In a convoluted vote Friday, Alameda County officials adopted an ethical investment policy — but delayed its implementation until further review and possible changes. 

Under the policy proposed by Treasurer Henry Levy, the county would be “discouraged” from investing in companies or funds that make at least 10% of their revenue from fossil fuels, firearms, tobacco, and other specified industries. It would also be discouraged from investing in sectors like textiles and electronics that have shoddy track records around human rights.

But it was a particular clause in the policy that brought hundreds of people out to Friday’s meeting and prompted “thousands” to send emails to county officials:

“Alameda County will not invest in companies that consistently, knowingly and directly facilitate and enable severe violations of human rights, as outlined in international law and the U.N. Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.”

While Levy explained this provision is meant to be “universal,” applying to any number of global and domestic conflicts, it was widely interpreted by both supporters and opponents of the policy to have significant implications for companies that support the Israeli government. 

Levy made a decision last year to divest from the company Caterpillar by selling about $32 million in corporate bonds the county owned. Caterpillar sells heavy equipment to the Israeli military, including bulldozers used to destroy infrastructure, homes, roads, and more. Israeli soldiers also used a Caterpillar bulldozer to kill the American activist Rachel Corrie in 2003.

Around the time of that divestment decision, then-Supervisor Keith Carson proposed a broader ethical investment policy for the county, focused on environmental and human rights violations. The board unanimously voted in December 2024 to direct Levy to come up with a policy that reflected the county’s stated values and involved community input. Levy said the policy pitched Friday was the product of 25 community meetings, guidance from a consultant, and approval by the Treasury Oversight Commission in May.

For decades, both the public and private sectors have created guidelines for investing responsibly, but these policies vary widely in their scope and implementation. There’s rarely agreement among stakeholders about what kinds of investments are or are not ethical or sustainable.

A majority of the five-member board — President David Haubert and supervisors Lena Tam and Nate Miley — said they wouldn’t support Levy’s policyx without additional review analyzing, variously, its financial risk, whether to give the treasurer more or less power to make decisions about specific investments, and potential “bias” in the policy against particular governments. 

Supervisor Elisa Marquez, who said she supported the policy, voted along with the majority to delay implementation until that review occurs. 

Supervisor Nikki Fortunato Bas was the sole vote in opposition, arguing to adopt and immediately implement the policy as is. 

Levy expressed frustration that most of the supervisors seemed to be listening to what he described as “lies and innuendo” from some members of the public regarding his financial stewardship of Alameda County’s $10 billion investment fund. A few people accused him during the meeting of losing money and avoiding transparency.

“I don’t believe we’ll have a lower yield because of this policy,” Levy said, noting he’d had an expert in ethical investments review the policy. 

Levy predicted that any outside reviewer would simply come back and tell the board they need to decide themselves how to handle the controversy among the public.

“We’re going to be back in this room in six months,” he said. “Do you want to include the words ‘human rights violations’? That’s where the hang up is.”

Dozens of speakers squeezed into the comment period allotted by the board and pressed supervisors to adopt the policy. Many wore shirts and waved protest  flags calling for an “arms embargo” and draped keffiyahs around their shoulders.

“It is a moral choice to make sure the investments of our county are not harming people,” said one speaker. “It’s actually pretty basic.”

“For the past two years, I’ve had no choice but to see my money and tax dollars support the killings of my own people, which has been incredibly painful,” said a Palestinian American speaker. “If you vote no, consider your responsibility for funding the genocide, the killing of women, the killing of children, and the dehumanization of Palestinians.”

A number of speakers were part of a sustained campaign organizing in support of the policy since December, led by the Democratic Socialists of America’s East Bay chapter and a coalition of labor, Arab American, and Jewish groups.

Dozens of speakers also implored the board to reject the policy, including several from Jewish organizations.

The policy “may seem neutral, but it’s driven by anti-Israel activists,” said a woman with the Oakland Jewish Alliance. She said it plays into rising antisemitism that’s led to attacks like this week’s on a synagogue in the UK. “Expect legal action if it’s not applied equally,” she warned the board.

A 17-year-old speaker said anti-Israel sentiment has made her feel unsafe in her daily life. “The policy will likely be used to boycott Israel” and encourage those sentiments, she said.

Some speakers criticized the county for releasing the agenda for Friday’s meeting on Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar. 

Several other Jewish speakers said it was their faith, and that holiday, that led them to support the proposed policy.

During Yom Kippur, “we focus on ways we can repair the harms we’ve caused over the past year,” a speaker said. “In continuing with that tradition, I’m here to support the ratifying of a strong, radical investment policy.”

“Making sure our taxpayer funds are not invested in violence is a move in the right direction,” said another. “It is actually our Jewish values to oppose genocidal acts, war crimes, and ethnic cleansing.”

“A lot of the comments against this proposal are relying on an imagined connection between this form of investing and antisemitism,” said a speaker.

Haubert ended the comment period after a bit over an hour, saying some supervisors had other obligations and noting that comments on both sides had grown “redundant.” This drew criticism from some of his board colleagues.

The policy would apply to about the 10% of the county’s investment portfolio — about $1 billion in bonds —  that’s made up of holdings in specific companies.

All county investments are required, under state law, to prioritize “safety, liquidity, and yield,” in that order, Levy said. The county should also, he said, align its investments with values it’s previously defined under its Vision 2036 plan.

Alameda County’s investment protocol already encourages “socially responsible” purchases, and the board has voted in the past to divest from South Africa during apartheid and from Burma. Levy told the board that the new policy is meant to “elevate” the discussion and create clearer paths for supervisors or members of the public to propose review of questionable investments. 

Supervisors Haubert and Tam expressed the most concern over the policy and the points raised by those opposing it. 

“I don’t think the compassion that we as a county are feeling over the global conflicts is mutually exclusive with the need for accountability and a more precise way of looking at this ethical investment policy,” she said. “This issue is very polarizing. We can’t control how people view words. I don’t think a policy that symbolizes problems we’re having with tolerance and antisemitism should be moving forward.”

Bas and Marquez both called the policy necessary.

“It is comprehensive, it is universal, it does not target any particular country,” Bas said. “However, it is clear globally and in the U.S. what some of the largest conflicts are,” she said, mentioning Gaza and immigration raids locally. 

“Nothing we do is easy, but if we really center our decisions on our own humanity and our own compassion, I think we’ll do the right thing,” she added.

When the board first moved to postpone the policy pending further review, Bas called the decision “incredibly disheartening and disappointing,” prompting shouts from the audience of, “Shame!” and “Cowards.” The board went into recess in response.

When they returned, supervisors traded motions and squabbled over the right path forward. Supervisor Miley, who said he has “friends on both sides of this,” ultimately prevailed with his move to adopt the policy but not put it into effect yet. 

The county’s Finance Committee — a body that hasn’t met in a couple of years — will be in charge of the review, and will likely bring on a new consultant. Nobody at Friday’s meeting seemed completely clear about who’s on the committee.

Frustrated activists left the room slowly, chanting in the hallway and then outside.