On Tuesday, the Stockton City Council voted 6-0 to allow councilmembers to use the official city logo on individual communications that may not reflect the city’s official position.
In a divided vote, the council also postponed sending the San Joaquin County Grand Jury an overdue update on changes the city is making after a scathing 2024 report about threats to the integrity of Stockton’s government.
City logo
The City Council voted 6-0 to scrap a rule barring councilmembers from putting Stockton’s official logo on individual statements that may not reflect the position of the city as a whole.
District 2 Councilmember Mariela Ponce was absent.
Most Stocktonians are likely familiar with the blue stylized “S” and all-caps “City of Stockton” lettering stamped across envelopes, announcements, city vehicles and more, representing Stockton’s government.
The seemingly-benign logo came to the attention of San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury investigators last year after a councilmember published, on official city letterhead, information about an internal investigation the city refused to release at the time, citing attorney-client privilege, according to the grand jury report.
The City Council adopted new rules in June, holding that the official letterhead may only be used “to communicate the official policy, position, or actions of the City or City Council, not individual Councilmember positions or opinions.”
Under the June rules, councilmembers couldn’t use the official Stockton brand on communications about their personal opinions, support for or responses to constituents, or any other individual statements.
That changed Tuesday night. As the proposal was part of what’s known as the “consent agenda,” the vote sailed through with no discussion.
Of the councilmembers who developed the original rules — including the prohibition on using the official logo — as members of the former City Council Legislative and Environmental Committee, only District 3 Councilmember Michael Blower remains on the council.
“As far as adding the logo, I don’t have a problem with that, because it kind of makes sense that you would have the logo on there anyway,” Blower said Wednesday.
Even in statements on their own offices’ letterheads, councilmembers must still include a disclaimer that the statement doesn’t represent the view of the whole City Council or city government, Blower said.
Grand jury response
Also on Tuesday, the City Council voted 4-2 to delay sending the San Joaquin County Grand Jury its latest progress update following jurors’ bombshell 2024 report on intimidation and unethical meddling at City Hall.
“I feel that our current colleagues should have more time to address the grand jury and their responses,” District 1 Councilmember Michele Padilla said before proposing pushing the report.
Padilla, Blower, Mayor Christina Fugazi and District 5 Councilmember Brando Villapudua voted in favor of postponing, while District 4 Councilmember Mario Enriquez and District 6 Councilmember and Vice Mayor Jason Lee voted against it.
Enriquez and Lee didn’t immediately respond to questions Wednesday about why they voted no.
Released in June, the grand jury report largely focused on 209 Times, a website and collection of social media pages owned and run by a Stockton political consultant, and that sometimes presents itself as an impartial news organization.
According to the report, people linked to 209 Times allegedly “created a work environment of fear” at City Hall, and “the efficient and ethical governing of the City of Stockton is under attack by both external and internal forces.”
“This must be stopped,” the report concluded.
As a result, the grand jury urged Stockton to adopt new rules aimed at boosting transparency, including about who’s behind City Council campaigns; at investigating threats and ethics complaints; and at preventing councilmembers from leaking confidential City Council information, among others.
In August, the city sent the grand jury its first progress update, highlighting problems it had already fixed and saying it was still addressing others.
At the time, the city promised the grand jury another update in April. But it was never sent “due to staffing changes,” according to council document. After Tuesday’s vote, it’ll be at least another few weeks.
The draft update postponed Tuesday appeared to change tack on the city’s August promise that officials would draft new rules placing Mayor’s Office staff under the same mandated employment rules and laws as other city staff.
The grand jury report had found that “those appointed to work in the Mayor’s Office are not bound by the same employment rules as other city staff and therefore are not held to the same standards as city employees,” without elaborating.
Instead, the draft stated that the grand jury’s recommendation to do so lacks sufficient information.
Otherwise, the proposed response highlighted additional changes the city has made, such as requiring councilmembers to sign secrecy pledges before participating in closed-session meetings.
The pledges, signed by all current councilmembers, were attached to Tuesday’s agenda.