent of the City of Oakland in connection with the transaction of city business. This definition does not include preliminary drafts or personal notes made, received or retained unless otherwise required by the situation or as directed by the City Manager or the City Council."

The proposed amendments would streamline and revise the existing definition to provide that a "City record" shall mean "all recorded information, regardless of media format of physical characteristics, that are produced, received, owned or used" by the City in connection with its affairs or legal obligations. The proposed revision would retain the existing exception for "preliminary drafts or personal notes" except as specified in the records management program. The proponents believe that this exception is necessary to preserve and protect the deliberative process in government decision making.

NOTE: The Public Ethics Commission differs slightly in its proposed definition of "City record". The Commission recommends that the existing and proposed exception for "preliminary drafts or personal notes" be deleted so that such material shall constitute a "City record" subject to the retention and disposition policies provided in the records management program. This difference in approach may ultimately become moot depending on whether and how the records management program provides for the handling of such material.

The above definition lies within the proposed amendments to the Sunshine Ordinance issued by the Public Ethics Commission. The above recommendations would require substantial expansion of the City’s records inventory to include documents potentially under the legal provisions of deliberative process, creating two results 1) fiscal impact to retain preliminary drafts and personal notes and 2) potential conflicts of law in the retention of those documents. Under current law, deliberative process provides for exemptions of “preliminary drafts or personal notes” prior to delivery of a final document. If this amendment passes, the Office of the City Clerk would require a legal opinion on the methodology to apply the collection and scheduling of “preliminary drafts or personal notes” within the retention schedule for any areas that may conflict with law.

2) Retention Schedule – Update of Current Retention Schedule In February 2003, the City of Oakland adopted a retention schedule for paper records. The retention schedule assigns specific periods of retention to records based on the fiscal,



administrative, and legal needs of the organization. Records values are assigned in range from temporary to permanent. Currently, the City’s retention schedule is outdated and does not comply with current state/federal requirements. The Secretary of State recommends updating retention schedules at least every 5 years. Additionally, all local retention schedules are now required to include electronic records appropriately identified within the series. The Office of the City Clerk proposes engaging a Citywide Inventory for the identification of records, incorporation of the newly identified records within the City’s retention schedule for adoption by Council, annual department reviews of records series, and amendments upon restructure of City departments and offices or maximum every 2 years.

3) A - Establishment of a Vital Records Program The Continuity of Operations (COOP) Steering Committee facilitates development of emergency services planning to ensure the City’s ability to respond to all disasters and resume operations. The Records Manager has been assigned to the COOP Steering Committee to emphasize the need for Vital Records Collection to be aligned with COOP planning and serve as lead for citywide collection of Vital Records. Vital Records collections will occur twice a year to include and update documents that will allow all departments to resume operations in the event disasters occur. These records will be a limited series and will be housed in dual locations, at the offsite storage facility and the City’s Emergency Operations Center offices.

B - Establishment of a Historic Records Program Oakland was established in 1850 upon declaration of its trustees and subsequently received charter approval by the State of California as the “Town of Oakland” in 1852. The City of Oakland has a bounty of historic information. To establish a historic repository, significant work must occur to engage City departments, the Oakland Museum, and other organizations to build the repository. The Clerk’s office would require the assistance of a qualified historian to complete this endeavor as well as coordination with the Oakland Museum, Oakland Library, and City departments, to develop an action plan. The Office the City Clerk recommends development of an RFP to solicit proposals to engage services of qualified historians to perform this task.

4) Management of Electronic Records The City must incorporate all electronic decision documents within relevant series into the updated retention schedule. Identification of electronic records will occur as part of the city wide inventory. In addition to identification of electronic records, the Clerk’s office continues to verify existing mechanisms to ensure proper preservation of electronic records. The City of Oakland currently has innumerable electronic systems that provide operations and delivery of services. According to Clerk’s observations, the management of information technology has been decentralized from the Department of Information Technology (DIT), resulting in different methodologies for systems oversight and retention capacity for electronic records. The Office of the City Clerk met with City Administrator, the Department of



Information Technology (DIT), the Director of the Public Ethics Commission to address the complexity of this issue and the many steps necessary to gain controls of electronic records. Independently, the City Administrator’s office in collaboration with DIT recognized the limited capacity of city systems, and has engaged the development of a master plan for upgrades to technical systems citywide. The DIT project is large scale and requires significant capital investment to upgrade systems to achieve effective management of electronic records. This segment of the records management program will be presented by the Department of Information Technology and will address plans underway to assess, implement new technology, and provide for management of electronic records. This task directly affects item 7 – Records Conversion.

5) Forms Management

The recommendation to establish a Forms repository is within the original recommendations of the ordinance 11370 C.M.S in 1991. It is important to highlight dimensions in how current technology serves as means of service delivery and has increased the efficacy in delivery of information for both internal and external City services. The City deploys many forms for the processing of internal and external service delivery. Currently, the City of Oakland has established two virtual locations for the management of City forms – the “Intranet”, an internal network which provides internal service requests such as benefits changes, new hire forms, leave requests, requests for facilities services, payroll adjustments, etc.; and 2) the City’s webpage which incorporates both electronic versions of paper forms and links to systems with virtual forms for service delivery. Both systems are established and frequently accessed. DIT manages the Intranet. The Citywide Communications Director, Karen Boyd led efforts to redesign the City’s internet presence to emphasize true content delivery to citizens, by allowing departments to add service forms and system links to more effectively bridge citizens to information and services.

6) Files Management – Establishment of File Plans for all City Departments

All City departments will prepare file plans in tandem with the conduct of citywide records inventory. File plans will provide the location of department records by the number series of the adopted updated retention schedule; the scheduled transfer of records to onsite and offsite repositories, when applicable; and disposition of those records in accordance with the adopted retention schedule. Establishing file plans will serve to identify all onsite records storage location on city properties, ensure access, and transfer of the files during City restructuring, discovery, audit, to offsite storage facilities, where applicable, or to disposition (after determining administrative, fiscal, legal, historic or vital value).

7) Provide for Records conversion, where applicable

Records are converted to provide access to information deemed relevant for the continuation of operations and/or at request for access by the public. For business applications, the City’s conversion of information is performed as part of implementation of new systems or modules, and/or data migrations to upgraded systems. For decertified data deemed irrelevant but still available, the Public Records Act requires the City to provide a methodology for data conversion



to provide information in an accessible format to a requestor. As a matter of process, DIT must assess their capacity to extract data and convert to readable formats or outsource the data extraction/conversion and bill the requestor for the exact costs of the technical work. In both cases, the Department of Information Technology, must determine how to deliver content housed in may technical systems to satisfy the needs of the requestor. DIT will address the capacity and plans to meet these requirements.

8) Provide for [Regular] Disposition of Records Disposition of records involves the transition of record once inactive and expired. Disposition engages a final assessment of the value of records for litigation, audit, historic, and vital relevance. Upon determination that records possess the above values, the records are migrated to vital or historic repositories or reserved for the completion of audit and/or litigious processing. Records not deemed of value for the above purposes are destroyed. This is the back end of the records lifecycle. Additional Program Components

A) Program Implementation & Regular Records Management Program Training The above elements will become mandatory departmental responsibilities and will be enhanced with training support throughout the implementation and annually thereafter.

B) Mandatory Participation Citywide To hinge successful program implementation and ongoing participation, the Office of the City Clerk has also drafted administrative policy mandating departmental participation. The drafted Administrative Instructions (AI) outlines departmental participation for every function of records management. The administrative policy requires fiscal commitment from departments, requires designated department staff, set conditions for approval of onsite records repositories, and mandates other conditions and participation in the program.

C) Necessity of Controls for Destruction of Records Stored Onsite Many records remain stored onsite after becoming inactive and expired. Onsite records storage until expiration relieves departments of costs associated with transfer and storage of records in the offsite facility. While the approach is cost effective, in the present state of operations, it mitigates proper records management. There are no procedures to ensure records are properly identified when boxed and stored onsite, no records acknowledging the increase of department records inventory, and no controls to ensure proper destruction of onsite records. The office of the City Clerk is in the process of drafting procedures to prevent inconsistencies in onsite records practices and provide guidelines for proper destruction.

D) Establish Records Change of Control Procedures for Litigation and Audit Holds



Organization of City records will optimize our ability to more effectively locate and deliver information. This includes preparation of information to respond to internal requests for audit and litigation under the authorities of the Offices of the City Auditor and Attorney respectively. The Clerk’s office will collaborate with the City Auditor, City Attorney, City Administrator, and DIT to build citywide procedures for records change of control to provide for more effective processing.

E) Additional policy development on use of Shredders and Shredding Services To ensure proper controls for destruction, the City will need to examine the use of shredders and shredding services as a policy decision. The proposed program will reconstitute records management practices citywide, providing for full scope and regulated activity to bring the City of Oakland in compliance with local and state laws and policy. Ongoing oversight will continue through the Office of the City Clerk’s Records Division to ensure maintenance of records and information management practices are consistent with the following guidelines:

California Public Records Act (Government Code, Section 6250 et seq.) - Public agencies make all their records, with some exceptions, accessible to the public. Access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state; Government Code, Section 12236 - Outlines State Archives which establish guidelines for local government records retention; Government Code Section 34090 – Unless otherwise provided by law, with the approval of the legislative body by resolution and the written consent of the city attorney the head of a city department may destroy any city record, document, instrument, book or paper, under his charge, without making a copy thereof, after the same is no longer required.”; City Charter Section 105 – Requires the transfer of any function from one department to another by this Charter or by any lawful ordinance or administrative authority, also authorizes the corresponding transfer of all records, property, and equipment necessary to such function; ISO 15489 – Provides guidance on the tracking requirements and metadata used for records, their location and use; NARA – Agency recordkeeping requirements including specifics of 36 CFR Chapter 12

Program Implementation Implementation will require additional meetings, sub-tasks and assessments to update or establish required program elements. After activation of the below key elements, the living work



of the program will continue through mandatory periodic updates, with enforcement of program participation by the Office of the City Administrator.

Records Management Program Elements Status Work Period

Regular Conduct of Departmental Records Inventory (NEW) To Be Done January – September 2014

Adoption of a Retention Schedule (To Be Updated) Established October – December 2014

Forms Management (To Be Updated)* Established June 2014 – February 2015

Establishment of a Vital Record Program (NEW) In Development September 2014 – March 2015

Establishment of a Historic Records Program (NEW) To Be Determined December 2014 – July 2015

Management of Electronic Records (NEW) In Development DIT December 2014 – December 2015

Records Conversion (NEW) In Development DIT TBD

Regular Disposition Records (Mass Destruction) To Be Done 2016 (2015)

Staff Procedures to Transfer Records to Offsite Facility Established March 2015

Contract for Offsite Storage Services (RFP) Established January/February 2014 Change of Control Procedures for Audit/Litigation Requests (NEW) In Development TBD

*Policy to Mandate Citywide Participation (NEW) Drafted TBD

*Implementation and Ongoing Staff Training on Records Management (NEW) In Development Each Phase and Annually

Additional Policy Development on Use of Shredders and Shredding Services (NEW) To Be Determined TBD

Program Implementation Phases I - III The Office of the City Clerk will focus on the identified core tasks to engage implementation in 3 phases. Phase I requires the formal assessment of records Citywide to identify what we have and assignment of values to the existing and new records categories. This will initiate the process to engage proper controls for management of city records.

1) Training to City Department (Through each phase, annually thereafter) 2) Conduct of a Citywide Inventory (Annual review thereafter) 3) Commence Development of File Plans 4) Update to the City’s Retention Schedule (No less than every 2 years) 5) Review RFP responses for Offsite Records Storage & Select Vendor 6) DIT Systems Analysis/Review Results of Systems Assessment

Phase II frames the structure for the reconstituted inventory of City records



1) Training to City Departments* 2) Finalize Departmental File Plans (Annual review /update) 3) Establish a database of City Forms (Contingent upon policy direction) 4) Establish Vital Records Program 5) Continue Review of Assessment of Electronic Records Management Systems (by DIT) 6) Destruction of expired records from updated Retention Schedule (Annual review)

Phase III formalizes the key repositories, completes establishment of key required program elements, and engages formal records Disposition as a completion of records lifecycle activity

1) Training to City Departments* 2) Establishment of Historic Records Program (Annual review and update) 3) Continue Review of Assessment of Electronic Records Management Systems (by DIT) 4) Establish Electronic Records Conversion procedures (TBD by DIT) 5) Formal Disposition of records from updated Retention Schedule (Annual review)

Commencing the Work Departments will be required to complete the development of program infrastructure and perform regular updates to facilitate a “living” records management program. Absent departmental cooperation, participation will again detract momentum, and suspend program activities. In discussions with the Office of the City Administrator, citywide participation is recognized as paramount for successful implementation and ongoing program compliance. Complete implementation is anticipated to take 3 years at minimum with citywide participation and dedicated resources and much longer if funding cannot be appropriated and participation becomes erratic. The preliminary implementation attached to this report. Concurrent with program implementation, many key sub-tasks must also occur. Each of the identified tasks will further Program implementation. These tasks are subdivided between categories of no or little fiscal impact. Tasks with no fiscal impact:

1. Each Department, Office, and division appoint Records Coordinator and back up coordinator for all Units;

2. City Departments to coordinate with Records Manager a tour to assess ALL records storage locations on all City properties to review compliance and security;

3. Each Department, Office, and division review reports of offsite records lacking division ownership and assign ownership respectively;

4. Each Department, Office, and division provide Office of the City Clerk funding codes for storage and service costs for last two years as requested by the Controller to reconcile fiscal accountability for department records storage and services

Tasks with minimal fiscal impact:



1. Each Department, Office, and division review offsite storage report of recalled records to locate and return records to offsite storage facility;

2. Department of Information Technology perform a citywide systems inventory; 3. Each Department, Office, and division will utilize recordkeeping documentation to apply

descriptive information to the boxes of offsite records lacking data; remaining unidentified records will require (with vendor assistance) city staff to review and index records at vendor location;

4. Each Department, Office, and division will utilize recordkeeping documentation to assign correct descriptive information to offsite records with duplicated data; remaining unverified records will require (with vendor assistance) city staff to review and index records at vendor location;

5. Records Division launch online annual training tool. PUBLIC OUTREACH/INTEREST Revision of the Records Management policy and establishment of a Records Management program is of great interest to the League of Women Voters, members of the Public Ethics Commission, media groups, and the general public. Access to city records is the right of the citizenry. The Program will establish procedures for effective records management citywide and ensure enforcement of program procedures at the highest authority in the City of Oakland, the Office of the City Administrator. COORDINATION Program implementation will require work with the offices of the City Administrator, City Attorney, City Auditor, City Departments, and Department of Information Technology. COST SUMMARY/IMPLICATIONS Records Management should be seen as a committed practice and organizational philosophy. With exception to electronic records, procurement of systems optimizes operations and the means to effectively manage records, but systems procurement alone should not be seen as a solution. Accordingly, program implementation will have an increased cost burden based on the speed and methodology of how staff will proceed. Ongoing program activities are limited in scope to costs associated with collection, maintenance, storage, disposition, and destruction. The below costs are estimates to engage program implementation. The below estimates do not include costs for efforts within Department of Information Technology to achieve effective electronic records management, establish procedures for records conversion, or the work necessary to establish a Historic Records program. The Office of the City Clerk is exploring additional resources to increase capacity to effectively manage ongoing program activities. AMOUNT OF RECOMMENDATION/COST OF PROJECT:

Records Management Program Elements Cost



Regular Conduct of Departmental Records Inventory (NEW) $0

Adoption of Revised Retention Schedule $0

File Plans (Files Management) (NEW) $0

Forms Management * $ TBD

Establishment of a Vital Record Program (NEW) $0

Establishment of a Historic Records Program (NEW) $ TBD

Management of Electronic Records (NEW) $ TBD

Records Conversion (NEW) $ TBD

1st Time Mass Disposition Records $50,000 1st Time ($10,000 ongoing)

Staff Procedures to Transfer Records to Offsite Facility Established (TBD)

Contract for Offsite Facility (RFP) $85,000 Annually Change of Control Procedures for Audit/Litigation Requests (NEW) $ 0

Policy to Require Citywide Participation (NEW) $ 0

*Ongoing Staff Training on Records Management (NEW) $ TBD

Policy Development on Use of Shredders and Shredding Services (NEW) To Be Determined

1. SOURCE OF FUNDING: Current allocation IP63 – $70,000 Mid-cycle Req: $65,000

2. FISCAL IMPACT: Preliminary Estimate: (1 Time) (Ongoing)

Destruction $50,000 $10,000 Storage $85,000 $85,000 Preliminary Totals $135,000 $95,000 Tasks with undetermined minimal fiscal impact:

1. Each Agency, Department or Unit will review offsite storage report of recalled records provided by Records Division to locate and return records to offsite storage facility;

2. Each Agency, Department or Unit will utilize their individual recordkeeping documentation to identify descriptive information of offsite records. The remaining unidentifiable records will require (with vendor assistance) city staff to review and index records at vendor location;

3. Each Agency, Department or Unit will utilize their individual recordkeeping documentation to assign correct descriptive information of offsite records with duplicate data. The remaining unidentifiable records will require (with vendor assistance) city staff to review and index records at vendor location;

4. Records Division launch online training tool.



POLICY ALIGNMENT The proposed policy focuses on the drafting of procedures for departments and mandatory participation to perform records management duties within each segment governing the records lifecycle. The prepared records program aligns records management activities with best practices and legal requirements for the management of records. which will reduce liability failure to produce records, perform required audits, and respond to litigation SUSTAINABLE OPPORTUNITIES Economic: The records program will reduce liability due to failure to produce records, perform required audits, and respond to litigation. Environmental: There are no environmental issues for this report. Social Equity: Efficiencies with records management promotes transparency and ensures access to information to build discourse on City policy and policy development for all stakeholders.

Respectfully submitted, LaTonda Simmons City Clerk, Office of the City Clerk Prepared by: Deidre Scott/LaTonda Simmons Title City-wide Records Manager/City Clerk Attachments: Attachment A – Secretary of State’s Guide to Local Records Management Programs Attachment B – Program Implementation Schedule

City of Oakland – Office of the City Clerk Comprehensive Citywide Records and Information Management Program

PRELIMINARY IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE & AND SCHEDULE OF KEY TASKS

Timeline subject to change based on dedicated staff and resources.

2013

• Prework for Phase I - Drafting of Records Managment Administrative Instruction

• Prework for Phase I - Drafting of Records Mgmt Comte Administrative Instruction

• Prework for Phase I - Assemble documents for Conduct of Citywide Inventory

• Prework for Phase II - Draft & Release Offsite Storage Facilities RFP

• Prework for all Phases - Draft Implementation Schedule

• Prework for all Phases - Request Department reps for Records Management Committee

• Prework for all Phases - Request Assignment of Department/Division Records Coordinators

2014

• Phase I - Staff Training On Records Implementation Phase I Tasks

• Phase I - Commence Conduct of Citywide Inventory

• Phase I - Commence Departmental Development of File Plans

• Phase I - Review of RFP responses/Select Vendor

• Phase I - Complete Update to the Retention Schedule

• Prework - Phase II - Follow up on the Assessment of City Systems (DIT) and ERM capacity

• Prework - Phase II - Commence preparation of program Instructions for Vital Program

• Prework - Phase II - Request Department Lists of Onsite Records Storage Locations

• Prework - Phase II - Conduct feasibility study of onsite records storage locations

2015

• Phase II - Staff Training On Records Implementation Phase II Tasks

• Phase II - Implement/Establish Database of City Forms (Contingent upon policy direction)*

• Phase II - Continue Review of the Assessment of City Systems and ERM capacity (DIT)

• Phase II - Issue Program Guide for Vital Records Program/Commence Vital Records Collection

• Phase II - Review Destruction Eligibility List/ Complete Mass Destruction of Expired Records

• Prework - Phase III - Engage Collaborators, Draft & Release Historic Records Consultant RFP

• Prework - Phase III - Engage Departments on File Transfers to Onsite/Offsite Storage Facilities

• Prework - Phase III - Commence Drafting of Records Conversion Procedures

2016

• Phase III - Staff Traning on Records Implementation Phase III Tasks

• Phase III - Establishment of Historic Records Program

• Phase III - Finalize Electronic Records Conversion Procedures

• Phase III - Continue Review of the Assessment of City Systems and ERM capacity (DIT)

• Phase III - Formal Disposition of City Records

• At this Phase, the Program begins the cyclical renewal of work as a living program achieving activation of all program elements -> commence new collection, review retention schedule, update schedule and file plans as necessary, review records transfers, engage disposition (including destruction)....

2017 • IT LIVES!!!!!

SECRETARY OF STATE

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

RECORDS MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES

SECRETARY OF STATE DEBRA BOWEN

ARCHIVES DIVISION RECORDS MANAGEMENT

(916) 653-3834

FEBRUARY 2006

LOCAL GOVERNMENT – RECORDS MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES

2

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

RECORDS MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT RECORDS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM………...2-1000

BACKGROUND………………………………………………….…………….2-1010

AUTHORITY…………………………….………………………………………2-1020

DEFINITIONS…………………………………………………………………..2-1030 RECORDS MANAGEMENT…..………………………………………………………..2-2000

PRINCIPLES…………………………………………………………………….2-2010

INVENTORY………………………………..…………………………………..2-2020

APPRAISAL AND SCHEDULING………………..………………………….2-2030

RETENTION SCHEDULES…………………………..……………………….2-2040

DISPOSITION OF RECORDS………………….…………………………….2-2050

SUMMARY……………………………………..……………………………….2-2060

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT………………………………………………….……2-2070 ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS – TYPICAL RETENTION PERIODS…..………ATTCH A

RECORDS MANAGEMENT AND ARCHIVES RESOURCES …………………ATTCH B

CITY RECORDS RETENTION GUIDELINES……………….……………………ATTCH C COUNTY RECORDS RETENTION GUIDELINES………….……………………ATTCH D


3

LOCAL GOVERNMENT RECORDS MANAGEMENT

GUIDELINES California Government Records Management Program 2-1000 Background 2-1010 In 1968 the Legislature passed the California Public Records Act (PRA) (Government Code, Section 6250 et seq.) which is modeled after the federal Freedom of Information Act and details what government information is, and is not, available to the public. In general, all records are open to the public except 28 specific exemption categories listed in PRA, Section 6254. The PRA applies to all records, in whatever form, maintained by either state or local public agencies. In 1978 the Information Practices Act (IPA) (California Civil Code, Section 1798 et seq.) became effective to protect personal privacy rights for individuals. The IPA is modeled after the Federal Privacy Act of 1974 and supercedes portions of the PRA. It does not apply to local public agencies except under voluntary contractual agreements. The State Records Management Act (Government Code, Section 14740-14774) requires the Director of the Department of General Services (DGS) to establish and administer the state’s records management program. The program applies “… to the creation, utilization, maintenance, retention, preservation, and disposal of state records.” DGS administers the program though the State Administrative Manual (SAM), Chapter 1600 and the California Acquisition Manual (CAM). SAM and CAM require every state agency to establish Records Retention Schedules which, when approved, become the legal authority for the agency to dispose of official public records. Retention schedules are the key element in effective records management programs for both government and private industry. State agencies must revise and update their schedules every five years or whenever a change occurs that impacts the keeping or disposing of agency records. The Records Management Act, SAM and CAM do not apply to local public agencies. Since, with the exception of the PRA, legislation and directives establishing the state Records Management Program do not apply to local government, county and/or city government agencies do not have a standardized program of accountability for their treatment of public records. Nor does local government have standard retention periods for various record categories other than certain record types identified in government codes that mandate specific local programs. To alleviate this situation the 1999 legislature added Section 12236 to the Government Code, which states in Section 12236 (a) “The Secretary of State shall establish the Local Government Records


4

Program to be administered by the State Archives to establish guidelines for local government retention and to provide archival support to local agencies in this state.” These guidelines are an initial attempt to provide some standards and structure to the local government records management effort. Other attempts at standardization include the California City Clerks Association’s 1998 list of common local government records and recommended retention periods. The goal of the State Archives in compliance with GC 12236 is to consolidate information resources and provide local government with a single source for archival and records management support and guidance. Authority 2-1020 California Public Records Act (Government Code, Section 6250 et seq.) Government Code, Section 12236 Definitions 2-1030 Active Records – As a measure of activity for records that are referred to at least

once a month per cubic foot of records. Also – As a retention period for a Perpetual Record that remains “active” until some event occurs to change its status, at which time it has fulfilled its function. (See also Perpetual Record)

Administrative Records – Records commonly found in all offices and typically

retained only for short time periods – less than five years. Examples include subject, chronological, budget, and policy files.

Archival Records - Records with enduring value because they reflect significant

historical events, document the history and development of an agency, or provide valuable research data.

Discovery – The pretrial disclosure of pertinent facts or documents by one or both

parties to a civil action or proceeding. Anything requested during discovery must be disclosed if it exists – even non-records and records that should have been destroyed earlier. Discovery effectively freezes selected holdings until released by opposing attorney or the court.

Local Government – Government Code, Section 6252 states: “’Local Agency’

includes a county; city, whether general law or chartered; city and county; school district; municipal corporation; district; political subdivision; or any board, commission or agency thereof; other local public agency; or nonprofit entities that are legislative bodies of a local agency pursuant to subdivisions (c) and (d) of Government Code, Section 54952.”


5

Non-Records - Material not usually included within the definition of records, such as unofficial copies of documents kept only for convenience or reference, working papers, appointment logs, stocks of publications and processed documents, and library or museum material intended solely for reference or exhibition. Also, documents such as rough notes, calculations or drafts assembled or created and used in the preparation or analysis of other documents. (See also Discovery)

Permanent Records – Records that are required in perpetuity, usually identified by

statute or other written guidance. Examples include original birth certificates, death certificates, Spanish land grants, etc.

Perpetual Records – Records retained for an indefinite period of time and then

stored or destroyed after some event takes place. Examples include office personnel files which are kept until a person leaves the office, policy files kept until the policy is changed, contract files kept until the contract terminates, etc.

Program Records - Records that relate to the primary function of the agency in

response to its daily mission. Examples include lien files, recorders files, election files, probate records, medical records, etc.

Public Records - Any information relating to the conduct of the public's business

prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics.

Records - All papers, maps, exhibits, magnetic or paper tapes, photographic films

and prints, punched cards, and other documents produced, received, owned or used by an agency, regardless of physical form or characteristics.

Records Retention Schedule - A list of all records produced or maintained by an

agency and the actions taken with regards to those records. A retention schedule is an agency’s legal authority to receive, create, retain, and dispose of official public records. It assists the agency by documenting which records require office or temporary storage, which records have historic or research value, and which records should be destroyed because they no longer have any administrative, fiscal, or legal value. In the event of litigation, courts accept a retention schedule as establishing an agency’s “normal course of doing business”.

Retention Period – The length of time a record must be retained to fulfill its

administrative, fiscal and/or legal function. Then a record should be disposed of as soon as possible in accordance with an approved Records Retention Schedule.


6

Records Management 2-2000 Principles 2-2010 According to Government Code, Section 14740, California’s Records Management Program is designed to “…apply efficient and economical management methods to the creation, utilization, maintenance, retention, preservation, and disposal of state records”. Effective Records Management ensures that records are kept only as long as they have some administrative, fiscal, or legal value. When records no longer fulfill the value for which they were created, they should be destroyed unless they also have some historic or research significance. If that is the case the records should be preserved by an appropriate historical agency. Staff members should realize that an effective records management program is not only cost effective, it will also make their jobs easier. They should also know that records retained beyond their value “just in case” only extend the agency’s legal liability in the event of adverse litigation. These principles apply to all levels of government. Inventory 2-2020 The first step in records management is a records inventory. Agencies need to know what records they have, where the records are kept, the volume, and how the records are used. This information is essential for developing a Records Retention Schedule to document the agencies normal course of doing business. The Records Inventory Worksheet, state form STD 70, is available to assist agencies in gathering information needed in a records management program. Regardless of the form used, the following information should be obtained during any inventory of agency records: Record Series - A record series is a group of similar records arranged under a single

filing system or kept together as a unit. They deal with a particular subject (budget, personnel, etc.), result from the same activity (arrest reports, property assessments, etc.), or have a special form (blueprints, maps, etc.). The title of each record series should be as accurate as possible, since future references to the records will be by the record series name. Avoid vague titles such as "Corporate Papers", "Official Documents", or "Vital Correspondence”.

Media – Determine the media for each record series such as paper, microfilm, etc.

Also note if the same record exists in several medium.


7

Years covered – Determine the period of years covered by each record series. (Example: 1994-98).

Activity Level - The amount of activity involving a record determines where the

record should be stored. Active records need to be readily available and are generally stored in the office because they are accessed frequently. Inactive records that are still needed but only accessed occasionally should be warehoused in low cost storage.

Volume – Note the volume of each record series by the cubic feet of space they

occupy. This number is a spot count and should represent only those records on hand at the time of inventory. A typical file drawer or archive box contains approximately one cubic foot of actual records. Folders, separators, tab cards, etc. are not considered part of a record.

Appraisal and Scheduling 2-2030 After the inventory, sound records management requires a realistic appraisal of records in relation to their period of usefulness and their value to the agency that owns them. The appraisal will:

Establish reasonable retention periods. Identify records that can be destroyed immediately. Identify records that should be transferred to low cost storage. Identify vital and/or confidential records. Identify records with historic and/or research value. Determine the method of disposition.

Once records are inventoried, determine the immediate and future usefulness of the records. In general, records should be retained only as long as they serve the immediate administrative, legal and/or fiscal purposes for which they were created. When records no longer serve these purposes, they should be disposed of or preserved for archival purposes, whichever is appropriate. Records with administrative value are created to help accomplish the functions for which an agency is responsible and have administrative value only as long as they assist the agency in performing current or future work. Their administrative use is exhausted when the transactions to which they relate are complete and from that point on they lose value rapidly. Records with legal value contain evidence of legally enforceable rights or obligations of the agency. Examples are records that provide the basis for action, such as legal decisions and opinions; fiscal documents representing agreements, such as leases, titles and contracts; and records of action in particular cases, such as claim papers and legal dockets.


8

Fiscal records pertain to the financial transactions of the agency, such as budgets, ledgers, allotments, payrolls and vouchers. After some records have served a basic administrative function, they may still have sufficient fiscal value to justify additional retention to protect the agency against court action and/or audits. Some records will also have enduring value because they reflect significant historical events or document the history and development of an agency. Others contain accumulated data that can be useful for both scientific and genealogical research. At the local level historical societies and/or public libraries may be able to assess this potential value for the agency. The final step in appraising records is determining their retention period. Keeping records, either in offices or storage areas, is very expensive and the actual or potential value of the records must be weighed against the cost. Most managers tend to keep records too long “just in case” and unwittingly extend the agency liability for as long as the records exist. Except for perpetual records, most administrative records should only be kept two or three years and certainly not more than five. Program records (unique and representative of the function of the office) are typically large files and kept for longer periods of time. Attachment A contains recommended retention periods for common administrative records maintained by several state agencies. Questions to ask are how serious would it be if a particular record 5 or 10 years from now were unavailable? What are the chances of it being needed? Are the consequences serious enough to justify keeping a large volume of records for long periods of time at considerable cost? Is the information available anywhere else? What would it cost to reconstruct the record if necessary? Answering these questions will lead to a more realistic approach to the problem of determining how long records should be kept. Establishing retention periods may also involve negotiation with the people who use the records. They should be encouraged to look realistically at their need for the records. Don’t accept the answer that ‘the records are used all the time and therefore must be kept permanently’. “Permanent” retention is very expensive, rarely necessary, and usually must be justified by a specific written requirement such as a statute, legal opinion, government code, etc. The State assumes “permanent” to mean 500 years! Will your records really have any value 500 years from now? Once retention periods have been established for all records, a Records Retention Schedule can be developed. The schedule formalizes the retention and disposition of the agency’s records and establishes the agency’s “normal course of doing business”.


9

Retention Schedules 2-2040 A properly prepared and approved Records Retention Schedule is an agency’s legal authority to do whatever needs to be done with records and documents entrusted to the agency’s care. It certifies the life, care, and disposition of all agency records. If subpoenaed records have been destroyed, agency schedules (AND EVIDENCE OF COMPLIANCE WITH THOSE SCHEDULES) will defend the agency’s actions. However, to prove there was no adverse intent when records were destroyed, schedules must be specific and consistently used. Adverse intent (to keep records out of court) is both a civil and criminal offense. The state uses two forms to create Records Retention Schedules: the Records Retention Schedule Approval Request, STD Form 72 (pdf); and the Records Retention Schedule, STD Form 73 (pdf). The Form 72 contains signature elements from the agency involved, the Records Manager, the approval authority, and an archival review. The Form 73 is the schedule itself and contains an agency description or mission statement plus the listing of all agency records. Both of these forms are for state agencies but could easily be adapted/modified for use by local government. Use of these or similar forms help an agency ensure their schedule contains all the elements necessary to withstand legal scrutiny. The signatures of the program manager (record custodian) and agency Records Manager attest to the completeness and accuracy of the information on the schedule. The approval authority should be the government body having administrative authority over the agency. For local government this authority could be the County Board of Supervisors, County Administration, Mayor’s Office, City Administrator or similar government functions. Archival review at the local level could be from a county or city historical society, historical museum, library, or similar organization. In state government schedules are considered current for five years unless amended sooner due to a significant change in an agency’s record keeping practices. A change of mission, added functions, new programs, etc. would all trigger an amendment to an existing schedule. Regardless of any amendments, a new schedule must be prepared and approved after five years to ensure the schedule accurately and completely reflects the agency’s records holdings and disposition. Renewing schedules more frequently is always an option, and is required in some states. Local government agencies should adopt whatever cycle is most practical within their jurisdiction. Physical location, complexity, and activity levels of records are some of the factors to consider when determining how many schedules are needed to support an agency’s records management program. Small agencies housed in one facility with narrowly focused missions may only need one schedule for the entire agency. Larger, more complex agencies may need many schedules to efficiently and effectively document the varied records maintained by the agency. For example, County Health Services in a large populous county would probably require separate schedules for Children’s Services, Mental Health, Health Promotion, Elder Care Services, etc. On the other


10

hand, a small county Health Services Agency might use a single schedule and list record series in groups under each different agency function. Disposition of Records 2-2050 Once records have fulfilled their administrative, fiscal, or legal function they should be disposed of as soon as possible in accordance with their Records Retention Schedule. A properly completed schedule provides an agency with the legal authority to dispose of records entrusted to its care. Disposition may include sending appropriate records to an archival facility, recycling unneeded records, and/or destroying unneeded confidential records. Remember, in the event of litigation the court will want to know what the agency does in the normal course of doing business. Your Records Retention Schedule spells out the normal course of business for how your agency handles and disposes of its records. In general, most agencies keep records well beyond the record’s administrative, fiscal, or legal value “just in case” the records may be desired for future purposes. That is one of the worst reasons to retain records because excess records over-burden staff, slow response times to public requests, and extend the agency’s legal liability. A court can not demand an agency produce documents that have been destroyed in accordance with accepted and documented (your retention schedule) industry practices. Summary 2-2060 Records Management's primary concern is the efficient, effective and economical management of information. The guiding principle of Records Management is to insure that information is available when and where it is needed, in an organized and efficient manner, and in a well-maintained environment. Records Management is more than retention schedules and the disposition of records; records management also encompasses all the record-keeping requirements that allow an organization to establish and maintain control over information flow and administrative operations. Records Management seeks to control and manage records through the entirety of their life cycle, from their creation to their final disposition. In today’s litigious society Records Management is more important than ever but unfortunately is still overlooked and under-funded at all levels of government. In court an astute attorney can discredit an agency in the eyes of a judge or jury by attacking the way the agency handles its records. The fact that the records may refute or support a particular position is obscured by the attack on how the agency accounts for and handles those records. The agency’s legal position in the litigation may be influenced by how well or how poorly they comply with accepted records management practices. A sound records management program doesn’t cost – it pays. It pays by improving customer service, increasing staff efficiency, allocating scarce resources, and providing


11

a legal foundation for how an agency conducts its daily mission. It helps identify and justify opportunities for new technology. Microfilm, optical disk, optical character recognition, workflow, e-mail, bar code, and other related technologies cannot be adequately evaluated and cost justified without a good records management program. Other benefits of effective records management include:

Space Savings Reduced expenditures for new filing equipment Increased efficiency in information retrieval Compliance with legal, administrative, and fiscal retention requirements Identification and protection of vital records Control over creation of new records Identification of records with research value Identification of records with historical value

Acknowledgement 2-2070 The California State Archives would like to acknowledge the League of California Cities and the City Clerks Association of California for their major contribution to these guidelines. Attachment C represents several years of effort by the League and the Association to provide standard retention periods for record series common to most city jurisdictions. Attachment D – County Records Retention Guidelines has been permanently removed. Please forward comments and/or corrections to these retention periods to the California State Archives. For assistance in developing a Records Management Program or to comment on this web site please contact: Laren Metzer Deputy State Archivist Secretary of State Archives Division 1020 O Street Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 653-3834, Fax (916) 653-7134 [email protected]

CITY OF OAKLAND Public Ethics Commission

Lloyd Farnham, Chair Aspen Baker, Vice-Chair Roberta Ann Johnson Benjamin Kimberley Monique Rivera Eddie Tejeda Jenna Whitman Whitney Barazoto, Executive Director






RE: Access to Public Records Project and Transparency Report

Overview

At its January 7, 2013, meeting, the Public Ethics Commission initiated a review of the City’s

system of providing access to public records, with the goal of improving accessibility of Oakland

public records. The Commission formed the Access to Public Records subcommittee, which met

three times in 2013, including an informational public hearing on Oakland City government

transparency on June 25, 2013, attended by the full Commission. The subcommittee has

completed its Transparency project and submits the attached report, Toward Collaborative

Transparency, for full Commission review and potential approval.

Background

The Commission formed the Access to Public Records subcommittee in January 2013 to make

recommendations for improvement and issued a memorandum in January outlining a framework

for an ideal public records system. City Administrator Deanna Santana was receptive and

responsive to the Commission’s suggested framework. Her administration meanwhile had been

working since early 2012 to partner with Code for America to design an online tool for public

records requests. The City Administrator created a working group of key City staff interested in

improving the system, and began implementing several of the suggestions made by the

Commission. Given the responsiveness of the City Administration to enhance public access to

records, the Subcommittee turned to broader issues of government transparency and set out to

assess Oakland’s openness and identify areas for improvement.

The Subcommittee initiated the Transparency project and planned an informational public

hearing on June 25, 2013, in which the full Commission joined the discussion. The attached

Transparency report is the product of that hearing, as well as subsequent interviews and

discussions with transparency industry leaders, City staff, officials, and the public.

Recommendation

The Access to Public Records subcommittee recommends that the Public Ethics Commission

adopt the attached report, Toward Collaborative Transparency.

TowardTowardToward Collaborative TransparencyCollaborative TransparencyCollaborative Transparency

Public Ethics Commission 1 Frank Ogawa Plaza (City Hall), 11th Floor

Oakland, CA 94612 www.oaklandnet.com/pec

[email protected] (510) 238-3593

City of Oakland


JANUARY 2014

Public Ethics Commission DRAFT Toward Collaborative Transparency

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Oakland is in the midst of an open government transformation. Innovators inside government are teaming up, City leaders are interested in new approaches, new allies are forming, and citizens – as always in Oakland – are engaged. Multiple efforts are synchronizing to improve the City’s openness and engagement with its residents, and to leverage new technology along the way. Meanwhile, experiments in open government across the nation give us meaningful insight into what might be possible here in Oakland. In this report, the Public Ethics Commission reviews the City from a government transparency perspective, captures a snapshot to mark where the City is at this moment in time, and begins to paint a picture of where the City should focus in the next few years and beyond. What the Commission heard most clearly is that moving toward greater transparency requires innovation. With innovation, comes change. And the change desired is for the purpose of performance improvement, based on the needs and goals of the community. A forward-thinking city shares information about its own performance, invites citizens to join in the process, and understands that innovation and change can present significant opportunities. While change may be uncomfortable, it is a prerequisite for improvement. At the same time, the public must engage with the City in a productive dialogue around solutions. As the City begins to share more information and invite the public into the process, we hope that citizens will join in the effort to communicate their needs and express their views in ways that go beyond “three minutes at the microphone” at a public meeting. The goal is collaborative transparency: government opens up and facilitates citizen understanding and participation, and community participants collaborate to bring meaningful change. Toward this end, the Commission lays out 25 recommendations that are intended to guide Oakland in its journey to become more transparent. The recommendations fall into four general categories:

Set the Default to Open

Proactively Disclose Information

Engage Citizens and Policy Makers

Empower City Staff, Leaders, and Community

Oakland is ready for collaborative transparency. With its civic activism, entrepreneurial spirit, smart community leaders, and growing innovative culture, Oakland can build on recent strides in transparency to achieve what the Oakland Sunshine Ordinance and City Charter originally intended – fairness, openness, honesty, and integrity in City government – with a modern twist: meaningful public engagement that feeds performance improvement.

“Transparency

+

Participation

=

Accountability

Effectiveness

Efficiency”

-Open Government Partnership.

Project Launch Video. Sept. 20, 2011.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B

q_ZWl1ZXA0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bq_ZWl1ZXA0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bq_ZWl1ZXA0


2


3

REPORT CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................1

REPORT CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................3

ASSESSMENT: TRANSPARENCY IN TRANSITION ..................................................................................5 OAKLAND WAS ONCE A LEADER IN TRANSPARENCY ............................................................................................ 5 OAKLAND HAS ACHIEVED SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS ............................................................................................. 7 MEASURING TRANSPARENCY ......................................................................................................................... 11 PEC ENGAGEMENT TO ASSESS TRANSPARENCY ................................................................................................ 12 TRANSPARENCY GAPS REMAIN ...................................................................................................................... 13

INNOVATIONS IN TRANSPARENCY .................................................................................................... 15 TRANSPARENCY IS NOT JUST ABOUT ACCESS TO PUBLIC RECORDS ....................................................................... 15 GOVERNMENT AS A PLATFORM ..................................................................................................................... 15 COLLABORATIVE TRANSPARENCY ................................................................................................................... 17 PROACTIVE DISCLOSURE ............................................................................................................................... 17 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ................................................................................................................................. 19 ENHANCING THE ROLE OF CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS .............................................................................. 23 TECHNOLOGY AND OTHER INNOVATIONS TO OPEN UP, ENGAGE, AND BUILD TRUST .............................................. 21 TRANSPARENCY AND TECHNOLOGY FOR PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT ............................................................... 24 HARNESSING INNOVATION ............................................................................................................................ 25 OAKLAND’S OPPORTUNITIES ......................................................................................................................... 26

A TRANSPARENCY ROADMAP FOR OAKLAND.................................................................................... 27 THE PATH FORWARD ................................................................................................................................... 29

APPENDIX 1: BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................. 31 ACCESS TO PUBLIC RECORDS SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE PEC ................................................................................. 31 PUBLIC ETHICS COMMISSION ........................................................................................................................ 31

APPENDIX 2: OPEN DATA POLICY GUIDELINES .................................................................................................... 33


4


5

ASSESSMENT: TRANSPARENCY IN TRANSITION New momentum swept through City Hall in 2012 and 2013 as Oakland City staff and community members initiated new projects designed to open up City government and bridge the gap between government services and community needs and participation. Last year, at the direction of the City Administrator, the City’s then-new Online Engagement Manager spearheaded projects such as the creation of Oakland’s open data platform and the Code for America fellowship program that is leading to the design of a technology tool to facilitate public records requests. Meanwhile, local civic technologists formed OpenOakland, a Code for America Brigade, where volunteer coders and City staff work together to bring City data and information to light, and to life. At the same time, the Public Ethics Commission (PEC) made enhancing government transparency one of its top priorities for 2013 as it is at the core of the PEC’s goal of ensuring fairness, openness, honesty and integrity in City government.

Oakland Was Once a Leader in Transparency Oakland led the nation in municipal transparency policy by adopting a local Sunshine Ordinance in 1997. The City’s Sunshine Ordinance builds upon the rules imposed on municipal governments by the State of California, and adds more openness requirements such as quicker response time for certain public records, the release of more City documents than is required under the California Public Records Act, and stricter meeting notice requirements than the California Ralph M. Brown Act to name a few. Yet in 2010, half of all complaints that came to the Public Ethics Commission were transparency-related, falling within the purview of the Oakland Sunshine Ordinance.1 The PEC held a series of hearings in early 2011, in order to consider public and City staff input on how the City can improve access to its public records. In June 2011, the Commission’s staff prepared a summary of potential recommendations just before the PEC closed down for a year.2 The Commission’s process in 2011 revealed the following problems:

Lack of a City policy on public records requests

No ability for the PEC to issue penalties for violations of the Sunshine Ordinance

Under-staffed mediation services for complaints filed with the PEC

Absence of an effective and current records management policy, program, and training

Lack of affirmative programs and policies to increase access to public information, such as online posting of elected officials’ calendars, campaign statements, Form 700 – Statements of Economic Interests, various agenda materials, and an online “Citizens Guide” for accessing City records

In December 2012, the Oakland CityCamp “unconference,” a collaboration between OpenOakland and the City of Oakland, produced a discussion group that generated questions and suggestions around federal Freedom of Information Act rules and Oakland’s local Sunshine Ordinance language and implementation.3

1 Oakland Public Ethics Commission 2010 Annual Report. Page 10. 2 Table of Proposed Recommendations. Prepared by outgoing Executive Director Dan Purnell. PEC files. June 2011. 3 Notes from the CityCamp discussion regarding the Oakland Sunshine Ordinance were uploaded as photos on OaklandWiki at http://oaklandwiki.org/City_Camp_Oakland for the 2012 CityCamp event.

http://oaklandwiki.org/City_Camp_Oakland


6

In discussions during and following CityCamp, PEC members and citizens discussed the Oakland Sunshine Ordinance in light of modern technology and new trends in public engagement. In general, the discussion centered around the following issues:

No mention of “engage,” “collaborate,” or “public-decision” at all in the Sunshine Ordinance4

Little to no proactive measures requiring online disclosure of information

No reference to specific data that should be made available online, such as budget information

Lack of policies or goals regarding electronic media and reducing the City’s carbon footprint

Outdated and cumbersome technology for responding to public records requests

Records requests are not tracked and shown publicly

Overall, the feedback that PEC staff and Commissioners received as it stepped into 2013 was that the City lacked clear policy around responding to public records requests, the technology used to track and facilitate requests was outdated and cumbersome, City staff needed better guidance and support in responding to requests, and there was little to no proactive disclosure of commonly-requested information. In response to public input, the Commission outlined a framework for an ideal public records system for the City Administrator’s Office in January 2013. This framework acknowledged that access to public records is not just about responding to public records requests. It highlighted that access to public records is a multi-level service for the public that encompasses how the City provides information to the public through both online and traditional means, including the information available on the City’s website, publications that are accessible inside a physical office, the public’s understanding of where to find documents, and staff’s knowledge and capacity to respond to requests. The Commission recommended a framework that took this broad, multi-dimensional approach and suggested the following be put in place:

1. Law – Amendments to the Sunshine Ordinance

2. City Policy/Administrative Instruction – A policy to affirm the Public Records Act and Sunshine Ordinance and articulate roles and procedures, identify department coordinators, and articulate penalties and incentives for compliance.

3. Process for Responding to Requests – A process based on the City Policy, complete with tools for staff such as instructions on how to respond to requests, sample response letters, a master list of public records coordinators for each department, a redaction guideline/checklist, and other helpful tools.

4. System/Database for Tracking Records Requests – Technology to facilitate the process of responding to requests, tracking information about requests, and understanding the volume and types of requests received.

5. Online Availability of Information – Information provided to the public through City websites in general, as well as information about how to make a specific public records request and who to call for help.

4 Alissa Black. California Civic Innovation Project. New America Foundation. “Sunshine May Disinfect but It Does Not Always Lead to Engagement.” February 13, 2013.


7

6. Prototype for Improving Online Information – PEC could serve as an example of how to redesign its website to be more user-friendly and better meet the needs of its customers.

7. Incentive/Reward System – Measures that can be taken by management and/or the PEC to encourage and improve compliance with public records requirements.

8. Ongoing Feedback Mechanism – Solicit feedback on access public records issues – whether related to the availability of online information, a response or lack of response to a request, or changes needed in the law.

The Commission’s framework is based on the assumption that in order to provide effective access to public records, all aspects of the public records system must be in place and working smoothly. The goal: citizens should easily find out where to go for help, City staff should be well-trained on the City’s policy and how to respond, and the policies, process, and tools should align to support quick and efficient response. The framework can be summed up in three categories: paper, people, and process, with technology falling into the latter. Here in Oakland, all three of these areas needed work as of January 2013.

Oakland Has Achieved Significant Progress City leaders and staff have made notable progress in opening up City government here in Oakland in the last few years. In 2012, the City Administrator hired an Online Engagement Manager to spearhead projects to open up City government via online applications, engagement methods, and website improvements. As a result, the following projects have been created:

Website Consolidation and Redesign – the City continues to consolidate multiple web entities into one look and feel, via oaklandnet.com, and to decentralize web content updates so department staff can ensure their own web content is current. In addition, staff sought to standardize collection of content for the website in order to develop feeds and to create more intuitive interfaces that also work well with commonly used search tools like Google and social media tools such as Facebook and Twitter. The website is an ongoing project that may be overhauled in the next few years.

EngageOakland – an online public forum, powered by MindMixer, to engage a broad spectrum of participation around key City issues. A community member can go online to engageoakland.com, log in with an email address or through their Facebook, Google, or LinkedIn account, and provide input on a City issue or question for the City and the public to view and contribute as well. For example, on the issue of mobile food vending, the feedback provided on EngageOakland helped

“In my seventeen years

with the City, never before

have I seen so much

progress in opening up City

government as I have in

the past two years.”

-Karen Boyd, Communications Director,

City Administrator’s Office

http://www.oaklandnet.com/

http://www.engageoakland.com/


8

guide where mobile food vending sites were eventually placed.5 The engagement tool was launched November 1, 2012, and has been utilized for 20 projects since then.

Open Data Platform – sets of data are made public on a central City website for direct, self-serve access by citizens. The City Council passed a resolution supporting an Open Data initiative in April 2012 and requesting information from staff, and, by January 31, 2013, the City launched its Open Data portal at data.oaklandnet.com with 35 datasets. There are now over 100 datasets. The City’s Department of Information Technology has been developing an Application Programming Interface (API) to begin to sync internal databases with the Open Data platform and has completed the first API integration with crime statistics. This means new crime statistics are now reported nightly to the Open Data portal, allowing timely, proactive, public access to crime information.

OaklandAnswers – a question-driven, citizen-focused website with a simple, user-friendly design that provides answers to questions or keywords typed in the search box. Available at answers.oaklandnet.com, the site was created based on the understanding that most internet journeys begin with a “search.” For this reason, the site organizes content from a citizen perspective (e.g. how a citizen might search for government information) rather than from the City’s perspective (e.g. approach a search for government information rather than around the internal structure of government, as the City’s website currently is designed.

RecordTrac – a new web application to help the City manage and track public records requests. RecordTrac was created by Oakland’s 2013 Code for America fellows and is available at records.oaklandnet.com. The new system, used by staff and departments Citywide, allows users to make and track a request for public records and to search through previous records requests and City responses. The system also provides standard responses that immediately refer people to the appropriate entity that provide non-City documents, such as birth and death records which are commonly requested but are not City records.

The City’s partnership with Code for America, a national non-profit that seeks to bring modern technologies into cities and which led to the creation of RecordTrac, deserves special mention given its collaborative approach. With the help of Council Member Libby Schaaf, the City Administrator and Mayor applied for and secured three Code for America fellows who arrived in February 2013 to develop a new public records request application for the City (see RecordTrac, listed above). At that time, the City Administrator formed an internal Public Records System team to provide leadership and coordination to improve access to public records, with representatives from the City Attorney’s Office, City Clerk’s Office, City Administrator’s Office, and the Public Ethics Commission. The Public Records System team drafted an Administrative Instruction (internal staff policy) that was approved by the City Administrator in October 2013. The team helped make the Code for America RecordTrac application relevant and valuable by laying important policy ground and facilitating connections with line staff who offered input and piloted the new technology with the Code for America

5 Nicole Neditch. Online Engagement Manager. City Administrator’s Office. September 30, 2013.

http://www.data.oaklandnet.com/

http://www.answers.oaklandnet.com/

http://www.records.oaklandnet.com/


9

fellows. The Public Records System team continues to meet to address remaining gaps in the City’s system of ensuring public access to City records – from management to training to ongoing implementation and sustainability of the new RecordTrac tool. In addition, new laws and policies adopted by the City Council, and actions taken by the City Administrator and City Clerk’s office, have brought key leadership on specific open government initiatives:

Netfile System for Campaign Finance Data – In March 2013, the Oakland City Council unanimously approved a local law to require electronic reporting of campaign information, making it easier to view and search political payments online.

Conflict of Interest Information – The Oakland City Clerk also made strides to facilitate electronic filing and online accessibility of Form 700 – Statements of Economic Interests, required of roughly 1300 City staff and officials.

City Administrator Communications – The City Administrator has opened up communication about the activities of the Administration by issuing periodic informational memorandums to staff and the community about issues such as new executive staff appointments and operational changes, as well as summarizing events and activities on a weekly basis in the City Administrator’s Weekly Report, which is posted online and distributed to the Mayor, City Council, the public and local media.

Budget Process Transparency and Public Engagement – The City Council adopted and followed a Budget Adoption Transparency and Public Participation Policy (resolution) providing parameters about public noticing and opportunity to engage around City budget proposals.6

Public Engagement Tools in Granicus/Legistar – The City Clerk initiated improvements to the technology system that houses and manages the City’s legislative and agenda management process, Legistar, with the goal of incorporating better engagement tools (including adding Mac-accessible video of meetings and potentially the ability to allow the public to provide input on legislation electronically)

Open Data Policy – On October 15, 2013, the City Council unanimously passed a resolution outlining a City Open Data Policy that requires the City to “make every reasonable effort to ensure that City Data is published in machine readable formats using prevailing open standards for data, documents, maps, and other formats of media for the purpose of making City Data

6 Oakland City Council Resolution 84385. May 21, 2013.

Code for America Founded in 2009 by Jennifer Pahlka, Code for America (CfA) is a non-profit organization designed to partner technology professionals with City government to promote innovation and new technology. CfA envisions a government that works by the people, for the people, in the 21

st Century. The

organization aims to improve the relationships between citizens and government, helping governments restructure to create low-risk settings for innovation, engage citizens to create better services, and support ongoing competition in the government technology marketplace.

Oakland was chosen as one of ten U.S. Cities in 2013 to receive a Code for America fellowship. The City’s fellows, Richa Agarwal, Cris Cristina, and Sheila Dugan, created RecordTrac, the City’s new online application for citizen requests for public records. Code for America. http://www.codeforamerica.org/about/.

http://www.codeforamerica.org/about/


10

available to the greatest number of users and for the greatest number of applications in a manner that is open and accessible to the public” and to be maintained on the Open Data portal.7

The drafting of the Open Data Policy was itself an open and collaborative process, in coordination with the Urban Strategies Council and OpenOakland. “The actual process of creating this open data policy was itself truly open and community oriented,” said Steve Spiker, Research and Technology Director at the Urban Strategies Council in an OaklandLocal piece. “It was inspiring to see how committed the people of Oakland are to making government more transparent, accountable, and collaborative.”8 OpenOakland, formed in 2012, is a group of civic technologists, journalists, City staff, and community members “collaborating to build a better Oakland using open civic web technologies.”9 With its own weekly Tuesday evening meetings inside City Hall, OpenOakland has built a network of projects that help engage and serve the City and community through technology:

Oakland Wiki – a communal website at oaklandwiki.org was installed by OpenOakland and fueled by community contributors to provide information about all things Oakland. Once installed, the website soared, thanks to community contributors who have collaborated with the Oakland Public Library and have added over 4820 pages documenting local history and activity.

Adopt-a-Drain – a map-based web application that allows individuals, small businesses, and community organizations to go online at adoptadrainoakland.com and volunteer to adopt a storm drain and clear the drain when needed during the rainy season. This project launched on October 3, 2013, and is a collaborative effort between OpenOakland, Code for America, and the City’s Public Works Department.

Open Budget Oakland – a budget visualization website that graphically depicts budget allocations and departments in order to help the public understand and engage in a dialogue around City spending and budgeting. The tool, OpenBudetOakland.org, was launched by a group of OpenOakland members in April, 2013, and budget information was updated throughout the adoption process for Oakland’s 2013-2015 City Budget.

Councilmatic – provides an online forum for searching and staying current on policy issues currently pending review by the City Council. This project is in development and has not yet been released for public use.

These steps add up to extraordinary progress for the City in recent years. Clearly, the winds are shifting toward open government in Oakland. The Commission commends the City for its progress and believes

7 Oakland City Council Resolution 84659. October 15, 2013. 8 OaklandLocal. Community Voices. Oakland City Council Approves Open Data Policy. http://oaklandlocal.com/2013/10/oakland-city-council-approves-open-data-policy-community-voices/. 9 OpenOakland. http://openoakland.org/. Accessed November 12, 2013.

“Initiatives accelerate when

City leaders, City staff and

the community work

together.”

-Nicole Neditch, Online Engagement

Manager, City Administrator’s Office

http://www.oaklandwiki.org/

http://www.adoptadrainoakland.com/

http://www.openbudetoakland.org/

http://oaklandlocal.com/2013/10/oakland-city-council-approves-open-data-policy-community-voices/

http://oaklandlocal.com/2013/10/oakland-city-council-approves-open-data-policy-community-voices/

http://openoakland.org/


11

Oakland now has an opportunity to leverage key partners to make the City a leader in 21st century transparency. While the City has made progress, the journey has only just begun. In some cases, admirable policy statements have been adopted, particularly regarding open data, public engagement, and budget transparency; however, operationalizing these norms throughout City government in ways that are sustainable and effective will be the challenge of the next few years. City Administrative staff acknowledges that they would like to see more City staff use the City’s existing new technology features such as EngageOakland and the Open Data platform, and others advocate for better offline outreach as well. Continued success will require proactive attention to integrating tools and new methods into the activities of government staff and leaders; these efforts are essential to ensure that the City’s systems and culture support the open government policies sought by the public and enacted by City leaders.

Measuring Transparency How does a City measure its transparency? This is a difficult task given the numerous ways in which people define transparency and because it depends on myriad factors. Some organizations have attempted to define parameters, such as the documents that cities should make available on their websites, but this does not provide a complete picture of transparency for any city. While many organizations nationally are working to enhance government transparency, no entity has articulated standards for measuring the extent of a City’s transparency. Caroline Bruister, Director of the Partnership for Public Accountability with California Forward, said that a transparent government is one that 1) advertises pending decisions, 2) has an open decision making process, and 3) broadly communicates decisions and publically tracks and reports results. In California, State and local governments struggle with the lack of valid data that prevents policymakers and the public alike from making informed choices, and while innovations abound, adoption rates are slow, and well-documented problems with the legislative and budget processes linger. Bruister outlined three key areas where cities should focus their efforts, and she noted Oakland’s progress in each of these areas:

1. Expand access to reliable data on public spending, planning and outcomes. Bruister highlighted Oakland’s efforts to try to open up budget data for public use via OpenOakland and the Open Budget Oakland project, but acknowledged the challenges with ensuring budget data is accurate and comparable across multiple budget proposals as the budget moves through the City’s legislative process. California Forward supports efforts to make the formatting of the data consistent across proposals so it can be easily compared with other proposals, understood, and visualized by others.

2. Expand disclosure of campaign contributors. Bruister noted that the State of California currently does not yet offer online filing and searchable database of Form 700 – Statements of Economic Interests; however, Oakland has forged ahead by offering online filing and search of Form 700s and campaign statements.

The assumption is “if you

can’t search for it online

and readily get

information, then

government must be

hiding it from people.”

-Caroline Bruister, Director of the

Partnership for Public Accountability,

California Forward


12

3. End closed decision-making procedures. Bruister commended Oakland for recently passing rules to prevent last minute budget amendments, previously posting the Mayor’s calendar online (though not currently being posted), and for passing public participation policy as part of the budget process.

Going forward, Bruister suggested that Oakland consider providing “checkbook” style availability of spending information online. 48 states provide this level of budget transparency; the state of California does not. She added that New York City has a great model for technology that provides this kind of budget data online.10 Bruister added that the state-level discussion in which the California State Legislature came close to nullifying the California Public Records Act for local jurisdictions as part of 2013 budget negotiations could be an opportunity for Oakland to seize by formulating its own public records policies for the 21st century. Oakland’s future policies could be designed to modernize and expand public access and engagement.

PEC Engagement to Assess Transparency The Public Ethics Commission teamed with OpenOakland to host a public hearing at City Hall on June 25, 2013, to engage with City leaders, transparency innovators, and Oakland citizens about City government transparency. The ultimate goal of the hearing – and the Transparency Project in general – was to assess Oakland’s current openness, learn about open government innovations happening elsewhere, and develop a vision for how the City might expand its open government approach. The hearing provided a forum for engaging with experts, City staff and the public, and for experimenting with a few public engagement tools designed to enhance public involvement in the process. The Commission reached out to the Oakland community to ask how Oakland is doing on transparency and what the City could do to improve its openness. Highlights of the input the Commission received through this process include the following:

Through Textizen, a text-message survey tool that enables respondents to text their answers to a question posed to them, the Commission asked participants “How Transparent is Oakland City Government?” 36 Oaklanders texted their input and averaged a B score for Oakland’s transparency. When asked “what does transparency mean to you?” and given a choice between four options: A) I get answers when needed, B) City makes info public, C) My input makes a difference, or D) Other; roughly two-thirds of participants selected B or C. Of those who selected “other,” here are a few comments:

o “Transparency means knowing what government knows.” o “Start with releasing data that is in a machine readable format like xml” o “The ability to generate metrics of performance.”

10 Caroline Bruister. Director of the Partnership for Public Accountability. California Forward. June 25, 2013.

“Oakland is a clear leader

on multiple fronts,

including Open Data,

Public Budgeting and

Campaign Disclosure.”



California Forward


13

Vuact provided live-streaming video and the ability to comment online during the hearing through a reaction button. The resulting “heatmap” shows the level and detail of the comments on the actual video as it replays. From this tool, we heard many comments around the lack of trust in government, as well as a high level of interest in Tim O’Reilly’s mention of LouieStat – Louisville’s system of measuring and improving government performance through data.

EngageOakland, the City’s Mindmixer web tool to provide an online forum for engaging the public, brought in 8 participants and averaged a C grade for the City’s transparency. Participant comments included sentiments that the City is making good progress, and that the problems are not the people but the systems, such as the information put out by boards and commissions, poor engagement, bad website and search engine functionality, and that response to public records requests need work.

Twitter users numbered 36 and provided 290 tweets during the Transparency hearing. Most commonly retweated comments centered around the importance of restoring trust of community for government, being able to access the Mayor’s schedule, and quotes such as “transparency is government’s responsibility,” “pairing slow democracy with fast technology is the future of gov transparency,” “change happens really slowly, then it happens really quickly,” and “Yes! Start with principles for transparency, OpenGov, and public engagement in Oakland. Then hold the city to those standards.”

Transparency Gaps Remain Oakland has made significant strides in opening up City data and information, and City leaders have adopted key policy goals that aim to enhance transparency and public participation. However, gaps remain in the City’s policies, process, and culture that must be addressed in order to accelerate the City’s transparency efforts. The most notable areas for improvement include the following:

IT infrastructure to support innovative efforts to open up data and improve the City’s website

Management and retention of City records, including a clear records management policy, guidance and training

Use of machine-readable documents and searchable data to enhance the public’s ability to search, use and build applications on public information

Management of public records responses as a whole in a manner that ensures accountability with one key manager in the City Administrator’s office to provide effective guidance on this core public service

Availability of staff resources devoted to ensuring proactive disclosure of public information and public engagement in municipal decision making

The ability to quickly develop and deploy new open government technology or services in an efficient manner

Maximum utilization of current and future transparency tools (i.e. EngageOakland, Granicus, etc.)

The Commission calls special attention to the management and retention of City records as a particularly important and fundamental area that needs to be addressed. Records management generally is not a Sunshine-law related issue; however, it becomes a transparency problem when the


14

record is not maintained properly and cannot be found. The City Council passed a resolution in July 2010 requesting that a records management program be put in place within six months. No policy is yet in place, and training and guidance on records management is not occurring. In August, 2013, the City Administrator responded to Commission inquiries and directed the City Clerk’s office to submit a records management program proposal to the Commission. After PEC review, the plan is anticipated to go before the City Council in Spring 2014. Meanwhile, effective training and guidance is not in place, though staff in the City Clerk’s office have prepared some training materials and could implement training elements before the proposal is approved.

Barbara Newcombe, from the League of Women Voters, told the Commission at the June 25, 2013, Transparency hearing that “in 1991, a public records management policy was passed and never codified.” She said that “we need to get that immediately passed by the City Council, the sooner the better, because in September of this year, it will be 22 years since that was originally proposed and supposedly passed.” Newcombe added that individual citizens should be involved in the process to ensure not only that the policy is put in place but also that it is implemented in practice. The Records Management issue, like many of the above areas for improvement, is a foundational element that must be in place to ensure not just effective responses to public records requests, but also to allow real progress toward opening up City government in Oakland.


15

INNOVATIONS IN TRANSPARENCY While the Commission’s transparency work began with a focus on access to public records, the project quickly broadened as the Commission heard more about what was not working inside City government, what citizens want, and what other cities are doing to recreate what it means to be transparent. The City’s openness is not just about access to public records. Instead of focusing only on improving access to City records for the sake of transparency, the better question is… transparency for what? What is transparency and why is it important?

Transparency is Not Just About Access to Public Records Oakland has much to learn and much to do to become an innovative, transparency leader in practice. As the Commission learned from others in the transparency and open government community, opening up City government in Oakland is about opening the doors of City Hall, welcoming citizen “users,” leading dialogue, listening to concerns, and collaborating in decision-making and action. It means transforming the process to allow better communication from the inside out but also from the outside in – through a truly collaborative model that exemplifies a government of the future and designs transparency for public engagement.

Government as a Platform In his book, Open Government, Tim O’Reilly outlines a new approach to government services and information, saying that government is “a convener and an enabler rather than the first mover of civic action.”11 He explains that the “innovations that define each era are frameworks that enabled a whole ecosystem of participation from companies large and small,” and he describes how the personal computer, the World Wide Web, and the Apple iPhone were such platforms, where the framework allowed an explosion of creativity and new applications built on top of the platform.

“Government at its best can also be a platform,” O’Reilly told the Public Ethics Commission at its June 25, 2013, Transparency hearing. By opening the platform, opening data, and measuring what is working, government can learn a lot about what is working, what is not, and how to improve. It also can provide a framework upon which innovations can proliferate. A platform model would offer a standard platform for publishing and consuming data and services, data standards that enable aggregation, customer self-service, multiple interfaces by third parties, interfaces that are “simple, beautiful, and easy to use,”

11 Tim O’Reilly. Open Government: Collaboration, Transparency, and Participation in Practice. O’Reilly Media. 2010.

“Transparency must be

redefined toward a more

active enterprise, beyond

the passive acts of merely

publishing meeting and

budgetary documents.”



California Forward

“Change happens slowly,

and then it happens all at

once.”

-Tim O’Reilly, O’Reilly


16

and the resulting added value from user participation. O’Reilly added that this framework can reduce costs, improve outcomes, go beyond “gotcha” to performance improvement, and support innovation from the outside.

The Cycle of Transparency

In his blog, Introducing the Cycle of Transparency, Jake Brewer, then-staff to the Sunlight Foundation, wrote that government transparency is the “rarest of political phenomena – a great idea with support across the political spectrum and popularity among the public. Yet, here we are in the 21

st century with every tool we would need to

make government more transparent and accountable, and still we are operating with a government that often behaves as it did in the 19

th century.” He went on to say that it is “clear that there is a breakdown between

conceptual support for the idea of government transparency and enacting the changes necessary to make it so” and that “many people want to act, but they rarely know how or where to begin.” Brewer articulated the fundamental question to this chasm well:

“How do we connect all the necessary parties and resources, and how do we put them together and act on them in the right way

to actually make government more open and transparent?” Enter The Cycle of Transparency, shown below, that shows the interplay of actors who must collaborate to create open government. While laws may be a starting place, they need not be. Many open government actions can occur without new laws (such as the “Open Government Directive” by the White House), and sometimes administrative or community actions can lead to later codification of such changes into law. The cycle shows, and Brewer explains, that “each type of actor and action complements the others in the Cycle to make every other element easier, or even possible at all.” For example, if data is more easily accessible, journalists and bloggers can “dig into it, mix it up, identify relevant information and give the data context,” said Brewer. “As that critical context is provided, citizens absorb it and spread the information to others – both online and face-to-face – and make the data actionable.”

“Ultimately,” he concluded, “informed citizen action creates greater public awareness; citizens become more effective, responsible advocates; holding government accountable becomes informed by data rather than… pundits, and better decisions can be made for our democracy.”

Jake Brewer. Sunlight Foundation. Introducing the Cycle of Transparency. March 10, 2010. Blog post at: http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2010/03/10/introducing-the-cycle-of-transparency/.

http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2010/03/10/introducing-the-cycle-of-transparency/


17

Collaborative Transparency Government transparency has evolved. What was once a focus on access to government documents for the sake of allowing the sun to shine on government activities has now shifted toward a circular, user-oriented framework that facilitates engagement and participation in the process of governing. This reflects government transparency trends nationally that seek to provide not just greater access and customer service but also enhanced participation and engagement for what is termed “third generation collaborative transparency.”12 Collaborative transparency requires government opening its doors and sharing information proactively and in a user-friendly way, ensuring accessibility and understandability, and facilitating dialogue around key issues so that decisions are made in a transparent manner based on community needs and insights. It’s not just about opening up for the sake of allowing others to see information, but for the sake of sharing, inviting feedback, assisting with the highest use of the information, all for the purpose of working together, hand in hand, to understand, manage, and make decisions in a collaborative, open way. That is collaborative transparency.

Proactive Disclosure At the beginning of collaborative transparency is proactive disclosure, where, according to Laurenellen McCann, formerly of the Sunlight Foundation, “the default is set to open,” and “the information comes

12 Archon Fung, Mary Graham, David Weil. Full Disclosure – The Perils and Promise of Transparency. Cambridge University Press. 2007.

Collaborative Transparency Archon Fung, Mary Graham, and David Weil co-lead the Transparency Policy Project at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government and wrote about three generations of transparency in their book Full Disclosure: The Perils and Promise of Transparency. They described the three generations of transparency policies as representative of the “historic stages in the evolution of public access to information” as follows:

1. First-generation Right-to-Know provisions – “allow citizens and groups to pry information out of governments that would often rather keep it secret.”

2. Second-generation Targeted Transparency policies – “represent legislators’ efforts to reduce risks and improve services by judging what information people need to make better choices that will in turn improve products and practices.”

3. Third-generation Collaborative Transparency – “will allow citizens to initiate transparency systems and to use deeply textured and varied information that is responsive to their diverse needs.”

Each of these generational policies “has a place in the future of democratic governance,” the authors said. “Working in combination, these three generations of transparency can, when carefully designed, deployed, and maintained, help citizens more successfully navigate the myriad economic, political, and social decisions they face in modern life. At their best, public transparency systems embody a kind of virtual partnership in which the authority of government empowers citizens to act with greater wisdom and confidence in an increasingly complex world.” Archon Fung, Mary Graham, David Weil. Full Disclosure – The Perils and Promise of Transparency. Cambridge University Press. 2007.


18

before the request.” The Sunlight Foundation launched a new initiative in early 2013 to explore how cities and states are opening data and access to information. Sunlight also publishes an online resource for open data followers; the Open Data Policy guidelines can be found on this online living document that aims to help define what data should be public, how to make data public, and how to implement policy.13 At the Commission’s Transparency hearing, McCann shared Sunlight’s perspective on proactive disclosure:

From Sunlight’s perspective, the long term goal of proactive disclosure means that all public information is made available online and is accessible to the public with no restriction and in formats that encourage reuse. This means everything from transportation data and meeting minutes to RFP’s and crime reports to campaign finance and geo-located streets… It will be the execution of these technical formats in an iterative, proactive, and most importantly, public process that will reveal just how revolutionary data disclosure can be. This is the new, new frontier of transparency and open government. Non-artificial, two way communication between public servants and the public about both technical and political issues. Slow democracy paired with fast technology.

For short-term goals, McCann added, we must ask our local stakeholders. McCann outlined three steps to creating and reinforcing government transparency: 1) gather stakeholders, 2) let the community decide what more transparency is needed in the City and what data should be released, and 3) Iterate! Iterate! Iterate! – try, get it wrong, ask for feedback, and try again. Steve Spiker, co-founder and brigade captain of OpenOakland, shared his suggestions for the City’s next steps in opening up and engaging with the public. He said the City needed an open data policy (which passed on October 15, 2013), open government trainings and workshops, broader engagement across the City, more engagement with public data, and a more accessible City Council. Spiker also suggested the City create a budget data template for use by the Mayor and City Council when drafting budget proposals during the City budget process. Spiker added that the City leadership needs to understand the value of technology and do more work to enhance the City’s innovation capacity. Creation of a City technology commission could aid in these efforts and leverage technology expertise by community members who want to help the City innovate.

13 Sunlight Foundation. Open Data Policy Guidelines. http://sunlightfoundation.com/opendataguidelines/.

Proactive disclosure =

“the default is set to open,”

and “the information comes

before the request”

-Laurenellen McCann, Sunlight

Foundation

http://sunlightfoundation.com/opendataguidelines/


19

Public Participation Collaborative transparency also requires an invited and engaged public that understands what government is doing, right now, and can provide input and know that their voice will be heard. How does this relate to transparency? Public participation is about making the process of governing transparent, not just the product of government, such as information or data. Greg Greenway of Greenway Consulting and the Davenport Institute for Public Engagement and Civic Leadership outlined for the Commission the basic premise of public engagement: “people should have a voice in the decisions that affect them.” The benefits of public engagement to the City and the public are numerous, including more credible and legitimate decisions, more durable decisions, fewer missteps, better decisions using community wisdom and creativity, and opportunity for community building and leveraging community talents.

City Technology Commission Steve Spiker and other civic technologists in Oakland have suggested that the City create a Technology Commission to serve as an expert panel to help the City consider, create, and implement technology-related initiatives. Such a commission could inject valuable private technology industry expertise into the rather insulated operations of City government technology departments in a way that allows the City to leverage the tech talent and public-service citizen interest that abounds in Oakland. The City of Petaluma, for example, established a Technology Advisory Commission in 2005 to assist the City in making efficient, economical, and productive use of technology and telecommunications. As a nine-member board staffed by the City’s Information Technology Manager, the Commission has two purposes: 1) to ensure that the citizens of Petaluma benefit from the opportunities that today’s Information and Communication Age technology has to offer, and 2) to promote access to electronic information and community resources for all, while protecting individual privacy and supporting free expression. The Technology Advisory Commission provides expertise to the City in the following areas:

Cable TV Access Broadband deployment Public safety and security New Franchise Agreements Equal access for all citizens New technology deployment Regulatory issues regarding wire and wireless communication systems Evaluation of current Telecommunications and Technology policies and programs

Phil Wolff, an OpenOakland member and technology product manager, said “a Technology Commission could bring attention to our digital divide, keeping focus on fiber initiatives, on moving Oakland up the queue for wireless broadband initiatives..” Wolff has begun outlining a possible framework for such a Commission in Oakland.


20

While the “three minutes at the mic” or “open forum” approach often is required by law and provides some value, it is not public engagement, Greenway said, as he presented what public engagement is and is not, as shown in his slides copied here.14

“If a City wants to make a broader commitment to community engagement and wants to actually have any possibility of involving more than a tiny fraction of your population in the public process, then you have to look beyond the City’s business meetings… and go beyond City Hall to reach out into the community.” It is about shifting control by City staff and leaders from controlling outcomes to instead control the process. Greg Greenway told the Commission that while public engagement work may come at a cost – via staff time, contracting out for support, or technology to assist

with engagement – a city can make progress with little investment, such as adopting a set of principles for public engagement. He outlined a spectrum of engagement that incorporates four levels of increasing levels of public influence: inform, consult, collaborate, and empower. Similarly, the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) outlines five categories of public engagement, with goals and tools described in the table below, as shared by Greg Greenway.15

14 Greg Greenway. Greenway Consulting and the Davenport Institute for Public Engagement and Civic Leadership. Written testimony to the Public Ethics Commission. June 25, 2013. 15 IAP2’s Public Participation Spectrum. As shared by Greg Greenway. Ibid.


21

Public Engagement Through Social Media (Written by Steve Spiker, OpenOakland)

In a recent Governing Magazine piece, The Demise of the Public Hearing, Larry Shooler had this to say of civic engagement in local government: “They are stuck in the check-box era… They develop a policy and put it out for comment but are not willing to incorporate those comments into the policy.” This is the same situation we’re faced with in Oakland, California – our systems are geared for shallow, angry engagement only and are not yielding healthy discussion and deliberation on important matters to our city. From the same piece in Governing comes a gem of insight from a local official: “Wait, this three-minutes-at-a-microphone is enabling the behavior and inviting the kind of participation we’ve been seeking to avoid. That means the people aren’t necessarily the problem. Maybe it’s the process that needs changing.”

In Oakland, our people are not the problem, but our processes sure are, along with our tools, or rather our lack of tools. When the world is beginning to converse and engage rapidly, broadly and across traditional barriers via social media, our cities have to choose to go to where the people are or to bury our heads in the sand and write-off this new trend as a fad. Oakland has definitely seen the results of short periods at a microphone being the only consistent means of engagement and no officials could claim this has led to informed citizenry and constructive debates on any topic in recent years. Our process is broken. Yet there is a chance for us to do it right. It will require the city to adopt new tools, new processes and a new attitude – an attitude that says “our community has ideas, they have smarts, they have valuable insights and we need to tap them.”

Social media and other online engagement tools offer a positive way forward if adopted wisely and enthusiastically. To look for examples of how cities are embracing what social media offers we can look at the city of Honolulu or Philadelphia. We should be looking at social media as a means to empower each of our departments and agencies to raise their voice, connect with their stakeholders and to both tell the community what they are doing as well as to solicit feedback. Social media by nature is a two way system – like civic engagement should be – it is a conversation and that implies two sides listening and two sides corresponding. Mayors recognized for effective use of social media include those in Kansas City and the well renowned Cory Booker. These mayors have realized that tools like Twitter allow them direct access to their communities and are not just listening – they are engaging and responding.

While health departments in Chicago are scanning Twitter for any comments mentioning the words “food + poisoning” and responding to people asking for details of the restaurant they just ate at, other cities are using curated online communities as a way to bubble up great ideas from their residents. Both iMesa in Arizona and Speak Up Austin are powerful examples of how loosely curated approaches can tap the long tail of government and bring to beat the considerable experience and creativity of their communities. Both of these governments do not simply pose canned questions of their residents – they allow residents to set the course of the discussion and to propose bold, new ideas within loosely defined categories. This results in a more genuine discourse rather than tightly controlled interactions. Both have resulted in very active communities and significant new ideas that would have not been possible with the ‘three minutes at a mic’ approach.

Other cities have shown what can be done and how much there is to gain through effective uses of social media and deepened civic engagement. The barriers have been collectively dealt with (archiving is simple, policies are easy to adapt) and the benefits are flowing. As with many modern technologies, Oakland needs to rethink and rebuild its IT infrastructure to effectively support the use of these new tools and processes. Cities such as Philadelphia have strong social media policies we can adapt to make the legal process smoother, but we will need to make this a priority for our IT department to support.

We also need to motivate our leaders and officials to desire genuine public discourse and engagement – to be comfortable with more open government; any effort that does not reflect the public’s desires in final decisions will be seen as a fraud and the closed door processes that result in such decisions are no longer acceptable to an informed citizenry.

Oakland needs a Social Media Policy and a new attitude towards engaging its community.

http://www.governing.com/topics/mgmt/gov-demise-of-public-hearing.html

http://social.honolulu.gov/

https://twitter.com/PhiladelphiaGov

https://twitter.com/MayorSlyJames

https://twitter.com/CoryBooker

http://imesa.mesaaz.gov/forums/97091-imesa-ideas

http://speakupaustin.org/


22

Technology and Other Innovations to Open Up, Engage, and Build Trust Cities across the nation are experimenting with open government innovations through technology, as was evident at the Code for America Summit in San Francisco on October 15-17, 2013, where Cities officials and civic technologists joined to share City government innovations. Open government innovations that enhance transparency and public engagement were at the core of the three-day discussion. As one speaker noted, “trust is tied to a good experience.” If transparency is about trust, and trust requires good service, then enhancing transparency means improving the user-experience – from receiving better information from government to actually improving services and overall government performance. Many tout the benefits of technology to facilitate government transparency, and applications like RecordTrac, EngageOakland, Adopt-a-Drain, the Open Data portal, and Netfile – all mentioned above – are great examples of how technology accelerates government transparency. Oakland has been able to adopt these new technology features, but most of this work has been achieved through the efforts of the City Administrator’s Online Engagement Manager – one position within City government that has been the driver of most things open and innovative. One person cannot sustain the City’s online engagement and innovation. Instead, innovative technology projects – and use of the technology currently in place – should proliferate throughout City Hall and should not just be supported but encouraged, promoted, even made competitive. A technology commission, if created, could also aid in efforts to find new ways of doing City business, just as Open Oakland continues to be a valuable resource for City staff and leaders.

Not all innovations, however, are technological. Esther Goolsby, from District 7, spoke to the Commission at the June 25, 2013, Transparency hearing, expressing the need for better education and

Online, Digital City Checkbook (Written by Adam Stiles)*

In 2010, New York City launched Checkbook NYC, an online portal that gives residents unprecedented access to the city's budget. Not only can New Yorkers explore the revenues, expenditures, contracts, and payroll of their city—budget data is updated every 24 hours. While most cities’ residents are lucky to get a close look at their budget once a year, New Yorkers have a near real-time snapshot of their city’s finances, presented in a simple, visual way, sortable by what matters most to city staff and the general public. Checkbook NYC’s pro-active approach to open data has inspired projects like Open Budget Oakland, a collaboration between community and city staff to make Oakland’s budget more accessible. Until recently, however, Checkbook-level openness for Oakland has seemed out of reach. New York City invested $3 million to build this tool—when would such a sum ever be available in Oakland, for greater transparency, no less? And then New York City did something truly innovative: they gave it away. In July, after three years of improvements and evaluation of the public’s response to greater transparency, the City open-sourced Checkbook, providing an open API and making it free for any city to use and for developers to build apps that increase budget literacy and civic engagement. To speed adoption by other cities, Oracle, CGI, and REI Systems have committed more than $1 million in resources. Oakland has an opportunity to be a leader among cities on this. Let’s work together to make it happen. *Adam Stiles is one of Open Budget’s creators and a member of Oakland’s Budget Advisory Committee. He is co-leading an exploratory group along with City budget and IT staff, and NYC’s comptroller, to see if Checkbook is viable for Oakland. If so, Oakland would be the first city in the U.S. to adopt Checkbook, starting what NYC hopes will be a community of developer cities that will continue to improve the tool for mutual benefit.


23

information about what Oakland City government does. She suggested better marketing to reach “the people who really need Oakland’s help” and to help “see that the City can work for us and we can work for the City.” She articulated the need for the City to provide information to the public in ways that work for citizens, designing outreach and services around the user, and that this is what transparency is about. Greg Greenway articulated the need to connect with people who are not able to come to formal government meetings and who are not online. He suggested utilizing existing community groups as vehicles for engaging additional citizens. Public Ethics Commissioner Roberta Johnson advocated incorporating public libraries into the process of governing, to serve as local hubs for connecting with City government policy making. The Public Ethics Commission could help explore how the City can better engage and build trust with the public.

Enhancing the Role of City Boards and Commissions One way to augment public participation is to leverage and empower existing City government structures such as the City’s current boards and commissions. These bodies vary in size and purpose, and they can be important forums and conduits for exploring new City government policies and innovations. The League of Women Voters in 2010 reviewed Oakland boards and commissions and made recommendations to enhance the value of these important institutions. Boards and commissions can be better utilized as vehicles for outreach/involvement, as indicated by the League’s report.16 The report made several recommendations to better integrate City board and commissions into the process of governing and to augment board and commission effectiveness and role within City government. Among other recommendations, the League suggested assigning City Council members to serve as liaisons to boards or commissions, where the liaison/Council member can be the chair or member of the committee to which the board or commission reports. The liaison/Council member would meet regularly with the board or commission and oversee appointments. In addition, the League recommended requiring each board and commission to adopt formal goals and objectives annually and post them on the City’s website , along with additional information such as the following:

Statement of authority, when created, charge, and to whom it reports Meeting dates and agendas Minutes of past meetings Current year budget Annual report List of members with contact information Staff assigned to the board or commission17

The Commission also heard repeated requests for posting meeting notices on a centralized, online calendar for all boards and commissions so that the public can easily see in one place all of the meetings occurring throughout City government. This approach is currently being discussed under the leadership of the City Clerk as part of an upgrade to the City’s contract with Granicus, the City’s vendor for its system for posting and tracking City Council meetings and legislation. Additional feedback about boards

16 Boards and Commissions in Oakland, Findings and Recommendations from the League of Women Voters of Oakland. May 2010. http://www.lwvoakland.org/files/2010-05-17_B_C_report.pdf. 17 Boards and Commissions in Oakland, Findings and Recommendations from the League of Women Voters of Oakland. May 2010. http://www.lwvoakland.org/files/2010-05-17_B_C_report.pdf.

http://www.lwvoakland.org/files/2010-05-17_B_C_report.pdf

http://www.lwvoakland.org/files/2010-05-17_B_C_report.pdf


24

and commissions revealed that the public would appreciate seeing draft minutes posted soon after the meeting and, at a minimum, vote tallies for each item posted within 24-hours of City Council meetings and possibly other board and commission meetings. If the public is asked to engage, then citizens also should be able to see the outcome in reasonable time, and without having to attend the meeting in order to know what happened.

Transparency and Technology for Performance Improvement Jennifer Pahlka, founder of Code for America (now on leave as Deputy Chief Technology Officer for Government Innovation at the White House), shared with Commission staff how opening up government data, while uncomfortable, can lead to performance improvement. She pointed to Louisville, Kentucky, which instituted a data-driven performance measurement tool called LouieStat to help identify performance measures and collect information to guide improvement and decision making. See below for more information about the tool and process. Key to the success of Louistat, Pahlka said, is how the City supports managers in their efforts to innovate and improve performance. Also helpful is Louisville’s Office of Performance Improvement, a small team of staff who meet with department directors to map out performance measures and determine which data to collect. Along the same lines, other cities like San Francisco have created an Office of Innovation to assist with the creation of new technology to facilitate City government innovations. Such offices are designed to help identify ways to innovate a City government function and make the innovation a reality.

Louisville Data Drives Performance Improvement With the goal of creating excellence in city (Metro) government, Louisville Mayor Greg Fischer created the Office of Performance Improvement in January 2012 to help answer three key questions of his City government: 1) What are the key services Metro Government performs? 2) How well are we performing? 3) How can we perform better? The Office of Performance Improvement instituted LouieStat, an online city data hub that provides metrics tracking and data analysis for individual city government departments, based on specific indicators of performance for each department. Department managers meet with the Mayor and his senior leadership team every six to eight weeks to discuss the performance metrics and make changes to improve service delivery. According to the LouieStat website:

The identification, tracking and analysis of the most important metrics for each department, called Key Performance Indicators or KPIs for short, helps Louisville Metro Government spot areas of weakness, where we are not delivering the best services or results possible, make data-driven decisions regarding where and how to best allocate resources, and evaluate the true impact and effectiveness of the work being done across Metro Government

The Office of Performance Improvement staff facilitate “on-boarding” departments into the data-driving framework. To get a department “on-board,” OPI staff meet with the department’s leadership to understand the department’s mission and services and help the department answer two key questions: 1) What results are we trying to achieve?, and 2) How would we know if we were achieving them? OPI staff then work with the department to establish appropriate benchmarks and key performance indicators, and identifying related best practices in other cities. This results in a report that summarizes data for the previous and current fiscal year, the performance indicator goal, internal and external benchmarks, and overall performance to be presented to the Mayor. Per the LouieStat website “Process” page, the LouieStat forum brings “all of the key decision makers in one room, any questions or potential barriers to success are discussed and removed before time and resources are expended on a potential initiative. Through these recurring Forums, the Mayor and his senior leadership team are able to identify and spread best practices across departments, align Metro priorities, increase departmental accountability, and ultimately connect resources and actions to results.” About LouieStat. Office of Performance Improvement. Louisville Metro Government. LouisvilleKy.gov. http://louiestat.louisvilleky.gov/basic-page/about-louiestat.

http://louiestat.louisvilleky.gov/basic-page/about-louiestat

http://louiestat.louisvilleky.gov/basic-page/about-louiestat


25

Harnessing Innovation How do we, in Oakland, learn from and try out these innovations in government transparency? Karen Thorenson, President and COO of Alliance for Innovation, outlined the top six qualities needed for government to harness innovation:18

1. Leadership – at the top, in the middle, and organization-wide that is unselfish, shares credit and recognition, and looks to the next generation to sustain growth

2. Creativity – to unleash the potential, be unsatisfied with the status quo, look for ideas elsewhere, work on multiple fronts, be open to failure, constantly revise and change, and achieve breakthrough, even if incrementally

3. Internal Collaboration – in non-hierarchical, diverse teams that disrespect the silos of government bureaucracy, where staff are supported and heard, and where all members of the team want to be at the table

4. External Partnerships – a deep level of cross-fertilization of public, private, and non-governmental organizations that know how to disagree but are willing to trust and take risks and that understand the value of new perspectives

5. Community Connections – real connection – not lip service – of deep sustained involvement centered on the public interest, not “me-centric,” and seeking long-term value

6. Results Focus – where the product is useful and serves need, the impact is sustained, and the benefits are clear and counted (“If you count it, it will change.”)

It is no surprise that the Code for America project that created RecordTrac happened to hit all six of these elements. The City showed leadership by applying for the fellowship, securing matching funds, and setting a project goal of the creation of a new tool to facilitate public records requests. Code for America sent three fellows to the City (external partnership), backed by the creativity of the Code for America organization, to listen to community concerns and design a tool around the needs of both the City and the community (community connections). The City Administrator pulled together key City staff (internal collaboration) to help ensure that the policy and procedural pieces came together, and to continue to sustain the new tool when the fellows complete the project. The result: a state of the art technological tool that makes government more transparent and efficient, and that opens and facilitates the public records request process for the public. Innovation at its best. As PEC Commissioner Benjamin Kimberley asked at the October 3, 2013, PEC meeting during which the new RecordTrac tool was presented, “how can we replicate the success of the Code for America innovation?” The City, and the public, should think creatively about how to answer that question. As the Code for America fellows prepared to depart the City at the close of the fellowship in November 2013, they identified the following four key areas where the City should focus their efforts in technological innovation:

18 Karen Thorenson. Smart Government: Top Six Ways to Harness Innovation. Granicus Webinar. March 27, 2013.

“Technology is very simple;

it’s really about culture

change.”

-Tim O’Reilly, O’Reilly Media


26

1. Redesign the City website based on design principles outlined by www.gov.uk/designprinciples.

2. Determine how to implement the City’s Open Data Policy, using LouieStat as a model.

3. Enhance City staff’s comfort with technology (OpenOakland expressed interest in offering skill share workshops with City staff).

4. Nurture a culture of innovation through cross-departmental office hours, other ways to create a space for innovation and knowledge sharing around City.19

Given the success of the Code for America project here in Oakland, and existence of the ongoing OpenOakland Code for America brigade, the City should consider creating its own local fellowship program to provide a space and network of interested community members who could assist with innovative projects within City departments and provide a bridge between City staff and OpenOakland. Projects could be focused around opening up City data, information or process, with the broader goal of enhancing transparency.

Oakland’s Opportunities With all of the momentum and progress to open up government these past few years, and with Oakland’s many unique strengths, the City now has numerous opportunities to enhance transparency in creative and effective ways. Recent progress indicates that current City Administrator Deanna Santana is committed to effective transparency. “Ethical leaders shape organizations,” said Santana. “The focus of ethics and transparency is critical for governing and the public good. Ethics in the workplace are the cornerstone of how we provide service, and I have supported every effort that grows and strengthens our goals.” Going into 2014, the City of Oakland is well-positioned to rethink its approach to transparency to incorporate 21st century technology and thinking around how to create a more collaboratively transparent – and more democratic – government process.

19 Sheila Duggan. Code for America. Presentation to City Leaders on November 13, 2013. City Hall.

http://www.gov.uk/designprinciples


27

A TRANSPARENCY ROADMAP FOR OAKLAND Oakland is in a position to once again lead the nation as an open government innovator. With leadership, effective partnerships, and strategic investments in innovative approaches, the City can adopt new practices that embody the spirit and open process sought by the City Charter and the Sunshine Ordinance in the context of the 21st Century. Given what we know about the evolution of transparency moving from reactive to proactive disclosure and public engagement, the City should strive to find more ways to be collaboratively transparent. Based on results achieved by other cities, collaborative transparency could lead to more effective engagement and trust by the public, as well as better outcomes and enhanced organizational performance for the City. Taken as a whole, the Commission’s suggested changes can be overwhelming: rewrite the Sunshine Ordinance, adopt an online checkbook-style reporting of budget information, invest in information technology, incorporate public engagement and be responsive and engaging back – and those are only a few of the recommendations the Commission outlines below. The goal here is not to impose the list as a “must-do now” approach; rather, the Commission provides an array of options and suggests the City begin to move forward on some of them, and to communicate its desires on others, so we can begin to take concrete steps toward the City’s transparency goals and celebrate the progress along the way. The Commission commends the City for the open government advances achieved in recent years. The City should continue to strive for greater transparency and to enhance performance and trust in the process by incorporating the following recommendations:

Set the Default to Open

1. Revise the Oakland Sunshine Ordinance to reflect 21st century technology and government transparency ideals

a. Prescribe proactive disclosure

b. Outline open data requirements

c. Incorporate public engagement language into the ordinance

d. Address the use of social media, rules for engaging online as a member of a legislative body subject to open meetings laws

e. Reaffirm that state Public Records Act laws would be followed in Oakland in the event that state legislation nullifies local application

2. Implement effective records management and retention practices to ensure that City records are organized, maintained and appropriately retained according to state and federal law so that records can be found when requested

Proactively Disclose Information

3. Redesign the City’s website from the end-user’s perspective, providing open data and proactive disclosure of City information to the fullest extent possible under the law

4. Post City Council votes online within 24 hours after the meeting, providing only the official action taken (e.g. “adopted, with amendments”)


28

5. Consider adopting a “checkbook” style budget transparency application similar to the one in New York City that provides up-to-date information about spending, budget, payroll, revenue, and contracts.

6. Publish a comprehensive list of City records available to the public and where they can be accessed

7. Implement the Open Data Policy adopted by City Council by ensuring that, at least for future records and information, “City Data is published in machine readable formats using prevailing open standards for data, documents, maps, and other formats of media for the purpose of making City Data available to the greatest number of users and for the greatest number of applications in a manner that is open and accessible to the public” and to be available on the Open Data portal.20

8. Where data is housed in a manner that cannot be collected in a readily usable format, consider redesigning the storage or collection of the data in a manner that can be more easily utilized by the public and the City

9. Designate a person in the City Administrator’s office to manage the City’s system of responding to public records requests, ensure responsiveness, set policy and provide staff and public guidance, facilitate posting of data proactively when requests show commonality and high interest, and facilitate the adoption of new technology to proactively disclose more City information.

10. Publish a Citywide organizational chart with names, titles, phone numbers of department heads and managers, and their areas of responsibility.

Engage Citizens and Policy Makers

11. Continue to ask the public: What information and data should City government proactively share and how?

12. Broaden the City’s use of the MindMixer platform (EngageOakland) for community engagement around ideas, projects, and policy questions

13. Incorporate public engagement practices and tools that weave public participation into the legislative process (i.e. Granicus Public Engagement feature)

14. Rethink how to engage citizens who are not online, as well as those who do not come to a public meeting to express their views

15. Redesign the public comment allowed during public meetings to allow comments on meeting items to be provided in writing, in advance and at the meeting, shared publically online, and captured in the record

16. Establish a standard budget template for budget proposals so that after the Mayor and City Administrator propose a budget, Council members can formulate their own counter-proposals using the template and the public can see the data in consistent and comparable frameworks

20 Oakland City Council Resolution 84659. October 15, 2013.


29

Empower City Staff, Leaders, and Community

17. Enhance City staff’s comfort with technology/digital literacy through skill shares and staff development workshops

18. Nurture close interaction between the City’s information technology department, online engagement manager, City departments, and the City’s innovative technology community so that programmatic needs are addressed in the most innovative and effective way

19. Hire a future-oriented Chief Information Officer who will advocate for innovative public-facing tools and user-friendly interfaces for government process and transparency

20. Leverage the expertise of OpenOakland and other open government community groups by identifying, sharing, and inviting participation in potential projects that seek to open up City information, data, process or services

21. Create effective communication and engagement between the City’s boards and commissions, the City Council, and the community

a. Require online posting and electronic distribution of City board and commission meetings, and consider providing a shared, online calendar of Board and Commission meetings on the City’s website

b. Require each board and commission to adopt formal goals and objectives annually through a cooperative process and post the information on the City’s website

c. Deepen connections with City Council members via Councilmember liaisons who can participate in regular meetings with a Commission representative

d. Encourage Commissioners to connect with citizens who are not reached by the City’s online engagement

22. Cultivate a culture of innovation inside City Hall through cross-departmental collaborations and support and space for innovative projects

23. Consider a Transparency Fellowship program to provide technology and project management support inside City departments, working with OpenOakland and Citywide partners

24. Establish performance metrics for each department and use data to evaluate and improve performance and to ensure informed decision making by policy makers

25. Create an Oakland Technology Commission to provide leadership and technological expertise to the City as it pursues and develops innovative technologies to carry out its functions

The Path Forward Transparency, and particularly transparency in Oakland, is one of the most challenging government issues to define, adopt, and practice. This is because government transparency relies on various elements: willing government leaders, supportive technology, appropriate legal framework and guidance (state and local), established city employee capacity and culture, and an informed and engaged public and press. Productive transparency requires City leaders who embrace vulnerably opening up and are strong enough to lead in an open environment. It also demands that the public proactively


30

engage with government as a partner, sharing responsibility towards creative and collaborative problem solving. In sum, transparency needs, and feeds, collaboration. At its most basic level, transparency is about trust. And trust in Oakland City government is heavy with history. We cannot ignore the complexities, history, and deeply entrenched divides that exist between citizens and government. But, we can move forward. The City has achieved impressive gains in recent years. With leadership, smart choices, and community commitment, it can continue to grow the potential of new policies, technological possibilities, and citizen interest to create a truly collaborative, transparent Oakland City government.


31

APPENDIX 1 – Background

Access to Public Records Subcommittee of the PEC The Public Ethics Commission formed the Access to Public Records Subcommittee to review the City’s system of responding to public records requests and make recommendations for improvement. Given the advancements by City staff on the access to public records system following the Commission’s January 2013 recommendations, the subcommittee initiated this Transparency Project to go beyond access to records and to examine how to achieve greater transparency and open government overall. The subcommittee reached out to the Oakland community to ask how Oakland is doing on transparency and what the City could do to improve its openness. The subcommittee also sought input from government transparency innovators around the nation to hear about emerging practices in other locales. The PEC teamed with OpenOakland to host a public hearing at City Hall on June 25, 2013, to engage with City leaders, transparency innovators, and Oakland citizens about City government transparency. The ultimate goal of the hearing – and the Transparency Project in general – was to assess Oakland’s current openness, learn about open government innovations happening elsewhere, and develop a vision for how the City might expand its open government approach. The hearing provided a forum for learning, assessing, and engaging with experts, City staff and the public, and for experimenting with a few public engagement tools designed to enhance public participation in the process.

Public Ethics Commission The Public Ethics Commission (PEC) fosters transparency, promotes open government, and ensures compliance with ethics laws through a comprehensive approach that emphasizes prevention, enforcement, and collaboration. The Commission consists of seven Oakland residents who volunteer their time to participate on the Commission. Three members are appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council, and four members are recruited and selected by the Commission itself. The Commission was created in 1996 with the goal of ensuring "fairness, openness, honesty and integrity" in City government and specifically charged with overseeing compliance with the following laws and policies:

Oakland's Campaign Reform Act (OCRA) Conflict of Interest Code City Council Code of Conduct Sunshine Ordinance Limited Public Financing Act Lobbyist Registration Act Oakland's False Endorsement in Campaign Literature Act

Some of these ordinances grant the Commission specific powers of administration and enforcement. The citizens of Oakland have also entrusted the Commission with the authority to set the salary for Oakland City Council Members and the duty to adjust the salary by the Consumer Price Index annually.


32

The Commission administers compliance programs, educates citizens and City staff on ethics-related issues, and works with City staff to ensure policies are in place and are being followed. The Commission also is authorized to conduct investigations, audits and public hearings, issue subpoenas, and impose fines and penalties to assist with its compliance responsibilities. Beyond prevention and enforcement, the Public Ethics Commission enhances government integrity through collaborative approaches that leverage the efforts of City and community partners working on similar or overlapping initiatives. A collaborative approach recognizes that lasting results in transparency and accountability are achieved not through enforcement alone, but through a comprehensive strategy that aligns all points in the administration of City government – including clear policies and process, effective management and provision of staff resources, technology that facilitates the process, and an understanding of citizen expectations. The Commission meets on the first Monday of every month at 6:30 p.m. in City Hall, and meetings are open to the public and broadcast locally by KTOP, Oakland's cable television station.


33

APPENDIX 2 – Open Data Policy Guidelines

Open Data Policy The Sunlight Foundation created a living document to articulate a broad vision for an open data policy. The policy directives are divided into the following three sections:

What Data Should Be Public

1. Set the default to open

2. Reference and build on existing public accountability and access policies

3. Mandate the release of specific new information

4. Stipulate that provisions apply to contractors or quasigovernmental agencies

5. Appropriately safeguard sensitive information

6. Require exemptions to data release be balancetested in the public interest

7. Require code sharing or publishing open source

How To Make Data Public

8. Mandate open formats for government data

9. Require public information to be posted online

10. Remove restrictions for accessing information

11. Remove restrictions on reuse of information

12. Require publishing metadata or other documentation

13. Mandate the use of unique identifiers

14. Require digitization and distribution of archival materials

15. Create a portal or website devoted to data publication or policy

16. Publish bulk data

17. Create public APIs for accessing information

18. Mandate electronic filing

19. Mandate ongoing data publication and updates

20. Create permanent, lasting access to data

21. Build on the values, goals, and mission of the community and government

How To Implement Policy

22. Create or appoint oversight authority

23. Create binding regulations or guidance for implementation

24. Create new legal rights or other mechanisms

25. Incorporate public perspectives into policy implementation

26. Set appropriately ambitious timelines for implementation

27. Create processes to ensure data quality

28. Create a public, comprehensive list of all information holdings

29. Ensure sufficient funding for implementation

30. Tie contract awards to transparency requirements for new systems

31. Create or explore potential public/private partnerships

32. Mandate future review for potential changes to this policy

Sunlight Foundation. Open Data Policy Guidelines. http://sunlightfoundation.com/opendataguidelines/.

http://sunlightfoundation.com/opendataguidelines/

CITY OF OAKLAND


Lloyd Farnham, Chair

Aspen Baker, Vice-Chair

Roberta Ann Johnson

Benjamin Kimberley

Monique Rivera

Eddie Tejeda

Jenna Whitman







RE: Complaint 13-02

Complaint

On February 8, 2013, Marleen Sacks submitted a request for an investigation and mediation of

her complaint alleging that she requested all of the City Attorney’s office billing records for the

case of Jeff Baker v. City of Oakland and did not receive all of the information that the City had

in its possession. (Attachment 1 – PEC Complaint 13-02).

Factual Summary

On January 13, 2013, Ms. Sacks emailed a public records request to the City Attorney’s Office

requesting all the City’s billing records relating to the Jeff Baker v. City of Oakland (Baker) case.

Arlette Flores, the Open Government Coordinator in the City Attorney’s Office, responded to

Ms. Sacks via email on January 24, 2013 attaching two heavily redacted invoices from the

outside counsel firm assigned to the Baker case, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP. The

invoices provided to Ms. Sacks are identified as follows:

Date of Invoice Invoice Summary Total Due

October 29, 2012 For Professional services

through June 30, 2012

$27,040.00

November 5, 2012 For Professional services

through July 31, 2012

$14,815.10

Ms. Sacks responded to the City Attorney’s office via email on January 24, 2013, contesting that

the records provided to her did not represent all of the bills submitted by Sheppard Mullin

because, as Ms. Sacks stated, “[t]he case was filed in March, 2012. Therefore, there would be

billings for April (I can see from the docket that a General Denial was filed in April), May,

August, September, October, November and December.”

Also in her January 24, 2013, response, Ms. Sacks contested the amount of information that was

redacted in the two records provided.

2

Ms. Flores responded via email on January 28, 2013, providing a spreadsheet attachment

containing the “City Attorney’s in-house staff billing on the Baker matter.” In her email, Ms.

Flores confirmed that “[t]here are no other invoices from Sheppard Mullin and the only payment

that has been made to them is for $5280.”

Ms. Sacks submitted a complaint and request for an investigation and mediation of her complaint

to the Public Ethics Commission on February 8, 2013.

Public Ethics Commission staff notified the City Attorney of the Commission’s receipt of the

complaint on February 13, 2013. The City Attorney’s Chief of Staff, Alex Katz, responded to

Commission staff by phone on February 14, 2013, saying he will follow up on the matter. Mr.

Katz informed Commission staff by email on February 20, 2013, that Ms. Flores sent a revised

response to Ms. Sacks on February 15, 2013, that included an additional, earlier invoice for the

month of September, as well as the previously provided October and November invoices with

less information redacted from the records. According to Mr. Katz, the September 26, 2012

invoice was not provided to Ms. Sacks at the time of her initial records request on January 13,

2013 because it had not been processed at the time of her request. Mr. Katz also acknowledged

to Commission staff that the records initially provided to Ms. Sacks had been redacted

improperly and that they corrected the redaction in records that were more recently provided to

Ms. Sacks.

The revised response that Ms. Flores sent on February 15, 2013, included the following

attachments, with less information redacted than what was redacted from the earlier invoices:




$27,040.00



$14,815.10

City’s Attorney’s in-house staff billing Excel spreadsheet on the

Baker case

September 26, 2012 For Professional services

through April 30, 2012

$5,280.00

Ms. Sacks submitted a second request via email on May 7, 2013, for all legal invoices in the

Baker case, including any that were received since February.

Ms. Flores responded on May 16, 2013, with copies of all of the above documents, in addition to

copies of more invoices that had subsequently been received for a total of the following invoices:


September 26, 2012 For Professional services

through April 30, 2012

$5,280.00


through May 31, 2012

$11,240.00

October 29, 2012 For Professional services $27,040.00

3




$14,815.10

February 28, 2013 For Professional services

through August 31, 2012

$7,200.00

February 28, 2013 For Professional services

through September 30, 2012

$9,752.49

March 6, 2013 For Professional services

through November 30, 2012

$4,760.00

March 6, 2013 For Professional services

through October 31, 2012

$3,400.00

Following the receipt of the above records, Ms. Sacks contested the fact that no records were

provided by the City Attorney’s office for the period of December 2012 through April 2013.

Ms. Barazoto requested evidence from the City Attorney’s office to confirm that all invoices

regarding the Baker case that were in the City’s possession had been provided to Ms. Sacks. On

June 17, 2013, Mr. Katz sent Ms. Barazoto a copy of a spreadsheet given to him by Sheppard

Mullin that included a list of all invoices submitted by the firm on the case through May 10,

2013. Ms. Barazoto confirmed that all invoices described on the list from Sheppard Mullin had

been provided to Ms. Sacks, except for one invoice dated May 10, 2013, which had not yet been

received by the City Attorney’s office at the time of Ms. Sacks’ request.

In response to Commission staff inquiries, Ms. Sacks confirmed that she eventually received all

of the records she requested.

Recommendation

Because all of the requested records have been provided to Ms. Sacks, and because the City

Attorney’s office corrected the redaction error made in the initial response, Commission staff

recommends closure of PEC Complaint 13-02.

CITY OF OAKLAND


Llyod Farnham, Chair

Aspen Baker, Vice Chair

Roberta Ann Johnson

Benjamin Kimberley

Monique Rivera

Eddie Tejeda

Jenna Whitman







RE: Executive Director’s Report

This report shares additional activities of Public Ethics Commission (PEC) staff in December

that are not included on the meeting agenda.

Public Engagement Project

PEC staff has enlisted the help of the UC Berkeley Goldman School of Public Policy to take the

next step needed on public engagement for the City. The Commission’s draft Transparency

report makes several conceptual public engagement recommendations; however, the real work

will be in the details of how to do such engagement and make it a workable practice.

Emily Vaughan, Goldman School of Public Policy graduate student, has been selected to help the

Commission – and the City – define and operationalize proactive public engagement. Ms.

Vaughan is a second-year graduate student who previously worked for Care2.com to help

connect online activists with nonprofits doing work they believed in. That work inspired her to

pursue a graduate degree to better understand policy and systems to help more people engage in

and be heard on key public issues.

The goal of the project is to build out and take action on the public engagement

recommendations in the Commission’s report. The project period will be January-May 2014.

Advice on Gifts

PEC staff advised all City staff and officials via email announcement reminding them of the state

rules and reporting requirements for gifts they receive throughout the year, but particularly

around the holidays.

Consolidation of Board and Commission Online Information

PEC staff participated in a discussion with the City Clerk’s office and the City’s contracted

vendor for Legistar, the City Council’s online legislative management portal, regarding putting

all City board and commission materials into a consolidated portal for better citizen access and

engagement with board and commission work. PEC staff, the City Clerk, and Planning

Commission staff are determining the feasibility and potential costs of implementation.

National Ethics Conference

Commission staff attended the Council of Government Ethics Laws (COGEL) national

conference on December 7 – 11. The conference gave staff an opportunity to compare notes

with other state and local ethics commissions, as well as commissions in Canada, that are doing

similar work. Commission staff participated in sessions discussing campaign finance disclosure,

lobbying regulations, investigation and audit techniques, education tools, and advancements in

electronic filing. In addition, Commission staff facilitated a roundtable discussion on enhancing

transparency and public engagement.

Lobbyist Registration

Commission staff continues to ensure that Lobbyist registration and reporting forms are filed and

information posted on the PEC website. Commission staff processes lobbyist annual registration

forms every January and lobbying activity reports and disclosure schedules every quarter. The

Commission posts every lobbyist form received by the City Clerk’s Office on the Commission’s

Lobbyist Information website in its original form to enhance public disclosure of the lobbying

activities in City Hall. There are currently 56 individuals registered as active lobbyists in the

City of Oakland.

Candidate Education

Commission staff has begun to compile educational materials to create a candidate education

packet and online materials for candidates running for office in City government. Staff provided

information to a few candidates that have requested information about campaign fundraising and

reporting rules, and staff intends to provide a comprehensive packet of information to candidates

that also will include early information about the City’s Limited Public Financing program.