MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
7:00 P.M., MARCH 16, 2026
CONSIDER ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 26-3511 REAFFIRMING THE PROVISIONS AND RECITALS OF RESOLUTION NO. 22-3344 DISAPPROVING OF,
AND CENSURING, CERTAIN CONDUCT AND BEHAVIOR BY COUNCILMEMBER
BENJAMIN LOPEZ, RE-RATIFYING PROTECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE CITY
MANAGER, AND, FURTHER, EXPANDING UPON THE CENSURE BY DIRECTING
THAT CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE/ECONOMIC
SANCTIONS BE TAKEN AGAINST COUNCILMEMBER LOPEZ.
CONSIDER ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 26-3511 REAFFIRMING RESOLUTION NO. 22-3344, RE-RATIFYING PROTECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN
BY THE CITY MANAGER AND, FURTHER, DIRECTING THAT CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE/ECONOMIC SANCTIONS BE TAKEN.
Background:
• In June and July 2021, two employees of the City brought forth separate complaints against Councilmember Benjamin Lopez, alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation and unlawful sexual harassment.
• Upon filing of the allegations, the City Manager took the following, immediate actions:
• Implemented measures to protect employees from further harassment, discrimination, bullying and retaliation—these measures are identified on Pages 100-102 of the agenda); and
• Requested City Council approval of Agreement No. 21-47 to hire EXTTI, Inc. to conduct an independent workplace investigation of the allegations.
CONSIDER ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 26-3511 REAFFIRMING RESOLUTION NO. 22-3344, RE-RATIFYING PROTECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN
BY THE CITY MANAGER AND, FURTHER, DIRECTING THAT CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE/ECONOMIC SANCTIONS BE TAKEN.
Background:
• At a March 1, 2022, special meeting that adjourned to Closed Session, the EXTTI investigator provided the City Council with an oral presentation of the completed investigation, including findings reached that sustained the following:
• Councilmember Lopez, as a private individual and outside the course and scope of his duties, responsibilities and performance as a member of the City Council, did:
• Conduct an extended and unwanted conversation with one employee about his sexual orientation; and
• Intentionally hide his identity from another employee when they communicated on social media dating sites, and that their communications included the sharing of sexually explicit content and photographs.
• The City Council was also made aware of two verified complaints filed by the two employees against Councilmember Lopez and the City, alleging Councilmember Lopez engaged in discrimination based on sexual orientation and unlawful sexual harassment.
CONSIDER ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 26-3511 REAFFIRMING RESOLUTION NO. 22-3344, RE-RATIFYING PROTECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN
BY THE CITY MANAGER AND, FURTHER, DIRECTING THAT CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE/ECONOMIC SANCTIONS BE TAKEN.
Background:
• At its March 21, 2022, regular meeting, the City Council discussed preparation of a resolution of censure against Councilmember Lopez for his conduct and behavior, with the discussion on censure including the following:
• The filing of complaints by the two employees;
• Information related to the EXTTI investigator’s report; • Actions taken by the City Manager to protect employees of the organization, including restrictions imposed on Councilmember Lopez;
• Other prohibitions the City Council may consider imposing on Councilmember Lopez; and • Discussion of the censure process.
CONSIDER ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 26-3511 REAFFIRMING RESOLUTION NO. 22-3344, RE-RATIFYING PROTECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN
BY THE CITY MANAGER AND, FURTHER, DIRECTING THAT CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE/ECONOMIC SANCTIONS BE TAKEN.
Censure:
• What is Censure? Censure is an official condemnation of a public official, taken in open session, to formally express disapproval of an incumbent’s actions. • What are Reasons for Support of a Resolution of Censure? • Disruption of meetings;
• Breach of fiduciary duties;
• Failure to disclose conflicts of interest and other Fair Political Practices Commission violations;
• Improper, inappropriate, harassing, bullying or offensive behavior and other violations of the Fair Employment Housing Act (FEHA);
• Ralph M. Brown Act Violations; and
• Other violations of law.
CONSIDER ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 26-3511 REAFFIRMING RESOLUTION NO. 22-3344, RE-RATIFYING PROTECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN
BY THE CITY MANAGER AND, FURTHER, DIRECTING THAT CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE/ECONOMIC SANCTIONS BE TAKEN.
Censure:
• How is a Censure Resolution Adopted? By majority vote, a City Council may adopt a Resolution of Censure if there is substantial evidence in the record to support a decision to censure a City Council incumbent.
• What are the Impacts of Censure on an Incumbent’s Powers and Authority? Censure does not remove an incumbent from office nor restrict his/her statutory authority. It is, however, a collective act of public reprimand, rebuke or disapproval that may incorporate specified restrictive actions and sanctions. • What are the Due Process Rights Related to Censure? A City Council incumbent subject to censure is entitled to due process and an opportunity to be heard on, and respond to, the proposed Resolution of Censure.
• On February 16, 2026, with the City Manager in attendance, Mayor John Dutrey advised Councilmember Lopez that the City Council would be considering Resolution No. 26-3511, reaffirming the censure actions in Resolution No. 22-3344, plus additional restrictions and sanctions.
CONSIDER ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 26-3511 REAFFIRMING RESOLUTION NO. 22-3344, RE-RATIFYING PROTECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN
BY THE CITY MANAGER AND, FURTHER, DIRECTING THAT CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE/ECONOMIC SANCTIONS BE TAKEN.
What Findings are Made in Resolution No. 22-3344?
• At its April 4, 2022, meeting, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 22-3344, making the following findings:
• That EXTTI sustained the following allegations made in the complaints filed by the two City employees:
• That the greater weight of the evidence supports a finding that Councilmember Lopez engaged in discrimination based on sexual orientation.
• That the greater weight of the evidence supports a finding that Councilmember Lopez engaged in unlawful sexual harassment; did hide his identity when communicating on social media dating sites; and solicitated and participated in sharing sexually explicit photographs and content.
• That Montclair has a zero-tolerance policy against harassment, discrimination, bullying and retaliation.
CONSIDER ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 26-3511 REAFFIRMING RESOLUTION NO. 22-3344, RE-RATIFYING PROTECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN
BY THE CITY MANAGER AND, FURTHER, DIRECTING THAT CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE/ECONOMIC SANCTIONS BE TAKEN.
What Findings are Made in Resolution No. 22-3344?
• That Councilmember Lopez’ conduct and behavior was “reprehensible, inappropriate, abusive and disrespectful, and brought disrepute to the City of Montclair and the Montclair City Council, and that such conduct was not to be tolerated and shall be prevented from being repeated.”
• That the City has a duty and obligation to prevent workplace conditions of harassment, discrimination, bullying and retaliation.
• That when such workplace behavior occurs, an employee of the City would be properly disciplined, up to and including termination. State law, however, provides only a limited, circumscribed process for the removal of a locally elected official that is, for the most part, not generally available to a city council; further, state law provides no comprehensive set of guidelines for discipline of a locally elected official.
CONSIDER ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 26-3511 REAFFIRMING RESOLUTION NO. 22-3344, RE-RATIFYING PROTECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN
BY THE CITY MANAGER AND, FURTHER, DIRECTING THAT CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE/ECONOMIC SANCTIONS BE TAKEN.
What Findings are Made in Resolution No. 22-3344?
• That Council Member Lopez, as a private individual acting outside the course and scope of his duties, responsibilities and performance as a member of the Montclair City Council, did engage in interactions with certain employees which were inappropriate, abusive and disrespectful, and by his conduct brought disrepute to the City of Montclair and Montclair City Council.
• That Council Member Lopez was acting solely as an individual without any authorization or ratification of his actions or behavior by the City Council, and that such conduct and behavior is contrary to the legitimate interests of the City of Montclair.
CONSIDER ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 26-3511 REAFFIRMING RESOLUTION NO. 22-3344, RE-RATIFYING PROTECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN
BY THE CITY MANAGER AND, FURTHER, DIRECTING THAT CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE/ECONOMIC SANCTIONS BE TAKEN.
What Other Actions or Determinations are Included in Resolution No. 22-3344? • States that the duty of the City Council to residents and employees is to ensure that local, state and federal laws, as well as the rules, regulations and policies of the City, are complied with.
• Recognizes that effective governance requires:
• Public confidence in the integrity, dignity, competence, professionalism and appropriate decorum and behavior of elected and appointed leaders; and • Fair, respectful, courteous and dignified treatment of employees and members of the public.
• Affirms that elected representatives shall demonstrate the highest level of professionalism, and not behave in a manner that is detrimental or adverse to the interests of the City.
CONSIDER ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 26-3511 REAFFIRMING RESOLUTION NO. 22-3344, RE-RATIFYING PROTECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN
BY THE CITY MANAGER AND, FURTHER, DIRECTING THAT CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE/ECONOMIC SANCTIONS BE TAKEN.
What Other Actions or Determinations are Included in Resolution No. 22-3344? • Recites the City Council’s hiring of an independent workplace investigator to conduct an investigation into allegations made by certain employees that Councilmember Lopez engaged in inappropriate interactions. • Declares that the City Council does not condone or approve of the type of conduct and behavior exhibited by Councilmember Lopez, and found it necessary and prudent to declare its strong disapproval of such conduct and behavior. • Declares that, based on the nature of employee allegations against Councilmember Lopez and the findings reached by the independent workplace investigator sustaining the allegations, together with the filing of the two verified complaints in lawsuits by the same employees alleging unlawful sexual harassment and discrimination by Council Member Lopez based on sexual orientation, the City Council determines there is sufficient cause to censure Councilmember Lopez.
CONSIDER ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 26-3511 REAFFIRMING RESOLUTION NO. 22-3344, RE-RATIFYING PROTECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN
BY THE CITY MANAGER AND, FURTHER, DIRECTING THAT CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE/ECONOMIC SANCTIONS BE TAKEN.
What Other Actions or Determinations are Included in Resolution No. 22-3344? • Incorporated, by reference, the March 3, 2022, notice to Council Member Lopez entitled, “Restrictions on Access to City Facilities and Prohibition Against contact with City Employees.”
• Declared that censure is necessary to affirm that the conduct, as described in Resolution No. 22-3344, will not be tolerated and shall be prevented from being repeated.
CONSIDER ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 26-3511 REAFFIRMING RESOLUTION NO. 22-3344, RE-RATIFYING PROTECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN
BY THE CITY MANAGER AND, FURTHER, DIRECTING THAT CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE/ECONOMIC SANCTIONS BE TAKEN.
What Other Actions or Determinations are Included in Resolution No. 22-3344? • Incorporated, by reference, protective and restrictive measures implemented by the City Manager, as enumerated at the March 21, 2022, meeting of the City Council, including the following (Pages 102-105 of the Agenda):
• That Council Member Lopez is removed from all appointed City Council Committees; sub– committees of the City Council; City–sponsored committees including, but not limited to, social, event, recreation, and community–oriented committees; and inter–agency committees and boards involving City of Montclair representation. • That Council Member Lopez is prohibited from speaking on behalf of the City Council or representing the City in any capacity other than as authorized in the Montclair Municipal Code.
• That Council Member Lopez shall refrain from one–on–one contact, either on a personal or professional level, with employees of the City of Montclair, and shall be prohibited from participating in public safety ride–along events provided through the City’s Code Enforcement, Police, Human Services and Fire Departments.
CONSIDER ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 26-3511 REAFFIRMING RESOLUTION NO. 22-3344, RE-RATIFYING PROTECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN
BY THE CITY MANAGER AND, FURTHER, DIRECTING THAT CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE/ECONOMIC SANCTIONS BE TAKEN.
What Other Actions or Determinations are Included in Resolution No. 22-3344? • That Council Member Lopez is prohibited from overnight stays in public safety crew sleeping quarters.
• That Council Member Lopez is prohibited from the use of any locker room or exercise facilities owned and operated by the City and available to, or designated for use by, employees of the City.
• That Council Member Lopez’ access to the City’s universal Z–Drive where documents, photographs and communications between employees of the City are shared is removed.
Any specific City–related document requiring Council Member Lopez’ attention will be forwarded to him by the City Manager, City Attorney or City Clerk under separate communication. The City Clerk is directed to arrange for delivery of City Council agendas and other City–related documents requiring Council Member Lopez’ attention to his home, by email, or otherwise arrange for their pickup by Council Member Lopez or his representative in a public area at City Hall.
CONSIDER ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 26-3511 REAFFIRMING RESOLUTION NO. 22-3344, RE-RATIFYING PROTECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN
BY THE CITY MANAGER AND, FURTHER, DIRECTING THAT CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE/ECONOMIC SANCTIONS BE TAKEN.
What Other Actions or Determinations are Included in Resolution No. 22-3344? • All interagency email and text communications from Council Member Lopez shall be directed only to City Council colleagues, the City Attorney or the City Manager, and to the City Clerk for purposes of City Council agendas and elections. • Notwithstanding the foregoing, any communications concerning the censure and the two lawsuits filed by the two employees shall be between Council Member Lopez’ legal counsel and the City’s defense counsel.
• Except as otherwise provided for in Resolution No. 22-3344, Council Member Lopez is prohibited from engaging in communications in an official or personal capacity with any employee of the City of Montclair via electronic communications, social media, and written correspondence or other media.
• That Council Member Lopez is prohibited from City–paid/non–paid travel to conferences, meetings, training and/or other events where representation of the City is involved; and paid or non–paid travel provided through other public or private entities where representation of the City of Montclair is involved.
CONSIDER ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 26-3511 REAFFIRMING RESOLUTION NO. 22-3344, RE-RATIFYING PROTECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN
BY THE CITY MANAGER AND, FURTHER, DIRECTING THAT CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE/ECONOMIC SANCTIONS BE TAKEN.
What Other Actions or Determinations are Included in Resolution No. 22-3344? • That Council Member Lopez is required to attend City–approved sexual harassment prevention training, and other training as may be required by the City Manager. • Training should occur within thirty- (30) calendar days following adoption of Resolution No. 22- 3344. Furthermore, such training shall be repeated annually, subject to scheduling by the City Manager.
• Councilmember Lopez failed to attend the City-directed training as specified in Resolution No. 22-3344.
• Other actions as may be considered and implemented, from time–to–time, as necessary to protect the employees of the City from harassment, discrimination, bullying, and/or retaliation.
• All ratified actions to remain in place until otherwise rescinded by the appropriate authority.
CONSIDER ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 26-3511 REAFFIRMING RESOLUTION NO. 22-3344, RE-RATIFYING PROTECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN
BY THE CITY MANAGER AND, FURTHER, DIRECTING THAT CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE/ECONOMIC SANCTIONS BE TAKEN.
What Other Actions or Determinations are Included in Resolution No. 22-3344? • Declares that Councilmember Lopez shall comply with all restrictions imposed as enumerated in Resolution No. 22-3344, and as ratified and ordered by the City Council, to be enforced by the City Manager.
• Directs the City Manager to immediately notify the City Council if Councilmember Lopez engages in future conduct proscribed by Resolution No. 22-3344. • Declares the intent of the City Council, in the event of future improper and unprofessional conduct by Councilmember Lopez in violation of the provisions contained in Resolution No. 22-3344, to pursue all legal remedies available by law to prohibit such conduct and enforce compliance.
CONSIDER ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 26-3511 REAFFIRMING RESOLUTION NO. 22-3344, RE-RATIFYING PROTECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN
BY THE CITY MANAGER AND, FURTHER, DIRECTING THAT CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE/ECONOMIC SANCTIONS BE TAKEN.
Why Consider Resolution No. 26-3511 ?
• Councilmember Lopez failed to participate in, or respond timely to, the City Councilmandated sexual harassment prevention training class designed to address specific issues related to matters contained in Resolution No. 22-3344. • Councilmember Lopez failed to participate in, or respond to, an October 6, 2022, global mediation settlement meeting between the Parties (City and Special Legal Counsel, Lopez and his legal counsel, City employees and their legal counsel). • Montclair separately agreed to fully fund the cost of mediation ($7,500) between the Parties and resolve outstanding litigation and economic matters ($550,000) between the Participating Parties (City and the two employees) through a settlement agreement. • Lopez’ failure to participate resulted in the City joining with the employee complainants in a cross-complaint, with the City seeking compensation for its economic damages.
CONSIDER ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 26-3511 REAFFIRMING RESOLUTION NO. 22-3344, RE-RATIFYING PROTECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN
BY THE CITY MANAGER AND, FURTHER, DIRECTING THAT CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE/ECONOMIC SANCTIONS BE TAKEN.
Why Consider Resolution No. 26-3511 ?
• On December 5, 2025, Superior Court Judge Kory Mathewson issued his oral Tentative Decision in favor of the two employees (“Plaintiffs”) and CrossComplainant City of Montclair against Lopez (“Defendant Lopez”). • Plaintiffs each received $350,000 in past damages and $50,000 in future damages, for a total of $800,000, plus punitive damages to be determined. • Cross-complainant City was awarded indemnity in the amount of 100% ($550,000 in settlement costs), plus attorneys’ fees and costs.
• On December 12, 2025, Superior Court Judge Mathewson imposed against Defendant Lopez $176,000 in punitive damages, or $88,000 per plaintiff. • Cross-complainant City of Montclair did not seek punitive damages.
CONSIDER ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 26-3511 REAFFIRMING RESOLUTION NO. 22-3344, RE-RATIFYING PROTECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN
BY THE CITY MANAGER, AND DIRECTING THAT CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE/ECONOMIC SANCTIONS BE TAKEN.
Why Consider Resolution No. 26-3511 ?
• On January 5, 2026, Superior Court Judge Mathewson issued his Proposed Statement of Decision (which became the Statement of Decision without objection within the statutory period), finding as follows:
• In favor of the Plaintiffs on each of their respective causes of action for Unlawful Sexual Harassment in violation of the Fair Employment Housing Act, and against Defendant Lopez, stating Defendant Lopez’ conduct amounted to “malice, oppression, and/or fraud justifying a punitive damage award.”
• In favor of the Plaintiffs on each of their respective claims, plus punitive damages, against Defendant Lopez in the aggregate amount of $488,000 for each Plaintiff—$976,000 total. • In favor of Cross-Complainant City of Montclair on its cause of action for indemnity against Defendant Lopez, with equitable relief for attorneys’ fees and costs, and $550,000 in past settlement payments made to Plaintiffs.
• Montclair’s current expenditures total in excess of $750,000.
CONSIDER ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 26-3511 REAFFIRMING RESOLUTION NO. 22-3344, RE-RATIFYING PROTECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN
BY THE CITY MANAGER AND, FURTHER, DIRECTING THAT CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE/ECONOMIC SANCTIONS BE TAKEN.
Why Consider Resolution No. 26-3511 ?
• In his Statement of Decision, Judge Mathewson also found that:
• “Defendant Lopez is liable as an employe of the City of Montclair because, as a member of the City Council, Lopez is an employee of the City. Lopez is also a supervisor within the meaning of the Fair Employment Housing Act (FEHA).”
• Defendant Lopez is personally liable pursuant to FEHA, which holds that, “An employee of an entity subject to this subdivision is personally liable for any harassment prohibited by this section that is perpetrated by the employee . . . .”
CONSIDER ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 26-3511 REAFFIRMING RESOLUTION NO. 22-3344, RE-RATIFYING PROTECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN
BY THE CITY MANAGER AND, FURTHER, DIRECTING THAT CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE/ECONOMIC SANCTIONS BE TAKEN.
Is a City Councilmember a “Supervisor,” “Member of the Workforce,” or “Employee? • Pursuant to various laws/interpretations, including the following, locally elected officials are defined or referenced as either “supervisors,” “members of the workforce,” or “employees”:
• Assembly Bill 1661, requiring sexual harassment prevention training; • Assembly Bill 1825, extending sexual harassment prevention training to all supervisory employes, including locally elected leaders;
• The Fair Employment Housing Act (FEHA); and
• Determinations by the Judicial Council of California Advisory Committee on Civil Jury Instructions (Pages 1,606-1,608).
Together with the decision by Judge Mathewson stating that, “Defendant Lopez is liable as an employee of the City of Montclair because, as a member of the City Council, Lopez is an employee of the City,” Resolution No. 26-3511 makes the determination that Lopez is a “Supervisor,” “Member of the Workforce” and “Employee,” making him subject to sanctions by the City Council.
CONSIDER ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 26-3511 REAFFIRMING RESOLUTION NO. 22-3344, RE-RATIFYING PROTECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN
BY THE CITY MANAGER AND, FURTHER, DIRECTING THAT CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE/ECONOMIC SANCTIONS BE TAKEN.
Can Resolution No. 26-3511 Impose Economic Sanctions Against Councilmember Lopez?
• Various California Government Code provisions and Attorney General legal opinions provide that compensation and/or benefits for city council members is/are generally not mandatory, including the following:
• GC Section 53235 provides that if any type of compensation, salary or stipend is paid to a member of a legislative body, then all local agency officials shall receive training in ethics. • GC Section 36516 provides that a City Council may enact an ordinance providing that each member of the city council shall receive a salary based on the population for the City. • SB 329 provides cities with the option to adjust council member compensation. • GC Section 53208 provides that elected members may participate in health and welfare benefit plans.
CONSIDER ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 26-3511 REAFFIRMING RESOLUTION NO. 22-3344, RE-RATIFYING PROTECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN
BY THE CITY MANAGER AND, FURTHER, DIRECTING THAT CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE/ECONOMIC SANCTIONS BE TAKEN.
Can Resolution No. 26-3511 Impose Economic Sanctions Against Councilmember Lopez?
• GC Section 53201 provides that a legislative body may provide for any health and welfare benefits who elect to accept the benefits and authorize the local agency to deduct premiums from their compensation.
• GC Section 53205 provides that a legislative body may authorize payment of all or such portion as it may elect, of the premiums or charges for health and welfare benefits. • GC Section 53208.5 provides cities with the option to adjust council member compensation.
• GC Section 53208 provides that elected members may participate in health and welfare benefit plans.
• Attorney General Opinion No. 08-405 provides that, “A city may provide a vehicle allowance to its city council members in lieu of reimbursing actual vehicle expenses . . . .” CONSIDER ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 26-3511 REAFFIRMING RESOLUTION NO. 22-3344, RE-RATIFYING PROTECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN
BY THE CITY MANAGER AND, FURTHER, DIRECTING THAT CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE/ECONOMIC SANCTIONS BE TAKEN.
Can Resolution No. 26-3511 Impose Economic Sanctions Against Councilmember Lopez?
• The Montclair City Council also possesses its foundational legislative prerogative, the “Power of the Purse,” giving it authority to impose economic sanctions against an employee or a City Council colleague adjudicated to be in violation of their duty to office.
• “Power of the Purse” is the authority bestowed upon a legislative body to allocate, control, regulate, authorize and restrict the use funds for a variety of purposes including, but not limited to, activities, services, infrastructure improvements, maintenance and operations, fiscal and operational accountability, labor relations and other personnel-related matters, either positively or negatively, the latter which may include withholding, controlling, limiting, reducing or restricting available forms of compensation or reimbursement, including as a means of discipline or sanction against an employee or legislative member.
CONSIDER ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 26-3511 REAFFIRMING RESOLUTION NO. 22-3344, RE-RATIFYING PROTECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN
BY THE CITY MANAGER AND, FURTHER, DIRECTING THAT CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE/ECONOMIC SANCTIONS BE TAKEN.
Can Resolution No. 26-3511 Impose Economic Sanctions Against Councilmember Lopez?
• Forms of compensation subject to “Power of the Purse” sanctions or other actions for personnel-related matters may include, but not be limited to, the following:
• Travel
• Meals
• Lodging
• Education
• Incentive
• Compensation and benefit restrictions and/or reductions related to discipline or fiscal conditions
• Restrictions or reductions related to other forms of non-mandatory compensation • Loss of employment
CONSIDER ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 26-3511 REAFFIRMING RESOLUTION NO. 22-3344, RE-RATIFYING PROTECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN
BY THE CITY MANAGER AND, FURTHER, DIRECTING THAT CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE/ECONOMIC SANCTIONS BE TAKEN.
In Relation to Sanctions, Economic and Otherwise, What is City Council Authority Predicated on?
• City Council authority is predicated on a number laws, legal opinions, legislative prerogatives, court cases and decisions, FPPC code of ethics, the “power of the purse,” and duly-sworn promises including, but not limited to, the following:
• Statement of Decision by Superior Court Judge Kory Mathewson in Garcia/Fuentes v.
Lopez and City of Montclair v Lopez, (1-05-2026), Case No. CIVSB2133471. • Judge Mathewson’s declaration that, “Defendant Lopez is liable as an employee of the City of Montclair because, as a member of the City Council, Lopez is an employee of the City. Lopez is also a supervisor within the meaning of Govt Code Section 12926(t):” • Judge Mathewson’s declaration that, “Defendant Lopez may be held personally liable pursuant to Government Code Section 12940(j)(3), which states: An employee of an entity subject to this subdivision is personally liable for any harassment prohibited by this section that is perpetrated by the employee . . . .”
CONSIDER ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 26-3511 REAFFIRMING RESOLUTION NO. 22-3344, RE-RATIFYING PROTECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN
BY THE CITY MANAGER AND, FURTHER, DIRECTING THAT CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE/ECONOMIC SANCTIONS BE TAKEN.
In Relation to Sanctions, Economic and Otherwise, What is City Council Authority Predicated on?
• California Government Code Section 1360 requires locally elected officials to take and subscribe the oath or affirmation set forth in Article XX Section 3 of the California Constitution, including the commitment to support and defend the Constitutions of the United States and California.
• By their oath of office, city council members are duly-sworn to uphold not only the Federal and State Constitutions, but also the vast network of national, state and local laws, ordinances, rules, regulations, policies and ordinances, including those that govern the workplace and interrelationships between elected officials, managers, supervisors and employees.
CONSIDER ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 26-3511 REAFFIRMING RESOLUTION NO. 22-3344, RE-RATIFYING PROTECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN
BY THE CITY MANAGER AND, FURTHER, DIRECTING THAT CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE/ECONOMIC SANCTIONS BE TAKEN.
In Relation to Sanctions, Economic and Otherwise, What is City Council Authority Predicated on?
• The California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) administers the Political Reform Act, which regulates, among other things, governmental ethics. The FPPC’s objectives are to ensure that public officials:
• Act in a fair and unbiased manner in the government decision making process in order to promote transparency in government;
• Foster public trust in the political system;
• Maintain high standards of integrity, honesty and conduct in all activities; • Be impartial, responsible and accountable to the public; and • Ensure the actions of public officials are above reproach and free from impropriety.
CONSIDER ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 26-3511 REAFFIRMING RESOLUTION NO. 22-3344, RE-RATIFYING PROTECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN
BY THE CITY MANAGER AND, FURTHER, DIRECTING THAT CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE/ECONOMIC SANCTIONS BE TAKEN.
In Relation to Sanctions, Economic and Otherwise, What is City Council Authority Predicated on?
• Provisions of the Fair Employment Housing Act that define locally elected representatives as “supervisors”:
• “Supervisor” means any individual having the authority, in the interest of the employer, to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other employees, or the responsibility to direct them, or to adjust their grievances, or effectively to recommend that action, if, in connection with the foregoing, the exercise of that authority is not of a merely routine or clerical nature, but requires the use of independent judgement.” • Provisions of the Fair Employment Housing Act that define persons subject to relevant subdivisions as “employees,” including Government Code Section 12940(j)(3):
• “An employee of an entity subject to this subdivision is personally liable for any harassment prohibited by this section that is perpetrated by the employee . . . .” CONSIDER ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 26-3511 REAFFIRMING RESOLUTION NO. 22-3344, RE-RATIFYING PROTECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN
BY THE CITY MANAGER AND, FURTHER, DIRECTING THAT CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE/ECONOMIC SANCTIONS BE TAKEN.
In Relation to Sanctions, Economic and Otherwise, What is City Council Authority Predicated on?
• Each of the laws and Attorney General Opinions previously listed including the following, each of which define locally elected officials as either supervisors or members of the workforce :
• Assembly Bill 1661, requiring sexual harassment prevention training; • Assembly Bill 1825, extending sexual harassment prevention training to all supervisory employes, including locally elected leaders;
• Judicial Council of California Advisory Committee on Civil Jury Instructions (Pages 1,606- 1,608).
CONSIDER ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 26-3511 REAFFIRMING RESOLUTION NO. 22-3344, RE-RATIFYING PROTECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN
BY THE CITY MANAGER AND, FURTHER, DIRECTING THAT CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE/ECONOMIC SANCTIONS BE TAKEN.
What are the Findings in Resolution No. 26-3511?
• Based upon the scope of laws designed to subject locally elected officials to certain legal, procedural and administrative actions, up to and including removal from office as provided for under the following:
• GC Sections 3600 – 3075, providing a process for presenting to a grand jury an accusation against a public official for willful or corrupt misconduct in office, and • GC Section 1770, providing that an office becomes vacant upon “his or her conviction of a felony or of any offense involving a violation of his or her official duties . . . When trial court judgment is entered . . . Sentencing the officer or otherwise upholding and implementing the plea, verdict or finding.”
The City Council finds that the California State Legislature did intend to, and does provide authority to subject locally elected officials to certain legal, administrative and procedural actions and/or sanctions administered by the local legislative body.
CONSIDER ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 26-3511 REAFFIRMING RESOLUTION NO. 22-3344, RE-RATIFYING PROTECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN
BY THE CITY MANAGER AND, FURTHER, DIRECTING THAT CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE/ECONOMIC SANCTIONS BE TAKEN.
What are the Findings in Resolution No. 26-3511?
• The City Council finds that actions and/or sanctions may include, but not be limited to, the following:
• Censure.
• Removal from committee assignments,
• Restrictions on travel, meals and lodging, including the elimination of funding related thereto.
• Restrictions on access to facilities maintained and operated by the local entity. • Legal representation including, but not limited to, alleged violations of FEHA. • Prohibitions related to interactions with employees of the agency. • Restrictions on access to local-agency-provided equipment, supplies, and telephone, internet and media accounts.
CONSIDER ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 26-3511 REAFFIRMING RESOLUTION NO. 22-3344, RE-RATIFYING PROTECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN
BY THE CITY MANAGER AND, FURTHER, DIRECTING THAT CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE/ECONOMIC SANCTIONS BE TAKEN.
What are the Findings in Resolution No. 26-3511?
• Removal and/or reductions to non-mandatory forms of compensation. • Sanctions administered in accordance with the FPPC and/or City policies. • Other actions and/or sanctions as determined appropriate by the City Council. • The City Council finds that the public has a right to know the basis for any actions taken against a locally elected official.
• The City Council finds that Councilmember Lopez is a “supervisor” within the meaning of the Fair Employment Housing Act (FEHA), a “member of the workforce” as provided for in AB 1661 and AB 1825, and an “employee” as provided for in FEHA and as declared by Judge Mathewson in Garcia/Fuentes v. Lopez and City of Montclair v. Lopez.
CONSIDER ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 26-3511 REAFFIRMING RESOLUTION NO. 22-3344, RE-RATIFYING PROTECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN
BY THE CITY MANAGER AND, FURTHER, DIRECTING THAT CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE/ECONOMIC SANCTIONS BE TAKEN.
What are the Findings in Resolution No. 26-3511?
• The City Council finds that, as a “supervisor,” “member of the workforce” and an “employee,” Councilmember Lopez is subject to certain administrative actions and/or sanctions, including economic sanctions as may be taken against a manager, supervisor, and/or employee of the City of Montclair.
• The City Council finds that because Councilmember Lopez’ acts, behavior and violations of state law were conducted “outside the scope of Ben Lopez’s [sic] employment as a City Council member” [Statement of Decision, Case No.
CIVSB2133471], he lacks legislative immunity with regard to actions he took toward City of Montclair employees.
CONSIDER ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 26-3511 REAFFIRMING RESOLUTION NO. 22-3344, RE-RATIFYING PROTECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN
BY THE CITY MANAGER AND, FURTHER, DIRECTING THAT CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE/ECONOMIC SANCTIONS BE TAKEN.
What are the Findings in Resolution No. 26-3511?
• The City Council finds that, effective January 21, 2026, the California Insurance Pool Authority (CIPA) did indefinitely deny professional liability insurance coverage for Councilmember Lopez due to the determination of the Superior Court in Fuentes/Garcia v. Lopez and City of Montclair v. Lopez and, therefore, the City Council does declare that Montclair shall not:
• Use the financial assets of the City to defend, represent, provide indemnification for, or otherwise include Council Member Lopez under any defense strategy used by the City in relation to any and all claims, complaints, grievances, lawsuits, or civil or criminal charges brought against the City, the City Council, or Councilmember Lopez as an individual, for whatever reason.
• Nor shall the City use any City-acquired liability insurance policy coverage for the same. • Nor shall the City seek alternative professional liability insurance coverage for the same.
CONSIDER ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 26-3511 REAFFIRMING RESOLUTION NO. 22-3344, RE-RATIFYING PROTECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN
BY THE CITY MANAGER AND, FURTHER, DIRECTING THAT CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE/ECONOMIC SANCTIONS BE TAKEN.
What are the Enumerated Administrative and Economic Sanctions in Resolution No. 26-3511?
• The City Council finds that, in addition to those restrictions, sanctions and measures enumerated in Resolution No. 22-3344, it incorporates in Resolution No. 26-3511, the following administrative actions and sanctions:
• Councilmember Lopez shall indefinitely remain removed from, and shall not be appointed to, the following seats, boards, committees and/or commissions:
• Mayor Pro Tem position;
• City Council Committees and Subcommittees;
• Liaison positions including, but not limited to, the Montclair Planning Commission, Community Activities Commission and Chamber of Commerce. • City-sponsored committees or boards.
• Private or non-profit committees/boards either receiving funding from the City, or where the committee/board appoints a Montclair Councilmember to a seat on the committee/board.
• Inter-agency committees and/or boards that require or desire City of Montclair representation.
CONSIDER ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 26-3511 REAFFIRMING RESOLUTION NO. 22-3344, RE-RATIFYING PROTECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN
BY THE CITY MANAGER AND, FURTHER, DIRECTING THAT CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE/ECONOMIC SANCTIONS BE TAKEN.
What are the Enumerated Administrative and Economic Sanctions in Resolution No. 26-3511?
• Councilmember Lopez shall limit his communications with City personnel to members of the City Council, City Manager and City Clerk.
• Communications directed to City staff that require performance, research and/or report production shall first be referred to the City Council in regular session, and the City Council, by majority vote, shall determine the level of response, if any. • Councilmember Lopez shall remain prohibited from speaking on behalf of the City Council or representing the City in any capacity, other than as authorized by the Montclair Municipal Code for the purpose of constituent representation at regularly scheduled, special, and/or closed session meetings of the City Council. • Councilmember Lopez shall remain prohibited from attending City-paid/non-paid travel to conferences, meetings, training and/or other events where representation by the City is involved.
CONSIDER ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 26-3511 REAFFIRMING RESOLUTION NO. 22-3344, RE-RATIFYING PROTECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN
BY THE CITY MANAGER AND, FURTHER, DIRECTING THAT CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE/ECONOMIC SANCTIONS BE TAKEN.
What are the Enumerated Administrative and Economic Sanctions in Resolution No. 26-3511?
• Effective the first day of the first full month after adoption of Resolution No. 26-3511, Councilmember Lopez shall be ineligible to receive, nor shall he receive, a City-paid automobile/travel allowance or otherwise be eligible to use any City-owned or -provided vehicle for purposes of travel.
• Councilmember Lopez shall be eligible to submit for reimbursement for actual and necessary expenses in the performance of his official duties for travel related to Citymandated events, as directed by the City Manager. • Reimbursement shall not include attendance at regularly scheduled, special and/or closed session meetings of the City Council, or mileage reimbursement that would otherwise be excluded by the City’s Travel Policy or other relevant polices of the City, State or Federal governments.
CONSIDER ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 26-3511 REAFFIRMING RESOLUTION NO. 22-3344, RE-RATIFYING PROTECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN
BY THE CITY MANAGER AND, FURTHER, DIRECTING THAT CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE/ECONOMIC SANCTIONS BE TAKEN.
What are the Enumerated Administrative and Economic Sanctions in Resolution No. 26-3511?
• The City Manager is directed to submit, for City Council consideration, revisions to Section
2.12.050 of Chapter 2.12 of the Montclair Municipal Code related to City Council compensation.
• Revisions shall incorporate differing rates of monthly pay for City Councilmembers that represent (i) a normal rate of pay represented by the higher end of the pay scale for members in good standing; and (ii) a lower rate of pay represented by any member found to be not in good standing.
• “Not in good standing” shall represent a pay scale standard based on any civil tort ruling in which a member of the City Council, acting outside the course and scope of his or her duties, responsibilities and performance as a member of the City Council, has been adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction to have violated his or her official duties, including for willful or corrupt misconduct in office under the Fair Employment Housing Act, or under other relevant law, and has been found liable for the violation(s). • The lower rate of pay scale shall be set at the minimum allowed under state law.
CONSIDER ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 26-3511 REAFFIRMING RESOLUTION NO. 22-3344, RE-RATIFYING PROTECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN
BY THE CITY MANAGER AND, FURTHER, DIRECTING THAT CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE/ECONOMIC SANCTIONS BE TAKEN.
What are the Enumerated Administrative and Economic Sanctions in Resolution No. 26-3511?
• The City Manager and City Attorney are directed to pursue any legal or equitable procedure, such as a court-ordered judgement, for garnishment of Councilmember Lopez’ monthly wages in compliance with the Consumer Credit Protection Act or other applicable law or court order.
• The current, authorized premium paid by the City toward Councilmember Lopez’ health benefit fund and life insurance policy shall be capped effective the first day of the first full month after adoption of Resolution No. 26-3511; further, Councilmember Lopez shall be ineligible to receive any monthly City contribution paid toward a City-provided deferred compensation program, and shall be fully responsible for the Member Contribution Rate component of the CalPERS normal cost rate.
• Other actions and/or sanctions as may be considered, from time-to-time, by the City Council or City Manager as necessary to protect the employees of the City of Montclair from harassment, discrimination, bullying and/or retaliation, provided such sanctions are conducted in compliance with state laws, City policies, ordinances and/or resolutions.
CONSIDER ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 26-3511 REAFFIRMING RESOLUTION NO. 22-3344, RE-RATIFYING PROTECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN
BY THE CITY MANAGER AND, FURTHER, DIRECTING THAT CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE/ECONOMIC SANCTIONS BE TAKEN.
What Determinations are Made in Resolution No. 26-3511? • The City Council determined that adoption of Resolution No. 26-3511 is necessary to affirm that such inappropriate behavior and conduct as enumerated therein shall not be tolerated, and that Councilmember Lopez has been and shall remain censured for such conduct and behavior, and that such conduct and behavior shall be prevented from being repeated.
• The conduct and behavior of Councilmember Lopez, as enumerated in Resolution No. 26- 3511, occurred outside the course and scope of his performance as a member of the City Council.
• Councilmember Lopez shall comply with all actions, sanctions, restrictions and measures imposed and enumerated in Resolution No. 26-3511, to be enforced by the City Manager. • The City Manager is directed to advise the City Council of any violations of Resolution No. 26-3511 by Councilmember Lopez.
CONSIDER ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 26-3511 REAFFIRMING RESOLUTION NO. 22-3344, RE-RATIFYING PROTECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN
BY THE CITY MANAGER AND, FURTHER, DIRECTING THAT CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE/ECONOMIC SANCTIONS BE TAKEN.
What Determinations are Made in Resolution No. 26-3511? • The City Council shall pursue all legal remedies available by law to stop, terminate, prevent, or otherwise prohibit any future violations by Councilmember Lopez of provisions of Resolution No. 26-3511, or of local ordinances, state or federal law, or his oath of office.
• Resolution No. 26-3511 reaffirms:
• The provisions and recitals of Resolution No. 22-3344; • The City Council’s disapproval and censuring of certain conduct and behavior by Councilmember Lopez;
• Re-ratifies protective actions taken by the City Manager; • Expands on Resolution No. 22-3344 by directing certain restrictions and administrative/economic sanctions as specified be imposed against Councilmember Lopez; and
• Provisions of Resolution No. 26-3511 take effect immediately upon adoption or as otherwise specified.
CONSIDER ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 26-3511 REAFFIRMING RESOLUTION NO. 22-3344, RE-RATIFYING PROTECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN
BY THE CITY MANAGER AND, FURTHER, DIRECTING THAT CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE/ECONOMIC SANCTIONS BE TAKEN.
FISCAL IMPACT:
• Adoption of Resolution No. 26-3511 imposes no direct fiscal impact on the City's General Fund.
• Implementation of certain economic sanctions provided for in Resolution No. 26- 3511 would, however, produce reductions in General Fund expenditures.
RECOMMENDATION:
• It is the prerogative of the City Council to consider adoption of Resolution No. 26- 3511, including each of the recitals, actions, sanctions and provisions provided for therein.
END OF
PRESENTATION