Oakland’s government watchdog is giving a slap on the wrist to a political activist who violated campaign finance law. But authorities appear to be circling a much bigger target: former Mayor Libby Schaaf.
Oakland Public Ethics Commission investigators are proposing to settle a case with Susan Montauk, a civic advocate who oversaw a campaign committee called “The Oakland Fund” that raised over $1.8 million to support 2018’s Measure AA, also called the Oakland Children’s Initiative.
According to the investigators, an elected city official who was running for office that year convinced Montauk and another officer of The Oakland Fund, Eugene Zahas, to use the committee to back Measure AA, but none of them ever disclosed the elected official’s involvement to voters in campaign filings. Public ethics investigators say this arrangement ran afoul of state and city laws requiring candidates to be transparent about their control of ballot measure committees.
“The purpose of declaring whether the committee is controlled by an elected official is so that the public can be informed of which donors might be indirectly benefiting from their donations to that official’s committee, as well as allowing the public to check whether any of those donors are city contractors,” ethics investigators wrote in the proposed settlement with Montauk.
Ethics investigators didn’t identify the elected official in the draft settlement agreement that the Public Ethics Commission will consider approving at its March 13 meeting. The elected official is only referred to as “Candidate A.” Commission staff wrote that they are withholding the person’s name “due to other pending enforcement matters.”
Contacted by The Oaklandside, the ethics commission’s Enforcement Chief Simon Russell declined to say who Candidate A is. However, he confirmed there are two other pending investigations related to Measure AA. Both of the complaints are from members of the public and they led ethics investigators to open cases to examine allegations concerning former Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf and other officials.
According to public records, press coverage of the Measure AA campaign from 2018, complaints filed with the ethics commission, and interviews with people directly involved in the campaign, “Candidate A” was Libby Schaaf.
Schaaf’s role was confirmed by Montauk this week. “I had one conversation with Libby. I don’t really remember the details she went into,” Montauk told The Oaklandside about the conversation she had with Schaaf about using her group’s committee to support Measure AA.
Montauk, who declined to speak at length, said she didn’t know why Schaaf chose not to disclose her direct involvement with The Oakland Fund.
“There were things we probably should have talked to our lawyer about,” Montauk said. “But we thought it was a good proposition and we wanted to help.”
Measure AA raises as much as $30 million each year through a parcel tax, paying for early childhood education and programs to help youth reach college. It was tied up for years in a legal battle that centered on whether or not Oakland was allowed to collect the tax, but last year the city started using the money for education programs.
Schaaf was running for reelection in 2018 and also campaigned for Measure AA. Children’s Initiative materials prominently featured Schaaf’s image and endorsement and Schaaf listed its passage as one of her top achievements when she left office at the beginning of 2023. Schaaf is currently running for California State Treasurer.
Schaaf did not respond to three emails and two phone calls for this story. She has not been accused of any wrongdoing by the Public Ethics Commission.
The city’s investigators noted in the proposed settlement with Montauk that the failure of a candidate running for office in Oakland to reveal they’re controlling a committee accepting contributions to promote a ballot measure could lead to serious campaign finance violations. For example, some city contractors who are negotiating deals with Oakland are barred from making campaign contributions to candidates and committees under their control. This law is intended to prevent corruption or the perception of improper influence in the handing out of contracts.
Measure AA supporters needed a ballot measure committee to support their cause
The Oakland Fund was set up in 2008 as a “general” committee to campaign for a range of ballot measures, according to campaign filings. In 2013, it raised money as part of an effort to extend Oakland’s wildfire prevention tax. The committee’s officers, Montauk and Eugene Zahas kept the committee registered with election authorities, but the proposed settlement notes they didn’t have any intention of using it in the 2018 election.
However, according to ethics investigators, “Candidate A” called Montauk and Zahas that year and convinced them to use the ballot measure committee to support Measure AA. According to the proposed settlement with Montauk, The Oakland Fund would receive contributions and pay Measure AA campaign bills, but Montauk and the other committee members “would not be involved in day to day operations.”
The proposed settlement agreement with Montauk focuses specifically on her failure to disclose Candidate A’s control of the committee. But ethics investigators described potentially related and more serious violations that could result from failing to disclose an elected official’s involvement with a campaign committee.
“Campaign committees–particularly those controlled by elected officials such as Candidate A–can raise a significant amount of money from sources whose business or other interests could benefit from being in a candidate or officia’s good favor, even if that relationship never rises to a formal quid pro quo,” the proposed settlement states.
The investigators wrote that “the violations resulting from various parties’ actions in this case are among the most serious in the Campaign Reform Act,” referencing Oakland’s campaign laws.
However, the commission’s enforcement staff are recommending a light penalty for Montauk: $500. The settlement notes that Montauk was a member of a volunteer board and she had limited involvement or knowledge of the violations that took place.
“Simply put, Montauk was not really a ‘bad actor’ in the events described above,” ethics investigators wrote.
PEC investigators found that Montauk is “willing to cooperate” with them in the resolution of any other enforcement matters that may arise in connection with this case.
“There is also a possibility that other people could ultimately be charged with the same or related violations in connection with this matter,” they wrote in the settlement agreement.
