Three Stockton City Council members moved to put City Clerk Katherine Roland’s employment before the council in closed session, weeks after the city attorney warned that taking adverse action against Roland could expose the city to a whistleblower retaliation claim.
Emails obtained by Stocktonia through California Public Records Act show District 1 Councilmember Michele Padilla initiated the effort July 31, asking that a special meeting be held the following Monday to consider the “discipline/dismissal/release” of the city clerk.
District 5 Councilmember Brando Villapudua backed the request nine minutes later. District 2 Councilmember Mariela Ponce added her support later that night.
The request came one day after Roland warned councilmembers and senior city officials that candidates had improperly accessed the City Clerk’s office, which administers Stockton elections. Roland characterized the effort to review her employment as retaliation shortly after receiving the request.
The meeting sought by Padilla never took place. Instead, Mayor Christina Fugazi later called a substantially similar special closed session for Aug. 4. Vice Mayor Jason Lee subsequently raised concerns that the sequence of events created the appearance of a possible serial meeting under California’s Brown Act.
That meeting was ultimately canceled.
The newly released emails add detail to Roland’s retaliation claim and document how the effort to review her employment unfolded over several days amid an ongoing dispute over election administration, access to the City Clerk’s Office and the limits of council authority over city staff.
Three councilmembers back closed-session request
At 5:10 p.m. Friday, July 31, Padilla emailed Roland requesting a special council meeting for 9 a.m. the following Monday. She asked that the council meet in closed session under a personnel provision of the Brown Act, identifying the subject as the city clerk position.
Padilla also asked the City Attorney’s office to review the proposed item for compliance with the Brown Act, including any notice requirements involving the employee. She copied Villapudua and Ponce, saying they were included to confirm whether they concurred with calling the meeting.
Padilla asked Council Assistant Florence Low to poll Fugazi and the remaining councilmembers to determine whether a quorum would attend and requested that the agenda be posted once a quorum was confirmed.
“Given the timeline, I would appreciate it if the Deputy City Clerk could post the agenda immediately upon finalization to meet the required posting deadline,” Padilla wrote.
At 5:20 p.m., Villapudua responded: “I concur with Councilmember Padilla.”
Ponce added her support at 9:54 p.m.
“I concur to Councilwoman Padilla [sic] email,” she wrote.
Under Stockton’s city charter, requesting a closed session and calling a special meeting are separate actions with different requirements. The mayor, any three councilmembers, the city manager or the city attorney may request a closed session. Padilla, Villapudua and Ponce therefore had enough support to request a closed-session discussion concerning the city clerk.
A separate council policy covers who may call a special meeting. Such a meeting may be called by the mayor, by the vice mayor in the mayor’s absence or by a majority of the seven-member City Council — at least four members. Padilla’s email asked staff to poll Fugazi and the remaining councilmembers before the agenda was posted.
The July request was not the first time the same three councilmembers had jointly sought a closed-session personnel discussion involving a council-appointed official.
In January Villapudua asked that the council consider the possible discipline, dismissal or release of then-City Attorney Lori Asuncion, with Padilla and Ponce supporting the request. Emails obtained by Stocktonia at the time showed that Villapudua and Padilla separately asked Roland not to publicly identify the three councilmembers as the officials behind the agenda item. Asuncion resigned Jan. 13 during the council meeting at which her employment was scheduled for closed-session discussion.
Clerk links request to office-access dispute
The personnel request came one day after a dispute over access to the City Clerk’s Office.
On July 30, Roland told councilmembers and senior city staff that people who did not work for the Clerk’s Office had entered the physical office. She said she requested an audit of keycards to prevent unauthorized access.
“We are a confidential unit as mandated by our election duties,” Roland wrote.
Candidates for office should not be able to enter without an approved escort from a clerk staff member, she said.
Padilla responded by asking Roland to specify what she considered her department.
Roland said that, with exceptions including the lobby, council chamber, council conference room, police room and podcast room, the entire first floor was part of the Clerk’s Office.
Padilla then acknowledged she had entered the area while showing her daughter the new council chamber but said she did not know she was entering without permission.
“This is first time [sic] information has been brought to my attention,” Padilla wrote. “My daughter came to visit and I wanted to show her our new chamber, I was completely unaware I was entering without proper permission.”
A day later, after receiving Padilla’s request for the special meeting and Villapudua’s concurrence, Roland responded at 6:31 p.m.
“I am documenting the retaliatory nature of this request,” she wrote.
Roland cited several concerns: Padilla’s email was sent shortly after the close of business; a councilmember was attempting to direct employees to work to prepare and post the meeting agenda; and the request immediately followed Roland’s attempt to secure the Clerk’s Office against access by candidates.
The City Charter also limits how individual councilmembers interact with employees working under the city’s appointed charter officers. It generally requires the mayor and councilmembers to deal with employees under the direction of the city manager, city attorney, city clerk or city auditor through those respective officials rather than giving orders directly to their subordinates.
Roland’s email did not establish that a charter violation occurred. She cited the attempt to direct staff as one of the reasons she believed the meeting request was retaliatory.
Roland also wrote that the two councilmembers who had initiated and responded to the request were candidates who had improperly accessed her office. She said one had entered with Fugazi’s public information officer, Jason Teramoto.
At the time Roland sent the email, Padilla had initiated the request and Villapudua was the only councilmember who had responded. Ponce did not add her concurrence until later that night.
Padilla and Villapudua declined to comment to Stocktonia for this story. Ponce did not respond to questions by publication time.
Council had already been warned of retaliation risk
Roland’s accusation came after then-City Attorney Marci Arredondo had cautioned the council about the potential legal consequences of taking action against the clerk.
Roland previously requested an investigation into Teramoto over allegations that he attempted to interfere with the June 2 primary election and pressured her in her official capacity. The allegations involved questions Teramoto raised about the ballot designation of District 1 candidate Tamica Small, who is challenging Padilla in the November election.
Teramoto, in a June statement to Stocktonia, described the accusations as having “zero merit.”
In a July email to the council, Arredondo warned that taking adverse action against Roland close in time to her request for an investigation could expose the city to a retaliation claim because Roland could argue that she qualified as a whistleblower.
The warning did not prevent the council from exercising its authority over appointed officials, but it put councilmembers on notice of a potential retaliation claim before the July 31 effort to review Roland’s employment.
Roland did not respond to questions for this story by publication time.
Mayor calls similar meeting
The Aug. 3 meeting sought by Padilla did not occur.
At 5:01 p.m. Sunday, Aug. 2, Fugazi separately directed Roland to post a special closed-session meeting for 9 a.m. Tuesday, Aug. 4. Fugazi followed up the next morning when Roland was out, directing Deputy City Clerk Gabriel Searcy to ensure the meeting was posted before the deadline.
The final agenda, distributed at 8:45 a.m. Aug. 3, contained two personnel items: consideration of the discipline, dismissal or release of a public employee and consideration of the appointment of a city clerk.
About 25 minutes after the agenda was distributed, Lee emailed Fugazi, Arredondo and City Manager Johnny Ford and copied officials with the California State Controller’s Office.
Lee said he wanted to formally document concerns about the process used to schedule the meeting.
“Given the events of last week, during which three Councilmembers sought to schedule a substantially similar Special Closed Session, and the subsequent decision by the Mayor to call that same meeting, this sequence of events creates the appearance that a serial meeting may have occurred,” Lee wrote.
Lee stopped short of saying a Brown Act violation had occurred. He said the circumstances, at minimum, raised significant questions about compliance with the state’s open-meeting law and Stockton’s procedures for calling special meetings. He also said he believed the special session had been scheduled without the council being lawfully polled.
“Council and I were not polled for this meeting,” Lee later wrote.
The meeting was canceled before councilmembers convened and the city did not publicly explain why it was canceled or say whether either personnel matter would return to the council.
Fugazi did not respond to Stocktonia’s questions about the meeting, including why she called it, whether she communicated with Padilla, Villapudua or Ponce before doing so, why it was canceled and whether another closed session involving Roland is planned.