Stockton City Council will revisit the appointment of Mayor Christina Fugazi’s spokesperson Tuesday while again meeting behind closed doors to consider naming an acting city clerk, bringing two unresolved City Hall personnel matters onto the same agenda amid allegations involving election interference, retaliation and council involvement with city staff.
The agenda calls for reconsideration of the resolution that appointed Jason Teramoto as Fugazi’s public information officer. Later in the meeting, councilmembers are scheduled to meet in closed session over the appointment of an acting city clerk during City Clerk Katherine Roland’s unexplained temporary absence.
The agenda does not say the two matters are connected, but both intersect with a series of disputes that Stocktonia has documented over the past two months involving Roland, Teramoto and members of the City Council.
Roland previously requested an investigation into allegations that Teramoto attempted to interfere with the June 2 primary election and pressure her in her role as the city’s elections official. Weeks later, Roland accused councilmembers of retaliation after an effort was launched to bring her own employment before the council for possible discipline, dismissal or release.
Tuesday will also mark the council’s second closed-session discussion in five days about appointing someone to temporarily oversee Roland’s office. Councilmembers spent nearly an hour behind closed doors Friday considering an acting city clerk but returned without publicly announcing an appointment. Interim City Attorney Donald Larkin said there was “nothing to report out.”
Council to reconsider Teramoto appointment
Vice Mayor Jason Lee first requested that Teramoto’s appointment return to the council during its July 21 meeting. Councilmember Mario Enríquez’s support ensured the matter would return on a future agenda.
“Jason Teramoto was appointed by resolution of this council,” Lee said during the July meeting before asking that the matter return to the council.
Tuesday’s staff report contains little additional explanation. It says only that Lee, with concurrence from Enríquez, directed a discussion regarding reconsideration of the resolution approving an appointment in the Office of the Mayor. It does not specify what action Lee wants the council to take or what the practical effect of reconsidering the resolution would be.
The resolution in question approved Teramoto’s appointment as Fugazi’s public information officer in December. Councilmembers unanimously supported the appointment, which carried an annual salary of about $106,500 according to a council report reviewed by Stocktonia at the time. The at-will position includes responsibilities related to public information, strategic planning, the mayor’s digital presence and media responses.
Stockton’s charter gives the mayor a public information officer to represent the mayor’s office. The position is a city job, rather than a campaign or private political communications role.
Lee’s July request came four days after Stocktonia reported that then-City Attorney Marci Arredondo had alerted the City Council to Roland’s allegations against Teramoto.
In a July 1 email obtained by Stocktonia, Arredondo wrote that Roland claimed Teramoto had “attempted to interfere with the prior election and pressure (Roland) in her role as City Clerk.” Roland was requesting an investigation, Arredondo told the council.
The email did not provide details about what Roland alleged Teramoto had done. Stockton’s only election since Teramoto joined the mayor’s office was the June 2 primary.
Similar allegations had already been raised publicly by Lee.
In two June 16 letters to the city, Lee’s attorney Walter Mosley alleged that Teramoto contacted the City Clerk’s Office about ballot materials submitted by District 1 council candidate Tamica Small. The letters alleged Teramoto sought changes to Small’s ballot designation or candidate statement and told the clerk to “be creative” after the request was rejected.
Small is challenging District 1 Councilmember Michele Padilla in the November election.
Teramoto has denied the allegations, previously telling Stocktonia they had “zero merit” and calling them “yet another distraction from the reality of what the mayor is doing in Stockton.”
Stockton’s charter places city elections under the authority of the city clerk. It separately authorizes the mayor to appoint a public information officer but does not assign election-related responsibilities to that position.
At the July 21 council meeting, Lee appeared to connect his request to the unresolved allegations surrounding Teramoto.
“I’m just perplexed [about] us discussing better government for tomorrow, when the subject of those emails that have been released is still here,” Lee said before requesting that Teramoto’s position return to the council.
Tuesday’s agenda still does not say whether an investigation into Teramoto has been opened or completed, nor does it include findings from such an investigation.
Acting city clerk issue returns
The other personnel matter returning Tuesday involves the official who sought that investigation.
Roland remains Stockton’s city clerk, according to the city’s revised agenda, but the city says she is temporarily absent. City spokesperson Tony Mannor told Stocktonia Thursday that the council needed to appoint an acting city clerk “to ensure continuity of operations during a temporary absence by the City Clerk.”
The city has not said when Roland’s absence began, why she is absent or when she is expected to return. Stocktonia has been unable to reach Roland since Aug. 1 despite attempts by email, phone and in person.
On Friday, the council held a special meeting devoted solely to appointing an acting clerk. It adjourned after nearly an hour in closed session without announcing an appointment.
Now the same personnel title — “Acting City Clerk” — appears on Tuesday’s closed-session agenda. The staff report identifies no candidate and provides no additional explanation.
The effort comes after several other attempts to bring Roland’s position before the council.
On July 30, Roland emailed councilmembers and senior city staff after she said people who did not work for her department had entered the City Clerk’s Office. Roland called the office a “confidential unit” because of its election responsibilities and said she requested an audit of keycard access.
Padilla responded that she had entered the area while showing her daughter the new council chamber but said she did not know she was entering a restricted portion of the office.
The next evening, Padilla emailed Roland seeking a special closed-session meeting to consider the “discipline/dismissal/release” of the city clerk. Villapudua concurred nine minutes later, and Ponce added her support later that night, emails Stocktonia obtained through the California Public Records Act show.
Roland responded by documenting what she called the “retaliatory nature” of the request. She said the attempt came immediately after she sought to restrict candidate access to the Clerk’s Office and raised concerns that elected officials were attempting to direct employees who worked under her authority.
Roland also said the councilmembers who had initiated and initially supported the personnel request were candidates who had improperly entered the Clerk’s Office, and said one had entered with Teramoto. Her email did not establish that a charter violation occurred.
The council had already been warned about potential legal consequences involving action against Roland.
In the same July 1 email that disclosed Roland’s request for an investigation into Teramoto, Arredondo advised councilmembers that taking adverse action against Roland close in time to her request could expose the city to a retaliation claim because Roland could argue she was a whistleblower.
The warning did not prevent the council from exercising its authority over council-appointed officials, but it placed councilmembers on notice of the potential claim before the July 31 effort to review Roland’s employment.
The special meeting sought by Padilla did not take place.
Fugazi subsequently called another special meeting for Aug. 4 containing two closed-session personnel matters: possible discipline, dismissal or release of a public employee and appointment of a city clerk.
Lee questioned the process used to call that meeting. He wrote that three councilmembers had first sought a substantially similar closed session before Fugazi called one herself, creating what he said was the appearance that a serial meeting may have occurred. Lee stopped short of alleging a Brown Act violation but said the sequence raised questions about compliance with California’s open-meeting law and Stockton’s procedures.
The Aug. 4 meeting was canceled before the council convened. The city did not publicly explain why.
Friday’s meeting narrowed the issue to the appointment of an acting clerk. That meeting produced no publicly announced appointment.
During public comment Friday, residents also sought answers about an allegation that Roland had been offered $250,000 to leave her position. Lee raised the same allegation publicly and questioned who had authorized such an offer. Stocktonia has not independently verified that an offer was made.
The city’s revised Aug. 18 agenda continues to identify Roland as Stockton’s city clerk.
Personnel disputes follow warning over city hall governance
The disputes are unfolding amid continuing scrutiny over how Stockton’s elected officials interact with staff and handle the council-appointed employees who run major parts of city government.
Padilla, Villapudua and Ponce — the three councilmembers who sought the July closed-session discussion involving Roland — had jointly initiated another personnel discussion involving a charter officer earlier this year.
In January, Villapudua sought possible discipline, dismissal or release of then-City Attorney Lori Asuncion, with Padilla and Ponce supporting the request. Emails obtained by Stocktonia showed Villapudua and Padilla separately asked Roland not to publicly identify the councilmembers responsible for putting the matter on the agenda. Asuncion resigned Jan. 13, the day her employment was scheduled for closed-session discussion.
Arredondo, who replaced Asuncion and later issued the warning about possible retaliation against Roland, resigned less than five months after taking the city attorney job. Her last day was Aug. 5, leaving Stockton without a permanent legal chief for the second time in less than seven months.
Those personnel issues follow a San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury report released in June that concluded Stockton’s governance problems extended beyond individual political disputes.
The report, titled “Governance in Turmoil,” found leadership instability, council interference with staff, public infighting and departures from established governance practices had damaged public trust, contributed to poor employee morale and made it more difficult for the city to retain experienced staff. It recommended additional council training on the City Charter and boundaries between elected officials and employees.
The grand jury specifically found that councilmembers had interfered with city staff in violation of Stockton’s charter, which generally requires elected officials to work through the charter officer responsible for an employee rather than directing that employee themselves.
The City Council is required to respond to the grand jury’s findings by Sept. 23.
Tuesday’s agenda provides no public explanation for why Teramoto’s appointment is being reconsidered beyond Lee and Enríquez’s July request, no findings from the investigation Roland sought into his conduct and no indication of whom the council may consider to temporarily run the Clerk’s Office.