22269411.3
Whi
le the Council was careful not to single out any particular councilmember in authorizing this investigation, we quickly determined that only two councilmembers were possibly involved in the Event, Councilmember Padilla and Vice Mayor Lee. We discuss both councilmembers’ involvement in the Event, though most of the controversy centers on the Vice Mayor. We did not investigate any other councilmember’s involvement in the Event. Similarly, our analysis of recusal issues focused on the Vice Mayor, though we briefly consider the issue as applied to Councilmember Padilla.
O
ur full Report provides details of all the facts of our investigation. Our full Report also explains our analysis of all possible legal issues arising from the facts we have discovered, and provides a detailed set of conclusions. A summary of our conclusions is as follows:
• N
o councilmember had a prohibited financial interest in any contract associated with the E
vent. Accordingly, no councilmember (or the City), violated Government Code Section 1090’
s prohibition against self-dealing with regard to the Event. • N
o councilmember made, participated in making, or influenced a government decision r
egarding the Event in which (s)he had had a financial interest. Accordingly, no councilmember violated the Political Reform Act’s conflict of interest rules with regard to t
he Event.
• W
ith regard to planning for and participating in the Event, there may have been an appear
ance that the Vice Mayor acted in furtherance of his personal interests in a manner that might implicate the State’s common law conflict of interest doctrine. But the f
acts show that any personal interest was likely aligned with the City’s interests. At most, the facts reflect a possible lack of awareness of the need to consider ethical standards even when one’s personal interests are aligned with official duties. • C
harter Section 1000’s interpretive history, as well as its plain language, are susceptible t
o multiple interpretations. At most, Section 1000 prohibits kickbacks or gratuities resulting from or associated with City service; our investigation did not reveal any such facts. Accordingly no councilmember violated City Charter Section 1000 for many of the s
ame reasons as those involving Government Code Section 1090. • No
explicit statutory legal requirement compelled any Councilmember, in particular Vice Mayor Lee, to recuse themselves from the decision to investigate this matter. Absent any express written guidance from the Fair Political Practices Commission on point, it m
ay be reasonably foreseeable that the outcome of an investigation could have a m
aterial financial effect on the subject of that investigation. Accordingly, we suggest that to ensure compliance with the Political Reform Act, the subject of an investigation should r
ecuse himself from the decision to authorize an investigation into his own conduct. The common law principle of avoiding a situation in which personal interests conflict with public duties also suggest the propriety of recusal under circumstances such as these. • The l
aw only sets the floor of mandatory ethical conduct; the highest ethical standards sometimes call for behavior beyond what is legally required. We think that any public official that is the subject of an investigation should recuse themselves from discussions and decisions regarding that investigation in order to avoid even the appearance of a
ATTACHMENT A
393
Executive Summary. October 22, 2025; Additional Scope Included as per Council Direction January 2, 2026
22269411.3
conf
lict of interest and in order to uphold the highest ethical standards. We do not think that Vice Mayor Lee met that high standard.
I
n sum, our investigation did not reveal facts sufficient to establish a legal violation under the applicable provisions of California or City law. However, the ethics laws define the minimum of permissible conduct. Ethical norms may go beyond legal requirements to further the fundamental principle that the interests of elected officials must remain aligned with the interests of the public they serve. Continued attention to transparency, prudence, and the appearance of fairness remains essential to preserving public confidence.
ATTACHMENT A
394
From: Steven D. Miller
To: Lori Asuncion
Subject: Council investigation
Date: Thursday, January 8, 2026 2:15:03 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Stockton. Do not click any links or open attachments if this is unsolicited email.
Lori,
As requested, the total charges to the City for the Council-authorized investigation is $50,230 through January 2, 2026.
Steven D. Miller
Partner
Hanson Bridgett LLP
[email protected]
Direct: (415) 995-5831 | Mobile: (415) 298‑3928
Hanson Bridgett LLP
This communication, including any attachments, is confidential and may be protected by privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone or email, and permanently delete all copies, electronic or other, you may have. The foregoing applies even if this notice is embedded in a message that is forwarded or attached.
ATTACHMENT B
395
City of Stockton
Legislation Text
File #: 26-0018, Version: 1
COUNCIL COMMITTEE/BOARD AND COMMISSION MINUTES
RECOMMENDATION
Information item only. No action required.
City of Stockton Printed on 1/8/2026Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
Senate Bill No. 54
CHAPTER 495
An act to amend Sections 7282 and 7282.5 of, and to add Chapter 17.25 (commencing with Section 7284) to Division 7 of Title 1 of, the Government Code, and to repeal Section 11369 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to law enforcement.
[Approved by Governor October 5, 2017. Filed with
Secretary of State October 5, 2017.]
legislative counsel’s digest
SB 54, De León. Law enforcement: sharing data.
Existing law pro
vides that when there is reason to believe that a person arrested for a violation of specified controlled substance provisions may not be a citizen of the United States, the arresting agency shall notify the appropriate agency of the United States having charge of deportation matters.
This bill would repeal those provisions.
Existing law provides that whenever an individual who is a victim of or witness to a hate crime, or who otherwise can give evidence in a hate crime investigation, is not charged with or convicted of committing any crime under state law, a peace officer may not detain the individual exclusively for any actual or suspected immigration violation or report or turn the individual over to federal immigration authorities.
This bill would, among other things and subject to exceptions, prohibit state and local law enforcement agencies, including school police and security departments, from using money or personnel to investigate, interrogate, detain, detect, or arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes, as specified, and would, subject to exceptions, proscribe other activities or conduct in connection with immigration enforcement by law enforcement agencies. The bill would apply those provisions to the circumstances in which a law enforcement official has discretion to cooperate with immigration authorities. The bill would require, by October 1, 2018, the Attorney General, in consultation with the appropriate stakeholders, to publish model policies limiting assistance with immigration enforcement to the fullest extent possible for use by public schools, public libraries, health facilities operated by the state or a political subdivision of the state, and courthouses, among others. The bill would require, among others, all public schools, health facilities operated by the state or a political subdivision of the state, and courthouses to implement the model policy, or an equivalent policy. The bill would state that, among others, all other organizations and entities that provide services related to physical or mental health and wellness, education, or access to justice, including the University of California, are encouraged to adopt the model policy. The bill would require
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
AUTHENTICATED
ELECTRONIC LEGAL MATERIAL
ATTACHMENT B
366403