The Stockton City Council ended a nearly hourlong special closed session Friday morning without publicly announcing an acting city clerk, leaving unanswered who will oversee the office during City Clerk Katherine Roland’s temporary absence.
The council met for a single closed-session item listed as a “Public Employee Appointment” for the position of acting city clerk. After councilmembers returned to chambers, Interim City Attorney Donald Larkin said there was “nothing to report out,” and the council adjourned.
City spokesperson Tony Mannor told Stocktonia on Thursday that the meeting was called “to appoint an acting City Clerk to ensure continuity of operations during a temporary absence by the City Clerk.”
Mannor did not provide a reason for Roland’s absence and said there is no estimated date for her return. The city also has not said when her absence began.
Stocktonia has been unable to reach Roland since Aug. 1 despite attempts to contact her by email, phone and in person.
Before the council entered closed session Friday, residents raised questions about Roland’s absence, turnover at City Hall and an allegation that she had been offered $250,000 to leave her position.
Resident Yolanda Amen called for “transparency, accountability and stability” and said taxpayers deserved answers if an offer involving public money had been made.
“These aren’t personal questions,” Amen said. “These are taxpayer questions.”
Vice Mayor Jason Lee raised the same allegation in a Facebook post, saying he was looking into whether Roland had been offered $250,000 to leave her city job.
“What I want to know is who authorized the city attorney on her last day of employment to offer the city clerk $250,000 to quit her job without council direction or budget authority,” Lee wrote.
Stocktonia has not independently verified whether such an offer was made.
Questions also were raised Friday about changes to the agenda itself.
The city first published the agenda Wednesday evening, listing a “Public Employee Appointment” for an “Interim City Clerk.” A revised version published early Thursday changed the title to “Acting City Clerk.” Neither version identified whom the council might appoint.
The original city document identified the position as “Interim City Clerk.” The city has not explained why the terminology was changed in its revised agenda item.
During public comment, Mary Elizabeth noted that versions using both terms remained available on the city’s website.
“We depend on information that you all present on the agendas to know what’s going on,” she said.
The revised agenda’s certificate of posting continued to identify Roland as Stockton’s city clerk, listing “Katherine Roland, CMC, CPMC City Clerk” above an empty signature line for a deputy.
Previous attempts to discuss Roland’s position
Friday’s meeting came less than two weeks after three councilmembers sought a closed-session discussion involving possible discipline, dismissal or release of the city clerk.
Emails obtained by Stocktonia through the California Public Records Act show District 1 Councilmember Michele Padilla initiated the request on July 31, with District 5 Councilmember Brando Villapudua and District 2 Councilmember Mariela Ponce later supporting it.
Roland characterized the effort as retaliatory. It came one day after she warned councilmembers and senior city officials that candidates had improperly accessed the City Clerk’s Office, which administers Stockton’s elections.
The council had previously been warned by then-City Attorney Marci Arredondo that taking adverse action against Roland in close proximity to her request for an investigation into allegations of election interference could expose the city to a whistleblower retaliation claim.
The meeting requested for July 31 never occurred.
Mayor Christina Fugazi later called a separate special closed session for Aug. 4 that included possible discipline, dismissal or release of a public employee and the appointment of a city clerk. That meeting was canceled before the council convened.
Lee questioned how the Aug. 4 meeting had been scheduled, saying the sequence of councilmembers seeking substantially similar closed sessions raised questions about compliance with California’s Brown Act and Stockton’s procedures for calling special meetings.
Friday’s agenda was narrower. It did not include possible discipline, dismissal or release of a public employee and instead dealt solely with appointing an acting city clerk.
Under California’s open meetings law, public agencies may meet behind closed doors to consider certain personnel matters, including the appointment or employment of a public employee.
Friday’s meeting ended without an appointment being publicly announced.