Public Ethics Commission - Notice of Dismissal and Advisory Letter - Complaint no. 23-13

Sep 15, 2026

A Public Ethics Commission enforcement chief notifies Council President Nikki Fortunato Bas and District 2 staff that complaint no. 23-13 has completed preliminary review and been dismissed without further action. The dismissal is based on no legal duty under the Government Ethics Act to respond to phone calls or emails from a member of the public, while explaining Sunshine Act obligations to provide timely and responsive public information and oral guidance on public records requests. Future requests may require designated agency liaison assistance and possible mediation.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryLetters

FormatPDF

Pages9

Reading Time3 min

AccessFree to download

Notice of Dismissal

Grounds for Dismissal

Sunshine Act Guidance for Future Requests

Mediation and Next Steps

ENFORCEMENT UNIT 1 FRANK H. OGAWA PLAZA, \#104 OAKLAND, CA 94612 (510) 238‐3593 TDD (510) 238‐3254 April 27, 2023 Office of Councilmember Nikki Fortunato Bas Via email: o/b/o Councilmember Bas and staff Re: Public Ethics Commission Complaint no. 23‐13; Notice of Dismissal and Advisory Letter To Council President Fortunato Bas and District 2 staff: On March 22, 2023, the City of Oakland Public Ethics Commission (PEC) received a complaint alleging that your office violated the Government Ethics Act by failing to return phone calls and/or e‐mails from a member of the public. In a previous letter to you, we provided a copy of that complaint. I am writing to inform you that the PEC has completed its preliminary review of the complaint and has dismissed it with no further action. We did this because there is no duty under the Government Ethics Act to respond to phone calls or emails from a member of the public. For more detail, you can consult the dismissal letter that we sent to the complainant, a copy of which is attached here pursuant to our Complaint Procedures. No further action is necessary on your part; this letter is just a courtesy notice. However, please be advised that the City’s Sunshine Act (which is separate from the Government Ethics Act) requires each City agency (including the City Council) to respond to written and oral requests for public information1 on a “timely and responsive” basis.2 “Public information” means “the content of ‘public records’ as defined in the California Public Records Act . . . whether contained in public records or in oral communications.”3 In turn,“public records” contain “information relating to the conduct of the public’s business prepared, owned, used, or retained by any . . . local agency regardless of physical form or 1 OMC § 2.20.200(A) . 2 OMC § 2.20.200(B) . 3 OMC § 2.20.180(C) . characteristics.”4 Agency liaisons have a duty to provide oral public information about agency“operations, plans, policies, and positions.”5 Here, the complainant provided us with copies of the emails that he claimed to have sent to your office and to which he allegedly did not receive any response. Most of them were not seeking information about public business conducted by your office. Rather, they were seeking assistance from, or to influence, you and/or your staff. Neither you nor your staff were under any legal obligation under the Government Ethics or Sunshine Acts to respond to those emails. However, there was one email dated October 26, 2022, in which the complainant asked for the “status” of the Athol/East 18th St. tennis courts encampment. This email appeared to be requesting information about public business conducted by the City of Oakland, and may therefore have been a request for public records or oral public information.6 It is unclear whether your office would actually have the responsive records or information, but the law does not require that public records requests be made to the correct department of the City to receive a response.7 The person designated by your agency to respond to public records requests has an affirmative duty under the Sunshine Act to: 􀁸 facilitate the inspection and copying of public records; 􀁸 provide oral public information about agency or department operations, plans, policies, and positions; 􀁸 provide information on a timely and responsive basis to those members of the public who are not requesting information from a specific person; and/or 􀁸 assist members of the public in identifying those public records they wish to obtain.8 Please keep this advice in mind in the event that your office receives records or information requests from the public in the future. Although I am dismissing Mr. Collins’ complaint against you, I advised him that he may want to pursue mediation of his public records/information request if he so chooses. Mediation of a Sunshine Act (public records) dispute is a separate process from the inves

FAQs

Why was complaint no. 23-13 dismissed with no further action?

The Commission concluded there is no duty under the Government Ethics Act to respond to phone calls or emails from a member of the public.

What obligation does the Sunshine Act impose on city agencies regarding public information?

It requires agencies to respond to written and oral requests for public information on a “timely and responsive” basis, including oral public information and assistance in obtaining public records.

Is mediation available after the dismissal?

Yes. The recipient is advised the complainant may pursue mediation of the public records or information request, which is a separate and voluntary process from the ethics complaint investigation.

Sep 15, 2026

Uploaded by Sophia Brooks