Stockton’s City Council has adopted a revised policy that streamlines the process for removing volunteer members from the city’s boards, commissions and committees, eliminating procedural hurdles and rejecting a formal appeals process.
The changes, now included in the council’s policy manual, passed by a 7-0 vote on Aug. 26 with no discussion beyond a brief exchange initiated by Vice Mayor Jason Lee, who expressed concern about council decorum and protections for commissioners and councilmembers. The policy was initially placed on the consent calendar, which typically consists of multiple items passed with a single vote and no discussion, but the issue was pulled out by Lee for a separate discussion.
“I want to know if we are setting a standard,” Lee said, asking “what will be that and how are we going to enforce it?”
Previously, members could only be removed if their term expired, if they resigned or if the full City Council approved a removal for misconduct, conflicts of interest or failing to meet legal requirements. Councilmembers were required to ask for council approval to put a removal request for a committee appointee on an agenda for a future meeting. It didn’t matter if it was their own appointee or another councilmember’s pick. Either way, it had to be approved by the full council.
The previous policy is still in effect for removing a board member they themselves have not appointed. However, the new policy language approved by council last week now allows councilmembers to simply write the city clerk requesting removal of any of their own appointees to the meeting agenda. They no longer need to first notify or request approval from the other councilmembers at a public meeting, a power that was not as clearly outlined before.
The city clerk must then formally notify the board member there is a request for removal. The board member up for removal’s only recourse is an opportunity to speak during public comment during the meeting where a vote on the matter is scheduled before the council makes its final decision.
While councilmembers may now trigger the process directly for their own board appointees, the final decision to remove still rests with a majority vote of the council, according to city documents.
In a meeting for the council’s Legislation and Environmental Committee meeting last month, Lee raised concerns about due process, asking whether a formal appeal option was available for commissioners who believe they were removed unfairly. Roland said at the time no such mechanism was included, citing research showing most cities do not offer appeals.
“An appeal process would take up to two months and place a financial burden on the affected member,” she said.
However, she noted that members slated for removal are notified and allowed to address the council during public comment.
The policy also formalized the resignation process, requiring a signed letter be submitted to the city clerk. Verbal or informal resignations will no longer be accepted.
Grounds for removal also remain tied to the city’s conduct policy, including conflicts of interest and behavior deemed damaging to the city’s reputation. Some civic leaders, however, have raised concerns about the potential for unchecked authority under the proposed changes.
“The person at the committee should at least have two warnings, like in employment,” Pat Barrett, chair of the Stockton Water Advisory Group, told Stocktonia. She also questioned the fairness of allowing one councilmember to initiate removal without a formal process.
“It shouldn’t take one person to remove a member. There should be a democratic way to do this,” Barrett said.
Barrett also cited recent controversy involving Mayor Christina Fugazi’s unilateral dissolution of the City Manager Ad Hoc Committee in May, an action taken without a council vote despite having been established by council resolution several months prior.
The city attorney ultimately sided with the mayor when it came to dissolving the committee, saying at a later council meeting in June that because it was the mayor’s job alone per the city’s charter to nominate city manager candidates for council consideration, she was within her power to disband the committee, as an ad hoc committee was not required to be part of the process.
Stocktonia’s previously noted that protocol typically requires council approval to modify or dissolve a committee created by a council vote, a point the city attorney affirmed at a committee meeting earlier this year. The mayor’s move to disband the committee without council approval and by email sparked public criticism from its former members.
“For the first time, having an ad hoc dissolved with no clear answer, taking two diverse voices off the table, the chance that we can filter quality resumes for the next 10 to 16 weeks is now lost,” Enríquez said at a press conference outside Stockton City Hall in June. “I want the public to know that’s what’s happening.”