Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethical Investment Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Community speakers urge Alameda County to implement Ethical Investment Policy immediately; board to consider consultant review
Summary
Multiple members of the public urged the Board to implement the county's Ethical Investment Policy now and criticized a proposed consultant review and Finance Committee review as redundant, while the Board has not taken a final implementing vote at this meeting.
Dozens of residents and organizers used public comment on Oct. 28 to press Alameda County's Board of Supervisors to implement an Ethical Investment Policy (EIP) that the county Treasurer drafted and the Treasury Oversight Committee reviewed earlier this year.
Speakers including Sarah Dorman, Tim Drew, Francois Long and Cameron Joe told the Board that requiring an additional outside consultant and a Finance Committee review would duplicate prior reviews, waste county resources and delay implementation. "Delaying the policy further makes a mockery of your votes, and our trust in you as public officials," Sarah Dorman said during public comment.
Several speakers said the policy had already been subject to public scrutiny, consultant input and approval by the Treasury Oversight Committee and urged the Board to authorize the Treasurer to begin implementation. Tim Drew said the Board should "stop wasting time and taxpayer money" on another consultant review; Cameron Joe and others argued the EIP must be implemented to prevent county funds from supporting companies implicated in rights abuses.
The Board did not take a formal vote on implementation at this meeting; staff referenced a Finance Committee process and the need to hire or assign an outside consultant, without specifying a timeline or contract measure. Public commenters warned that further delay would undermine the timeline the Board set in December 2024 for the Treasurer to return an implementation plan.
The comments represent high public pressure; the Board acknowledged the views but kept procedural steps (Finance Committee review and consultant engagement) on the table. No board member moved to overturn the Finance Committee referral during this meeting.
