Oakland City Councilmember Lynette Gibson McElhaney's Ethics Case Goes To Arbitrator

OAKLAND, CA — The Oakland Public Ethics Commission has voted unanimously to have an administrative law judge determine if City Councilmember Lynette Gibson McElhaney violated ethical standards when she allegedly used city resources to block a development near her home.

The commission could have fined McElhaney, who was elected in 2012 and represents West Oakland, Adams Point and downtown Oakland, up to $15,000 but at the end of a lengthy hearing on Monday night it ultimately decided to have a neutral arbitrator outside of the city resolve the matter or help reach a settlement.

The commission will meet in a month to review the judge's findings and issue a final decision.

The commission began investigating McElhaney on Feb. 18, 2015, after it was alleged that she had violated several city laws in her attempts to block a townhouse project next to her home at 530 32nd St. in West
Oakland.

A commission staff report alleges that McElhaney sought free professional help from the architectural firm JRDV Urban International to oppose the project, failed to report the assistance as a gift to a public official and took part and expanding the firm's contracts with the city.

Previously, the Alameda County Civil Grand Jury alleged in its 2016 annual report that McElhaney violated government ethics and conflict of interest rules by using her council office's resources to prevent the
townhouse development.

The grand jury said McElhaney was wrong to contact Rachel Flynn, Oakland's director of planning and building, to voice her objections to the project, saying she "privately contacted city senior staff, attempting to
improperly influence decisions, which subverted the public process."

The panel jury concluded that McElhaney, who was the council's president in 2015 and 2016, "had a conflict of interest with the townhouse project and interfered with the project's approval process."

McElhaney said in a statement Monday that she became involved with the development "at the behest of neighbors and constituents who wanted the development to conform to (the) city's requirements for public safety and compliment (sic) the neighborhood's aesthetic." McElhaney said, "One critical issue was whether the design of the project met the city's open space requirements." She said the community felt that its concerns were being ignored so, on their behalf, she asked a local architect to provide expert testimony to the Planning Commission on that technical question."We will continue to work with the commission on an amicable outcome. I have said since the beginning of this process that I was advocating on behalf of my neighbors and constituents to ensure a fair hearing for the neighbors' concerns with the development," McElhaney said.

"I sought the advice of the City Attorney on how to proceed before I began my efforts and I never intended to have my actions implicate ethics laws," she said. She said the commission's vote to refer the matter to an outside arbitrator "moves us toward closure."

McElhaney said, "I want to move forward constructively from today.

I have offered to voluntarily reimburse the architecture firm for its services and stand ready to work with the Public Ethics Commission to develop educational materials to make certain that all city officials and employees are aware of the scope of gift rules."

Public Ethics Commission chief investigator Milad Dalju wrote in a report that the commission issued an administrative subpoena to McElhaney on July 26, 2016, asking her to turn over her records about the development project but she and her attorneys didn't respond until Nov. 23, after a judge had ordered her to produce the records.

Dalju said McElhaney finally agreed to speak to commission investigators in January and settlement discussions began in March but the commission and McElhaney haven't yet been able to reach a settlement.

— Bay City News; Image via Shutterstock