(d) Action under this division is discretionary and shall be undertaken only where reasonably necessary to protect city governance, the lawful functioning of city operations, or the rights and safety of persons or entities involved in city matters.
Nothing in this division requires the city council to initiate review, authorize investigation, or impose governance-based measures in response to any particular report, allegation, or request for action.
(e) This division is intended to function in coordination with division 2 of this article, which defines standards of misconduct, and division 4 of this article, which governs escalation and governance-based measures. Nothing in this division shall be construed to limit the city’s obligation to comply with mandatory reporting, referral, or enforcement requirements imposed by state or federal law, nor to preclude reliance on external findings or court orders where authorized under this article. (f) Nothing in this division shall be construed to require the city council to initiate independent fact-finding in any particular matter, to limit the city council’s discretion under this division, to supersede proceedings conducted by courts or other tribunals, or to expand the city’s authority to impose discipline, suspension, or removal beyond that provided by law.
Sec. 2-715. - Preliminary administrative review by city manager or designee.
Information concerning alleged misconduct by a city council member may be received from any source, including members of the public, city employees, other city council members, court orders or findings, or other reliable information. Receipt of such information does not, by itself, constitute initiation of review or action under this division.
Except as provided in subsection (b), all such information shall be referred to the city manager or the city manager’s designee for preliminary administrative review. The purpose of the preliminary review is limited, non-adjudicative, and administrative in nature.
(a) Scope of preliminary review. The preliminary review shall be confined to threshold considerations only and shall not include factual findings, credibility determinations, or conclusions regarding whether misconduct occurred. In conducting the preliminary review, the city manager or designee may consider, among other relevant factors:
(1) Whether the information concerns conduct by a city council member; (2) Whether the alleged conduct, if true, could fall within one or more provisions of division 2 of this article;
(3) Whether the information is duplicative of matters previously reviewed or resolved under this article or other lawful processes, absent materially new information;
Ordinance No. 2537
(4) Whether the information reasonably indicates a material adverse risk to the lawful functioning of city governance or city operations, or to the safety of persons or entities; and
(5) Whether the information concerns conduct that is sufficiently current or concrete to warrant consideration under this division, as opposed to conduct that is remote in time, speculative, or based solely on anticipated future actions.
The city manager or designee is not required to make affirmative findings as to each factor and may refer the matter to the city council whenever, in the city manager’s administrative judgment, further consideration under this division may be warranted.
(b) Alternate preliminary reviewer. If the city manager is a complainant, a respondent, or otherwise directly involved in the matter under review, the preliminary administrative review shall be conducted by the human resources director or by a pre-designated neutral department head identified by resolution or administrative order of the city.
An alternate reviewer acting under this subsection shall have the same authority, limitations, and obligations as the city manager for purposes of this section. (c) Administrative closure and notice. If the preliminary administrative review determines that referral to the city council is not warranted, the matter may be closed at the administrative level.
In the event of administrative closure, the city manager, designee, or alternate reviewer shall provide written notice to the complainant stating that the information submitted has been reviewed and that it has been determined that no further action under this division is warranted at this time. The notice need not include factual findings, legal analysis, or any explanation beyond that statement, and the city manager, designee, or alternate reviewer shall not be required to provide any additional information regarding the basis for the determination.
Administrative closure does not preclude future review if materially new information is later received.
(d) Referral to city council. If the city manager, designee, or alternate reviewer determines that further consideration may be warranted, the matter shall be referred to the city council for consideration under section 2-716. Referral shall be neutral, non-adjudicative, and limited to summarizing the information received and the basis for referral. The referral shall not include recommendations regarding findings, outcomes, or governance-based measures.
Ordinance No. 2537
(e) Limitations on individual briefings. The city manager, designee, or alternate reviewer shall not individually brief, consult with, or advise city council members regarding the merits of the matter outside a duly noticed meeting, except as expressly permitted by law.
Sec. 2-716. - Secondary administrative review by city council and threshold action.
Upon referral pursuant to section 2-715, the city council shall consider the matter in a duly noticed meeting, in open or closed session as authorized by law. Authority under this section is exercised collectively by the city council by a majority vote of the city council members present and eligible to vote, unless otherwise expressly stated in this article. (a) Recusal of affected council members. If the matter under consideration involves a city council member as a complainant, reporting party, or respondent, that city council member shall recuse themselves from participation, including discussion, deliberation, and voting, with respect to actions taken under this section and any subsequent sections of this division relating to the same matter, except as otherwise required by law.
(b) Nature of city council consideration. City council consideration under this section is threshold and administrative in nature. The city council shall not make factual findings, credibility determinations, or conclusions regarding whether misconduct occurred at this stage.
(c) Threshold actions available to city council. After consideration of the information referred under section 2-715, the city council may, by majority vote and consistent with applicable law:
(1) Decline to initiate further review or action under this division; (2) Request additional administrative clarification from the city manager, designee, or alternate reviewer, without authorizing investigation; (3) Authorize early, non-adversarial governance-based interventions, including facilitated governance discussions or mediation where appropriate and permitted by law;
(4) Direct issuance of a preservation notice pursuant to section 2-717; (5) Authorize an investigation pursuant to section 2-718; (6) Authorize interim governance-based measures where reasonably necessary to address a material adverse risk to the lawful functioning of city governance or city operations, or to protect the safety of persons or entities; or Ordinance No. 2537
(7) Take any other action expressly authorized by this division and consistent with applicable law.
(d) Notice of city council determination. If the city council determines, by majority vote, that no further review or action under this division is warranted, the city shall provide written notice to the complainant stating that the city council has considered the matter and determined that no further action under this division is warranted at this time.
The notice shall not include factual findings, legal conclusions, or explanations beyond that statement, and shall expressly state that the city council has made no finding regarding the merits of the information submitted. (e) Closed session reporting. Where city council consideration under this section occurs in closed session, any report out of closed session shall be limited to the extent required or permitted by law and may state only that the city council considered a matter pursuant to this division and took the action reflected in subsection (c), without identifying the subject of the matter or disclosing confidential information.
(f) No mandatory action. Nothing in this section requires the city council to authorize investigation, issue a preservation notice, or impose governance-based measures in response to any particular report, allegation, or request for action.
Sec. 2-717. - Preservation of documents, communications, and records.
Upon direction of the city council pursuant to section 2-716, the city shall issue a written preservation notice in connection with further review, investigation, or potential action under this division.
(a) Preservation obligation. The city council member who is the subject of the matter shall preserve all documents, communications, and records reasonably related to the matters identified in the preservation notice. Preservation is required regardless of whether the information is favorable or unfavorable to any person or entity.
The preservation obligation applies to information in the possession, custody, or control of the city council member that relates to city business or city governance, including information stored on personal devices, personal accounts, cloud-based services, third-party platforms, or artificial intelligence tools, to the extent such information relates to city matters.
Compliance with a preservation notice issued under this section is in addition to, and does not replace, any preservation, retention, or disclosure obligations imposed by adopted city policy or by applicable state or federal law, including public records, litigation hold, or records retention requirements.
Ordinance No. 2537
(b) Scope and conduct of preservation. During the preservation period, a city council member shall not destroy, alter, delete, overwrite, conceal, or cause the destruction, alteration, or concealment of any document, communication, or record subject to preservation.
Preservation under this section does not require disclosure, production, inspection, or access to preserved materials, and does not authorize searches, seizures, compelled production, or access by the city beyond that otherwise permitted by law.
(c) Duration of preservation. The preservation obligation shall remain in effect until the city council member receives written notice that review, investigation, and any related proceedings under this division have concluded and that preservation is no longer required.
(d) Additional preservation notices. Where reasonably necessary to protect the integrity of review or investigation, preservation notices may also be issued to other persons or entities subject to the city’s lawful authority, consistent with applicable law.
(e) Effect of noncompliance. Failure to comply with a preservation notice issued under this section may be considered in determining appropriate governance-based measures or escalation under division 4 of this article, consistent with applicable law.
(f) No waiver of rights. Nothing in this section shall be construed to waive or limit any constitutional, statutory, or common-law right or privilege, including privileges relating to attorney-client communications, work product, or privacy.
Sec. 2-718. - Investigation.
Where the city council authorizes an investigation pursuant to section 2-716, or where investigation is otherwise required by applicable state or federal law and is initiated by the appropriate city official consistent with such law, the city shall initiate an investigation for the purpose of developing an appropriate factual record.
An investigation under this section is administrative and fact-finding in nature. it is intended to inform the city council’s consideration of governance-based measures or escalation under this article and shall not constitute a criminal, civil, or adjudicatory proceeding.
(g) Authorization and purpose. An investigation may be initiated only upon authorization by the city council pursuant to section 2-716, or where investigation is required by applicable law. The purpose of an investigation is to gather Ordinance No. 2537
information relevant to alleged misconduct and to assess whether governancebased measures or escalation under this article may be warranted. (h) Independence of investigator. Any investigation conducted pursuant to this section shall be performed by an independent investigator retained or administered by the city attorney, the city manager, the city manager’s designee, or outside counsel retained by the city.
The investigator shall not be a city employee, shall not be the city attorney, and shall not be subject to the direction or control of the city council member who is the subject of the investigation. The investigator shall possess appropriate training and experience in conducting public-sector investigations and shall exercise independent professional judgment.
The fact that the city attorney, outside counsel, the city manager, or the city manager’s designee may retain, coordinate, or administer the engagement of the investigator, or provide legal guidance regarding scope, procedure, or compliance with applicable law, shall not, by itself, compromise the investigator’s independence, provided that such involvement does not direct factual findings, credibility determinations, or investigative conclusions.
Communications with the city attorney or outside counsel for purposes of legal advice or procedural guidance shall be protected to the extent permitted by law. (i) Scope and method of investigation. The scope of an investigation shall be reasonably tailored to the nature of the alleged misconduct, the information available, and the degree of material adverse risk identified. The city council retains discretion to define or refine the scope, duration, and subject matter of the investigation consistent with this article and applicable law. (j) Investigatory activities. An investigation may include review of documents, communications, and records; examination of publicly available information; and interviews of individuals who agree to participate.
(k) Participation by subject city council member. The city council member who is the subject of the investigation shall be provided an opportunity to participate and to respond in good faith, including by providing information and participating in interviews, subject to applicable constitutional, statutory, and common-law rights and privileges.
Failure to cooperate in good faith may be considered in determining appropriate governance-based measures or escalation under division 4 of this article, consistent with applicable law.
Ordinance No. 2537
(l) Participation by city employees and others. City employees shall participate in investigations to the extent required by applicable law and adopted city policy and subject to any rights or protections afforded by law.
Participation by individuals other than the subject city council member or city employees is voluntary. Nothing in this section authorizes the city to compel testimony, administer oaths, issue subpoenas, or impose penalties for nonparticipation, except as otherwise permitted by law. (m)Notice of investigation. The city council member who is the subject of the investigation shall be provided written notice that an investigation has been initiated, the general nature of the matters under review, and the identity or role of the investigator. The city council member may be represented by counsel at their own expense.
(n) Investigative report; review and confidentiality. Upon completion of the investigation, the investigator shall prepare a written report summarizing factual findings within the authorized scope of the investigation. The report may include observations or considerations relevant to governance-based measures or escalation but shall not make determinations of criminal or civil liability.
Prior to disclosure or consideration by the city council, the report shall be reviewed for compliance with applicable confidentiality, privacy, and information-protection laws. Information protected from disclosure by law shall be redacted or withheld as required.
(o) Conduct during pendency of investigation. To preserve the integrity and fairness of an investigation, members of the city council are encouraged to refrain from publicly characterizing the substance of the investigation, the credibility of witnesses, or the merits of the allegations while the investigation is pending, except as required or expressly permitted by law.
Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prohibit acknowledgment of the existence of an investigation, explanation of procedural posture, compliance with legal obligations, or the exercise of rights protected by the United States or California Constitutions.
Sec. 2-719. - Independent fact-finding and advisory proceedings.
Independent fact-finding and advisory proceedings under this section are intended to provide the city council with a neutral, independent assessment of matters relating to alleged misconduct by a city council member where additional perspective, credibility evaluation, or institutional separation from city-directed investigation would materially assist the city council in determining whether governance-based measures or escalation under this article may be warranted.
Ordinance No. 2537
Proceedings under this section are advisory and administrative in nature. They are not investigations under section 2-718, are not adjudications, and do not constitute a finding of misconduct. Nothing in this section limits or replaces any investigation authorized elsewhere in this division.
(a) Circumstances warranting independent advisory proceedings. The city council may authorize an independent fact-finding or advisory proceeding where it determines that one or more of the following circumstances exist:
(1) The matters under review involve material factual disputes, credibility issues, or competing accounts that would benefit from neutral evaluation; (2) The alleged misconduct presents a material adverse risk to the lawful functioning of city governance or city operations such that additional institutional separation is warranted;
(3) Escalation under division 4 of this article is reasonably contemplated and the city council seeks an advisory record distinct from city-directed investigation; or (4) Other circumstances demonstrate that an independent advisory process would materially assist the city council’s deliberations.
(b) Authorization and initiation. An independent fact-finding or advisory proceeding may be initiated only by action of the city council, taken by majority vote in a duly noticed meeting, in open or closed session as authorized by law. The authorizing action shall identify the general subject matter and advisory purpose of the proceeding.
(c) Independence and qualifications of fact-finder. Any advisory proceeding under this section shall be conducted by a neutral third party retained or administered by the city council, the city attorney, the city manager, the city manager’s designee, or outside counsel retained by the city, as authorized by the city council.
The fact-finder shall not be a city employee, shall not be the city attorney or any attorney employed by or regularly representing the city, and shall not be subject to the direction or control of the city council member who is the subject of the proceeding. The fact-finder shall exercise independent professional judgment and conduct the proceeding in a manner consistent with applicable law and professional standards.
The fact that city officials or counsel may retain, coordinate, administer, or provide legal or procedural guidance regarding scope, process, or compliance with law shall not, by itself, compromise independence, provided that the fact-finder is not substantively directed as to factual findings, credibility assessments, or advisory conclusions.
Ordinance No. 2537
(d) Scope and methods. The scope of an independent advisory proceeding shall be defined by the city council and reasonably tailored to the matters presented. The fact-finder may review investigative materials, receive documents or written submissions, conduct interviews, and assess credibility to the extent permitted by law and consistent with the advisory nature of the proceeding.
Nothing in this section confers subpoena power, authority to compel testimony, or enforcement authority unless expressly granted by law.
(e) Notice and participation. The city council member who is the subject of the advisory proceeding shall be provided written notice of its initiation and the general nature of the matters under review. The city council member may submit information voluntarily, may be interviewed by the fact-finder, and may be represented by counsel at the city council member’s own expense, subject to applicable rights and privileges.
(f) Advisory report. Upon completion of the proceeding, the fact-finder shall prepare a written advisory report summarizing factual findings and observations within the authorized scope. The report may include non-binding observations relevant to governance-based measures or escalation but shall not make determinations of criminal or civil liability and shall not, by itself, constitute a finding of misconduct. (g) Confidentiality and redactions. Prior to disclosure or consideration by the city council, an advisory report shall be reviewed for compliance with applicable confidentiality, privacy, and information-protection laws. Information protected from disclosure by law shall be redacted or withheld as required. (h) Use of advisory report. The city council may consider an advisory report prepared under this section in determining whether to impose governance-based measures, initiate escalation under division 4 of this article, rely on external findings pursuant to section 2-720, or take other action authorized by this article. The city council retains sole discretion regarding whether and how to act upon any advisory findings or observations.
Sec. 2-720. - Reliance on external findings and orders.
This section governs the city council’s reliance on findings, orders, or determinations issued by courts or other authorized tribunals when evaluating alleged misconduct by a city council member and determining whether governance-based measures or escalation under this article may be warranted.
Reliance under this section is intended to avoid duplicative proceedings, prevent relitigation of matters already resolved by competent authorities, and permit timely and lawful action to protect the lawful functioning of city governance or city operations, or the safety of persons or entities.
Ordinance No. 2537
(a) External findings and orders covered. For purposes of this section, external findings and orders include final or operative findings, orders, judgments, or determinations issued by a court of competent jurisdiction or other authorized tribunal, including workplace violence restraining orders, civil harassment restraining orders, criminal protective orders, probation conditions, injunctions, administrative findings, or other legally binding directives relating to conduct described in division 2 of this article.
(b) Authority to rely without re-adjudication. The city council may rely upon external findings and orders described in subsection (a) without independently reinvestigating or re-adjudicating the underlying facts. Reliance on an external finding or order under this section does not constitute a separate determination of misconduct by the city council beyond the scope of the external finding or order. (c) Timing, effect, and scope of reliance. Reliance under this section may occur at any stage of review under this division. Where an external finding or order restricts conduct, contact, participation, or access, the city council may authorize governance-based measures reasonably necessary to ensure compliance with the external finding or order and to protect the lawful functioning of city governance or city operations, or the safety of persons or entities.
(d) Relationship to investigation and advisory proceedings. Nothing in this section requires the city council to delay action pending completion of an investigation or advisory proceeding where an external finding or order is operative and immediate action is reasonably necessary. Conversely, the city council may consider investigative or advisory materials developed under this division when determining the appropriate scope or duration of governance-based measures imposed in reliance on an external finding or order.
Sec. 2-721. - Interim governance-based measures.
Interim governance-based measures under this section are temporary, protective actions intended to preserve the integrity, safety, and lawful functioning of city governance or city operations during the pendency of review, investigation, advisory proceedings, or reliance on external findings. Interim measures are not disciplinary actions and do not constitute findings of misconduct.
(a) Purpose and timing. The city council may authorize interim governance-based measures where information received or developed pursuant to this division reasonably indicates an immediate or ongoing material adverse risk to the lawful functioning of city governance or city operations, or to the rights or safety of persons or entities. Interim measures may be imposed before completion of investigation or advisory proceedings where reasonably necessary to address identified risks.
Ordinance No. 2537
(b) Scope of interim measures. Interim governance-based measures shall be narrowly tailored to the circumstances presented and imposed only to the extent reasonably necessary to mitigate identified material adverse risks, while preserving the elective nature of public office. Interim measures may include, but are not limited to, temporary limitations on participation in specified city council matters, agenda items, committees, boards, or liaison assignments; temporary restrictions on direct contact with specified persons or entities; and temporary adjustments to access to nonpublic information.
(c) Quorum and continuity of governance. Interim governance-based measures shall be implemented, to the extent reasonably practicable and consistent with applicable law, in a manner that preserves the city council’s ability to establish a quorum and to conduct the essential business of the city. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to require the city council to disregard or modify a court order, restraining order, or other legally binding directive issued by a court of competent jurisdiction.
(d) Duration and review. Interim governance-based measures shall be imposed for the minimum duration reasonably necessary under the circumstances and shall be subject to periodic review by the city council. Interim measures may be modified or lifted as circumstances change or as additional information becomes available. (e) Relationship to other actions. The imposition of interim governance-based measures does not preclude completion of investigation or advisory proceedings under this division, reliance on external findings pursuant to section 2-720 of this article, or escalation under division 4 of this article where warranted. (f) Contingent suspension pending external adjudication. As a temporary and protective measure, suspension of a city council member pending resolution of criminal proceedings or other external adjudication may be considered only if and to the extent authorized by law, and only where the city council determines that continued exercise of official duties presents an immediate and substantial risk to the lawful functioning of city governance or to public safety.
At present, the city lacks authority to suspend elected officials pending external adjudication. This subsection is included solely to articulate a governance framework that would apply if and when such authority is granted to municipalities by the State of California through enabling legislation or constitutional amendment.
Absent such authority, no suspension pending adjudication may be imposed under this article.
(g) Effect of suspension pending adjudication if authorized. If suspension pending adjudication is authorized by law and imposed pursuant to this section, such suspension shall be temporary, shall not constitute removal from office, and shall remain in effect only for the duration and under the conditions permitted by law.
Ordinance No. 2537
The city council shall ensure continuity of city governance consistent with applicable law during any period of suspension.
(h) Limitations on scope. Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize the adoption of permanent or generally applicable governance rules, policies, or restrictions applicable to all city council members, which shall be adopted, if at all, through separate legislative or policy action of the city council.
Sec. 2-722. - Indemnification and reimbursement of costs.
The provision of legal defense, indemnification, or reimbursement of costs to a city council member in connection with any matter arising under this article shall be governed exclusively by applicable state law. Nothing in this article shall be construed to expand, create, or guarantee a right to defense, indemnification, or reimbursement of costs at public expense beyond that provided by law.
(a) No automatic right to defense or indemnification. Nothing in this article authorizes or requires the city to provide legal representation, advance defense costs, indemnify, or reimburse a city council member for attorneys’ fees, costs, or expenses incurred in connection with alleged misconduct. Any such determination shall be made solely pursuant to applicable statutory standards and procedures. (b) Scope of lawful indemnification. To the extent permitted by law, the city may provide defense or indemnification only for acts or omissions occurring within the course and scope of lawful city council duties and undertaken in good faith in furtherance of city governance. The city shall not indemnify or reimburse costs arising from acts or omissions determined to be outside the scope of official duties, undertaken for personal benefit, or otherwise excluded from indemnification under applicable law.
(c) Independent determination required. Any decision to provide, deny, condition, or withdraw defense or indemnification shall require an independent determination made in accordance with applicable law. Nothing in this article shall be construed to predetermine, influence, or constrain that determination, or to require the city to provide representation or reimbursement pending resolution of factual or legal issues.
(d) No authorization of private counsel for personal misconduct. Nothing in this article shall be construed to authorize the city to fund or reimburse private legal counsel retained by a city council member for matters involving alleged personal misconduct, violations of law, or acts outside the scope of official duties, except to the extent expressly permitted by statute and approved pursuant to applicable legal standards.
(e) Reliance on external findings. In determining whether defense, indemnification, or reimbursement is permitted or required, the city may consider final judicial, Ordinance No. 2537
administrative, or arbitral findings, including findings described in section 2-720 of this article, establishing whether the conduct at issue occurred within the scope of official duties or involved conduct for which indemnification is not authorized. (f) Recovery of costs where indemnification is not authorized. Where permitted by law, and following a final determination that a city council member acted outside the scope of lawful city council duties or engaged in conduct for which defense, indemnification, or reimbursement is not authorized, the city shall seek recovery of any defense costs or indemnification amounts previously advanced. Recovery may include reimbursement, offset against amounts otherwise payable by the city, or other lawful means of recoupment authorized by statute. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to authorize recovery in excess of that permitted by law or to impose personal liability beyond that allowed by applicable legal standards.
Sec. 2-723. - Safeguards against misuse of process.
The reporting, review, investigation, and governance-based measures established by this division are intended to protect the integrity, safety, and lawful functioning of city governance or city operations. These processes shall not be invoked or used for improper purposes or in a manner that undermines city governance, city operations, or the rights of persons or entities.
This section preserves the availability of good-faith reporting and compliance with investigations required by law, while preventing abuse, intimidation, coercion, or political manipulation of the processes established by this article. (a) Prohibited misuse of process. The city council may take appropriate action to limit, dismiss, or decline to pursue reports, requests for action, or other invocations of process under this division where it is determined, based on the information available, that such invocation:
(1) Was knowingly false or made with reckless disregard for the truth; (2) Repeats allegations that have previously been reviewed or resolved under this article or through other lawful processes, absent materially new information; (3) Is itself inconsistent with division 2 of this article; or (4) Otherwise constitutes an abuse of the processes established by this article that poses a material adverse risk to the lawful functioning of city governance or city operations.
(b) Considerations in determining misuse. In determining whether misuse of process has occurred, the city council may consider the timing, frequency, substance, and context of the invocation, including whether it coincides with city council actions, Ordinance No. 2537
votes, elections, or other governance activities, and whether the invocation reflects a pattern of conduct inconsistent with good-faith reporting. (c) No limitation on mandatory investigations. Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or excuse the city’s obligation to initiate or complete investigations required by state or federal law.
(d) Protection of good-faith reporting. Nothing in this section shall be construed to discourage or penalize good-faith reporting, to require that a report be substantiated in order to be made, or to impose adverse consequences solely because a report is not sustained following review or investigation. (e) Responses to misuse. Where misuse of process is determined, the city council may authorize governance-based measures consistent with this article, including limiting further review of duplicative or improper allegations, declining to pursue improper requests for action, or taking other measures reasonably necessary to protect city governance, city operations, and the integrity of the process.
DIVISION 4 – GOVERNANCE-BASED MEASURES AND ESCALATION
Sec. 2-724. - Overview.
This division establishes the framework by which the city council may authorize governance-based measures and escalation based on information developed pursuant to division 3 of this article. Governance-based measures under this division are intended to protect the integrity, safety, and lawful functioning of city governance or city operations and are not employment actions, criminal sanctions, or determinations of civil liability.
Except as otherwise expressly provided in this article, any action taken under this division shall be approved by a vote of the city council members present and eligible to vote, excluding any city council member who is required to recuse themselves under this article or applicable law.
(a) Progressive escalation framework. Governance-based measures are progressive by default. Where appropriate, the city council shall consider corrective or remedial measures before authorizing more restrictive responses and shall escalate based on the nature, severity, frequency, and context of the misconduct; the record developed under division 3 of this article; the existence of external findings or court orders; the degree of material adverse risk presented to the lawful functioning of city governance or city operations, or to the safety of persons or entities; and the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of prior governance-based measures. (b) Pattern-based escalation. The city council may determine that escalation is warranted where misconduct reflects a pattern rather than an isolated incident. A pattern may be established by repeated violations of the standards of conduct set forth in division 2 of this article, repeated matters supported by investigation or advisory findings under division 3 of this article, or repeated failure to comply with Ordinance No. 2537
corrective or remedial governance-based measures authorized under section 2- 725 of this article.
(c) Escalation based on noncompliance or ineffectiveness. Escalation may be warranted where a city council member fails to comply fully or in good faith with corrective or remedial governance-based measures, interim governance-based measures, or participation obligations imposed pursuant to division 3 of this article, or where such measures have proven ineffective to mitigate identified material adverse risks to city governance or city operations.
(d) Escalation based on severity or risk. Nothing in this division requires the city council to proceed sequentially through each category of response. The city council may authorize more restrictive governance-based measures, even in the absence of a pattern, where the misconduct presents a material adverse risk to the lawful functioning of city governance or city operations, or to public safety; where external findings or court orders are operative; or where delay would materially compromise governance or safety.
(e) Reliance on division 3 record. Governance-based measures and escalation under this division shall be based on the record developed pursuant to division 3 of this article, including investigative reports, advisory findings, reliance on external findings or orders, documented violations of interim governance-based measures, and documented compliance or noncompliance with corrective or remedial governance-based measures. The city council shall not be required to independently re-investigate or re-adjudicate facts already developed through those processes.
(f) Removal-seeking action as last resort. Any removal-seeking action contemplated by this division is intended as a last resort and shall be pursued only where authorized by law and where lesser governance-based measures are insufficient to protect the lawful functioning of city governance or city operations, or public safety. Removal-seeking action is further governed by sections 2-729 and 2-730 of this article and shall not be operative absent enabling legislative or constitutional authority.
Sec. 2-725. - Corrective and remedial measures.
Corrective and remedial measures under this section are governance-based measures intended to address misconduct that is reasonably remediable, to clarify expectations, and to reduce material adverse risk to the lawful functioning of city governance or city operations.
Corrective and remedial measures shall be informed by the record developed pursuant to division 3 of this article, including investigations authorized under section 2-718, advisory findings under section 2-719, reliance on external findings or orders under section 2-720, and other information properly before the city council.
Ordinance No. 2537
(a) Purpose and use. The purpose of corrective and remedial measures is to address misconduct through education, guidance, facilitated intervention, or other structured governance-based measures. Such measures are appropriate where the city council determines that the misconduct does not present an immediate or substantial material adverse risk to the lawful functioning of city governance or city operations, or to public safety, and that remediation is reasonably likely to be effective.
(b) Types of corrective and remedial measures. Corrective and remedial measures may include, as appropriate to the circumstances, mandatory or recommended training related to city governance, ethics, conflicts of interest, Brown Act compliance, workplace conduct, or other relevant subjects; written governance directives clarifying permissible conduct, communication protocols, or professional boundaries; facilitated governance interventions or coaching; and requirements to acknowledge receipt and understanding of applicable policies, directives, or expectations.
(c) Authorization and implementation. Corrective and remedial measures shall be authorized by majority vote of the city council members present and eligible to vote, taken in open session except where closed session consideration is expressly authorized by law. The city council may specify the scope, duration, and completion requirements for such measures, including reasonable deadlines for completion.
(d) Effect of compliance or noncompliance. Successful completion of authorized corrective or remedial measures may be considered by the city council in determining whether further escalation under section 2-724 of this article is warranted. Failure to comply fully or in good faith with authorized measures, refusal to participate, or subsequent misconduct demonstrating that remediation has been ineffective may be considered in determining whether escalation pursuant to section 2-724 is appropriate.
Sec. 2-726. - Governance-based limitations and restrictions.
Governance-based limitations and restrictions under this section are durable governancebased measures intended to regulate the exercise of office, not the holding of office, where such limitations or restrictions are reasonably necessary to protect the lawful functioning of city governance or city operations, or to mitigate material adverse risk to public safety. Limitations and restrictions imposed pursuant to this section do not remove a city council member from office, suspend the office, or constitute a determination of criminal or civil liability.
(a) Circumstances warranting limitations. The city council may authorize governancebased limitations and restrictions where it determines that continued unrestricted exercise of office presents a material adverse risk to the lawful functioning of city Ordinance No. 2537
governance or city operations, or to public safety, and that limitations or restrictions under this section are reasonably necessary to mitigate the identified risk, whether alone or in combination with other governance-based measures. (b) Types of limitations and restrictions. Governance-based limitations and restrictions may include, as reasonably necessary under the circumstances, limitations on participation in specified city council matters or agenda items; removal from or limitation of committee, board, or liaison assignments; requirements that specified interactions with identified persons or entities occur only through designated city staff or in structured settings; restrictions on access to nonpublic information where necessary to protect city operations or to comply with external findings or orders; and other durable constraints reasonably designed to mitigate identified material adverse risks while preserving the elective nature of public office. (c) Authorization and scope. Governance-based limitations and restrictions shall be authorized by majority vote of the city council members present and eligible to vote, taken in open session except where closed session consideration is expressly authorized by law. The authorizing action shall specify the nature, scope, and duration of the limitations imposed and shall be reasonably tailored to the risks identified in the record developed pursuant to division 3 of this article. (d) Quorum and continuity of governance. Governance-based limitations and restrictions shall be implemented, to the extent reasonably practicable and consistent with applicable law, in a manner that preserves the city council’s ability to establish a quorum and to conduct the essential business of the city. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to require the city council to disregard or modify a court order, restraining order, or other legally binding directive issued by a court of competent jurisdiction.
(e) Duration and review. Governance-based limitations and restrictions shall remain in effect only for the duration reasonably necessary to address the identified material adverse risks and shall be subject to periodic review by the city council. The city council may modify or lift such limitations where circumstances materially change, where compliance is demonstrated, or where the identified risks have been adequately mitigated.
Sec. 2-727. - Referral to external authorities and proceedings.
Referral to external authorities under this section is a governance-based escalation mechanism by which the city council may transmit matters involving alleged misconduct by a city council member to entities with independent investigatory, enforcement, or adjudicatory authority where the conduct exceeds, or may exceed, the city council’s institutional authority to address internally.
Ordinance No. 2537
Referral under this section is intended to ensure compliance with applicable law, protect public safety, and address matters that may require criminal, civil, administrative, regulatory, or professional review by external bodies.
(a) Circumstances warranting referral. The city council may authorize referral where it determines that the conduct at issue may implicate criminal law, civil law, ethics or campaign-finance requirements, conflicts of interest laws, professional standards, court orders, or other legal obligations beyond the city council’s authority to enforce. Referral may also be warranted where the misconduct presents a material adverse risk to the lawful functioning of city governance or city operations, or to public safety.
(b) Mandatory referral where required by law. Nothing in this article shall be construed to limit, delay, or excuse referral to external authorities where such referral is required by state or federal law. Where information available to the city reasonably indicates conduct that must be reported or referred to law enforcement, prosecutorial authorities, regulatory agencies, or other entities pursuant to applicable legal requirements, the city council or appropriate city official shall ensure that such referral is made in accordance with law. (c) Authorization and procedure. Referral shall be authorized by majority vote of the city council members present and eligible to vote, taken in open session except where disclosure of the referral itself is restricted by law. The city council may direct that relevant materials developed pursuant to this article be transmitted to the external authority, subject to applicable confidentiality, privilege, and informationprotection requirements. (d) Effect of referral. Referral to external authorities does not preclude the city council from continuing to impose or maintain governance-based measures under this article, including interim measures under section 2-721 or governance-based limitations under section 2-726, where reasonably necessary to protect the lawful functioning of city governance or city operations, or public safety. Conversely, the city council may determine that further action under this article should be deferred, modified, or escalated based on the status or outcome of external proceedings. (e) No adjudication by city council. Authorization of referral under this section shall not be construed as a determination by the city council that misconduct occurred, nor as a finding of criminal or civil liability. The city council’s role under this section is limited to governance oversight and compliance with applicable legal obligations.
Sec. 2-728. - Censure.
Censure is a formal governance-based measure by the city council intended to publicly condemn conduct that undermines the integrity, safety, or lawful functioning of city governance or city operations. Censure does not remove a city council member from office, suspend the office, or constitute a determination of criminal or civil liability. It is an Ordinance No. 2537
institutional expression of disapproval adopted to protect city governance, provide transparency, and establish a clear record of the city council’s response.
The procedures set forth in this section establish the minimum procedure required before adoption of a resolution of censure. Nothing in this section shall be construed to require the city council to conduct an adjudicatory or trial-like proceeding, or to limit the city council’s discretion to structure its deliberations in a manner consistent with applicable law.
(a) Initiation of censure. The city council may initiate censure proceedings where it determines that the conduct at issue implicates one or more provisions of division 2 of this article and that corrective or remedial governance-based measures under section 2-725 of this article are insufficient, ineffective, or inappropriate under the circumstances. Initiation of censure shall occur by action taken in open session and shall require a majority vote of the city council members present and eligible to vote.
(b) Written notice. No fewer than ten (10) calendar days prior to the city council meeting at which a resolution of censure is to be considered, the city council member who is the subject of the proposed censure shall be provided with written notice. The notice shall describe the conduct at issue with reasonable specificity, identify the provisions of this article implicated, and state the date, time, and place of the city council meeting at which the proposed censure will be considered. (c) Access to materials. At the time notice is provided, the city council member shall be provided access to the materials upon which the proposed censure is based, including investigative reports, advisory findings, or external findings relied upon by the city council, subject to redaction or withholding as required by law. (d) Opportunity to respond. Before the city council votes on a resolution of censure, the city council member who is the subject of the proposed censure shall be afforded an opportunity to respond in open session. This opportunity shall include the ability to make an oral statement to the city council and to submit written materials for inclusion in the public record no later than five (5) calendar days prior to the meeting.
If the proposed censure arises from a complaint submitted by another city council member, that council member may also be afforded a limited opportunity to address the city council in open session, subject to the same time, place, and manner limitations.
The city council member who is the subject of the proposed censure may be represented by counsel at the city council member’s own expense. Reasonable time, place, and manner limits may be imposed to ensure orderly proceedings.
Ordinance No. 2537
(e) Public comment. Public comment on a proposed resolution of censure shall be permitted in accordance with the Brown Act and the city council’s rules of procedure. Public comment shall be limited to the subject matter of the proposed censure. City council members shall not use public comment to present evidence, call witnesses, elicit testimony, or conduct examination or cross-examination, and public comment shall not be treated as an evidentiary record. (f) No evidentiary or adjudicatory hearing. Censure proceedings are legislative and governance-based in nature and shall not constitute an evidentiary or adjudicatory hearing. No party has the right to call witnesses, compel testimony, or conduct cross-examination. Nothing in this section prohibits the city council, in its discretion and by action taken in open session, from receiving additional information or statements where doing so would assist deliberation, provided such action does not convert the proceeding into a trial-like hearing.
(g) Consideration and vote. Following notice, opportunity to respond, and public comment, the city council may deliberate and vote in open session on whether to adopt a resolution of censure at the noticed meeting or a continued meeting.
Adoption of a resolution of censure shall require a majority vote of the city council members present and eligible to vote, unless a higher threshold is required by law. (h) Contents and effect of censure. A resolution of censure may describe the conduct at issue and its impact on city governance or city operations, identify the standards of conduct implicated, and include a formal statement of condemnation or disapproval. A resolution of censure may also articulate expectations for future conduct and reference the potential for escalation under this division if misconduct continues or recurs.
Sec. 2-729. - Impeachment.
Impeachment under this article is a removal-seeking governance action of last resort. It is intended to address extraordinary circumstances in which a city council member’s continued service presents an intolerable material adverse risk to the lawful functioning of city governance or city operations, or to public safety, and where lesser governancebased measures have been ineffective, have been disregarded, or are clearly inadequate under the circumstances.
Impeachment is not intended to punish political disagreement, unpopular viewpoints, or lawful legislative conduct. It is reserved for serious misconduct demonstrating that continued service is incompatible with the lawful and safe functioning of municipal governance.
(a) Threshold for initiation. Impeachment proceedings may be initiated where the city council determines, based on the record developed pursuant to division 3 of this article, that one or more of the following conditions exist, whether arising from a single incident or from repeated conduct over time:
Ordinance No. 2537
(1) Repeated or willful non-compliance with corrective or remedial governancebased measures, governance-based limitations or restrictions, or other measures authorized under this article, demonstrating that lesser responses are ineffective to mitigate identified risks;
(2) Egregious misconduct that, by its nature or severity, renders corrective measures, censure, or governance-based limitations clearly inadequate or inappropriate;
(3) A final judicial, administrative, or arbitral finding establishing conduct that would justify removal, forfeiture, or disqualification from office under applicable law; or (4) Willful violation of court orders, restraining orders, or other legally binding directives relating to city governance or the exercise of city council authority. (b) Initiation of impeachment proceedings. Impeachment proceedings shall be initiated by a majority vote of the city council members present and eligible to vote, taken in open session to the extent permitted by law. The initiating action shall identify the general grounds for impeachment and the provisions of this article implicated.
(c) Written notice. Upon initiation of impeachment proceedings, the city council member who is the subject of the proceedings shall be provided with written notice describing the conduct at issue with reasonable specificity, identifying the applicable standards under this article, and outlining the procedural steps to follow.
The notice shall provide no fewer than thirty (30) calendar days before commencement of any impeachment-related proceeding before an independent hearing officer.
(d) Independent hearing officer. Impeachment proceedings shall be conducted before an independent hearing officer retained by the city as authorized by the city council.
The hearing officer shall not be a city employee and shall not be subject to the direction or control of the city council member who is the subject of the proceedings.
To promote neutrality and institutional separation, the city council may authorize retention of the hearing officer through a neutral dispute-resolution provider, such as JAMS, the American Arbitration Association (AAA), Judicate West, or a comparable organization, or may retain a retired judicial officer or similarly qualified neutral with experience in public-sector governance matters.
The hearing officer shall exercise independent judgment and conduct the proceeding consistent with applicable law and the minimum procedural safeguards required for removal-seeking actions. The city council shall not serve as the finder of fact in impeachment proceedings.
Ordinance No. 2537
The fact that the city council, the city attorney, outside counsel, the city manager, or a designee may retain, coordinate, or provide legal or procedural guidance regarding scope or compliance with law shall not, by itself, compromise the independence of the hearing officer, provided that such guidance does not direct factual findings or recommendations.
(e) Procedure before hearing officer. The city council member subject to impeachment shall be afforded, at a minimum, a reasonable opportunity to be represented by counsel at their own expense, to submit evidence, and to respond to the allegations before the hearing officer, subject to applicable constitutional, statutory, and common-law rights and privileges.
These procedures establish the minimum procedure applicable to impeachment proceedings under this article and shall not be construed to create a trial-like forum, to adopt evidentiary rules beyond those required by law, or to expand the city’s authority beyond that authorized by statute or constitution. Any provision of defense costs or reimbursement shall be governed exclusively by applicable state law.
(f) Written findings and recommendation. Upon conclusion of the proceedings, the independent hearing officer shall issue written findings and a recommendation addressing whether removal or other removal-related action is warranted. The findings shall be based on the record developed and transmitted to the city council for final consideration.
(g) Final Action by city council. Following receipt of the hearing officer’s findings and recommendation, and after public comment to the extent required or permitted by law, the city council may take final action in open session by a supermajority vote of the city council members present and eligible to vote, to the extent authorized by law. Final action may include acceptance or rejection of the recommendation in whole or in part and, where authorized, removal from office. (h) Requirement of enabling authority. This section shall not be operative unless and until authority to impeach city council members is granted to municipalities by the State of California through enabling legislation or a constitutional amendment.
Nothing in this article shall be construed to assert or imply that the city presently possesses impeachment authority absent such authorization.
Sec. 2-730. - Disqualification from future office following impeachment.
Disqualification under this section is a removal-related governance action, distinct from impeachment. It is intended to address extraordinary circumstances in which a city council member, having been removed from office following impeachment proceedings, is determined to be unfit to hold future elective office due to misconduct demonstrating a Ordinance No. 2537
fundamental incompatibility with the lawful functioning of city governance or city operations, or with public safety.
Disqualification is not automatic upon impeachment or removal. It is a separate and additional action that may be considered only after completion of impeachment proceedings pursuant to section 2-729 of this article and only where expressly authorized by law.
(a) Relationship to impeachment. Disqualification may be considered only following completion of impeachment proceedings under section 2-729 and only where the city council has taken final action resulting in removal from office. (b) Separate vote required. Any determination to disqualify a city council member from holding future elective office shall require a separate vote of the city council, distinct from and subsequent to any vote on impeachment or removal. Disqualification shall not be implied, inferred, or imposed by operation of law absent such separate action.
(c) Voting threshold. Disqualification under this section may be authorized only by a supermajority vote of the city council members present and eligible to vote, to the extent authorized by law.
(d) Findings required. Prior to any vote on disqualification, the city council shall adopt written findings, based on the record developed pursuant to division 3 of this article and the findings issued in the impeachment proceeding, that the misconduct at issue demonstrates that the individual’s future service in elective office would pose a material adverse risk to the lawful functioning of city governance or city operations, or to public safety.
(e) Scope of disqualification. Any disqualification authorized under this section shall be limited to future service in elective office within the City of West Covina, unless broader disqualification is expressly authorized by applicable law. Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect eligibility for state or federal office. (f) Preservation of electoral authority. Nothing in this section shall be construed to override voter eligibility requirements, recall procedures, or constitutional protections except to the extent expressly authorized by law. Disqualification is intended as an extraordinary governance safeguard and shall be construed narrowly.
(g) Requirement of enabling authority. This section shall not be operative unless and until authority to disqualify city council members from future elective office is granted to municipalities by the State of California through enabling legislation or a constitutional amendment. Nothing in this article shall be construed to assert or imply that the City presently possesses disqualification authority absent such authorization.
Ordinance No. 2537
SECTION 3. Environmental Compliance. The City Council hereby finds that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the adoption and implementation of this Ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment. The Ordinance is therefore exempt from the environmental review requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the CEQA Guidelines.
SECTION 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, and phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) calendar days after its adoption. Provisions of Article XII of Chapter 2 of the West Covina Municipal Code that are expressly conditioned on the existence of enabling legislation or constitutional authority, including but not limited to provisions relating to coercive investigations, suspension pending adjudication, impeachment, or disqualification from future office, shall not be operative unless and until such authority is granted, as expressly provided within Article XII. All other provisions of Article XII shall be operative upon the effective date of this Ordinance and shall apply prospectively in accordance with the terms of Article XII.
SECTION 6. Certification and Publication. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause the same to be published or posted in the manner required by law.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this ___ day of __________, 2026.
Letty Lopez-Viado
Mayor
Ordinance No. 2537
APPROVED AS TO FORM ATTEST
Thomas P. Duarte Lisa Sherrick
City Attorney Assistant City Clerk
I, LISA SHERRICK, ASSISTANT CITY CLERK of the City of West Covina, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 2537 was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 20th day of January, 2026, and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the ____ day of __________, 2026, by the following vote of the City Council:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Lisa Sherrick
Assistant City Clerk
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
CITY COUNCIL MEMBER NOTICE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
By executing this acknowledgement, I confirm that I have been provided notice of the obligations set forth in Article XII of Chapter 2 of the West Covina Municipal Code, the City’s Rules of Decorum, and City policies regarding City Council conduct and acknowledge my responsibility to comply with those obligations during my service as a City Council member, subject to applicable law.
I further acknowledge that I am executing this acknowledgement knowingly and voluntarily, without duress, coercion, or undue influence, and that I have had the opportunity to consult with legal counsel of my choosing regarding this acknowledgement and the obligations described herein.
Print Name Signature
Date
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-10
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, AFFIRMING LEGISLATIVE
INTENT, ACKNOWLEDGING PRIOR DIRECTION, AND
AUTHORIZING IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL CODE OF CONDUCT
The City Council of the City of West Covina hereby finds and declares as follows:
WHEREAS, the City of West Covina is a general law city organized and operating under the laws of the State of California; and
WHEREAS, City Council Members are elected officials entrusted with legislative authority and public responsibilities distinct from those applicable to City employees; and WHEREAS, the City Council has previously adopted Standing Rules and Rules of Decorum governing City Council meetings and public participation, which primarily address real-time meeting conduct; and
WHEREAS, on December 16, 2025, the City Council reviewed the City’s Standing Rules and Rules of Decorum and provided direction to staff to develop a comprehensive City Council Code of Conduct to promote orderly, respectful, and effective governance and to address conduct issues occurring outside meetings or over time; and WHEREAS, the City Council has now introduced an ordinance amending Chapter 2 of the West Covina Municipal Code to add Article XII, entitled “City Council Code of Conduct,” establishing governance-based standards of conduct, procedures for review and investigation, and proportionate, non-employment responses designed to protect City governance, public safety, and public confidence; and
WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes that its authority with respect to elected officials is subject to constitutional, statutory, and legal limitations, including limitations on discipline, suspension, removal, impeachment, and disqualification from future office, and that certain provisions of Article XII are expressly conditioned on the existence of enabling legislation or constitutional authority; and
WHEREAS, the City Council intends that the City Council Code of Conduct be applied prospectively to all City Council members serving on or after its effective date, including current members of the City Council, and not be applied retroactively to impose consequences for conduct fully completed prior to the effective date; and WHEREAS, the City Council further intends that the City Council Code of Conduct operate as a governance and risk-management framework, not as an employment policy, criminal code, or civil enforcement mechanism, and that it be implemented in a manner consistent with constitutional protections, due process, and the elective nature of public office; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to affirm its legislative intent, provide guidance regarding interpretation and implementation of Article XII, and authorize City staff to take reasonable steps necessary to implement the City Council Code of Conduct consistent with its terms.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Legislative Intent. The City Council hereby affirms that the City Council Code of Conduct adopted by ordinance is intended to establish a governancebased framework to promote effective City governance, protect public safety and City operations, and maintain public confidence in City institutions. The Code of Conduct is not intended to create employment discipline, criminal liability, or civil causes of action, nor to expand the City’s authority beyond that provided by law.
SECTION 2. Prospective Application. The City Council affirms that the City Council Code of Conduct applies prospectively to all City Council members serving on or after its effective date, including current members of the City Council. Nothing in the Code of Conduct or this resolution is intended to impose governance-based responses based solely on conduct fully completed prior to the effective date, though post-effective-date findings and ongoing or continuing conduct may be considered as provided in Article XII.
SECTION 3. Implementation and Administration. City staff, including the City Manager, City Attorney, and City Clerk, are authorized and directed to take reasonable and lawful actions necessary to implement the City Council Code of Conduct, including preparation of acknowledgement forms, development of administrative implementation procedures consistent with Article XII, and coordination of training or informational materials as appropriate.
SECTION 4. No Expansion of Authority. Nothing in this resolution shall be construed to expand the authority of the City Council or City staff beyond that provided by the California Constitution, state or federal law, or the West Covina Municipal Code.
Provisions of Article XII that are expressly conditioned on enabling legislation or constitutional authority shall not be operative unless and until such authority is granted, as expressly provided in Article XII.
SECTION 5. Severability. If any provision of this resolution is held invalid or unenforceable, such invalidity shall not affect the remaining provisions. The City Council declares that it would have adopted this Resolution and each provision thereof irrespective of the invalidity of any other provision.
SECTION 6. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this ___ day of __________, 2026.
Letty Lopez-Viado
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM ATTEST
Thomas P. Duarte Lisa Sherrick, CMC
City Attorney Assistant City Clerk
I, LISA SHERRICK, ASSISTANT CITY CLERK of the City of West Covina, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2026-10 was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of West Covina, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 20th day of January, 2026, by the following vote of the City Council:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Lisa Sherrick, CMC
Assistant City Clerk
Councilmember Tony Blain's empty chair at the Robert C. Emery City Council Chambers building in Poway April 15, 2025.
Councilmember Blain attended the City Council meeting from another location. / Vito di Stefano for Voice of San Diego
POLITICS
The Rise and Fall of Poway City Councilmember
Tony Blain
From promising transparency to facing criminal charges, a Poway councilmember’s swift fall from grace. by Tigist Layne
October 30, 2025
Poway City Councilmember Tony Blain has made history. But not in the way he had hoped. 1/14/26, 1:03 AM The Rise and Fall of Poway City Councilmember Tony Blain | Voice of San Diego https://voiceofsandiego.org/2025/10/30/the-rise-and-fall-of-poway-city-councilmember-tony-blain/ 1/8 Within his first seven months in office, Blain received the city’s first- and second-ever censure, or official reprimand, in the city’s 45 years of existence.
In April, the city of Poway filed a lawsuit against Blain for the destruction of public records—the first time Poway has ever sued a sitting elected official.
And last week, Blain became the first sitting elected official in Poway’s history to face criminal charges.
Prosecutors have charged him with four felony charges and a misdemeanor.
In just a few days, he will face a recall vote by his own constituents in Poway’s District 2, exactly one year since he was first elected to the City Council.
Many are expecting the recall vote, which needs a simple majority to pass, to be successful, removing Blain from office. If the recall vote fails, Blain’s criminal charges won’t automatically remove him from office, but many residents and members of the City Council will likely continue to urge him to resign. If he’s convicted, he could face jail or prison time.
So, how did Blain go from running a campaign based on “honesty, integrity and transparency” and promising “no backroom politics” to facing a criminal indictment, a recall vote and a tarnished reputation? It started with emails.
1/14/26, 1:03 AM The Rise and Fall of Poway City Councilmember Tony Blain | Voice of San Diego https://voiceofsandiego.org/2025/10/30/the-rise-and-fall-of-poway-city-councilmember-tony-blain/ 2/8 Emails and Political Aspirations
Photo of the Poway Councilmember Tony Blain at the Robert C. Emery City Council Chambers building in Poway on April 15, 2025. / Vito di Stefano for Voice of San Diego
Blain was dialed in to Poway politics long before he was elected to the City Council.
A military officer and physician, Blain had never held public office before, but he wanted to be involved in Poway’s government since at least February of 2023, when he had his sights set on a City Council seat, emails obtained by Voice of San Diego show.
“If I get elected, I’m going to strive to be as apolitical as possible & just do good for Poway residents / voters – current Council & Vaus EXTREMELY political. Not sure if I’m too idealistic as I’m very new at this,” Blain wrote in an email to former Poway Councilmember Barry Leonard in February 2023.
Blain also sent emails to Poway’s mayor, councilmembers and city staff about a range of topics from graffiti removal to water rates and his plans to introduce a ballot measure that would create term limits for elected 1/14/26, 1:03 AM The Rise and Fall of Poway City Councilmember Tony Blain | Voice of San Diego https://voiceofsandiego.org/2025/10/30/the-rise-and-fall-of-poway-city-councilmember-tony-blain/ 3/8 officials.
As time went on, the emails grew more frequent, harsh and sometimes threatening.
For example, in March 2023, Blain emailed the mayor and councilmembers asking that the city create an information center for people who visit Poway. Leonard responded that visitors could find visitor information on the city’s website.
“Good reply Barry — that [sic] like saying ‘look it up yourself’ I will be taking your seat on Council Barry and actually helping people,” Blain responded.
Around August 2023, Poway City Manager Chris Hazeltine asked Blain to start sending his emails only to him instead of the mayor, councilmembers and city staff. Blain initially agreed, but by September, he became frustrated with Hazeltine’s responses to his questions.
Then, in October, Blain threatened to have Hazeltine fired. “I really want to see you fired, Chris / you are unhelpful to residents and a liability for entire City of Poway.
We need new helpful City Manager with a good attitude who wants to be friendly and help citizens/ voters,” Blain wrote on Oct. 11.
The next day, he sent Hazeltine another email.
“Mr. Hazeltine, you have received your last communication from me until I am elected, then I will call for a vote at the first meeting to have you replaced with new City Manager. Best regards.” In 2024, records show Blain’s emails becoming increasingly combative.
For example, around August, city staff took down some of Blain’s campaign signs because they were in public areas owned by the city, like sidewalks.
In multiple email exchanges, Blain asked City Attorney Alan Fenstermacher why his signs were taken down.
Fenstermacher explained the city’s code, but Blain wasn’t satisfied. “Mr. Fenstermacher, you appears [sic] to be political in your dealing with me, which is both unethical and questionably legal. You really have no business being the Poway city attorney with your obvious political 1/14/26, 1:03 AM The Rise and Fall of Poway City Councilmember Tony Blain | Voice of San Diego https://voiceofsandiego.org/2025/10/30/the-rise-and-fall-of-poway-city-councilmember-tony-blain/ 4/8 leanings,” Blain wrote.
After a few more emails back and forth, Blain again told Fenstermacher that he should resign.
The next day, on Aug. 31, Blain sent an email to the entire City Council, Fenstermacher and Hazeltine, threatening to file a lawsuit against the city for taking down his campaign signs and demanding Fenstermacher’s and Hazeltine’s resignations. Otherwise, he wrote, he would talk to the media.
A few days later, Blain sent an email to Fenstermacher saying he was writing a letter to the State Bar requesting that Fenstermacher be disbarred, meaning he would lose his law license. “I will be publicly requesting your resignation in Nov. 2024 and Nov. 2026 after I am elected to Council and later as mayor – start looking for another job – you are unprofessional and unethical,” wrote Blain in the email.
On Oct. 10, a month before the election, Blain wrote a seemingly unprovoked email to then-Councilmember Brian Pepin with the subject line “request.”
“Hi, Brian, I actually like you, unlike [Councilmember] De Hoff’s lies / ‘anonymous’stupid political stories.
Work with me on Council and I will support you. If you do anything I hear about that is lying or mean to me, I will work tirelessly to get you OFF Council,” Blain wrote. “You and I are good for now unless I see anything you do underhanded. And I have ways of finding out what you are doing behind the scenes. I have heard rumors, but I will give you this once [sic] chance to behave.” After winning the election on Nov. 5, 2024, Blain sent multiple emails per week to Fenstermacher and Hazeltine demanding they resign.
“We will force your resignation in 23 months when we have 3 votes on Council (hopefully sooner),” Blain wrote in an email to Hazeltine on Nov. 26.
He also sent emails to multiple other officials demanding their resignations, including Mayor Steve Vaus, Councilmember Peter De Hoff and members of the city’s Budget Review Committee. 1/14/26, 1:03 AM The Rise and Fall of Poway City Councilmember Tony Blain | Voice of San Diego https://voiceofsandiego.org/2025/10/30/the-rise-and-fall-of-poway-city-councilmember-tony-blain/ 5/8 From Threatening to Illegal
Poway Mayor Steve Vaus (right) with Poway City Manager Chris Hazeltine (left) before the Poway City Council meeting at the Robert C. Emery City Council Chambers building in Poway on April 15, 2025. / Vito di Stefano for Voice of San Diego At a January City Council meeting to fill a vacant seat, Blain’s yearslong pattern of sending threatening emails came to light.
Fenstermacher publicly accused Blain of threats, harassment and bullying directed at him, other staff members and residents.
“I am no longer intimidated by you Councilmember Blain,” Fenstermacher said during the meeting. “I don’t give a flying fuck if you fire me. I will not take this lying down anymore. You are a bully, you’ve been harassing me for months, and I’ve tried to be professional. This is enough.” Fenstermacher revealed that Blain had not only sent him and other staff members numerous threatening emails, but Blain had also emailed city staff asking them to call the police on two different residents who 1/14/26, 1:03 AM The Rise and Fall of Poway City Councilmember Tony Blain | Voice of San Diego https://voiceofsandiego.org/2025/10/30/the-rise-and-fall-of-poway-city-councilmember-tony-blain/ 6/8 criticized Blain. In one email, Blain wrote that he filed a police report against a resident who criticized him. (Findings from an independent investigation commissioned by the city revealed in July that Blain did engage in abusive and offensive conduct toward at least two city officials—Fenstermacher and Hazeltine. That investigation led to Blain’s second censure.)
But that wasn’t all.
The City Council also revealed at the January meeting other emails Blain had sent ahead of the meeting. Blain emailed Councilmember De Hoff saying he would drop his recall effort against him and vote for De Hoff to become deputy mayor if De Hoff voted for a special election instead of an appointment process.
At the time, Councilmembers accused Blain of trying to engage in bribery and vote trading. Last week, the District Attorney’s office agreed, charging Blain with four felonies and one misdemeanor.
Blain is charged with perjury, asking for a bribe, soliciting a bribe and destruction of public papers, as well as a misdemeanor for stealing a campaign sign.
The charging document says Blain committed perjury in September 2024, by allegedly swearing in a complaint to the Fair Political Practices Commission that he was a current Poway councilmember before being elected.
According to the document, Blain also tried to ask for a bribe and solicit a bribe from De Hoff regarding the vacant Council seat, and it accuses Blain of knowingly destroying or removing public records, which the city of Poway is already suing Blain for.
Finally, Blain is charged with a misdemeanor for petty theft for allegedly stealing a campaign sign.
Blain and his attorney did not respond to a request for comment.
What’s next: On Tuesday, residents of Poway’s District 2 will head to the ballot box.
Armed with the knowledge of Blain’s criminal charges and documented proof of his threatening emails and misconduct, residents will decide whether to recall Blain from City Council. 1/14/26, 1:03 AM The Rise and Fall of Poway City Councilmember Tony Blain | Voice of San Diego https://voiceofsandiego.org/2025/10/30/the-rise-and-fall-of-poway-city-councilmember-tony-blain/ 7/8 © 2026 Voice of San Diego. All rights reserved.
Powered by Newspack
Till I first looked at the document which was of 8430 dollars, I accept that my friend’s brother was like really earning cash in his free time with his pc. T5 Her aunt’s neighbor has been doing this for 10 months and by now repaid the loan on their house and purchased a new Car .
Get started today… tab on my name
October 30, 2025 at 8:35 am
Bright Future Up
Loading...
1/14/26, 1:03 AM The Rise and Fall of Poway City Councilmember Tony Blain | Voice of San Diego https://voiceofsandiego.org/2025/10/30/the-rise-and-fall-of-poway-city-councilmember-tony-blain/ 8/8 2 3
4 5
6 7
8 FILED
MAR 2 0 2023
C
SUPERIORCOITFALIFDURA
COUNTY OF Hui@LDT
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OFHUMBOLDT
9 CITY OF ARCATA,
10 11
Petitioner,
vs
12 BRETT WATSON,
13 Respondent.
14 I
15 CASE NO. CV2201490
RULING ON REQUEST FOR
WORKPLACE VIOLENCE
RESTRAINING ORDER
16 The above-captioned matter came on for hearing before the Honorable Timothy A. 17 Canning on February 14, 2023 and March 8, 2023. Petitioner City of Arcata was represented by 18 attorneys Kathryn Fox and Tom O'Connell, and Respondent Brett Watson was represented by 19 attorney Jay Jambeck.
20 In this matter, the City of Arcata is requesting a permanent restraining order under the 21 Workplace Violence Safety Act (Code Civ. Proc. §527.8) prohibiting Respondent from having 22 any contact with certain City employees, to stay away from those employees, and to stay away 23 from their workplace, which is the Arcata City Hall for most and a private office in Arcata for 24 one. The Court previously issued a temporary restraining order, which continued in effect by 25 stipulation ofthe parties until the hearing was completed. After the hearing concluded, the Court Ruling -1-
1 took the matter under submission, and extended the temporary orders until March 22, 2023, or 2 until a ruling was issued, whichever first occurred.
3 At the time the temporary orders were issued, Respondent was serving as an elected 4 official on the Arcata City Council; his term has since expired. 5 To obtain a restraining order after hearing under the Workplace Violence Safety Act 6 ("WVSA"), the employer must prove by clear and convincing evidence that respondent 7 committed an unlawful act of violence towards an employee, or made a credible threat of 8 violence towards the employee that could be reasonably construed to be carried out at the 9 employee's workplace. (The standard for obtaining a temporary restraining order is much 10 lower, requiring only reasonable proof, instead of clear and convincing proof, see Code 11 Civ.Proc.527.8e).)
12 Clear and convincing evidence requires that "the evidence must be so clear as to leave no 13 substantial doubt and sufficiently strong to command the unhesitating assent of every reasonable 14 mind." San Diego Police Department v. Geoffrey S. (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 550, 576. The 15 employer must also show that great or irreparable harm would result to the employee due to the 16 likelihood the unlawful violence will recur. Scripps Health v. Marin (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 324, 17 334-335.
18 To constitute a credible threat of violence, the respondent must have engaged in a course 19 of conduct that would place a reasonable person in fear for themselves and which serves no 20 legitimate purpose. A "credible threat of violence" includes following or stalking someone, or 21 making harassing calls or sending harassing messages by phone, mail, or e-mail, over a period of 22 time (even ifit is a short time). Code Civ. Proc. §527.8. 23 "Course of conduct" is defined as a pattern of conduct evidencing continuity of purpose, 24 including following or stalking an employee to or from their workplace, entering their 25 workplace, following the employee during work hours, making telephone calls to the employee; Ruling -2-
1 or sending correspondence by any means. Code Civ. Proc. § 527.8(b)(l). The WVSA expressly 2 defines unlawful violence as "any assault or battery, or stalking as prohibited in Section 646.9 of 3 the Penal Code..." with certain exceptions not applicable here. Code Civ.Proc. §527.8(a)(7). 4 Stalking consists of willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly following or harassing 5 another person and making a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fe 6 for their safety, or for the safety oftheir immediate family. Pen. Code §646.9. A course of 7 conduct without an express threat may still be sufficient to establish stalking. People v. Lopez 8 (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 436,453 (defendant's construction of a labyrinth, the content of his 9 biogs, messages, letters and packages, and the persistence with which he contacted the victim 10 despite being told to stop, by her and by the police, revealed "an obsession that a reasonable 11 person would understand as threatening").
12 The term "safety" has been construed as not limited to just physical safety, but also safety 13 from emotional or psychological abuse. People v. Borrelli (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 703, 719-720 14 (rejecting argument that "safety" as used in Penal Code section 646.9 meant only physical 15 safety); see also People v. O'Neal (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 817, 821 (affirming restitution award 16 to sibling ofmolested child due to emotional damages suffered by the sibling as a result ofthe 17 molestation even though the sibling was never molested), and People v. Clayburg (2012) 211 18 Cal.App.4th 86, 92-93 (holding that minor daughter ofthe restrained person was also a victim of 19 the restrained person's stalking even though she was never physically harmed or threatened with 20 physical harm, as the daughter suffered emotional damage and was traumatized by the conduct). 21 This conclusion is also buttressed by the broad definition of domestic violence as 22 including emotional and psychological abuse in Family Code sections 6203(b), 6211, and 6320, 23 in Evidence Code section 1109, as well as in the regulations regarding workplace violence in 24 health care settings (8 Cal. Code Regs. §3342).
25 Ill
Ruling -3-
1 Here, Respondent's stalking behavior warrants the issuance of a permanent restraining 2 order. The evidence presented at the hearing -text messages, emails, and testimony from the 3 employees -- was clear and convincing that great or irreparable harm will result ifthe temporary 4 restraining order is allowed to expire, due to the likelihood that Respondent's stalking behavior 5 will recur.
6 Respondent's behavior here was more than just the aggressive, rude, impatient, and 7 sarcastic behavior which the court in Technology Credit Union v. Rafat (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 8 314, 324-25 held to be insufficient to support a finding that the respondent there made a credible 9 threat of violence.
10 Among many other things, Respondent repeatedly stated that he had his emotional 11 "hooks" in one employee, and could not "unhook" himselffrom her. The evidence 12 overwhelmingly showed that Respondent was obsessed with the employee and had an 13 uncontrollable compulsion to continue communicating with her, trying to manipulate her, and 14 trying to be with her, even after he was repeatedly told to stop. When Respondent was denied 15 access to her office, he twice made an unauthorized entry into her office area through a locked 16 back door, on one occasion propping open a locked door. Respondent insisted on accessing the 17 back office, which at the time was offlimits to all city councilpersons. 18 The evidence presented was clear and convincing that Respondent was acting in a way 19 that was very disturbing and frightening to the employees, and that he would not or could not 20 stop doing so. Each ofthe employees testified that Respondent was verbally aggressive, and at 21 times displayed hostile or aggressive body language. Each employee testified of being in fear of 22 Respondent. The employees were also scared for their safety knowing that Respondent had guns, 23 and that he did not tum in all of his guns contrary to the requirements ofthe TRO. 24 The evidence showed that Respondent did not comply with the TRO until after he was 25 arrested for violating it. That, plus the extensive evidence ofRespondent's obsessive and Ruling - 4-
1 compulsive behavior, supports an inference that Respondent would resume contacting the 2 employee and continue with his emotional abuse and manipulation. The fact that Respondent is 3 no longer a city councilperson does not necessarily mean that he will not repeat or resume his 4 conduct in the absence of a restraining order.
5 To extent Respondent's testimony contradicted the employees' testimony, the Court finds 6 the employees' testimony more credible.
7 For the foregoing reasons, and good cause appearing,
8 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the City of Arcata's petition for a workplace violence 9 restraining order is granted. The restraining order itself accompanies this ruling, and is to be 1 O served and filed forthwith.
11 12
Timothy A. Canning
Timothy A. Canning
Judge, California Superior Court, Humboldt County
March 1 7, 2023
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 Ruling -5-
PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL
I am over 18 years of age, a resident of the County of Humboldt, State of California, and not a party to the within action; that my business address is Humboldt County Courthouse, 825 5 St., Eureka, California, 95501; that I served a true copy of the attached RULING ON REQUEST FOR WORKPLACE VIOLENCE RESTRAINING ORDER by placing said copies in the attorney's mail delivery box in the Court Operations Office at Eureka, California on the date indicated below, or by placing said copies in envelope(s) and then placing the envelope(s) for collection and mailing on the date indicated below. I am readily familiar with this business practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited with the United States Postal Service at Eureka, California in a sealed envelope with postage prepaid. These copies were addressed to:
Kathryn Boyd Fox, 655 W Broadway Suite 1600, San Diego, CA 92101 Jay T. Jambeck, 870 Market St. Suite 1157, San Francisco, CA 94102 I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws ofthe State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on the Sday of March 2023, at the City of Eureka, California.
Kim M. Bartleson, Clerk of the Court
By Risa Waddell _
Deputy Clerk