Alameda County Approves Policy to Guide Ethical Investment of Public Funds

Alameda County’s Board of Supervisors voted Friday to approve — but not implement — a long-awaited ethical investment policy barring investments of public funds in companies that knowingly and directly enable human rights violations.

Though the policy does not mention Israel by name, pro-Palestinian activists hope it will provide a framework to divest from companies with business ties to Israel. Jewish residents supportive of Israel, however, said they worry the new investment policy will normalize hate against Israel and, in turn, Jewish people at a time when reports of antisemitism are on the rise in California.

The policy would also encourage investment in entities that align with the county’s stated goals and values. But it does not take effect until the county can hire a consultant who, with local officials, would conduct a peer review of the drafted policy and present findings or recommendations.

The ethical investment policy was drafted by Alameda County Treasurer-Tax Collector Henry C. Levy. The board’s approval of the policy followed a December 2024 decision by Levy to sell off the county’s $32 million worth of bonds from construction company Caterpillar.

Israel’s use of Caterpillar’s armored heavy machinery — including in their construction of West Bank settlements that are illegal under international law — has made the company a frequent target of divestment advocates.

Levy, who is Jewish, explained his rationale in a January opinion article for The Jewish News of Northern California.

“The bulldozing of Palestinian homes appeared to be against our county’s official goals for our own residents that include ‘eliminate homelessness,’ ‘eliminate poverty and hunger’ and ‘accessible infrastructure.’ In the end, it was not a difficult decision for me to sell Caterpillar,” Levy wrote.

Hundreds of people showed up to the meeting, hoping to share public comment, many wearing keffiyehs and holding signs reading “LET GAZA LIVE” or “NO BOMBS IN OUR MONEY.”

“My congregation, along with the vast majority of people who have come here to speak, is in strong support of the EIP,” said Allison Tanner, a pastor at Lakeshore Avenue Baptist Church in Oakland. “It reflects the faith values of my congregation, affirming the sacredness of all human beings and also the need to create structures that ensure their safety.”

Opponents of the policy, including members of the Jewish Community Relations Council, also spoke.

“While there’s nothing wrong with ethical investment, that’s not really what this policy is about. How do I know that? By looking around this room, people talking about it are talking only about Israel,” said Karen Stiller, senior director of Jewish affairs for JCRC. “The only foreign conflict that ever gets discussed in this room is Israel and Palestine. Why is that a problem? It’s a problem because it’s created an environment where antisemitism thrives and Jews are simply attacked for caring about their Israeli friends and family.”

Several Jewish speakers mentioned rising antisemitism and fears for their safety as part of their reason for opposing the policy, while others emphasized that their Jewish beliefs compelled them to support the policy and minimize complicity in the suffering of Palestinians.

Supervisor Nikki Fortunato Bas was the only member of the board to vote no on Friday, only because she preferred that the new policy be implemented immediately — not just approved.

“I support the policy as is, I think this is not the right decision,” Fortunato Bas said, eliciting cheers from the audience.

Several members of the board said they had concerns.

Supervisor Nate Miley said he was uncomfortable with a provision that singled out specific industries — discouraging investments in companies that generate more than 10% of revenue from oil, gas and coal, firearms, tobacco, casinos and gaming, security and correctional facilities, alcoholic beverages and defense.

“I have a real visceral reaction to singling out certain [industries] — you know, I drink alcohol,” Miley said. “I don’t gamble. I just have a problem earmarking certain industries.”

Miley said he’d prefer leaving discretion to divest from specific companies to the county treasurer-tax collector.

Board President David Haubert also questioned whether the policy would be too restrictive, leaving the county without enough investment options or resulting in lower returns on its investments.

He pointed to a section discouraging investments in sectors that demonstrate severe or persistent human rights violations in their operations or supply chains, including textiles and apparel, electronic equipment and agricultural products.

“Why aren’t we looking at the supply chain coming from China? Why aren’t we looking at Ethiopia and the Tigrays in Sudan and Darfur and Myanmar and Rohingya? There are products made there, there are investments made in all sorts of areas that have problems,” Haubert said. “Indeed, if you let this keep going … we might not be able to invest in hardly anything.”

Levy clarified that the policy only discourages, but doesn’t outright ban, investments in those areas. He also said he believes the policy would not lower the county’s returns.