From: Arwa Asif
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comments - Open Session
Date: Tuesday, May 20, 2025 12:58:15 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Greetings,
My name is Arwa Asif, and I am the West County Alcohol Policy Coalition Coordinator. I haven't submitted a public comment in person before, so I'm unsure what a pink speaker's card is. I'm assuming it's filled out in person at the meeting. I would like to still submit an e- comment for the record in case I am mistaken:
Start of official public comment:
Good evening, and thank you to the Richmond City Council for recognizing last April as Alcohol Awareness Month. As we continue into May, which is Mental Health Awareness Month, it's important to remember how closely these issues are connected. Studies show that people with mental health conditions are more likely to misuse alcohol, and alcohol misuse can in turn worsen mental health—both of which impact overall community safety and well- being.
The Coalition is deeply grateful for the Council’s continued commitment to community health, especially through your support of initiatives like proclamations and your role as advocates for youth safety. Your visible leadership is the public face of the behind-the-scenes work our coalition is doing every day to build a safer, healthier community.
Thank you.
END OF COMMENT:
Thank you so much!
--
Arwa Asif
She/Her
West Contra Costa Alcohol Policy Coalition Coordinator
Bay Area Community Resources
M (510) 559-3077 ext. 94123 E [email protected]
W www.bacr.org
Information in this message, including all attachments, is intended ONLY for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this message in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately, and delete the message and any hard copy print-outs.
From: Davjanee
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: R.1 Retain an Independent Legal Expert to Investigate Allegations of Ethical Breaches and Bias in the Community Police Review Commission (CPRC)
Date: Tuesday, May 20, 2025 12:18:33 AM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Hello Mayor Martinez and Council Members,
My name is Davjanee Tillis. I am a Richmond resident. I am writing to oppose agenda item R.1. I feel like the investigation is taking multiple steps backwards when it comes to police accountability in Richmond. This investigation would not only stop the progress of the CPRC but it wastes resources that could be used to support and uplift the community. I feel that if accountability and transparency for the CPRC is the goal there are better ways to go about it. I am concerned about the passing of R.1. because it leaves the community in a vulnerable situation where there are no checks and balances for an entity with militarized weapons and a history of malpractice. It also neglects the community’s voice because it goes against the reforms that community members asked for in CPRC meetings.
I think it is truly underestimated how the CPRC helps enhance trust in the Richmond Police Department.CPRC helps hold police that abuse their power accountable. I feel safer knowing CPRC is functioning and that there is a police oversight body in place to stop cops, like Srgt Caine.
I also want to say as a community member I notice that there seems to be a pattern of RPOA supporting anything that stops the progress of CPRC or allows the community to reimagine public safety. Whether it's stalling the progress of the Community Intervention Specialist or supporting an agenda item like R.1..
The Community Police Review Commission is needed. That way we can truly empower the community to speak up against any abuse or misconduct to make sure that there aren't any more stories like Kwesi Guss or Pedie Perez. It is hard to serve and protect a community you don’t listen to.
I truly hope that you all reject Agenda Item R.1 and stand with Richmond residents in support of police oversight and police accountability.
Thank You
Davjanee
From: [email protected]
To: City Clerk Dept User; Eduardo Martinez
Subject: Public Comments for Agenda Item R-1
Date: Tuesday, May 20, 2025 11:53:00 AM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
To Richmond Mayor, City Council, and the City Clerk,
My name is Marisol Cantu, and I serve as a commissioner on the Community Police Review Commission.
I want to be clear: I am not here to oppose transparency, accountability, or even investigation if it is truly warranted and done in good faith. The public has a right to expect integrity from every public body, including the CPRC. But what deeply concerns me—and what I hope this Council will reflect on tonight—is that Agenda Item R.1 is being brought forward while critical recommendations that the CPRC has already passed are being stalled.
We have created and approved well-researched, community-informed recommendations that address real issues in Richmond policing—recommendations that families impacted by police violence have waited years to see enacted. These include recommendations around use-of-force review, annual reports and audits for RPD and the commission, and community involvement in oversight. Yet we see deliberate efforts not to advance them.
Moreover, the chief conclusion of Jerry Threet’s letter is that the Commission needs more comprehensive training. Commissioners agree! We have spent many hours crafting a proposed training program to address the deficiencies Threet’s letter identified. Rather than hiring an independent investigator to reinvent the wheel, city resources would be put to better use by considering this recommendation and moving forward with improved training.
Investigations should not be used to stall progress, silence oversight, or undermine the voices of those who step up to serve on this commission.
We commissioners are community members too. We show up, we listen to families, we dig through case files, we deliberate thoughtfully, and we make recommendations to help this city heal and move forward. We deserve your support, not suspicion.
I respectfully urge the Council: if you believe in police accountability, start by acting on the CPRC’s recommendations. Investigations should never come at the cost of progress.
Thank you,
Commissioner Cantu
From: Reimagine Richmond
To: Eduardo Martinez; City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comments Against Item R-1
Date: Tuesday, May 20, 2025 11:49:50 AM
Attachments: LetterAgainstR-1.pdf
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Hello City Clerk, Mayor, and Council Members,
We hope this email finds you well. Reimagine Richmond would like to share a letter against Agenda Item R-1. The various concerns raised by our membership and leadership are shared in the letter attached. Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions or would like to discuss further.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Reimagine Richmond
--
In Community,
RR Organizing Team
www.reimaginerichmond.org
Click here to follow us on Instagram
Eduardo Martinez, Mayor Soheila Bana, Councilmember Jamelia Brown, Councilmember Claudia Jimenez, Councilmember Doria Robinson, Councilmember Sue Wilson, Councilmember Cesar Zepeda, Vice Mayor May 20th, 2025 Dear Mayor Martinez and City Council, Reimagine Richmond, a movement of people reimagining community safety in Richmond. We believe
in
a
system
of
care
that
is
rooted
in
us,
not
in
criminalization
and
policing.
Through
organizing,
researching,
and
educating,
we
fight
for
a
future
where
everybody
can
truly
feel
safe.
To
this
end,
we
have
been
working
with
families
impacted
by
police
brutality
and
violence
in
Richmond.
We
support
them
in
seeking
justice
and
accountability
through
police
oversight
systems
like
the
Community
Police
Review
Commission
(CPRC).
The CPRC exists to advise the City Council, City Manager, and Chief of Police on matters related
to
the
administration
of
the
Richmond
Police
Department
(RPD).
It
also
receives,
investigates,
and
hears
complaints
against
Richmond
police
officers
involving
excessive
or
unnecessary
force,
discrimination,
and
sexual
misconduct.
The
CPRC
reviews
serious
use-of-force
incidents,
including
officer-involved
shootings
and
deaths
or
serious
injuries
resulting
from
police
action.
It
also
handles
appeals
from
the
Office
of
Professional
Accountability
and
makes
formal
recommendations
to
the
Chief
of
Police.
Through this critical commission, families, residents, and community members build trust and confidence
in
the
Richmond
Police
Department.
The
commission
is
a
beacon
of
hope
and
justice
for
those
most
impacted
by
police
misconduct
in
Richmond.
Its
work
is
vital
to
growing
public
trust
in
the
city's
law
enforcement
systems.
We strongly recommend that you vote NO on Agenda Item R.1 , which proposes hiring an independent
legal
expert
to
investigate
allegations
of
ethical
breaches
and
bias
within
the
CPRC.
This
item
would
undermine
the
commission’s
advisory
role,
waste
valuable
city
resources
and
time,
and
leave
residents
without
a
trusted
mechanism
for
filing
complaints.
This proposal appears unnecessary, politically motivated, and damaging to the integrity and independence
of
the
CPRC.
Subjecting
the
commission
to
a
legal
investigation
based
on
vague
or
unsubstantiated
allegations
risks
weakening
its
effectiveness
and
discouraging
civic
engagement.
If there are legitimate concerns, they should be addressed through the existing oversight framework,
transparency,
and
open
dialogue—not
through
expensive
legal
processes
that
may
be
used
to
discredit
commissioners
or
suppress
their
work.
This
sets
a
dangerous
precedent
where
volunteer
oversight
bodies
are
targeted
simply
for
doing
their
job.
Rather than pursuing an external investigation, we urge the City Council to invest in strengthening
the
CPRC
by
improving
procedures,
providing
training,
and
increasing
support.
Civilian
oversight
commissions
are
essential
to
building
accountability
and
community
trust
in
law
enforcement—and
they
must
be
protected,
not
punished.
Thank you for your time and your continued service to our community. We respectfully urge you to
reject
Agenda
Item
R.1
and
stand
with
Richmond
residents
in
supporting
genuine
police
oversight
and
public
accountability.
From: Richmond Taxpayers
To: City Clerk Dept User; [email protected]
Cc: Dave Aleshire; Karen R. Becker
Subject: Public Comment Item R1, City Council 5/20/2025 - Request for Independent Investigation and Councilmember Recusals — CPRC Conflicts of Interest and Ethical Concerns Date: Tuesday, May 20, 2025 1:01:13 PM
Attachments: Screenshot 2025-05-20 at 11.43.31 AM.png
Screenshot 2025-05-20 at 12.38.58 PM.png
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Dear City Clerk,
Please include the below comments in the public record for the supplementary meeting minutes for today’s city council meeting.
Thank you.
Richmond Taxpayers
**********************************************
Dear City Attorney Aleshire,
Regarding City Council Agenda Item R.1 on Tuesday, May 20, 2025, I would first like to commend Councilmembers Bana and Brown for their integrity and leadership in bringing this matter forward for public discussion.
However, it is profoundly troubling that your office failed to act eight months ago when Independent Investigative and Appeals Officer Jerry Threet resigned, citing serious ethical and procedural concerns regarding the Community Police Review Commission (CPRC). By definition, Mr. Threet is a whistleblower and covered by all associated protections.
Commissioner Oscar Garcia, the RPOA and community members — myself included — have also raised similar alarms.
It is troubling to observe Commissioner Garcia be summarily dismissed at CPRC meetings when he's raised Mr. Threet’s resignation letter/email and whether his allegations will be investigated. Additionally, when he has spoken at City Council with his legitimate concerns about certain CPRC appointments by Mayor Martinez, he has been the subject of public ad hominem attacks and false statements from RPA and Reimagine Richmond members, constituting harassment and public safety risks to he and his family given where they live.
To date, your office has not initiated any meaningful review or response. This lack of action has severely undermined public trust in both the CPRC and the City Attorney’s Office.
At its core, this matter implicates foundational principles of good governance: ethics, transparency, due process, and the right of both the public and Richmond Police Department officers to a fair, impartial system of oversight. The continued tolerance of overlapping political, financial, and personal relationships that appear to compromise this process risks further eroding the integrity of public institutions.
If Richmond is to ever distance itself from its historical and growing perceptions of cronyism and insider influence — at times referred to as "Chicago West" — then meaningful accountability must begin with this long overdue investigation.
Legal Duty to Uphold Ethical Standards
As your fellow attorney Pam Lee rightly noted in 2023, “Each Commissioner is required to take an oath of office to uphold the duties of their office.” The same obligation applies to City Councilmembers. Your office, as the chief legal advisor to the City, bears responsibility to uphold the public interest and ensure that violations of ethical and statutory obligations are not ignored. This includes enforcing proper recusal standards, addressing clear conflicts of interest, and ensuring compliance with the California Political Reform Act, FPPC requirements, and relevant municipal codes.
**************************************************************************** *************************************************
Formal Requests
In light of the information set forth below, I respectfully request the following:
1. That Councilmembers Claudia Jimenez and Sue Wilson recuse themselves from all deliberations and the vote on Item R.1, as both they and their husbands are clearly entangled in matters that merit investigation and review by an independent third party.
If they and/or
their spouses have any a remote possibility of being subject to any potential third-party investigation, how can they vote on it?
2. That the Council immediately approve and initiate a fully independent, third-party investigation into the ethical and financial conflicts of interest involving the CPRC and associated Councilmembers, spouses, and political entities, with subpoena power and full access to the allegations raised by Mr. Threet in his resignation and all relevant documentation and communications.
**************************************************************************** *************************************************
Summary of Conflicts and Ethical Concerns Requiring Review
1. Overlapping Influence Between the Richmond Progressive Alliance (RPA), Reimagine Richmond (RR), and City Officials/Governance
RR and RPA are functionally indistinguishable, operating out of the same headquarters and sharing several leaders, including current CPRC Commissioners (Chair Martinez and Cantu) and at least one Councilmember (Jimenez).
RR evolved alongside the now-defunct Reimagining Public Safety Community Task Force (RPSCTF), formed by RPA-aligned Councilmembers in 2020 to defund RPD and promote anti-police policy agendas. Task Force members included individuals affiliated with Reimagine Richmond, the RPA, Safe Return Project, and the CPRC — some of whom held roles in multiple groups.
RR and the RPA maintain a coordinated strategy: RR & RPA co-draft policies, budgets & media framing; RR handles public mobilization & media framing; and the RPA-aligned officials pass corresponding legislation. This mutual dependency creates both a political and financial incentive structure that undermines the impartiality expected of CPRC members and elected officials.
The CPRC must remain independent of undue influence by outside political organizations like the RPA, whose elected officials — current (Mayor Martinez and Councilmember Jimenez) and former (Gayle McLaughlin and Melvin Willis) — are also on the public record as being memories of the Democratic Socialists of America East Bay. As members, they ascribe to their platform, which includes defunding police (and prisons) to $0.
The mission of the CPRC is not to defund the police but rather to provide fair, impartial, unbiased and ethical oversight and ensure accountability of sworn officers within the Richmond Police Department.
2. Councilmember Claudia Jimenez
Paid Commissioner Carmen Martinez as a consultant to manager her re-election campaign while Martinez was actively serving on the CPRC.
Received significant compensation from the Safe Return Project in 2024 (>$100K) as well as 2022 & 2023 (between $10K - $100K each year) while simultaneously serving as CPRC liaison.
Employed or was politically supported by multiple organizations and individuals that should be subject to any independent, third-party investigation as it pertains to the CPRC, including RR, RPA, and Richmond LAND — co-founded by her husband, Eli Moore. Some examples including but not limited to:
Safe Return Project is tightly aligned with the RPA and RR, and simultaneously employed both Marisol Cantú and Councilmember Claudia Jimenez in 2022 and 2023.
Safe Return Project founder, Tamisha Torres-Walker, and Marisol Cantú co- served on RPSCTF.
RR also advocates for Safe Return Project on its website.
Appointed her own allies with financial and political ties to herself to the CPRC, including Chair Martinez and Commissioners Marisol Cantú, Dan Lawson, and Rachel Lorber.
Jimenez has received multiple campaign contributions from Contra Costa County Public Defenders. Commissioner Lorber’s reporting relationship into those senior attorneys in the CCC PD’s office is unclear.
Appointed her own allies with financial and political ties to herself — Commissioners Martinez and Lawson — to the CIAO hiring Ad Hoc Committee.
She overrode Commission protocol by making these appointments behind closed doors. It was only after Commissioners Oscar Garcia and Carol Hegstrom raised concerns, especially given RR’s anti-police policy advocacy and public statements, that Jimenez “allowed” Hegstrom to be part of the Ad Hoc Committee.
Exchanged real-time texts with RR leadership during at least one CPRC meeting, including disparaging remarks about Commissioner Garcia.
Maintained connections with former CPRC Commissioner Randy Joseph, who received nearly $100K in 2023 from Richmond LAND — yet failed to report that income on his Form 700.
Should not vote on an investigation that may include her and/or her spouse as a subject.
3. Councilmember Sue Wilson
Also retained Carmen Martinez as a paid campaign consultant and manager during Martinez’s service on the CPRC.
Together with her spouse, Commissioner Dan Lawson, donated to Councilmember Jimenez’s campaign — raising significant ethical questions given the intersecting roles of each party.
Has not yet submitted her 2024 Form 700 as of 5/20/2025, a serious transparency lapse.
Should not vote on an investigation that may include her and/or her spouse as a subject.
4. Commissioner Carmen Martinez
Received between $23,000 and $113,000 in income while serving on the CPRC — including from RR (fiscally sponsored by Richmond Community Foundation) and from political consulting fees paid by current (and former) RPA Councilmembers, one of whom’s husband also serves on the CPRC and is a member of RR.
Inaccurately disclosed her income source as RCF, masking RR’s role and violating FPPC disclosure requirements.
RCF confirmed they have been the fiscal sponsor for RR for 3 years.
RR has neither registered with the state or City of Richmond as a business entity nor taken out a business license.
RR has no record with the IRS.
Has no visible City-issued business license despite listing long-term consulting services on LinkedIn.
Is a RPA Steering Committee member, RR leader & organizer, and political campaign operative — all while claiming impartiality on the CPRC.
5. Commissioner Marisol Cantu
Also lists RCF rather than RR as her income source on her 2024 Form 700.
RCF confirmed they have been the fiscal sponsor for RR for 3 years.
RR has neither registered with the state or City of Richmond as a business entity nor taken out a business license.
RR has no record with the IRS.
Has worked for Safe Return Project, RR, and RPA.
Co-authored a majority of CPRC ordinance amendments.
Along with Martinez (with support from Dan Lawson and Oscar Flores on a few), Cantu drafted the majority (at least 7) of the 13 amendments to the CPRC ordinance — apparently through a de facto Ad Hoc group never authorized by a Commission vote or transparency.
Lacks a valid business license per the City’s iMS database.
6. Commissioner Dan Lawson
Together with his spouse, now Councilmember Sue Wilson, donated to Councilmember Jimenez’s campaign — raising significant ethical questions given the intersecting roles of each party.
Is a member of Reimagine Richmond.
7. Former Commissioner Randy Joseph
Simultaneously served on both CPRC and RPSCTF while receiving nearly $100K from Richmond LAND, co-founded by Councilmember Jimenez’s spouse.
Failed to report this conflict on his Form 700, disclosing only income from RYSE.
Retained longstanding personal and professional relationships with CPRC members, RPA, and City Councilmembers now implicated in these matters.
Is a member of Reimagine Richmond.
************************************************************************************** ***************************************
Broader Pattern of Policy Collusion and Financial Incentives The repeated alignment of legislative outcomes, financial benefits, and coordinated public messaging between RPA and RR represents more than coincidence. It reflects a systemic arrangement where nonprofits, political campaigns, and government policy-making are interconnected — often without the public’s full understanding or consent.
RR now openly offers $50 to residents for reporting negative stories about RPD, demonstrating a bias wholly inconsistent with neutral oversight.
The RPA’s switch from a 501(c)(3) to a 501(c)(4) — and RR’s use of fiscal sponsorship — obscure financial transparency.
Substantial foundation funding from The California Endowment, Heising-Simons Foundation, and Zellerbach Foundation, among others, is routed through loosely regulated vehicles like RCF and Commonwealth Foundation.
Without independent review, these interdependencies will continue to corrode the legitimacy of both oversight and policymaking in Richmond.
************************************************************************************** ***************************************
Conclusion
Richmond now stands at a crossroads. We can either enable further erosion of public trust through inaction or we can restore confidence in our institutions by taking the necessary — and legally required — steps to ensure accountability and transparency.
I urge your office to advise the City Council to recuse conflicted members and to authorize a fully independent, third-party investigation into the matters outlined above, including those cited by Mr. Threet in his resignation.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Respectfully,
Richmond Taxpayers
From: Terri Hinte
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: public comments item R.1, 5/20/25
Date: Tuesday, May 20, 2025 12:36:30 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:Re: item R.1, 5/20/25 - recusal
Date:Tue, 20 May 2025 11:10:46 -0700
From:Terri Hinte <[email protected]>
To:Dave Aleshire <[email protected]>
CC:Shannon Moore <[email protected]>,
[email protected] <[email protected]>, Soheila Bana <[email protected]>, Jamelia Brown
<[email protected]>, Cesar Zepeda
<[email protected]>, Eduardo Martrinez
([email protected]) <[email protected]>, Sue Wilson <[email protected]>, Claudia Jimenez ([email protected]) <[email protected]>, Doria Robinson <[email protected]>
Dear City Attorney Aleshire,
Thank you very much for taking the time to respond in detail to my concerns about the impartiality of Councilmembers Wilson & Jimenez with respect to the proposed third-party investigation of the CPRC to be discussed this evening by the council. I'm glad to know that a legal defense can be made of their positions, I suppose, but it offers the narrowest of narrow defenses.
These councilmembers' biases are well known, they have never made any efforts to conceal them, so how is the public supposed to trust that they can put those biases aside to reach an unbiased decision?
In Item 1: "known financial interest." "Known" - there's the rub. We don't know! We know about apparent past financial interests (campaign donations, payment for campaign management services, God knows what else), but we do not know how these past interests may have colored or are presently coloring any interactions between the councilmembers & the CPRC commissioners. We see the appearance of conflict and bias. That should be enough for recusal, because elected officials are supposed to be held to a higher standard.
In Item 2: We're relying here on a hair-splitting issue of the timing of an appointment, but the fact remains that Councilmember Wilson's husband is a CPRC commissioner. We see the appearance of conflict and bias. That should be enough for recusal, because elected officials are supposed to be held to a higher standard.
In Item 3: Heavy hair-splitting here. This is not "a formal public hearing or adjudication," so "if a decision maker can be shown to be bias [stet]," then all's well? What? There's the whole separate matter of WHETHER the decision maker can be shown to be biased, and these two decision makers have publicly exhibited bias, so how can we gloss over that? We see the appearance of conflict and bias. That should be enough for recusal, because elected officials are supposed to be held to a higher standard.
In Item 4: The council liaison [Jimenez] "would then be presumed to be able to add history & insight to a Council discussion" etc. "Presumed" - ! Councilmember Jimenez can be presumed to add bias as well? We see the appearance of conflict and bias. That should be enough for recusal, because elected officials are supposed to be held to a higher standard.
We all remember when Henry Kissinger was named by George W. Bush to head the 9/11 commission. Why was there such a public uproar, to the extent that the appointment was withdrawn? After all, it was perfectly legal! But everyone could see that, with Kissinger, the fix was in. His biases would carry the day, would cover the a**es of those whose a**es needed covering.
More sunlight, more transparency is called for here, not less. *Elected officials are supposed to be held to a higher standard.*
Thank you again for your time.
Terri Hinte
On 5/19/2025 7:02 PM, Dave Aleshire wrote:
The issue of recusal from Council agenda matters has a number of different rules governing them. Members may recuse themselves for a number of different reasons. I will only comment on those where recusal may be required by law.
1 Legal Conflict of Interest. This only applies
where one has a financial conflict of interest. Neither of the two council members you mentioned has a known financial interest in the various measures being proposed by the CPRC.
2 Nepotism. Councilmember Wilson does not violate
the City's nepotism ordinance as her husband was appointed to the Commission before she was elected to council. The City's ordinance allows the commissioner to serve out their term as opposed to ending the term of the Councilmember or immediate termination of Commission member term.
3 Violation of Due Process. In cases of formal
administrative hearings when the rights of particular parties are being adjudicated, there is a thing known as due process protected by the US and California Constitutions. Then if a decision maker can be shown to be bias, they should recuse themselves from the hearing so as to not bias the decision. This is not the case here as there is not a formal public hearing or adjudication.
4 Legislative Decision Making. This more a case of
ordinary legislative decision-making. The request is that legislative rules recommended by the CPRC not be advanced until after an investigation is conducted. The reason is that certain council have advocated for certain issues and are bias. The rule is different where we have ordinary legislative advocacy rather than where due process concerns prevail. Here all the recommendations of the CPRC are legislative proposals to be enacted by the Council.
Imagine in the common case where councilmembers campaign for office and are elected due to their policy stands. It would be contrary to the policies of elective democracy if they could not thereafter vote for issues they have campaigned for. It does not violate due process to vote for a position you advocated for in getting elected. So due process only arises in the case of administrative cases involving rights of advocates.
5 Council Laison. The Council has had a longstanding
process of appointing commission Council Laison--the position is intended to monitor commissions and keep the Council informed as to what is going on. It has never been the rule or practice of then prohibiting them from the discussions which they are reporting on.
Council member Jimenez is Laison to CPRC and would then be presumed to be able to add history and insight to a Council discussion of the Commission's recommendations.
Accordingly, looking at the possible reasons for recusal on the particular agenda item, I see no such legal requirement pertaining to any councilmembers.
I have taken the time to respond to your questions as they are somewhat complex and could be misunderstood by the general public and are likely to be of some interest tomorrow night, and deserve a full response.
Feel free to call me if you have further questions.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Terri Hinte <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2025 5:55 PM
To: Dave Aleshire <[email protected]>
Cc: Shannon Moore <[email protected]>;
[email protected]; Soheila Bana
<[email protected]>; Jamelia Brown
<[email protected]>; Cesar Zepeda
<[email protected]>
Subject: item R.1, 5/20/25 - recusal
*** EXTERNAL SENDER ***
Dear City Attorney Aleshire,
I'm writing about item R.1 on Tuesday's city council agenda (5/20), with concerns about the obvious lack of impartiality of Councilmembers Claudia Jimenez and Sue Wilson with respect to the proposed investigation of "Allegations of Ethical Breaches and Bias in the Community Police Review Commission (CPRC)."
Due to their many personal, political, and financial ties with several CPRC commissioners, Wilson and Jimenez ought to recuse themselves from voting and also from any discussion on this item.
How does that work exactly? Because I doubt that they would willingly recuse. Can you compel them to do so?
Thank you,
Terri Hinte
--
Terri Hinte
839 37th St.
Richmond, CA 94805
510-234-8781 (w), 510-207-2159 (c)
www.terrihinte.com
www.twitter.com/terrihinte