From: Alexander Gutterud
To: Public Comment; Clerk
Cc: Maria Severson; Michael Aguirre
Subject: Written Comment - Special City Council Mtg Closed Session Item 5.1 Date: Thursday, August 27, 2026 8:57:01 AM
Attachments: 2026-08-26 - Notice of Brown Act Violation re Aug 27 2026 Mtg Item 5.1 with Exhibits.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Greetings,
Please find attached Public Written Comment for today's (August 27, 2026) Special City Council Meeting - Closed Session, Item 5.1.
Please confirm receipt. If you have trouble accessing the attached PDF, please let me know. Thank you.
Best regards,
Alexander Gutterud, Esq.
Associate Attorney
AGUIRRE & SEVERSON, LLP
501 W Broadway, Ste. 1050
San Diego, CA 92101
Office (619) 876-5364, Ext. 3
[email protected]
1 AGUIRRE & SEVERSON, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Michael J. Aguirre, Esq.
[email protected]
Maria C. Severson, Esq.
[email protected]
Alexander M. Gutterud, Esq.
[email protected]
501 West Broadway, Suite 1050
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone (619) 876-5364
Facsimile (619) 876-5368
Via Email
August 26, 2026
The Honorable Mayor Ron Morrison
[email protected]
The Honorable Marcus Bush, Vice Mayor and Councilmember – District 4 [email protected]
The Honorable Luz Molina, Councilmember – District 1
[email protected]
The Honorable Jose Rodriguez, Councilmember – District 2 [email protected]
The Honorable Ditas Yamane, Councilmember – District 3
[email protected]
City Clerk Shelley Chapel, [email protected]
Heidi Skinner, City Attorney, [email protected] Re: Demand to Cure and Correct Brown Act Violations (Cal. Gov. Code § 54954.2) August 27, 2026, Agenda Item 5.1
Honorable Councilmembers:
On August 14, 2026, Ms. Micaela Polanco notified the City in writing that its closed session agenda contained an unlawfully noticed discussion item under Cal. Gov. Code § 54956.9. Any reasonably informed individual could immediately deduce the topic of discussion for said agenda item: Mayoral assistant Josie Flores-Clark’s bogus claim against the City after she became the subject of public scrutiny, following a controversy she played a substantial and altogether essential role in creating.
Ms. Polanco and her attorney appeared at public comment prior to the initiation of the closed session to reiterate the need for the City to cure and correct its incipient Brown Act violations.
The City Attorney remarked that in her opinion, no further notice for the agenda item was required, but was silent as to Mayor Morrison and Councilmember Luz Molina participating in a closed-door discussion of an agenda item for which they were (and are still) conflicted.
The City appears set to discuss the same unlawfully noticed discussion item in the upcoming special closed session meeting. Ms. Polanco demands (1) the City cure and correct its deficiently noticed agenda item 5.1 as an incipient violation of the Brown Act and (2) if any closed session discussion occurs as to Josie Flores-Clark’s claim, Mayor Ron Morrison and Councilmember Luz Molina be excluded due to apparent conflicts of interest. / / /
August 26, 2026
Ms. Polanco is Uniquely Positioned to Call Upon the City to Comply with the Brown Act As a threshold matter, Ms. Polanco is an “interested person” under Cal. Gov. Code § 54960.1(a)1 and thereby has a substantial interest in the outcome of the City’s handling of Flores-Clark’s claim. Indeed, Flores-Clark submitted her claim in the form of an 80-page defamatory manifesto by her attorney Dan Gilleon centered primarily upon Ms. Polanco.
Curiously, the City published the manifesto alongside its agenda until Ms. Polanco demanded the City take corrective action. The City is now positioned to validate Flores-Clark’s defamatory manifesto by providing her a financial windfall from her claim, despite its obvious lack of merit.
Ms. Polanco therefore seeks to defend both her good name and the good people of National City from backroom dealings by interested decision makers.
Agenda Item 5.1 Does Not Sufficiently Describe the Topic of Discussion In violation of Cal. Gov. Code § 54954.2, the City did not provide in its notice of the closed session agenda item 5.1 on August 26, 2026, “a brief general description of [the] item of business . . . to be discussed in closed session.” (Cal. Gov. Code § 54954.2.) Agenda drafters “must give the public a fair chance to participate in matters of particular or general concern by providing the public with more than mere clues from which they must then guess or surmise the essential nature of the business to be considered by a local agency.” (San Diegans for Open Government v. City of Oceanside (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 637, 643.) Of course, an agenda item is “in substantial compliance” with the Brown Act if it specifies the number of potential cases and the City makes the claim threatening litigation available for public inspection. (Cal. Gov. Code §§ 54954.5, 54956.9(e)(3); See also Shapiro v. San Diego City Council (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 904, 918.). However, the City has not made the claim available.
Further, the City “may be required to provide additional information on the agenda or in an oral statement prior to the closed session pursuant to paragraphs (2) to (5), inclusive, of subdivision (e) of Section 54956.9.” (Cal. Gov. Code § 54954.5.) That is, City Council could be required to provide:
(2) Facts and circumstances, including, but not limited to, an accident, disaster, incident, or transactional occurrence that might result in litigation against the agency and that are known to a potential plaintiff or plaintiffs, which facts or circumstances shall be publicly stated on the agenda or announced.
The City has not provided the name of the claimant, let alone any facts or circumstances publicly stated on the agenda, and is therefore a far cry from “providing the public with more than mere 1 Ms. Polanco is the owner of the La Vista Memorial Cemetery located within National City’s “sphere of influence” as understood in Cal. Gov. Code § 56076.
August 26, 2026
clues.” (See San Diegans for Open Government v. City of Oceanside (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 637, 643.) As shown below, Agenda Item 5.1 does not include any relevant facts or circumstances2:
The City has not even provided the claimant’s name, despite Flores-Clark’s pending claim, the Mayor’s recent announcement of retirement, and the high degree of public scrutiny over FloresClark’s previous self-dealing with the City and with Mayor Morrison.3 The City’s failure to provide relevant facts and circumstances is especially noteworthy given the circumstances of Flores-Clark’s claim against the City. Ms. Polanco has learned (1) Councilmember Luz Molina helped the Mayor’s assistant, Josie Flores-Clark, bring her claim against National City, and (2) Dan Gilleon, the attorney who brought a claim against the City on Ms. Flores-Clark’s behalf, is also Mayor Morrison’s personal attorney.
Both Mayor Morrison and Councilmember Molina Possess
Conflicts of Interest as to Josie-Flores Clark’s Claim Against the City California law is unambiguous that councilmembers are expected to exercise “absolute loyalty and undivided allegiance to the best interests of the city.” (Stigall v. Taft (1962) 58 Cal. 2d 565, 569; See also People v. Honig (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 289, 315). That any potential self-interest “might be small or indirect is immaterial so long as it deprives the city of [the councilmember’s] overriding fidelity to it and places [them] in a compromising position where, in the exercise of [their] official judgment or discretion, [they] may be influenced by personal considerations rather than the public good." (Honig, 48 Cal.App.4th at 315).
California law is also unambiguous that “[a] person cannot be the judge in his or her own cause.” (Woody’s Group, Inc. v. City of Newport Beach (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1012). As on-point case law makes clear, “allowing a biased decisionmaker to participate in the decision is enough to invalidate the decision.” (Id. at 1022 (citing Nasha v. City of Los Angeles (2004) 125 Cal. App. 4th 470, 475)). Any interested decisionmakers “would have to be disqualified from participating” in any such decision. (Id. at 1027) (emphasis original); (See also id. at 1028-32) (extensive 2 Cal. Gov. Code § 54956.9(d)(2) states: For purpose of this section, litigation shall be considered pending when any of the following circumstances exist: (2) A point has been reached where, in the opinion of the legislative body of the local agency on the advice of its legal counsel, based on existing facts and circumstances, there is significant exposure to litigation against the public agency.
3 See e.g. https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/2009/08/19/national-city-mayors-assistant-leaves-tow-job/; https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/2009/09/18/mayoral-aides-pay-up-43-in-2-years/; https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/2009/09/09/towing-companies-raise-conflict-claim-against-city-aide/; https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/2009/08/07/mayors-effort-to-get-assistant-a-raise-questioned/ August 26, 2026
discussion of conflict-of-interest case law against councilmembers and application thereof to nullify decision).
In keeping with fundamental notions of due process and to assure “independence and impartiality on behalf of the common good,” National City Policy #119 likewise dictates that its officials “shall not use their official positionsto [sic] influence government decisions in which they have a . . . personal relationship which may give the appearance of a conflict of interest.” The Policy states such councilmembers “shall abstain from participating in deliberations and decision-making where conflicts may exist.”
Both Mayor Morrison and Councilmember Molina are self-interested, as demonstrated by their discussions with attorney Dan Gilleon prior to his filing of Flores-Clark’s claim. The degree of self-interest is neither small nor indirect; it is substantial. They are incapable of rendering absolute loyalty and undivided allegiance to the City against Flores-Clark.
Mayor Morrison confirmed via testimony under oath that Dan Gilleon, Josie Flores-Clark’s claim attorney, is in fact Mayor Morrison’s personal attorney; he further asserted attorney-client privilege would apply to discussions between them. (See Exhibit 1, Deposition of Mayor Ron Morrison, 96:21-28). Mayor Morrison even admitted that “Dan Gilleon was [his] attorney before he filed the claim against the city.” (Ex. 1, 98:20-22).
The Mayor cannot represent the interests of National City against those of a claimant with whom he shares his personal attorney and enjoys the attorney-client privilege. His shared attorneyclient relationship with Flores-Clark places him on both sides of any dispute either he or FloresClark would have against the City, making him a biased decisionmaker for purposes of Woody.
Therefore, the Mayor possesses an absolute conflict of interest between himself and the City with regards to the Flores-Clark claim; he must be excluded from any related discussions and decision-making processes.
Councilmember Luz Molina is in an even more compromising position. She actively participated in the preparation of Ms. Flores-Clark’s claim against the City of National City by providing attorney Gilleon evidence to include therewith just days before the August 26, 2025, claim was submitted: “These are my notes for the comment I made on 6/17.” Gilleon replied: “Thank you.” (Exhibit 2: Molina email to Gilleon).
Indeed, in response to a public records request seeking “communications with City staff or officials on the one hand and Dan Gilleon … regarding the August 26 letter”, Councilmember Molina stated under the penalty of perjury:
My response: I receive text messages from Dan Gilleon on 8/22/2025. See attached text messages
I received a phone call from Dan Gilleon on 8/22/2025. He inquired about the comments I stated during the city council meeting on 6/17/2025.
August 26, 2026
I provided Dan Gilleon via my City email account the notes that I prepared for that statement.
(Exhibit 3: Molina admissions)
Put differently: on Friday, August 22, 2025, Gilleon made numerous attempts to reach Councilmember Molina on her cell phone, then text messaged her; she promptly called his cell phone. Later that evening, attorney Gilleon texted her again to seek information. At 9:10 p.m. that Friday night, she responded. Attorney Gilleon then texted her again, asking for her input on to the substance of the claim to be asserted against the City:
Hi, would you like to see a draft of the current form of the claim? I am going to send it to everybody as soon as it is done, but it is not going to be today because I am still waiting for a possible video and flyer about the same project in the news report you sent me. …This way you can see how I utilize your prepared statement and if you have any issues with that.”
(See Exhibit 4: Molina-Gilleon texts)
Councilmember Molina was kept informed of Gilleon’s intentions and knew he was drafting a formal claim to be filed by Flores-Clark against the City, yet chose to provide him both information and personal records created in the course of her National City business. She even participated in Gilleon’s editorial process.
Like the Mayor, Councilmember Molina cannot represent the interests of National City against those of a claimant with whom she collaborated and to whom she rendered substantial assistance.
By her actions, she has already chosen Flores-Clark’s side in Flores-Clark’s dispute against the City and is therefore a biased decisionmaker for purposes of Woody, incapable of giving the City her undivided allegiance. She must likewise be excluded from related discussions and decisionmaking processes.
Clandestine, Unlawful Agenda Notice
If Agenda Item 5.1 is, in fact, an agenda item for Jose Flores-Clark’s claim, the City’s omission of Ms. Flores-Clark’s name from the agenda item constitutes a deliberate attempt to be clandestine, given that a year ago, the September 2, 2025, agenda item specifically included her name and the idiosyncratic publication of the “claim” so as to retaliate against Ms. Polanco:
/ / /
August 26, 2026
Demand:
The National City Council must cure and correct the alleged violation of the Brown Act by:
(1) identifying the claimant on Agenda Item 5.1, and (2) re-noticing and rehearing the item after providing notice that complies with the law.
Failure to correct the deficiencies will result in any action taken on Item 5.1 being null and void. (See Cal. Gov. § 54960.1.)
In addition, Mayor Morrison and Councilmember Molina must disqualify themselves from any consideration of Flores-Clark’s claim against the City, in light of their apparent conflicts of interest. California law and National City Policy #119 (and indeed, fundamental notions of due process) do not permit either Mayor Morrison or Councilmember Molina to participate in any discussion or other action taken on the matter. They are also forbidden from attending or participating in any closed session meeting on agenda items regarding her claim.
Finally, any Councilmember who does not require Mayor Morrison or Councilmember Molina to abstain from attending and participating in Ms. Flores-Clark’s claim would, by that failure, be publicly supporting a violation of ethics and the Government Code, and in fact would be affirmatively assisting the Mayor’s and Flores-Clark’s claim against the City.
Very truly yours,
/s/ Michael J. Aguirre
Michael J. Aguirre, Esq.
/s/ Micaela Polanco
Micaela Polanco
Enclosures:
(1) Mayor’s testimony (his lawyer brought JFC claim); (2) Molina email to claimant’s lawyer; (3) Molina admissions; (4) Molina texts with claimant’s lawyer.
From: Alisha Morrison
To: Clerk
Cc: Alisha Morrison
Subject: Aug 27th 2026 Special Meeting Public Comment Item 5.1 Date: Thursday, August 27, 2026 10:47:13 AM
Attachments: Public Comment_2026.08.27_Item 5.1.docx
2026.08.27 Special Mtg 5.1_Significant Exposure Litigation JFC_0001.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Good Morning City Clerk,
Please find attached my Public Comment and Exhibit attachments of facts and documentation for the 3PM Special Meeting. Please redact any handwritten signatures and personal information of addresses.
Thank you,
Alisha Morrison
Public Comment – Item 5.1 (Special Meeting)
Alisha Morrison
2026-08.27
§ 82048.
(a) (1) “Public official” means every member, officer, employee, or consultant of a state or local government agency.
Under CA Gov Code – Title 9. Political Reform – Article 1, General Prohibition, Section 87100 “A public official at any level of state or local government shall not make, participate in making, or in any way attempt to use the public official’s position to influence a governmental decision in which the official knows or has reason to know the official has a financial interest.” If item
5.1 is going to be discussion of Clark v. City of National City, et al. then Mayor Morrison and Vice Mayor Luz Molina must recuse themselves from all discussions of Clark v. City of National City, et al.
“I believe the residents of National City deserve facts, transparency and accountability, not sensational accusations made for the benefit of a press conference.” “I welcome the facts and documentation” Mayor Morrison – words from your August 18, 2026 statement during the council meeting.
Item 5.1 needs to be pulled as the Preamble of the Brown Act states In § 54950 Chapter One Policy Declaration
“Public commissions, boards, councils, and other legislative bodies of local government agencies exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business. The people do not yield their sovereignty to the bodies that serve them. The people insist on remaining informed to retain control over the legislative bodies they have created.” What are these litigations about? How can the people trust you are making decisions in their best interest? Therefore, your August 27, 2026 published Special Meeting Agenda fails to provide knowledge to the People of what or who the two cases of litigation involve. “Pursuant to Paragraph (2) Subdivision (d) Government Code Section 54956.9 Number of Cases: 2” That section goes on to read in paragraph (5)(g) “Prior to holding a closed session pursuant to this section, the legislative body of the local agency shall state on the agenda or publicly announce the paragraph of subdivision (d) that authorizes the closed session. If the session is closed pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (d), the body shall state the title of or otherwise specifically identify the litigation to be discussed, unless the body states that to do so would jeopardize the agency’s ability to effectuate service of process upon one or more unserved parties, or that to do so would jeopardize its ability to conclude existing settlement negotiations to its advantage. “Effectuate” is an interesting word – it means “to make something happen. It is a formal word for causing a result, bringing a plan to life, or putting a rule into action.” What “plan” is being done? Who is benefiting from this “plan”? Facts and documentation (Exhibits: A, B, B.1, & C)
On page 59 of 73 “Clark v. City of National City, et al.” (Exhibit A) your assistant has listed “both inaccurate and unsupported” information in her claim about Alisha Morrison, me. Me, I have never engaged with the mayor’s assistant, Josie Clark, not even a single word as simple as a “hello.”
So, you “welcome facts and documentation”– I reached out to my former employer via text message (Exhibit “B”) on August 19th and requested a copy of my resignation letter (Exhibit B.1). An email (Exhibit “B”) from my former employer dated August 19, 2026 with the attachment of my signed November 6, 2024 resignation letter. “Fact & Documentation”.
November 6, 2024 – 13 days before the scheduled November 18th Planning Commission Public Hearing for item 4 the Gas Station Project at Sweetwater Rd & Orange St which was moved to continue to the Dec 2nd 2024 at the Planning Commission meeting at last minute. The continuance was so last minute that Commissioner Castle even went on to deny the continuance of the item stating, “I am denying, I said no to the continuance, one because I was not notified that this item was going to be continued prior to the meeting.” Commissioner Sanchez was in agreement with Commissioner Castle on the denial to continue.
Josie Clark’s claim falsely stated in footnote #69 that I “quit my job” to “campaign” for rezoning.
That’s false – I resigned from my job the day after the Presidential election because I refused to work during a Donald Trump administration (Exhibit B & B.1). My last day of work was Friday, January 17th 2025. The next day – January 18th I was on a flight to Ireland because I refused to be in this Country during the inauguration of that convicted criminal.
You asked for facts and documentation. This as it pertains to me, the “inaccurate and unsupported” evidence was not based on facts. My dated and signed resignation letter is proof.
Footnote #70 “the flyer” (Exhibit C) for the February 20th 2025 meeting – I attended a LAFCO meeting on February 3rd 2025 and gave a public comment to introduce myself to LAFCO, and LAFCO’s Executive Officer, Keene Simonds told me on record “we recently met with a couple of people from National City interested in exploring Lincoln Acres so I look forward to talking with you” his comment was the catalyst for the February 20th 2025 meeting. I thought to myself who in the hell was talking to LAFCO about Lincoln Acres? I reached out to Lincoln Acres neighbor Butch Fimpel and told him I think they are trying to annex Lincoln Acres again and because I had recently learned about the 50.5 acres annexed back in Dec 2019 without survey of the Lincoln Acres community, he said let’s get a flyer together and hold a community meeting. No where on the flyer does it name an “association” or mention “If the group challenges the annexation this property could become only residential.” So, I just provided you with facts & documentation that erodes the idea that the Josie Clark claim is based on “factual basis” as it pertains to me, Alisha Morrison, they were “inaccurate and unsupported.” Mayor Ron Morrison and Vice Mayor Luz Molina need to recuse themselves from the Josie Clark claim. The Josie Clark claim needs to be thoroughly vetted and reviewed by Councilmember Marcus Bush, Councilmember Ditas Yamane and Councilmember Jose Rodriguez before this council has any discussion and decision.
The taxpayers in the City of National City deserve to have their tax dollars represented in matters of City business that are fair and unbiased.
Exhibits: A, B, B.1 and C (attached)