Alameda County board adopts treasurer's 2026 investment policy while pausing implementation of ethical appendix pending peer review

The Alameda County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday approved the treasurer-tax collector's annual investment policy for calendar year 2026, incorporating a reference appendix to the county's Ethical Investment Policy but leaving final implementation of that appendix subject to an independent peer review.

Treasurer Henry Levy told the board the 2026 policy includes three principal changes beyond the standard annual update: explicit authorization to use a new short-term liquidity vehicle called "Outfit," the addition of certain collateralized mortgage-backed securities allowed by state law, and an appendix that attaches the Ethical Investment Policy (EIP) previously adopted by the board pending further review. "I felt, because you had approved it, that I could put it into the policy," Levy said, adding the board retains the right to change the appendix after the peer review.

The decision followed more than two hours of public comment that focused on Item 47, with speakers sharply divided. Supporters of immediate implementation urged the board to rescind an October directive that delayed the EIP's rollout and argued further review would needlessly stall the county from aligning investments with human-rights and social-governance criteria. "The policy was very clear in the wording'. There is no need to spend money to waste taxpayer money on a consultant," said Bob Johnson of Friends of Wadi Fakine Circle (public comment).

Opponents raised concerns about financial risk, transparency and the governance of the review process. Multiple callers urged that an independent review assess potential negative impacts on portfolio returns and on fiduciary duties; one caller alleged changes in benchmark reporting and past underperformance, saying the county's $11.5 billion portfolio had incurred more than $120 million in losses (public comment). Treasurer Levy and public speakers who supported the treasurer said a consultant and the Treasury Oversight Committee (TOC) had previously reviewed holdings and found no current investments that would trigger divestment under the EIP.

Board members debated whether to include the EIP appendix now or to approve the annual policy without it and defer any appendix adoption until after the procurement and peer review. President Halbert and several supervisors emphasized that rescinding the earlier decision to seek a peer review was not on the table for this meeting and that the RFP process would proceed. Chief administrative and procurement staff told the board the RFP process would take a minimum of four months and likely closer to six months to complete.

Supervisor Miley emphasized the board's fiduciary responsibility and said she would review key thresholds in the EIP, including a 10% revenue threshold that would discourage investments in companies where certain revenues derive from enumerated activities. "If we were to divest, it needs to be done in a manner that doesn't affect our ability to have the resources for safety net services," Miley said.

Supervisor Tam moved to adopt the 2026 investment policy as presented; Supervisor Fortunato Bass seconded. The roll call vote was Marquez: Aye; Tam: Abstain; Miley: Aye; Fortunato Bass: Aye; President Halbert: Abstain. The motion passed.

Votes at a glance - Item 47 (Treasurer-Tax Collector annual investment policy for 2026, with appendix referencing EIP): Approved; mover Supervisor Tam; second Supervisor Fortunato Bass; vote tally: 3 Aye, 0 No, 2 Abstain (Marquez Aye; Tam Abstain; Miley Aye; Fortunato Bass Aye; Halbert Abstain). - Item 39 (salary ordinance amendments, second reading waived and adopted): Approved unanimously earlier in the meeting. - Consent calendar and mass motion items (multiple items including Item 46, monthly investment report; Item 37, 430 Broadway DDA): Approved by roll call as described in the meeting record.

Why this matters Alameda County's Ethical Investment Policy has been a source of sustained public debate. Supporters say the policy aligns county investments with human-rights and environmental standards, while critics worry that screening or divestment policies could reduce investment returns and jeopardize funds for county services. The board's action leaves the policy framework in place while preserving the outcome of the peer review process that the board previously directed.

What happens next County staff will proceed with the RFP and procurement process for the independent peer review; the ad hoc finance committee will discuss the draft RFP and GSA will handle procurement. When the peer review is completed and reported back to the board, the board may take further action to modify, ratify, or reject any appendix changes based on the review's findings.

Direct quotations in this report are taken from public comment and the board's meeting record.