City Government

Public Ethics Complaint Filed Against Abel Guillén

Published

8 years ago

May 14, 2018

Co-founder of activist group Eastlake United for Justice Mari Rose Taruc speaks at a press conference on the corner of E. 12th St. on May 9 to discuss a complaint filed against District 2 Councilmember Abel Guillèn for allegedly violating the Oakland Campaign Reform Act. Photo by Sarah Carpenter

Former supporters of Councilmember Abel Guillén spoke at a press conference Wednesday in support of a complaint against the District 2 councilmember to the Public Ethics Commission for allegedly violating the Oakland Campaign Reform Act.

The complaint alleges that Guillén accepted campaign donations from donors associated with UrbanCore and EBALDC (East Bay Asian Local Development Corporation) while continuously voting to sell city-owned land to those companies — land that many of his constituents had hoped would be used for affordable housing rather than the mostly market-rate high rise the City Council ultimately approved.

“I walked door to door for [Guillén’s] campaign when he was down in the polls, because we thought he would stand up for working folks,” said Gary Jimenez, a vice president for SEIU Local 1021. “Needless to say, I won’t be walking for him this time.”

Guillén, who is up for re-election this November, is confident that his campaign has complied with all local donation regulations. “This is nothing but a political red herring—they should have checked the facts,” he said.

A local activist with Eastlake United for Justice, Dunya Alwan, filed the complaint against Guillén. She and other community organizers have been fighting for the fate of a parcel of land at the corner of E. 12th St. and Lakeside Dr. for years now.

“This complaint is because as residents of D2, many of us are deeply disappointed in [Guillén’s] conduct and I look forward to the Ethics Commission holding him accountable,” Alwan said.

Alwan and other activists held a press conference Wednesday to discuss the complaint. A small band of community activists held up signs with an artistic depiction of Guillén’s face, a money backdrop, and the pun-injected words “CorruptAbel,” “FireAbel,” and “ReplaceAbel.”

The E. 12th St. land was slated to become a luxury condo tower made by UrbanCore, but the original deal was scrapped after a secret memo was leaked revealing City Attorney Barbara Parker’s opinion that the deal was in violation of the state Surplus Lands Act.

After the initial deal was scrapped, UrbanCore teamed up with EBALDC, an affordable housing developer group, and submitted a new proposal, which contained some affordable housing.

Local activists teamed up with SAHA (Satellite Affordable Housing Associates) to present the “E. 12th People’s Proposal” in October 2015, for a development that would be 100 percent affordable housing.
Guillén said the SAHA proposal “called for fewer total units in a much shorter building” and that “it would have netted us fewer affordable units citywide than the [UrbanCore + EBALDC] proposal, by requiring significantly more in city subsidies.”

The complaint cites three parties who donated a total of six times in a total amount of $1800 to Guillén’s campaign during the time in which the council was negotiating the land sale—Zachary Wasserman (a private attorney working for UrbanCore), Ener Chiu (a director with EBALDC), and Jason Overman (previously an UrbanCore lobbyist).

The timing of the donations tend to align with months in which Guillén voted in favor of the UrbanCore and EBALDC proposal, but both UrbanCore and EBALDC have correctly stated that none of these donations have come from either of their companies.

“EBALDC has a policy against making political donations,” said Executive Director Joshua Simon. “We respect the privacy of our staff and will not comment on donations that may have been made by individuals.”
The Public Ethics Commission will review the complaint in the coming weeks, to determine its validity.

“I don’t expect this complaint to invalidate the council’s decision [about the land deal],” said Dan Siegel, attorney for East 12th Coalition. “However,…nothing has happened regarding the final sale of the land, so the council has the authority to reconsider this agreement.”

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

First Presbyterian Presents Lucy Kinchen Chorale Spring Concert

Don't Miss

Oakland Council Steps Up to Provide Clean Drinking Water for Oakland’s Students

Oakland Post

Click to comment

Activism

Oakland Post: Week of December 31, 2025 – January 6, 2026

The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of – December 31, 2025 – January 6, 2026

Published

3 days ago

January 2, 2026

Oakland Post

To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

Oakland Post: Week of December 24 – 30, 2025

The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of – December 24 – 30, 2025

Published

2 weeks ago

December 25, 2025

Oakland Post

To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Alameda County

Oakland Council Expands Citywide Security Cameras Despite Major Opposition

In a 7-1 vote in favor of the contract, with only District 3 Councilmember Carroll Fife voting no, the Council agreed to maintain its existing network of 291 cameras and add 40 new “pan-tilt-zoom cameras.”

Published

2 weeks ago

December 21, 2025

Oakland Post

At the International Association of Chiefs of Police Conference, Flock Safety introduces new public safety technology – Amplified Intelligence, a suite of AI-powered tools designed to improve law enforcement investigations. Courtesy photo.

By Post Staff

The Oakland City Council this week approved a $2.25 million contract with Flock Safety for a mass surveillance network of hundreds of security cameras to track vehicles in the city.

In recent weeks hundreds of local residents have spoken against the camera system, raising concerns that data will be shared with immigration authorities and other federal agencies at a time when mass surveillance is growing across the country with little regard for individual rights.

The Flock network, supported by the Oakland Police Department, has the backing of residents and councilmembers who see it as an important tool to protect public safety.

“This system makes the Department more efficient as it allows for information related to disruptive/violent criminal activities to be captured … and allows for precise and focused enforcement,” OPD wrote in its proposal to City Council.

According to OPD, police made 232 arrests using data from Flock cameras between July 2024 and November of this year.

Based on the data, police say they recovered 68 guns, and utilizing the countywide system, they have found 1,100 stolen vehicles.

However, Flock’s cameras cast a wide net. The company’s cameras in Oakland last month captured license plate numbers and other information from about 1.4 million vehicles.

Speaking at Tuesday’s Council meeting, Fife was critical of her colleagues for signing a contract with a company that has been in the national spotlight for sharing data with federal agencies.

Flock’s cameras – which are automated license plate readers – have been used in tracking people who have had abortions, monitoring protesters, and aiding in deportation roundups.

“I don’t know how we get up and have several press conferences talking about how we are supportive of a sanctuary city status but then use a vendor that has been shown to have a direct relationship with (the U.S.) Border Control,” she said. “It doesn’t make sense to me.”

Several councilmembers who voted in favor of the contract said they supported the deal as long as some safeguards were written into the Council’s resolution.

“We’re not aiming for perfection,” said District 1 Councilmember Zac Unger. “This is not Orwellian facial recognition technology — that’s prohibited in Oakland. The road forward here is to add as many amendments as we can.”

Amendments passed by the Council prohibit OPD from sharing camera data with any other agencies for the purpose of “criminalizing reproductive or gender affirming healthcare” or for federal immigration enforcement. California state law also prohibits the sharing of license plate reader data with the federal government, and because Oakland’s sanctuary city status, OPD is not allowed to cooperate with immigration authorities.

A former member of Oakland’s Privacy Advisory Commission has sued OPD, alleging that it has violated its own rules around data sharing.

So far, OPD has shared Flock data with 50 other law enforcement agencies.