A confidential city email released this week reveals that Stockton’s former interim City Manager Steve Colangelo may have violated the confidentiality of a closed City Council session.
The email was released as a result of the council opting out of attorney-client privilege this week to provide it as evidence to the San Joaquin County District Attorney’s Office relating to a possible Brown Act violation.
“I was informed that the Interim City Manager was heard by two City employees stating that Will Crew had been placed in the Acting City Manager position temporarily while the contract for ICM Colangelo was worked on,” Assistant City Attorney Taryn Jones said in the July 30 email, obtained by Stocktonia under public records laws.
Communications related to legal advice from the city attorney to councilmembers are protected through attorney-client privilege. Only a vote by the full City Council could lift such a privilege, which the council opted to do at its meeting Tuesday to further a possible investigation by the DA.
Jones sent the email one day after the council decided in a July 29 closed session to replace Colangelo with Deputy City Manager Will Crew, who would serve as the city’s acting chief executive. Crew had also held the role before Colangelo’s appointment in February.
If Colangelo did breach the City Council’s closed session, the violation would be the latest in a series of controversies that have raised questions about his competency to serve as Stockton’s chief executive. California state law prohibits outside discussion of deliberations held in closed session under most circumstances.
“The fact that the contract that is to be agendized for consideration is for ICM Colangelo was not released and remains confidential until the agenda for that meeting is published,” Jones said in the email.
No decision about a future contract for Colangelo was reported from the closed session In July. The city did not publicly consider another contract for Colangelo until Aug. 12, when the agreement showed up on a City Council agenda. Ultimately, the contract was removed from that agenda during the meeting, and hasn’t come back to the council since.
But the email released Tuesday claims Colangelo told a specific person or people that his future contract was under discussion as early as July 29.
Colangelo sent no response to questions from Stocktonia about the email.
On Tuesday, the council voted 4-3 to give up their attorney-client confidentiality regarding the email, leaving it open to request by the public.
According to Lee’s remarks at the meeting, the goal of the release was to allow the DA’s Office to review the email, so it may decide whether to criminally investigate complaints of closed session violations at the city.
Last month, the City Council voted unanimously to inform District Attorney Ron Freitas’ office of any existing or future complaints of closed session or “Brown Act” violations. The vote came as the council was beset by an impressive number of accusations of ethical and legal violations by councilmembers and officials against their colleagues.
The Brown Act is a California law that guarantees the public’s right to view most legislative meetings. However, it contains exceptions for specific topics officials must discuss behind closed doors — including employment contracts for officials like Colangelo — known as closed session.
While breaking the Brown Act is a misdemeanor, it’s extremely rare for law enforcement to prosecute people for breaking it. Citizens can file civil lawsuits to stop or void decisions made in violation of the law.
At City Hall Tuesday, debate over whether to release the email occurred in vague terms, as councilmembers couldn’t discuss its contents without themselves violating closed session rules.
During the debate, Fugazi — who voted in February for Colangelo’s initial appointment and has defended his performance amid criticism since — argued repeatedly against releasing the email, saying she worried it could lead to “speculation and innuendo.” She didn’t go into specifics.
Lee represented the main voice arguing for the email’s release.
“All I’m saying is, what do we have to lose? We’re not going to lose anything by sending it to the district attorney,” he said. “But what we are going to lose, with the public watching, is trust, because they’re gonna think this is a circus.”
The email about Colangelo released Tuesday appears aimed at informing councilmembers about the then-interim’s reported breach of the council’s confidentiality.
“It was brought to my attention that information from the July 29, 2025, closed session was disclosed to City staff who were not otherwise authorized to receive the information,” Assistant City Attorney Jones said.
Jones then explained what she’d been told about the violation. She concluded, “I called to remind the ICM that the information regarding his contract remains confidential under the closed session privilege.”
The message didn’t explain what Colangelo allegedly said about his contract, or to whom. It also doesn’t say when or where the conversation may have occurred.
City Attorney Lori Asuncion received a copy of the email, as did each councilmember, according to Stockton’s city clerk.
Disclosing the details of one’s own confidential job negotiations may seem like a trivial issue. In fact, the Brown Act may have required such negotiations to stay confidential to protect the reputation of the employee themselves.
“The purpose of this exception — commonly referred to as the ‘personnel exception’ — is to avoid undue publicity or embarrassment for an employee or applicant for employment,” according to the League of California Cities.
But the other core purpose is “to allow full and candid discussion by the legislative body,” according to the group.
What’s more, disclosing confidential city information only to specific people is arguably unfair to the general public, who may not get the information until later when it’s legally released.
Ahead of Tuesday’s vote, Asuncion said releasing the email presented no obvious legal risk.
“However, as with all waivers, it has the potential to establish political and practical expectations for future (waivers) under similar circumstances,” she said.
Vice Mayor Lee and Councilmembers Michael Blower, Mario Enríquez and Michele Padilla voted in favor of waiving the email’s confidentiality. Mayor Fugazi and Councilmembers Brando Villapudua and Mariela Ponce voted against it.