A Stockton City Council committee took early steps this week toward addressing two lingering recommendations from a blistering civil grand jury report that found Stockton’s local government marred by dysfunction, lack of transparency and a culture of intimidation.
The council’s Legislative and Environmental Committee reviewed draft plans tied to recommendations at a meeting Monday that seek timely disclosure of findings from investigations into violations of state meetings and an independent review of the city’s troubled Ethics Hotline.
In June 2024, the grand jury released a reported titled “City of Stockton: Crisis in Government.” It concluded that the city was “under threat from both external and internal forces” undermining democratic processes, eroding public trust in the city and highlighting issues of transparency and a hostile work environment.
Vice Mayor Jason Lee, who chairs the committee, has also publicly criticized City Hall’s internal culture. In a June council meeting, he described the environment as “toxic” and said he had considered resigning amid what he called “political interference” and “retaliation” by city officials.
“The responsibilities of the civil grand jury encompass the examination of all aspects of county government, including school and special assessment districts, to ensure that the county is being governed lawfully, efficiently, and that public monies are being handled appropriately,” according to the Superior Court of California.
Brown Act investigation policy moves forward
One of the recommendations under review calls for the City Council to adopt a policy requiring that any findings from investigations into alleged violations of the Ralph M. Brown Act be submitted to the civil grand jury within seven days. Under the proposed policy discussed Monday, that timeline would be codified.
The policy also affirms that the city retains discretion over whether to initiate an investigation in the first place.
The recommendation stems from the grand jury’s finding that the council has “failed to take appropriate action” in response to multiple allegations of Brown Act violations. In its report, the jury noted that the city “appeared to lack a consistent or transparent process” for handling such complaints and found that existing policies did not guarantee accountability or timely reporting.
The Brown Act is California’s open meetings law. It requires that local government bodies, such as city councils and school boards, hold their meetings in public and give residents advance notice and a chance to speak on decisions being made. The goal is to make sure government decisions are made openly and not behind closed doors, according to the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California.
A violation of the Brown Act can happen if a voting majority of councilmembers discuss city business outside of a public meeting; whether by phone, email or in private gatherings. Other violations include holding secret meetings without legal justification, or failing to properly post meeting agendas.
“Brown Act here is just a thing that we wave around as a joke,” Lee said. “There really need to be consequences for not following the law and protecting and preserving the way we are supposed to conduct business here.”
Committee members did not take a formal vote, but City Attorney Lori Asuncion indicated that the item will move forward to the City Council’s September agenda for approval.
Pushback on outsourcing ethics hotline review
Another grand jury recommendation urges the city to hire an independent third party to assess the integrity of its Ethics Hotline, a tool intended to allow anonymous reporting of misconduct by city officials or employees, in order to “regain employee and public trust in the system.”
The recommendation stems from concerns raised in the grand jury’s investigation that the hotline lacks independence and credibility, particularly after a period in which the city auditor position — the office originally tasked with overseeing the hotline — remained vacant.
During that time, oversight shifted to the city attorney’s office, which critics argued could present a conflict of interest in cases involving city leadership. The grand jury cited a lack of transparency and accountability in how complaints were reviewed and resolved, contributing to employee distrust and underuse of the system.
But Lee signaled reluctance to spend taxpayer funds on an outside consultant. Instead, he proposed that the city attorney’s office handle the evaluation internally, a move that runs counter to the grand jury’s call for independence. Councilmember Mario Enriquez agreed with Lee.
Pat Barrett, a Stockton resident and advocate, echoed the report’s recommendation.
“I’m a real believer in third parties because they are objective and look at everything with different eyes,” Barrett said.
What’s next
The original deadline for implementing the recommendations was March 31, 2025, but after the city failed to act, the civil grand jury extended the timeline to Oct.1. The committee meeting marked a key step toward fulfilling that revised deadline, but whether the city’s internal approach will satisfy the grand jury remains to be seen.
The grand jury has already flagged the city’s delayed compliance with previous recommendations. If this latest response fails to satisfy state-mandated timelines, the council could face further scrutiny.