Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Finance Ethics topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Community urges Alameda County to agendize Treasurer’s Ethical Investment Policy on July 22
Summary
Dozens of residents, faith groups and unions urged the Board to place Treasurer Levy’s approved Ethical Investment Policy on the July 22 meeting agenda, saying the county’s investment policy change must be publicly reviewed and that delay is unjustified after Treasury Oversight Committee approval.
A large group of speakers at the July 8 Board of Supervisors meeting urged the board to agendize and vote on the Treasurer’s Ethical Investment Policy (EIP) on July 22, saying the policy was drafted, vetted with the Treasury Oversight Committee, and is legally required to be publicly reviewed under California Government Code §53646.
Speakers included faith leaders, labor representatives, community organizers and residents who said the policy should be acted on promptly to prevent county funds from being invested in corporations implicated in human‑rights abuses abroad. Seema Butler, a resident who addressed the board, said the Treasury Oversight Committee approved the EIP on May 6 and argued the board’s December directive required a 90‑day turnaround: "The time to bring this back is now."
Other commenters noted the moral consistency of proclaiming "Safe Kids Day" while county investments may be tied to companies alleged to profit from conflicts overseas. Speakers asked the board to place the item on the July 22 agenda so the public can observe a vote and urged transparency about when the policy will be considered.
President Halbert responded that the board would review the July 22 agenda with the county administrator and said the item "will be heard," but did not commit to a specific date during the meeting, and cautioned the board also has a full Measure W agenda for July 22. Several speakers said they were not satisfied with a noncommittal response and reiterated urgency.
The public comment period closed with the board moving back to closed session; County staff later reported no reportable closed‑session actions and adjourned the meeting.
