A divided audience packed the Alameda County Board of Supervisors meeting on Friday, as the board adopted a policy that discourages the county from investing in companies with poor human rights practices, among other things. 

But the motion also called for delaying implementation of the Ethics Investment Policy until the board’s Finance Committee reviews it. That prompted Supervisor Nikki Fortunato Bas to cast the lone vote against it, saying she supported the policy without the stipulation.

“This is incredibly disheartening and disappointing,” Fortunato Bas said.

Many in the audience echoed her sentiment, chanting “Change, Change” which led board President  David Haubert to call a recess.

The policy would limit the county from investing its $10 billion portfolio in industries deemed harmful to communities and the planet, while guiding investments that are more closely aligned with county goals and values, such as sustainability, environmental stewardship, health, well-being and social responsibility. Opponents of the policy said it targeted Israel and could be construed as anti-Semitic. 

Tim Drew, a co-chair of Divest from Apartheid, a  campaign within the East Bay Democratic Socialists of America, said he was concerned the board was just kicking the can down the road. 

“We just have another hoop that we need to jump through, and a totally unreasonable hoop,” Drew said. 

The vote comes after months of increased pressure from community groups, including Drew’s,  who clamored for a policy focused especially on divestment from businesses profiting off genocide or apartheid, or engaged in human rights abuses and violations. Hundreds of people filled the board chambers, requiring an overflow room in another building for participants to view the meeting and speak via livestream. Many others joined remotely. The county clerk reported that 211 comment cards were filled out by attendees, but not all could speak within the allotted time provided by the board.  

Tensions in the room were high after almost two hours of public comment, which involved much debate on whether supporting or opposing the proposed policy was akin to choosing sides in the conflict between Israel and Palestine. Supporters argued that the proposed policy reflects community values they hold and also takes a stand against forms of oppression that do harm to others, while critics claimed it targets Israel, goes beyond the local political scope into foreign affairs, risks financial instability, and increases  anti-Semitism, jeopardizing the safety of Jewish residents.

During the meeting, county Treasurer Henry Levy, who drafted the policy, emphasized that it does not target or single out any individual countries. 

“This is not about Israel. This is not about the Middle East conflict. This is universal,” said Levy. 

The board directed Levy to draft the policy in December. Levy said he held about 30 listening sessions for input from the community, and worked with a consultant to guide the county in what industries to invest in.

The Ethical Investments Policy includes human rights violations and abuses in its criteria for guiding investments away from companies with poor practices. Bas voiced her support for this and referenced atrocities occurring in Palestine.

Noting how the policy had become a polarizing issue, Supervisor Lena Tam proposed that it may need to be strengthened with the help of the consultant, whose contract Levy hoped the board would extend.

“I don’t think a policy that symbolizes the problems that we’re having with tolerance or anti-Semitism, should be moving forward without some real acknowledgement of what’s going on,” said Tam. “To have that re-evaluation, I think, is warranted.”

Supervisor Nate Miley took issue with a criterion discouraging investment from entities deriving more than 10% of their profits from industries like tobacco and alcohol. Haubert asked Levy if the county’s portfolio had underperformed and voiced apprehension as to whether the policy would prevent the county from getting the best investments. Levy said Haubert’s questioning, which echoed arguments put forth by opponents of the policy who spoke at the meeting, drew on misinformation meant to undermine trust in public officials.

Though the board forwarded the policy to the Finance Committee, supervisors weren’t sure who was on that committee. Levy said it hasn’t met in years. County Administrator Susan Muranishi said that generally, the Finance Committee would include the treasurer, two supervisors, and representatives from the county administrator’s and auditor-controller offices.

The committee’s review is expected to take several months.

Oakland eyes another parcel tax increase to close budget gap