Attachment 2

ATTACHMENT 2

1 KELLIE F. JOHNSON Enforcement Chief 2 CITY OF OAKLAND PUBLIC ETHICS COMMISSION 1 Frank Ogawa Plaza, Rm. 104 3 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 238-4976 4 Petitioner 5 6 BEFORE THE CITY OF OAKLAND 7 PUBLIC ETHICS COMMISSION 8 ) 9 In the Matter of ) Case No.: 14-29 ) 10 SHOTSPOTTER., RALPH CLARK AND ) “NO CONTEST” STIPULATION, ) DECISION AND ORDER 11 JOE HAWKINS, ) ) 12 Respondents. ) ) 13 ) 14

15 STIPULATION 16 Petitioner, the Enforcement Unit of the City of Oakland Public Ethics Commission, and 17 Respondents Shotspotter, Ralph Clark and Joe Hawkins (collectively referred to as 18 Respondents) agree as follows: 19 1. This Stipulation will be submitted for consideration by the City of Oakland Public 20 Ethics Commission (Commission) at its next regularly scheduled meeting; 21 2. This Stipulation resolves all factual and legal issues raised in this matter and represents 22 the final resolution to this matter without the necessity of holding an administrative 23 hearing to determine the liability of Respondents; 24 3. Respondents knowingly and voluntarily waive all procedural rights under the Oakland 25 City Charter, Oakland Municipal Code, and Public Ethics Commission Complaint 26 Procedures, including, but not limited to, the right to personally appear at an 27 administrative hearing held in this matter, to be represented by an attorney at their own 28

1 Stipulation, Decision and Order PEC Case No. 14-29 ATTACHMENT 2

1 expense, to confront all witnesses testifying at the hearing, to subpoena witnesses to 2 testify at the hearing, and to have the matter judicially reviewed; 3 4. This Stipulation is not binding on any other law enforcement agency, and does not 4 preclude the Commission or its staff from referring the matter to, cooperating with, or 5 assisting any other government agency with regard to this matter, or any other matter 6 related to it; 7 5. The Commission provides the attached exhibit (Exhibit) as a true and accurate summary 8 of the facts in this matter. The Exhibit is incorporated by reference into this “No 9 Contest” Stipulation. Respondents, without denying or admitting the specific facts or 10 allegations in the Exhibit, enter this “No Contest,” Stipulation and acknowledge that the 11 Commission likely has sufficient evidence to find each Respondent in violation of the 12 Failure to Register as a Lobbyist, Unregistered Lobbyist Activity, Failure to File 13 Lobbyist Reports, and Contractor Contribution Blackout Period sections as follows: 14 a. Section 3.12.120(A) of the Lobbyist Registration Act in 2014 and 2015 by directly 15 communicating with Oakland City Councilmember Rebecca Kaplan and other 16 Oakland City Council members on behalf of ShotSpotter for the purpose of influencing pending or proposed governmental action on the renewal contract and 17 expanded coverage for ShotSpotter without registering as a Lobbyist with the City. b. Section 3.20.040 by engaging in Unregistered Lobbyist Activity by actively engaging 18 with City Officials in an attempt to renew and expand a service contract with the City. 19 c. Section 3.12.140 of the Oakland Campaign reform Act by making a contribution(s), totaling $200, to a committee controlled by City of Oakland elected official or 20 candidates for City of Oakland office during or within 180 days of negotiating a 21 contract with the City of Oakland that required the Oakland City Council’s approval; and 22 d. Section O.M.C. 3.20.110 of the Lobbyist Registration Act in 2014 and 2015 by failing to timely file quarterly lobbyist reports. 23 6. The Commission will impose upon Respondents a total administrative fine in the 24 amount of $5,000 with joint and severable liability; 25 7. A cashier’s check from Respondents, in said amount, made payable to the “City of 26 Oakland,” is submitted with this Stipulation as full payment of the administrative 27 28

2 Stipulation, Decision and Order PEC Case No. 14-29 ATTACHMENT 2

1 penalty, to be held by the Commission until the Commission issues its decision and 2 order regarding this matter; 3 8. In the event the Commission refuses to accept this Stipulation, it shall become null and 4 void, and within fifteen business days after the Commission meeting at which the 5 Stipulation is rejected, all payments tendered by Respondents in connection with this 6 Stipulation will be reimbursed to them; and 7 8 9. In the event the Commission rejects the Stipulation and a full evidentiary hearing before 9 the Commission becomes necessary, neither any member of the Commission, nor the 10 Executive Director, shall be disqualified because of prior consideration of this 11 Stipulation. 12 13 14 15 Dated:______Kellie F. Johnson, Enforcement Chief, 16 City of Oakland Public Ethics Commission, Petitioner 17

20 Dated:______Ralph Clark, individually and on behalf of 21 ShotSpotter Respondent 22

23 Dated:______24 Joe Hawkins, individually and on behalf of 25 ShotSpotter Respondent 26 27 28

3 Stipulation, Decision and Order PEC Case No. 14-29 ATTACHMENT 2

DECISION AND ORDER 1 The foregoing “No Contest” Stipulation of the parties “In the Matter of ShotSpotter, Ralph 2 Clark, and Joe Hawkins,” PEC Case No. 14-29, including all attached exhibits, is hereby 3 accepted as the final Decision and Order of the City of Oakland Public Ethics Commission, 4 effective upon execution below by the Chair. 5

8 Dated:______9 Jodie Smith, Chair 10 City of Oakland Public Ethics Commission 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

4 Stipulation, Decision and Order PEC Case No. 14-29 ATTACHMENT 2 INTRODUCTION

In January of 2015, Enforcement initiated a pro-active investigation prompted by public reports that ShotSpotter, Inc. (“SST”) executives Ralph Clark and Joe Hawkins were lobbying City officials on behalf of SST without registering as lobbyists, and also made contributions to a candidate-controlled ballot measure committee in violation of the contractor contribution ban.

In June 2019, Enforcement completed its review and found probable cause that Respondents Ralph Clark and Joe Hawkins with SST, a contract services provider with the City, failed to register as lobbyists or file lobbyists quarterly reports in violation of the Oakland Lobbyist Registration Act (“LRA”) and violated the Oakland Campaign Reform Act (“ORCA”) by making contributions to a City Councilmember’s candidate- controlled ballot measure campaign during the contribution blackout period for City contractors.

I. SUMMARY OF LAW

The Oakland Lobbyist Registration Act prohibits any person from acting as a local governmental lobbyist before registering as such with the Public Ethics Commission.1 The LRA states that all local governmental lobbyists must register annually during the month of January.2

The LRA defines “local governmental lobbyist” as any individual whose duties as a salaried employee, officer, or director, of any corporation, organization or association, include communication directly or through agents with any public official, officer, or designated employee, for the purpose of influencing any proposed or ending governmental action of the City.3 In case of any ambiguity, the definition of “local governmental lobbyist” shall be interpreted broadly.4

“Governmental Action” means any administrative or legislative action of the City other than an action which is ministerial in nature.5 “Public Official” includes an elected or appointed officer or district, or any public corporation, agency or commission.6

For each calendar quarter in which a local governmental lobbyist was required to be registered, he or she shall file a quarterly report with the Public Ethics Commission. The reports shall be due no later than thirty (30) days after the end of the calendar quarter.7

A local governmental lobbyist shall not engage in any activity on behalf of a client as a local governmental lobbyist unless such local governmental lobbyist is registered and has listed such client with the Public Ethics Commission.8

In some narrow circumstances, a person does not qualify as a local government lobbyist by: 1) submitting a bid on a competitive bid contract, 2) responding to the request for proposal or qualifications, or 3) negotiating the terms of a written contract once selected pursuant to a bid or request for proposal or qualifications. However, this exception does not apply if the person communicates with an elected official or member of any City board or commission, in which case the person does qualify as a local government lobbyist.9

1 Oakland Municipal Code (LRA) (O.M.C.) § 3.20.040 2 Id. 3 OMC § 3.20.030(D) 4 Id. 5 OMC § 3.20.030(E) 6 OMC § 3.20.030(H) 7 OMC §3.20.110 8 OMC § 3.20.120(A) 9 OMC § 3.20.060(G) 1

ATTACHMENT 2 Under the 2014 Oakland Campaign Reform Act, no person who contracts or proposes to contract with or who amends or proposes to amend such a contract with the City for the rendition of services, for the furnishing of any material, supplies, commodities or equipment to the City, for selling or leasing any land or building to the City, or for purchasing or leasing any land or building from the City, whenever the value of such transaction would require approval by the City Council shall make any contribution to the Mayor, a candidate for Mayor, a City Councilmember, a candidate for City Council, a candidate for City Attorney, the City Auditor, a candidate for City Auditor, or committee controlled by such elected City Official or candidate at any time between commencement of negotiations and one hundred eighty (180) days after the completion of the termination of negotiations for such contract.10

Pursuant to the 2014 Oakland Campaign Reform Act O.M.C. 3.12.420 a person is defined as, an individual, proprietorship, joint venture, syndicate, business, trust, company, corporation, association, committee, and any other organization or group of persons acting in concert.

LRA Section 3.20.200 (A) provides that any person who violates this Act is subject to administrative proceedings before the Public Ethics Commission pursuant to the Public Ethics Commission’s Complaint Procedures. Pursuant to LRA Section 3.20.200 (B), If the Public Ethics Commission finds a violation of this Act, the Public Ethics Commission may (1) find mitigating circumstances and take no further action; (2) issue a public statement or reprimand, or (3) impose an administrative penalty of up to one thousand dollars ($1,000) for each violation.

OCRA provides that any person who violates any provision of this Act shall be liable in a civil action for an amount up to five thousand dollars ($2,000) per violation, or up to three times the amount the person failed to report properly or unlawfully contributed expended, gave or received, whichever is greater.

II. SUMMARY OF FACTS

Failure to Register or File Quarterly Lobbyist Reports

Starting in 2006, the Oakland City Council authorized the purchase of SST services and products that covered 49% of the City. As time passed, maintenance fees were not paid, and the system was in serious disrepair and lost functionality. Between 2009-2011, the City was not in contract with SST and did not pay SST any fees. In July 2011, however, discussions were initiated with respect to repairing the system and upgrading current equipment. In September 2012, the Oakland City Council approved a no-bid contract with SST for the period of September 2012 through August 2013 in the amount of $348,000. The contract expanded the existing service coverage and included two one-year options to extend the agreement; multiple news articles imply that both options were exercised.11 On March 13, 2014, the San Francisco Chronicle published an article stating that Oakland might not enter into another contract with SST because the Police Department believed SST was expensive and redundant in light of citizen reports of gunshots to police. The article included a quote from interim Police Chief Sean Whent stating that SST was “not a priority.” Eight days earlier, on March 5, 2014, senior SST staff had the following conversation in an internal e-mail thread titled “Oakland moving away fast”. The participants are Respondent Ralph Clark (SST CEO), Respondent Joe Hawkins (SST Vice Presidents of Operations) and Lydia Barrett (SST Vice President for Account Management & Communications).

10 OMC § 3.12.140 (A) 11 The 2012 City Council resolution pertaining to this contract delegates the authority to extend the contract to the City Administrator. Multiple news outlets reported that the ShotSpotter contract expired in August of 2014, implying that the City Administrator did exercise the 2013 and 2014 options. 2

ATTACHMENT 2 Ralph Clark: David, can you have Doris update an Oakland analysis report for me that we can use with city council? Joe, can you have someone from the IRC pull the top 15 most interesting Marconi reports?12 Going to have to get on this ASAP.

Lydia Barrett: I'll also help pull reports and info on this. We've been getting some level of successful use with it, i.e. alerts to homicides, arrests, etc. Let's coordinate to have a full packet of background info for them.

I am totally confused with [Oakland City Councilmember] Desley Brooks' position on this now...if I read the Twitter world comments. Have we had a 1-1 conversation with her to see her current position, and what/how we can get her support?

Ralph Clark: We have Desley's support. We have to be careful how she uses it. She is ready to have her community folks march on city hall but we are not at that point just yet. Lydia-can you see if we can get a scheduled presentation with the public safety committee? I think approaching city council at large Rebecca Kaplan is the right approach. Unfortunately we are getting caught up and conflated in this domain awareness mess.13

Joe Hawkins: Do you perceive [Oakland City Councilmember] Libby Schaaf to be an adversary? My sense is she is very tough pro-law enforcement and a supporter, even if she represents a “safer” district. She does have Fruitvale I think. I can try to reach out to her as well unless you feel that is the wrong move.

That same day, SST scheduled an internal meeting using Microsoft Outlook, with the name “Oakland strategy meeting.” Hawkins and Barrett were in attendance.

Between March 5-10, 2014, Barrett, Hawkins and other SST employees put together technical data on SST alerts for a presentation to City officials. Barrett sent a list of “good Marconi Alerts” and stated: “I am continuing to try and gather as many successful outcomes examples as I can find and will add those.” Barrett further said: I did do a simple incident volume analysis on slides 10 and 11 which showed a slight reduction in overall gunfire incident volume from 2012-to 2013, but on the monthly breakdown didn’t necessarily show an advantage for us… I think the more high-level positive, outcomes-focused highlights we can have here the better. Those will speak to usage to make positive results as opposed to just focusing on volume of gunfire in Oakland…. I’ve reached out to Rebecca Kaplan to get us on the PS Committee schedule but haven’t got a confirmation yet. On March 13, 2014, Hawkins sent an e-mail City Councilmember Dan Kalb and stated that the primary purpose of his email was to invite Kalb to sit down with “Ralph Clark, SST’s CEO (and fellow Oakland resident) and me for a short, informal meeting where we can discuss all things ShotSpotter.” That same day, Hawkins sent an e-mail to Councilmember Schaaf stating again that the primary purpose of the email was to invite Schaaf to sit down with “Ralph Clark, SST’s CEO (and fellow Oakland resident) and me for a short, informal meeting where we can discuss all things ShotSpotter.” On March 15, 2014, in response to the Chronicle article with the statement by Police Chief Whent that ShotSpotter was not a priority, Clark sent an internal email to other senior SST staff and stated:

12 “Marconi reports” are generally after-action reports produced after SST gunshot alerts. 13 This is a likely reference to a then-current controversy in the Oakland City Council surrounding allegations by privacy advocates that SST technology could be used for general surveillance, which SST denied. 3

ATTACHMENT 2 Even with the Chief's public reversal I still think we should put out a statement and facilitate an OpEd by Desley… We also have a number of city council mtgs this Tuesday. I would like to have Joe (Oak resident) and [James Beldock, SST Vice President of Products &Engineering14] accompany me… Lastly, we should continue to monitor the press especially social to ensure things to get too out of whack. [sic] I am not worried about the whackos but selected responses where appropriate to keep the pH balance makes sense. In an internal “Operations Hot List” dated March 17, 2014, under a section titled “Live Customers – Priority Care”, SST stated in regard to Oakland that the company is “[s]upporting City Council engagement to overcome threat of non-renewal.” The same day, Hawkins asked Barrett if she could “cherry pick a handful of slides for our meetings with Oakland city council people tomorrow.” On March 18, 2014, Jason Overman (Communications Director for Councilmember Rebecca Kaplan) e- mailed Clark to thank him for “our conversation about ShotSpotter…. last week in my office.” Overman added, “Council President Pro Tem Kaplan would really appreciate the opportunity to sit down with you and discuss the service you all have provided to the city.” Clark forwarded the message to Hawkins and Beldock to see if they were interested in coming; they settled on meeting with Overman on March 20, 2014. Hawkins rescheduled a meeting with a “senior level [SST job] candidate” to attend the meeting with Kaplan. On March 20, 2014, Kaplan and Overman met with Clark, Hawkins, and Beldock at Kaplan’s City Hall office. Subsequently, Hawkins also met with Councilmembers Gallo and Schaaf around the same time of this meeting with Kaplan. On March 24, 2014, Councilmembers Kaplan and Larry Reid sent a letter to Oakland Mayor Jean Quan. It expressed Kaplan’s and Reid’s support for the City’s continued and expanded use of SST technology. The authors “urge[d]” Quan to “submit to the City Council a budget that reflects that.” On March 25, 2014, Barrett sent an e-mail to SST “Executive Staff” containing a link to a news article describing Kaplan and Reid’s letter to Quan. Gregg Rowland (of SST) and Hawkins then had the following e-mail exchange: Gregg Rowland: Nice work Joe Joe Hawkins: Thanks. Team effort though. Ralph and James really sold it, and James did all the data work which Kaplan jumped all over :) In another email, Clark added, “Yes let's go!! These guys are hot and we don't want to lose any momentum. Kaplan and Reid just sent a letter to Kwan [sic] not only supporting renewal but they want to expand!” On March 27, 2014, Hawkins e-mailed Kaplan and thanked her for “the time and energy you have spent with us over the past couple weeks and, in fact, for the past several years supporting the ShotSpotter program in Oakland.” He also sent her information in response to her question during their March 20, 2014 meeting about “what it would take to expand ShotSpotter into downtown Oakland as well as the Maxwell Park and Cleveland Heights neighborhoods. Our proposal for the expansion is attached.” Attached was a “budgetary price proposal for the expansion of your ShotSpotter Flex Gunfire Location, Alert and Analysis Service.” A cover letter also read, Enclosed is our pricing, which we have discounted for Oakland, along with the scope of work and terms. As you will see, the new coverage area is about double the size we estimated "on the fly" in your office, but we have managed to keep the price from growing accordingly. We greatly appreciate your strong advocacy for the ShotSpotter program

14 Beldock’s Linkedin profile states that his duties as Vice President of Products & Engineering included “Product Marketing.” 4

ATTACHMENT 2 On April 1, 2014, Barrett sent the SST Executive and Marketing teams a link to a video interview that she described as “an awesome reference addressing many of the objections that we typically face when selling into agencies and cities.” (The subject line of her e-mail is “Excellent Video for Prospects or Customers Needing an Extra Push”). Clark replied, “Joe-can we get this team [sic] Kaplan and Gallo in Oakland?” Hawkins replied, “I will also send to Kaplan, Gallo and Schaaf with a personal note. Before the mayoral debate!” The next day (April 2, 2014), Hawkins e-mailed Kaplan and Gallo and says: “Thought you might find this just released interview with Milwaukee PD Chief Flynn of interest. Milwaukee is a terrific customer and this is about the best articulated vision I’ve heard of how ShotSpotter can make a difference and is certainly doing so in the city of Milwaukee. This can be Oakland, too.” On April 24, 2014, Overman called and left Hawkins a voicemail. Overman stated that the Public Safety Committee was going to be hearing from OPD on May 13, about ShotSpotter, and advised Hawkins that ShotSpotter should send a rep and “play a little defense.” Overman further stated “even if [ShotSpotter] hasn’t been invited or whatever, you may want to come” to the Public Safety Committee meeting. On April 29, 2014, the East Bay Express published an article alleging that SST was engaged in unregistered lobbying activity. On July 1, 2014, the City Council appropriated $494,600 for SST products and services ($146,600 for geographic expansion and $348,000 for ongoing expenses). On November 5, 2014, the City Council approved a no-bid contract totaling $356,025.00 to extend SST’s coverage area and extend the term of their contract with the City through April 2015, with the option to renew for two additional one-year terms. At no time during the multiple contacts with City Councilmembers between March and November 2014 did Joe Hawkins, Ralph Clark or anyone on behalf of SST register with or file a quarterly lobbyist report with the Public Ethics Commission reporting a client or lobbyist employer by the name of “ShotSpotter.” No one on behalf of ShotSpotter had registered with the City of Oakland since 2012. Violation of the Contractor Contribution Ban

The SST submitted a proposed contractor bid on March 20, 2014 and commenced negotiations to continue to provide gunshot-detection technology to the Oakland Police Department.

On April 24, 2014, the same day that Overman advised the ShotSpotter team to come to the Public Safety Committee meeting, Overman sent Hawkins a fundraising email for Kaplan’s candidate-controlled ballot measure campaign; Hawkins said he would contribute, then forwarded the email to other SST executives and said, “Ugh. Sharing the love in case any of you feel so inclined. ;-p”

On that same day, April 24, 2014, Hawkins contributed $100 to Kaplan’s candidate-controlled ballot measure committee, “Coalition for Safe Streets and Local Jobs.” Four days later (April 28, 2014), Clark contributed $100 to the same committee. At all relevant times between April 24, 2014 and April 28, 2014, the contractor 180-day blackout period extended from the date of the proposal until the completion of negotiations, in August 2014.

ATTACHMENT 2 Name of Candidate Controlled Committee Date Rec’d Contributor Amount

“Coalition for Safe streets and Local Jobs” April 24, 2014 Joe Hawkins $100 Councilmember Kaplan’s Committee “Coalition for Safe streets and Local Jobs” April 28, 2014 Ralph Clark $100 Councilmember Kaplan’s Committee

III. VIOLATIONS Based on the aforementioned evidence, there is probable cause that the Respondents committed the following violations of the Oakland Lobbyist Registration Act and the Oakland Campaign Reform Act. I. Respondent Ralph Clark, Chief Executive Officer, ShotSpotter, Inc. Count 1: Unregistered Lobbying Activity in 2014 Respondent Ralph Clark, at all relevant times of the alleged conduct, was the Chief Executive Officer of ShotSpotter, Inc. between March 2014 through December 2014 when he directly communicated with Oakland City Councilmember Rebecca Kaplan and directed his agents to communicate with both Kaplan and Noel Gallo on behalf of ShotSpotter for the purpose of influencing pending or proposed governmental action on the renewal contract and expanded coverage for ShotSpotter Inc. in violation of O.M.C. section 3.20.120(A) of the Lobbyist Registration Act. Count 2: Failure to Register as a Lobbyist and file a Lobbyist Registration form for 2014 Respondent Ralph Clark violated O.M.C. section 3.20.040 by failing to file with the City a lobbyist registration form before engaging in lobbying activity. Count 3: Failure to Timely File Quarterly Lobbyist Reports for Quarter 1, 2014 Respondent Ralph Clark violated O.M.C. section 3.20.110 of the Lobbyist Registration Act by failing to timely file with the City a quarterly lobbying report for the January 1 through March 31, 2014, reporting period by April 30, 2014. Clark failed to report his communications with Rebecca Kaplan and Noel Gallo in March 2014. Count 4: Failure to Timely File Quarterly Lobbyist Reports for Quarter 2, 2014 Respondent Ralph Clark violated section 3.20.110 of the Lobbyist Registration Act by failing to timely file with the City a quarterly lobbying report for the April 1 through June 30, 2014, reporting period by July 31, 2014, reporting that he directed an agent (Joe Hawkins) to send a favorable marketing video to City Councilmembers Rebecca Kaplan and Noel Gallo on April 2, 2014, for purposes of influencing the upcoming ShotSpotter Inc. contract decision. Count 5: Failure to Timely File Quarterly Lobbyist Reports for Quarter 3, 2015 Respondent Ralph Clark Violated O.M.C. section 3.20.110 of the Lobbyist Registration Act by failing to timely file with the City a quarterly lobbying report for the July 1 through September 20, 2015, reporting period by October 31, 2015, reporting that on or about September 21, 2015 meeting between ShotSpotter staff and Councilmember Rebecca Kaplan in response to concerns that Kaplan would redirect the funding apportioned for the ShotSpotter contract extension. Count 6 : Violation of the Contractor Contribution Blackout Period The Oakland Campaign Reform Act O.M.C. 3.12.140, prohibits contributions to candidates and committees controlled by elected officials from City contractors who contract or proposes to contract with or who 6

ATTACHMENT 2 amends or proposes to amend such a contract with the City for the rendition of services, for the furnishing of any materials, supplies, commodities or equipment to the City, whenever the value of such transaction would require approval by the City Council. The prohibition applies from the commencement of negotiations until 180 days after the completion of negotiations. On April 28, 2014, Respondent Ralph Clark contributed $100 to a candidate-controlled committee, “Coalition for Safe Streets and Local Jobs.” II. Respondent Joe Hawkins Vice President of Operations ShotSpotter, Inc. Count 8: Unregistered Lobbyist Activity in 2014 Respondent Joe Hawkins, at all relevant times of the alleged conduct, was the Vice President of Operations at ShotSpotter, Inc. between March 2014 through December 2014, when he directly communicated with Oakland City Councilmembers on behalf of ShotSpotter for the purpose of influencing pending or proposed governmental action on the renewal contract and expanded coverage for ShotSpotter Inc. in violation of O.M.C. section 3.20.120(A) of the Lobbyist Registration Act. Count 9: Failure to Register as a Lobbyist and Failure to timely file a Lobbyist Registration form for 2014 Respondent Joe Hawkins violated O.M.C. section 3.20.040 by failing to file with the City a lobbyist registration form before engaging in lobbying activity. Count 10: Failure to File Quarterly Lobbyist Reports for Quarter 1, 2014 Respondent Joe Hawkins violated O.M.C. section 3.20.110 of the Lobbyist Registration Act by failing to timely File with the City a quarterly lobbying report for the January 1 through March 31, 2014, reporting period by April 30, 2014. Hawkins failed to report his communications, including emails, with Councilmembers Libby Schaaf, Dan Kalb and Rebecca Kaplan in March 2014. Count 11: Failure to Timely File Quarterly Lobbyist Reports for Quarter 2, 2014 Respondent Joe Hawkins violated O.M.C. section 3.20.110 of the Lobbyist Registration Act by failing to timely file with the City a quarterly lobbying report for the April 1 through June 30, 2014, reporting period by July 31, 2014, reporting that he sent a favorable marketing video to City Councilmembers Kaplan and Gallo on April 2, 2014, and email communications to Rebecca Kaplan for purposes of influencing the upcoming ShotSpotter Inc. contract decision. Count 12: Failure to Timely File Quarterly Lobbyist Reports for Quarter 3, 2015 Respondent Joe Hawkins Violated O.M.C. section 3.20.110 of the Lobbyist Registration Act by failing to timely file with the City a quarterly lobbying report for the July 1 through September 30, 2015, reporting period by October 31, 2015, reporting that on or about September 21, 2015 meeting between ShotSpotter staff and Councilmember Kaplan in response to concerns that Kaplan would redirect the funding apportioned for the ShotSpotter contract extension. Count 13: Violation of the Contractor Contribution Blackout Period The Oakland Campaign Reform Act O.M.C. section 3.12.140, prohibits contributions to candidates and committees controlled by elected officials from City contractors who contract or propose to contract with or who amend or propose to amend such a contract with the City for the rendition of services, for the furnishing of any materials, supplies, commodities or equipment to the City, whenever the value of such transaction would require approval by the City Council. The prohibition applies from the commencement of negotiations until 180 days after the completion of negotiations. On April 24, 2014, during the time in which Hawkins and his colleagues were negotiating a renewal and expansion to the contract with the City, Respondent Joe Hawkins contributed $100 to a candidate-controlled committee “Coalition for Safe Streets and Local Jobs.”

ATTACHMENT 2 PENALTIES:

In 2014, the Oakland Campaign Reform Act authorized the Commission to impose administrative penalties/fines of $2,000 or up to three times the amount not reported for any violation of the electronic filing requirement.

In 2014, the Lobbyist Registration Act authorized the Commission to impose administrative penalties/fines of $1,000 per violation.

Our investigation found that both Joe Hawkins and Ralph Clark violated OCRA and LRA by failing to timely report their lobbying activity on behalf of ShotSpotter. Which means both Respondents can, independent of one another, face administrative penalties of up to $5,000 for the LRA charges and $2,000 for the OCRA violations for a total of $7,000 without factoring aggravating circumstances. In this case, where the two are responsible for the violations, we recommend imposing a $7,000 penalty jointly and severally liable.

The PEC will consider all relevant mitigating and aggravating circumstances surrounding a violation when deciding on a penalty, including, but not limited to, the following factors: 1. The seriousness of the violation, including, but not limited to, the extent of the public impact or harm; 2. The presence or absence of any intention to conceal, deceive, or mislead; 3. Whether the violation was deliberate, negligent, or inadvertent; 4. Whether the violation was isolated or part of a pattern; 5. Whether the respondent has a prior record of violations and/or demonstrated knowledge of the rule or requirement at issue; 6. The extent to which the respondent voluntarily and quickly took the steps necessary to cure the violation (either independently or after contact from the PEC); 7. The degree to which the respondent cooperated with the PEC’s enforcement activity in a timely manner; 8. The relative experience of the respondent.

The PEC has broad discretion in evaluating a violation and determining the appropriate penalty based on the totality of circumstances. This list of factors to consider is not an exhaustive list, but rather a sampling of factors that could be considered. There is no requirement or intention that each factor – or any specific number of factors - be present in an enforcement action when determining a penalty. As such, the ability or inability to prove or disprove any factor or group of factors shall in no way restrict the PEC’s power to bring an enforcement action or impose a penalty

For serious violations and violations that do not qualify for a warning letter or the streamlined stipulation program, the PEC will start a penalty amount with a “base-level” amount and then adjust the penalty amount based on mitigating and aggravating factors of the enforcement action. In this case, the base level penalty per violation of the Contractor Contribution Prohibition (OCRA § 3.12.140) is $2,000. The base level for similar failure to file violations under (LRA 3.20.110 and 3.20.040) is $1,000.

Aggravating Factors:

The aggravating factors that contributed to the aforementioned violations include: 1.) The impact to the public was great because during the multiple months ShotSpotter lobbied for their contract renewal and expanded contract there was a lack of transparency and accountability to the citizens of Oakland; 2 .) The violation was a part of a pattern of activity that ShotSpotter carried on for multiple months with multiple 8

ATTACHMENT 2 councilmembers; 3.) The violation was not inadvertent both Respondent’s knowingly contacted City Officials to lobby to not only renew but expand the ShotSpotter contract; and 4.) After the news article ran about ShotSpotter lobbying in Oakland, neither Respondent attempted to correct the actions.

Mitigating Factors:

The mitigating factors in this case are: 1.) The Respondents lack a prior record of violations; 2.) The Respondents cooperated with the PEC’s enforcement investigation; 3). During the time lapse between the initial preliminary review of the case and resolution neither Respondent has committed any other violations; and 4.) The circumstances at the time of ShotSpotter’s lobbying activity occurred when the City was unaware of the new improvements that ShotSpotter had made to its product and that in an effort to provide information on the new improvements, the Respondents were negligent in limiting their interactions and communications with councilmembers to Councilmember initiated questions about renewal of the existing contract.

PROPOSED PENALTY

In light of the enumerated mitigating and aggravating factors described above, staff is recommending that the Commission approve Respondent’s “No Contest” Stipulation to violating the aforementioned counts and imposing $2,000 for the charge of Contractor Contribution Prohibition and $1000 for Unregistered Lobbyist Activity, and $500 for each count of failure to register as a Lobbyist, failure to file Lobbyist Registration Forms or Quarterly Reports, for a total penalty of $5,000 joint and severally liable.