Speaker 1: Consider drafting staff to identify all accounts with Wells Fargo and investments in Wells Fargo Securities dropped a request for proposals for banking services for the city of Alameda and exclude Wells Fargo from the RFP process.
Speaker 0: And we have ten speakers on this one. There's this too that brought it. Did you want to speak to or other speakers?
Speaker 2: Want me to talk to Brody?
Speaker 6: Okay. Well, the vice mayor and I, after hearing from members of the community, brought this referral. And I will say that all of the hard work of drafting the language was the vice mayor. Thank you for doing the heavy lifting. But, you know, we have a situation where. The referral speaks for itself. So I'm not going to go through the, you know, read all of the details. But, you know, we have a situation where. We need to. The old saying is, let's think globally, act locally. And I when I was when the vice mayor was bringing this to me. I recalled back when I was in college back in the eighties and it was the mid eighties. And the cool thing to do back then was to protests or protests. South Africa and apartheid. And campaign for divestiture and. We didn't think that divesting the funds of Indiana University in South Africa was going to change. You know, international policy. But if we could do it and other universities can do it and other cities can do it and other states can do it, and pension funds can do it , then we could change behavior, and lo and behold, it worked. So that's kind of the theory behind this is that, you know, we have. A series of bad behaviors on the behalf of large banks, including Wells Fargo, including the fraudulent accounts. What I think is a bad behavior, investing in the Dakota pipeline. The foreclosure shenanigans that went on that really impacted our neighboring cities. So it could be that. All the banks are bad and we may not find one that meets our needs or could be. We have one right in our backyard that doesn't meet our needs. But, you know, we want to stand with the citizens of Davis and Seattle and and our voice to that that list and change corporate behavior. And just for full disclosure, I did meet with someone from Wells Fargo today and they announced that, you know, this morning three top executives were let go because of of things that, you know, violated our ethics and our values. So I think they're listening. But this referral, I think, will even hammer the point home even further.
Speaker 9: And I just want to add that, you know, before submitting the referral, we did consult with city staff and the city manager and also heard from our other elected financial officers through the city manager in terms of evaluating what sorts of investments we currently have with them, whether they be addressed, direct investments in Wells Fargo bonds or the use of operational products such as the banking services, which we do have. And, you know, and that's evident from our quarterly financial reports. But, you know, more importantly, speaks specifically to what the process would actually involve, which is why we we wanted to keep it open as a request for proposals to really meet the needs of the city. And the hope is, is that, you know, we do have a number of constituents who are adversely affected by the banking practices that came down, which is why we included a number of exhibits with the with the referral. And those exhibits include the many sanctions, some of the many sanctions against Wells Fargo for things like the fraudulent accounts. They were sanctioned also for student loan issues as well as for veterans mortgages. And I think is a for me, a formal Navy community. We have a lot of veterans here, some of whom I've met. Well, while I was going door to door this fall, who were adversely impacted by that, and I think, again, this is we're talking about taxpayer money. And, you know, if we're going to be using banking services or having direct investments in a in a banking institution , in a lot of ways, if there's bad behavior and we do nothing, then we're passively condoning it and we're not really speaking up on behalf of our constituents and those that are being impacted. And so for that reason, Councilmember Odie and I felt it was important to bring this forward. You know, their their investment in a number of different projects are not something that I personally support. And I know that many members of our community feel the same way, and it's our hope that we can find. And there are unlike some other cities, we do have local banking institutions here that can offer some of the needs that we have. And I think if we can do that without a financial detriment, which was my concern and my understanding is that there might be some operational issues involved in terms of switching over our accounts and that that would involve some staff time. But but really to look into this and to hear back from staff about what what would really be involved in it.
Speaker 0: I have a clarifying question. I asked that at this point through the chair because the first asked direct staff to identify all accounts with Wells Fargo and Investments. Okay. And then they would come back with that information. Then we would decide if we wanted to actually divest at that point.
Speaker 2: And we're.
Speaker 0: Just asking them to identify.
Speaker 9: Well, asking them to identify and actually walk us through. I did I did receive an email from our city manager that was actually from our city treasurer, who and I do think that it's important that the public know this. Our staff has been looking at this for some time and our City Treasurer has been looking at this for some time. So, you know, in terms of understanding our involvement with Wells Fargo and what our options are and again, not wanting to jump into this, but my hope would be that that they identify what's current because it could change quarter to quarter and then report back about what would be involved to give us the option to move forward with an RFP, if that's what we desire.
Speaker 0: Okay. And then the second part, the second ask is direct staff to draft a request for proposal for banking services for the city of Alameda. And then it has legs or parts of three or four parts under that. And then the third ask is to direct staff to exclude Wells Fargo from the ah from the earlier RFP process and then to refrain from making new investments in Wells Fargo Securities for a period of three years. So my question goes to the second part of that, because actually the first part first part number three, I think goes with number two. And then the second part, I think goes with number one when they report back. And then at that point, we could make a decision as to. I think that would be when we make our decision. Are you asking us to make our decision now before you hear from them? It's the way it's written. It sounds like maybe you're asking us to make the decision now.
Speaker 9: Well, I think the the request is to not make any investments with Wells Fargo after we vote on it tonight and to refrain from doing that. And we can we can look we can get the information. But for the time being, my hope would be that we're not making any new investment.
Speaker 0: Between now and when staff comes back to us. And then when staff comes back to us, then we'll look at the whole picture and make our decisions about what to do moving forward.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I mean, that would be my, my suggestion to that. I know the Treasurer's done a lot of work on this already, but you know, he may come back with a report. You know, that that says it may not be feasible for, you know, account X, Y or Z, but on those that it might be feasible for . And, you know, we as a council would decide if we want to. And, you know, it could find out that, you know, the devil we know is is better than the devil we don't know. But I'd like to know that there would be, you know, other banks that are worse. I think we should we should be socially responsible with, you know, what I think as millions of dollars of of our citizens.
Speaker 0: So my question, though, is on number three, it says direct staff to exclude, which I appreciate that in the second part of this, we would be directing staff to refrain from making new investments in Wells Fargo Securities for a period of three years or until they come back. And then we'll have that discussion. That's the way this is written.
Speaker 9: My hope is that we're not making any.
Speaker 0: Decisions tonight on that. Right.
Speaker 9: I my hope is that we're not making any investments with Wells Fargo starting tonight and that we can reevaluate.
Speaker 0: It in three years. Or is it when they come back once?
Speaker 10: That's how I'm interpreting it, is that this is a referral. The question is whether to bring all the data and information back to the council. And in the meantime, between now and when we bring that referral back for the larger discussion, we won't make any additional direct investments into Wells Fargo out.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I think that's so.
Speaker 0: Then I would think that on number three that that part would be modified to reflect what she just said.
Speaker 7: And that that's fine. Whatever emotion comes up.
Speaker 2: That's what.
Speaker 10: You're asking. And then the other question, since we had this work goal setting workshop on Friday, is where in this priority do you want it to come back? And so just keep that in mind as we listen to public comment.
Speaker 3: Thank.
Speaker 0: Thank you. So, Gabby Dolphin Maxwell. Burn Shaft.
Speaker 2: Bruce Miler. And so it looks like the Treasurer would like to make some comments.
Speaker 0: The. Your turn is going to come at the end. Okay.
Speaker 2: Well, it's late. And this is a big one for me. Standing Rock was never just about the North Dakota pipeline. And Wells Fargo is not just about the North Dakota pipeline either. What we what we see and what we as a minor example of what's happening nationally and internationally is we're watching these massive financial institutions. Before, we never really had to watch what they were doing. We kind of invested our money and thought, they're going to take care of it. They'll take care of it. Well, over time, what's happened is that we're discovering, we're finding out through the information that's coming our way in the past year in particular, that many of these investments are going to things that are totally socially irresponsible, like the Dakota Access pipeline. Now, why do I say that? Because this has to do with massive corporate interests who would sacrifice people and land call it the planet on the altar of very short term profit and gain. This is critical. Now, Wells Fargo is not the only bank, as you know. I think there are 38 banks that are funneling money into the Dakota Access pipeline right now. Some more, some less. But Bank of America, for example, is investing heavily in fossil fuel. And what they tried to do is try to paint themselves green by making plans for all the branches to be carbon neutral by 2020, which is a great idea. Nice solar panels on these panels of drive up teller windows. But this is basically meaningless when you stack it up against Bank of America's leading lending portfolio, which is chock full of loans to develop extreme fossil fuels, which are simply incompatible with climate. Stick with a climate stable world, and that's where we need to be headed. There is no question about that. If there is a fiduciary responsibility with these massive institutions that has now expanded to a responsibility to maintain the health of this planet the weather, the air, the water we drink. So if we define ourselves not by what we say, but what we do, let's take these historic, unprecedented times to define ourselves as a community by choosing to place our money in the hands of financial institutions and their there who have a portfolio already demonstrating a philosophy and an economy of caring through socially responsible actions. Thank you once again. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Maxwell and then Ruth.
Speaker 3: Evening. Mayor Spencer. Council. My name is Maxwell Bunch. I'm a resident and homeowner on this beautiful island. I applauded fully back Vice Mayor Veloso and council members on proposal to discontinue banking with Wells Fargo. Any banking institution that we as a community do business with should be absolutely moral, ethical and financially sound. That's basic criteria. Unfortunately, none of the major banks fit this criteria. Within the past few years. All major banks have exhibited criminal behavior similar and in some cases worse than Wells Fargo. For example, Barclays, ARBs, Citigroup, Chase and JPMorgan have pled guilty to felony price fixing chargers rigging the LIBOR. The LIBOR is the London Interbank Rate Exchange. Variable rate mortgages here and in the in in England are based on that and based on that rate. So essentially by rigging that, they're stealing from everyone. I have a May 2015 article from the New York Times dealing with this specific incident and criminal behavior and a press release from the Department of Justice. I'd like to give these to you when I'm done. I also have a printout from the SCC detailing recent criminal activity of major banking institutions. All the major banks are listed in this report, for one thing or another. From a fiscal perspective, all the major banks have massive derivative exposure well into the hundreds of trillions of dollars. The GDP of the United States I think, is around $60 trillion. This is worldwide money in this casino of derivatives. Exotic derivatives are what brought down the world economy in 2008. But Wall Street gambling is not stopped, and the Dodd-Frank hasn't done much to curtail this activity. And we're going to start to see a stripping of Dodd-Frank over the next few years. There was a bill in Congress in the House in 2015 to eliminate Dodd-Frank. So this this should worsen as things are deregulated. Derivative exposure is important. The 2005 Federal Bankruptcy Act gave derivatives super priority over depositor funds. So if and when a major bank files for bankruptcy, depositor funds will be taken to cover the banks derivative debts . It used to be that depositor debts were paid off first, and then any other debts of the banks were paid off in the in the event of a bankruptcy. Here's an article from Stanford Law, Law Review and Harvard Law School talking about derivative exposure. I also have a joint paper by the FDIC and the Bank of England. This paper details the FDIC position in the event of failure of a major bank. The plan is for a bail in, similar to what was done in Cyprus in 2013. Depositor funds were used to settle bank debts. That's this paper. It's geeky, but it's interesting reading. The major banks are simply too risky to have as a business partner. I urge the city to use. Can I have a couple more minutes? I urge the city to use. I urge the city not to use any of the large commercial banks and to use a local credit union. We have First United Services Credit Union here on the island founded in 1932. The union is large, stable and is run as a nonprofit. Nonprofit status removes the need for quarter after quarter growth at no cost, which is gambling with our money. The cost is as is investing in fossil fuels. A local credit union keeps deposit money local in the sense that loans are made locally. Using local dollars. Depositing Alameda money in a local credit union keeps our community wealth local and helps build our economy. If not for us, United Credit Services and another nonprofit credit union, I believe is the best choice for a banking business. Thank you and thanks for extra time this evening working.
Speaker 2: Thank you for smiling.
Speaker 0: And could you send us.
Speaker 2: Like.
Speaker 0: Electronic links to all those articles? That possible?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 3: Or.
Speaker 0: Maxwell, could you send us electronic links to all of those articles?
Speaker 1: I'll just scan.
Speaker 0: That. But yeah, that'd be wonderful. And separate from the scanning, you can do that, but I'd prefer the electronic links. It can do. Ruth. Smiler. Ruth. All right. Sorry to hear that. Benjamin Davis. And then Sherry. And then you'll.
Speaker 13: Good evening. My name is Ben Davis.
Speaker 14: I work for In the Public Interest. We are a nationally focused policy center. But I lived in Berkeley, so I wanted to come to show my support to divest from Wells Fargo.
Speaker 3: In addition to Wells Fargo.
Speaker 14: Creating fraudulent accounts and financing the Dakota Access pipeline. Another reason the city should divest from the bank is that it finances for profit prisons. So some quick background on for profit prisons. But the story. In Idaho, there was a prisoner named Honey, a lobbied, who was incarcerated for robbing a drug store for oxycodone. In prison, he ironically helped expose a drug ring between the correctional officers and the prisoners for his own safety. He was then put in solitary confinement. But as soon as he returned to his cell block, Haney was beaten nearly to death, suffering immediate brain damage. And two years later, he died. And Honey died because core civic. The company that controlled the Idaho Correctional Center valued profit above human life. And as revealed by court documents, core civics business model in Idaho was to save money by understaffing the prison and instead giving control of the facility to prisoner gangs, causing violence to skyrocket. And what happened to Hani is not a one off incident. Instead, it's woven into the fabric of how private prisons operate. Across the country, for profit prisons are plagued with violence. The the they neglect the medical needs of prisoners and their rife with other human rights abuses. And I think most alarmingly, because they profit off his incarceration, private prison companies make business decisions that lead to more people behind bars. So that brings us to today. And for much of the last year, I research the report titled The Banks that Finance Private Prison Companies that I emailed to all of you guys. It reviewed SEC filings from the past ten years from the two largest prison companies or Civic and GEO Group. And it found that private prison companies operate.
Speaker 3: As they do, largely because Wells Fargo.
Speaker 14: Finances their debts. As of last June, Wells Fargo was part of a syndicate of banks that had loaned C, C Corps Civic and Geo Group A combined $1.3 billion. Wells Fargo also underwrote $144 million of Angel Group's bonds and was the trustee for all four of Geo Group's bond offerings. By financing private prisons. Wells Fargo is not only promoting the abusive practices of private prisons, such as what happened in Ohio, but they're also promoting and profiting from mass incarceration. I believe that no corporation should profit from the incarceration of human beings. And Wells Fargo should cease its support of this abominable practice. And for this reason, my organization in the public interest is calling on all clients and shareholders of Wells Fargo to end their relationships with the bank. I look forward to what happens here. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 8: Terry Jones housing.
Speaker 2: Mayor Council. I have a statement to give from the Alameda progressives. But I'd like to go off.
Speaker 0: This.
Speaker 2: Stage for a minute. And what Councilman Otis said about a part that I think really speaks to some of the issues, I think all of us of conscience feel very frustrated at the kinds of things that are happening to our planet and to our people and to our water and to a lot of things. And we feel powerless, much like we did with apartheid. And I think this kind of activity with basically taking our money and putting it into the the places where they do not condone this kind of behavior, I think is really important. So this is my state, the statement, the Alameda Progressive Command Council member Jim Cody and Vice Mayor Lily Avila available for proposing the divestment of city funds from Wells Fargo. Wells Fargo is one of the 38 banks offering financial support to the Dakota Access Pipeline and its parent companies, according to research by Food and Water Watch. It is one. It's one of the 17 banks that have direct lead financed the pipeline construction by Dakota Access LLC, and one of only seven banks financed all of them with significant lines of credit offered to the parent companies. Energy Transfer Partners, Energy Transfer Equity and Sunoco Logistics. The animated Progressive's urged the council to approve this proposition and to investigate other measures which would ensure that the city of Alameda does business with socially responsible businesses. The City Council of Alameda can make a strong commitment to the environment and to economic and racial justice by moving its business to institutions with a reliable social justice record. Thank you. Thank you. As you all hail.
Speaker 0: And then Marcus Holder and then Silvia Gibson.
Speaker 3: Good evening, everybody. Sorry to keep you all so late. So, my name is Earl Haley. I'm the political director of the African Black Coalition, where a statewide black youth organization who led the campaign to get the University of California to divest from private prisons last year. And from Wells Fargo this year. So our issue that we have is that when in 2015, when all of our our member campuses, eight of the University of California campuses, the black student unions, demanded that the University of California divest all of its nearly $30 million of investments in private prisons. Corecivic formerly Corrections Corporation of America and the GEO Group. We're all, for the reasons that Ben just mentioned, that I will not repeat all the violations, human rights violations that occur in these private prisons. But more fundamentally, we are opposed to the very business model of private prisons in order for a private prison to exist. There needs to be a constant supply of human beings being sent to it by the state. At a time when the crisis of mass incarceration is plaguing this country. We have over 2.3 million people in this country who are currently in prisons and jails throughout the country where the state of California is spending over $10 billion a year. And the incarceration regime, it just doesn't make sense to keep wasting all this money and wasting the potential of millions of human beings by caging them and condemning them to prisons and jails indefinitely. The other piece with that part of that campaign, when we launched it in 2015, was that we also demanded the University of California to terminate all of its relationships with Wells Fargo at that time, for a multitude of reasons. You know, they had refused to do that. And, you know, as time passed and the summer came and we came to find out about the 2 million fraudulent accounts that the bank engaged in, we reengaged with the chief financial officer of the university. I had multiple conversations with them that led the university to terminate for 175 million worth of contracts with Wells Fargo. So, you know, you've heard all the reasons that all the bad practices that Wells Fargo has been engaged in, it's very important that, you know, the values that we we we we we aspire to espouse . Right. The values that we say that we care about, that we live them out through our actions, that, you know, this is a bank. And in 20 and 28, when the financial meltdown happened was, you know, found to have targeted black and brown communities for predatory lending. And they got you know, they got sued for it and they got fined and they settled out of court in many cases, such as Baltimore. They're currently getting sued by the city of L.A. and Oakland for their predatory lending. And this is in 2008. And then we have all their investments in private prisons. We have their involvement in the Dakota Access pipeline, which is, you know, one of the defining civil rights moments of our history. So we're very grateful for the leadership of the vice mayor and Councilman Odie four for putting this on the agenda. And we urge you all to do the right thing and terminate all the relationships and invest in the credit unions and the local credit unions in order to, you know, make sure that our financial investments are aligned with the values we aspire to hold. Thank you all very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Marcus Holder and then Sylvia Gibson and then Jessica Reed.
Speaker 3: I'm Marcus Holder.
Speaker 7: I'm a 20 year resident of Alameda.
Speaker 3: And I'm also.
Speaker 7: Speaking here is a member of the ILWU International Longshore Warehouse Workers Union Local ten and a representative on of that union on the San Francisco Labor Council. And both my union has taken a position against the Dakota Access pipeline and the illegal use contribute contributed $17,000 in support of their legal fight against the Dakota Access pipeline of the Standing Rock tribe. And and in fact, like our our local president here and the Los Angeles Long Beach president went to the the water protector camps. And we with 20 other members, we built structures there. And this is my primary.
Speaker 3: Reason for support of this.
Speaker 7: Reconsideration is the Wells Fargo was involved in Dakota Access pipeline problems with the Dakota Access pipeline are that there was, there was a, um, there was no consultation with the with the tribes. It's, it's, it's, it's been built on burial grounds. It has the there's been no, not, not a decent environmental impact statement and the whole review process of the thing of the access pipeline it's basically been.
Speaker 3: Been built on a on one acre plots is how they've how they.
Speaker 7: Got their own um you know environmental impact etc. on the basis of one acre plot plots.
Speaker 3: And there's also the potential ruptures of the pipeline.
Speaker 7: Where, especially where it goes under the Missouri River, right above.
Speaker 3: The the sole.
Speaker 7: Water supply for the Standing Rock Sioux tribe. And there's 15 million people that get water out of that on the Missouri downstream that and there's there's been worldwide opposition to through this pipeline. The camps there have had like upwards of over 15,000 people at them. They representing 250 tribes and nations representatives.
Speaker 3: Have been have been there.
Speaker 7: And. And the tribe and the camps have identified the disinvestment from the banks that are invested in the pipeline as one of the primary ways to now continue the opposition to this pipeline. So I urge you to disinvest, to do this to vote for this reconsideration and then go for on credit. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Sylvia Gibson.
Speaker 2: Jessica Reed. It's it's still evening. So good evening, mayor, vice mayor and council members. I did send all of you some comments as well. And I just support your efforts to make Alameda a responsive, responsible and humanitarian city. To that end, I appreciate your thoughtful consideration regarding the city's business partners. I hope you will vote to work towards ending any relationships the city of Alameda has with Wells Fargo for several reasons that have come to light as set forth in the referral form and in the Seattle ordinance that I did provide to you by link , including the unfair consumer practices and the bank's multimillion dollar commitment to the companies that are building the Dakota Access pipeline. Despite the opposition by those who hold drinking and fishing rights to the water that will not may will be polluted. And again, when not if there is a spill every time it happens and I hope you will work to adopt an ordinance like those adopted by Seattle Davis and the U.S. further, if we do not have one, which is my understanding. I also request that the Council consider adoption of social policies as part of the city's investment policies. We can send a message with where we put our money. Do we, as a city want to support businesses that disregard humanity and the environment in their quest for more money? Do we as a city want to support businesses that assist others in breaking promises and trusts of all for the sake of more money? Do we as a city want to support businesses that value the greed of a few over everything else? I believe the answer is a resounding no. I know we cannot stop such greed, but we can choose not to be a part of it. There are other banking options such as those mentioned previously, and also new resource bank and state beneficial bank. Our choice in business partners is a reflection of who we are as a city. Thank you very much for your.
Speaker 5: Consideration and your.
Speaker 2: Service. And I I'd like to close with a quote from Rachel Carson from the sense of wonder, those who contemplate the beauty of the earth find reserves of strength that will endure as long as life lasts.
Speaker 0: Laura kind's father. And then Becca Locke's. And our last. Austin. And then Sasha. And there are loudspeakers. And then the caverns. Yes.
Speaker 2: Good evening. Good evening. I'm a resident of Ballymena. My name is Laura Cairns Spotter. I am also the mother of a five year old and.
Speaker 4: I hold a Ph.D. in.
Speaker 9: Environmental.
Speaker 2: Science. I would like to express my strong support for this proposal. For divesting from the cities.
Speaker 9: Funds from Wells Fargo Bank.
Speaker 2: Wells Fargo Bank is one of.
Speaker 9: 33 banks that is funding the.
Speaker 2: Construction of the Dakota Access pipeline and the Bakken pipeline, which connects to the Dakota Access pipeline. So there are 17 banks that are directly involved in the Dakota Access pipeline, and then there are an additional number that add up to 33 that are involved in the connecting pipeline. Those pipelines would bring massive amounts of oil and gas.
Speaker 4: From Canada to the United.
Speaker 2: States. Meanwhile, 97% of climate change scientists agree that the climate is warming. And that this climate change is being caused by humans burning fossil fuels. Most or all of the 3% of scientists who don't agree that the climate is warming and that it's being caused by burning oil and gas are being paid by oil and gas companies . Global warming is the most crucial environmental issue of our time. We don't slow down how much fossil fuel we're burning and how much carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases we're putting into the atmosphere. We will risk sea level rising.
Speaker 9: Increasing floods, hurricanes and other.
Speaker 2: Natural disasters across the globe, and the loss of plants and animals to extinction, among other things.
Speaker 9: Sometimes scientists have even said that our planet could become uninhabitable within our children's lifetimes.
Speaker 2: So it's of utmost importance that we act now and act quickly. The faster we can slow down our fossil fuel consumption and the more we can leave oil and gas in the ground rather than extracting it, the better. So I would urge you to divest from Wells Fargo Bank. According to Bill McKibben, founder of 350 dot Org.
Speaker 4: Which is a nonprofit leading the effort to reduce carbon emissions.
Speaker 2: Banks are more susceptible to pressure than the.
Speaker 4: Oil and gas giants, which depend on.
Speaker 2: Bank loans and lines of credit to build their pipelines. It's probably sustained public pressure that will do the most good, he recently wrote. Here are some other financial institutions that would be much better choices. New Resource Bank. The Resource Bank invests in environmental causes and is social and in social good projects. And it's located in San Francisco. Provident Credit Union.
Speaker 4: Which has a branch in Alameda and has.
Speaker 2: Excellent customer service and low fees.
Speaker 9: And I've been an account holder there for more than ten years, so I can.
Speaker 0: Attest it's a.
Speaker 2: Great institution and I also would recommend Patel KO.
Speaker 10: Credit Union for consideration.
Speaker 2: Thank you for the opportunity to submit public comment on this important issue.
Speaker 0: If Becca, then Austin and then Sasha. And then let's measure an auditor.
Speaker 2: As the Treasurer. Hi. Sorry, I lost my voice a little bit. Singing karaoke, actually. My name is Becca Lux. I just moved to Oakland, although I was born there. And I work in Alameda now as a nanny for a three year old and a six year old. Awesome. Kids live in your guys's neighborhood. We talk a lot about water with the kids. And I've done a lot of work with kids where also we talk a lot about water. And when the sue when the Lakota people say many whites only water is life, that's not a slogan. It's not a hashtag. You know, that's actually an ancient tenet of native peoples all over the world that's understood by those peoples much more, I think, than our society, as the fact that we as a species cannot sustain life, we cannot sustain ourselves, we can't support each other. We can't continue to progress into the future. As a modern society, if we're poisoning our water, if we're being irresponsible with our water, and if we're not protecting our water resources for the future, water brings everything, you know, food. We drink it and then we need it to power our lives in every other way as well. And I think that what the Sioux themselves are asking for right now the most is actually divestment from these financial institutions. And like everyone here has been saying, we can't do that just on a national level. We're going to have to start locally. And these are the kinds of communities where we need to start. Alameda is a beautiful place where people truly do believe in the values of, for example, standing up for our water rights and for native peoples indigenous people's rights, you see. And so I actually grew up in Davis, so I appreciate the shout out. I've worked on the movement to support the Standing Rock Sioux in Davis and in Santa Cruz. And now I'm newly here to the Bay Area, and I want to help out here, too. I think that it's really, really important, especially for our smaller communities like Davis, like Alameda, where we're progressive and where we believe in these values to lead the way and show the rest of the nation that this is possible and that step by step, we can actually create a political system from the grassroots, from the ground up that works for the people in this town and in this nation. So I encourage you I thank you guys very much for starting this process and hopefully you'll be able to review divesting from Wells and then we can move on from there to other financial institutions and other steps. So thank you so much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Oscar. Austin looks like. Why a Nikki Wang?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Well, good morning, everyone. We've officially moved into the wee hours of the morning. I just would like to say thank you so much for listening to all of us and staying this long. It's been a marathon. This is my first city council meeting and I have lived in Alameda for three years and I really appreciate that my voice will be heard and being a part of this civic process. As you know, the Dakota Access Pipeline project is near completion and the Keystone XL Pipeline Project has been revived and will likely be completed with devastating environmental and human health impacts. Unfortunately, the Trump administration is not particularly receptive to direct nonviolent action opposing such reckless projects. No amount of calling, writing or protesting are likely to stop the Trump administration administration from pushing forward harmful, unnecessary and ill conceived projects such as these pipelines. Our last defense and a crucial bargaining chip is our money. As a city, we have the opportunity to be on the right side of history by moving our city's money out of DAPL funding banks. It is more important than ever for us as a city with a strong moral character, and I really believe that. Love Alameda to join other cities in diversity and from DAPL funding entities. I suggest the city of Alameda locate a credit union into which it move its funds as those entities serve stakeholders, not shareholders. And I'll just close with this. The citizens of Alameda stand with Standing Rock, and we are one earth. We are one people. And we need to stand together. So thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Fashion has taught us.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 10: I wasn't going to say anything, but after 5 hours, I decided.
Speaker 1: Maybe I shouldn't.
Speaker 2: And I had my pajama shirt on. So it's putting my children to bed before I got here anyway. Hello.
Speaker 10: My name is Sasha Moustakas.
Speaker 1: I live two blocks away on Santa.
Speaker 5: Clara and this is also my first city.
Speaker 2: Council meeting here in Alameda. I've lived here for two years and I'll make this short.
Speaker 9: Why should the city of Alameda divest from Wells Fargo? Because Wells Fargo.
Speaker 2: Has done lots of horrible things to lots of not horrible people because it's the right thing to do.
Speaker 1: Because we don't want to be implicated with inhumane acts of the Dakota Access pipeline and.
Speaker 5: For profit.
Speaker 2: Prisons. Because our money does talk.
Speaker 1: Because it violates Almeida's investment policy.
Speaker 2: Because we must stand up, because we have to.
Speaker 9: Support the sacred lands of Native.
Speaker 5: People, because water is life, because we are a city with high values and.
Speaker 9: We need to put.
Speaker 2: Our money where our mouth are. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 0: As a candidate, you want to come up? And he's our last speaker.
Speaker 2: Hmm.
Speaker 3: Good evening, Madam Mayor.
Speaker 7: City Council staff. I'm Kevin Kennedy, the city treasurer. As was mentioned, the finance director, Elaina Adair, who's here also. God bless you for staying here this late. And I have been talking about this issue for a couple of months. We've been doing some initial reconnaissance on where we stand as a city. Also talking to our money managers about this. We have a pretty good grasp on the situation as far as our exposure, if you want to call it that. Should you pass this resolution tonight or this referral? Clearly, I'm very happy to work with all of you to craft something that reflects these needs. When it comes to the operating accounts, it's really more of an internal matter. I think Olena, our finance director, will be working with you on that one question or point of clarification, I just wanted to get from the referral tonight, you had some discussion and I was a little confused. Our plan is to do the annual investment policy review in about six weeks in April. And I think in that timeframe we can certainly incorporate whatever we come to, whatever conclusions we might come to as far as how we want to reflect this formally on our investment policy. But it sounds like maybe we need to be notifying.
Speaker 3: Our money managers.
Speaker 7: Tomorrow morning about some decisions. I just want to be clear as to whether we're going to handle this through a revision of the investment policy, which I think is probably the more formal way to do this or that. We want to kind of have an interim ad-hoc thing. I want to make sure that that we that I and our finance director have clarity on that so that we can share that with our managers. So I would just look for your feedback on that issue and how we should move forward with it.
Speaker 0: I swear to God.
Speaker 2: Well, my question.
Speaker 9: Would be, what what does that entail in terms of you said you could call the ad.
Speaker 2: Hoc.
Speaker 7: Yeah, I. Having operated in the financial world my whole career, I would say that we're best served as an organization, giving them formal direction, and I think that's through our investment policy. I do recognize that this is an issue that we're discussing and a lot of people have taken time out and state are very late to express their concerns about it tonight. I'm not sure if six weeks and drafting this and implementing it through our investment policy is acceptable. But I would say that if it is, that's the best way to do it, because what we need to do is, is to make sure that the people that are that are handling these investments for us are very clear as to what our intention is. And I think the best way to do that is through our investment policy. So my suggestion would be if it's acceptable that maybe the referral is that we talk through all of this, figure out how we want to reflect it, and we plan on approving a new investment policy in the month of April that will incorporate this. And we can give formal notice not only on additional purchases, but also how to address the three securities that we own today altogether so that they're very clear as to how they're supposed to be executing our instructions.
Speaker 9: I'm amenable to that. I think that as long as we're, you know, six weeks, if if we can actually use that time to craft something that's going to be quality and reflect what we're trying to achieve, I would rather do that than give some some. Misinformation or be unclear.
Speaker 0: About the matter.
Speaker 7: I think the Treasurer has put out a very good point. I certainly don't want to have the city own. If part owner of a company that defrauded people runs private prisons and. The more I find out, the worse it gets. So I think that I think that's the point. But the second point is. Where does the money go, if not there? And that's where a policy that is not directed at specifics of Wells Fargo. But what our standard is, is we can't move the money someplace else without understanding how we measure the new location or the new institution that's going to handle the money. So I think in the interim, we say no more investments in Wells Fargo and we await for that policy update so that we can. Make it. Take the the the money and place it someplace that's acceptable. Okay. So that it's very late. I could just be. I is way past my bedtime. It sounds the two different things. So the question is, between now and when we approve a policy that reflects whatever conclusions that we come to as far as how we want to address this issue. Should we instruct staff and the people handling the money on a daily basis that we want no more money going that direction? I think on the operational basis that would be very difficult, clearly. But investment wise, my again, my recommendation would be that we have a thoughtful, formal approach to how we want to deal with this. And my side is the investment said the operational said, I think, you know, staff and our finance director will know that. But but in terms of the investment side, that we address that comprehensively. And not temporarily, if that makes sense. If. Is that. Is that. I think I'm agreeing with you. Is that okay? We're not going to put any more money there.
Speaker 4: Meaning we're not going to buy any more Wells Fargo Securities. That's right. As opposed to putting any more money.
Speaker 7: So that's no, the difference between being an owner is one thing. Being a customer is another thing and how you how you we don't have anything to base on how we're how what it would mean to change as a customer. And I think we need that information to understand. How to have that, how to set those parameters. But it's to me, it's fairly simple. On the investment side is we're not going to buy any more securities. Until we have criteria, we can't move the securities that we have someplace else until we know how to measure the someplace else. Is that me? Is that clear? It is, but it sounds a little bit different than what the vice mayor was maybe saying. And again saying what I'm saying. Yeah. So so I guess in a yes or no way tomorrow morning, should we be calling the money managers saying don't buy any more Wells Fargo Securities?
Speaker 2: That's, I would say, more structured.
Speaker 7: Yes.
Speaker 3: Yes, I think that's okay.
Speaker 0: So that we would not be purchasing any new securities and that you come back with a plan in regards to divesting the current investments in the six weeks when you come back.
Speaker 2: I'm just curious if that's what I'm hearing. That wasn't really agenda, right?
Speaker 11: I mean, the way the referral.
Speaker 3: This is a.
Speaker 7: Detailed question to be handled on the quarter after 12, but it's relatively important because I don't want.
Speaker 4: To look at look at the wording of the referral.
Speaker 0: Well, this actually said that for a period of three years or a.
Speaker 9: Period of three years.
Speaker 4: Well, you know, it's.
Speaker 7: And that seems somewhat arbitrary.
Speaker 0: But it does. So we should be okay. But I'm going to ask.
Speaker 9: A strong staff to exclude Wells Fargo from the RFP process described and to refrain from making new investments in Wells Fargo securities period of.
Speaker 0: Three years. And I think we could actually modify that until further counsel direction.
Speaker 2: Could.
Speaker 3: Hmm.
Speaker 0: Until further direction. So that's where I think.
Speaker 7: Does that.
Speaker 0: Well, because we do that. We take action sometimes on something like this. We just did earlier sending a letter. It didn't have to come back.
Speaker 7: To the attorney.
Speaker 2: I think you can. You can because it does say refrain for the next three years. I guess I don't mean to be argumentative and it is past midnight, but if I would just to help, I don't know. I'm helping her or making it worse. But if I understood the city treasurer, he was hoping to give direction to the investment folks with the investment policy and not make a phone call tomorrow morning. Is that correct?
Speaker 7: I just think I understand completely what we're aiming for. I think the the way to do it is through the investment policy, which addresses not only what we do going forward, but also what we have currently. And this is just the investments, not the operating stuff.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 7: And I just I I'm not sure verbal instruction is going to be quite honestly, is going to be.
Speaker 3: Enough.
Speaker 7: To ensure that this is executed. I think we will need some sort of written instruction. So really what we're doing, I guess, in essence, is it quarter after 1224 told us we're modifying our investment policy formally through this referral if we if we do it effective. Right now, which, again, I don't have a problem with that. I'm not sure if that was the intention. I just wanted to be clear.
Speaker 0: Okay. So personally, I would think that we could at least give the verbal direction and then we can hammer out. That doesn't if it isn't sufficient, then we'll get the update in six weeks and do more. But at this point, I've heard a majority and I'm going to say, which is what I came back to originally, that is not to to refrain from making new investments in Wells Fargo securities until further counseled direction. So do we have a motion?
Speaker 6: I'll make that motion.
Speaker 0: So the motion is.
Speaker 6: Well to move the entire referral. But then with that amendment that you just mentioned.
Speaker 0: To counsel until further direction from counsel.
Speaker 4: We say it again so we know.
Speaker 0: So the referral is here. Consider directing staff to one identify all accounts with Wells Fargo and investments in Wells Fargo Securities to draft a request for proposal RFP for banking services for the city of Alameda. Three Exclude Wells Fargo from the RFP process and refrain from making new investments in Wells Fargo securities until further counsel direction. Period. Right. That's your motion. I'm going to second of all those in favor.
Speaker 6: I, I.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 0: I passed this unanimously. Thank you. Council member Communications. And Brody.
Consider Directing Staff to: 1) Identify All Accounts with Wells Fargo and Investments in Wells Fargo Securities; 2) Draft a Request for Proposal (RFP) for Banking Services for the City of Alameda; and 3) Exclude Wells Fargo from the RFP process and Refrain from Making New Investments in Wells Fargo Securities for a Period of Three Years.  (Vice Mayor Vella and Councilmember Oddie)