With less than a week until Stockton must respond to a civil grand jury report that criticized dysfunction at City Hall, councilmembers said they had not yet reviewed the city’s draft response, and Mayor Christina Fugazi said she did not know what repercussions the city could face if it misses the Sept. 23 deadline.
The issue surfaced during Tuesday’s City Council meeting on Tuesday after a resident questioned how the council planned to meet the deadline when the grand jury response was not on the agenda.
Vice Mayor Jason Lee later raised the same concern from the dais, asking whether the city needed to call a special meeting before Sept. 23.
Fugazi acknowledged that Sept. 29 would fall several days after the deadline.
“I know that’s a few days outside of [deadline] — but I don’t know what the repercussions of that might be,” Fugazi said.
City Manager Johnny Ford said city staff and the city attorney’s office were working with the mayor’s office on the response and were considering a special meeting, potentially Monday, Sept. 21.
If a special meeting does not happen, Ford said the city could keep Sept. 29 as a target date, six days after the deadline.
The discussion comes nearly three months after the San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury released “Governance in Turmoil,” a report finding that public conflict among councilmembers, leadership instability, interference with city staff and failures to fully address previous grand jury recommendations had weakened Stockton’s government.
The council must formally respond to the report by Sept. 23.
Council has not yet reviewed response
David Sengthay, president of Stockton Democrats Together, who raised the Sept. 23 deadline during public comment Tuesday, said afterward that the city should have planned to bring the response before the council at its final regularly scheduled meeting before the deadline.
“We’ve had all this time,” Sengthay said. “Why haven’t we had a chance to comment yet, or even have a draft be released publicly?”
Sengthay said relying on a special meeting could leave residents with little time to review what could be a lengthy response before the council votes.
“I would not appreciate getting a reading the day before class and saying you need to read this and be prepared for discussion,” Sengthay said. “I think the public is owed that same level of courtesy.”
He also said the way councilmembers handle the response will factor into how Stockton Democrats Together evaluates incumbents and future candidates.
“If you are playing any part in the chaos and the governance in turmoil, which includes voting against these recommendations and/or supporting a poor response to the grand jury, that will be noted,” Sengthay said.
Sengthay said the organization would be willing to recruit and support challengers to councilmembers it believes are standing in the way of the reforms.
After Sengthay raised the Grand Jury question, Lee asked city officials directly how they intended to handle the deadline.
“I was the person who filed the complaint with the grand jury so we could get here, and I’m glad that we’re looking at this report and the last report,” Lee said.
Lee said he had not seen the draft and questioned whether city officials had given councilmembers an opportunity to help determine the city’s response.
“The council hasn’t had an opportunity to weigh in or participate in the findings,” Lee said. “I think that as a council, it should be something that we all have a chance to discuss, weigh in on, vote on.”
Ford told Lee the response would come back to the council and said staff could provide the entire report for council consideration.
Fugazi said she was hesitant to rely on a meeting noticed only 24 hours in advance because residents should also have time to review the proposed response.
“If we were, you know, Friday for Monday, and they had the weekend, I still think public wants more time than that, probably, to weigh in on it,” Fugazi said.
Lee asked that councilmembers receive the draft before the meeting so they have time to review it. Fugazi said staff could provide it ahead of the public posting.
As of Tuesday’s meeting, the council had not formally considered or approved the response.
What California law requires
California law requires a public agency’s governing body to respond to a civil grand jury’s findings and recommendations and submit those comments to the presiding Superior Court judge within 90 days of the final report.
The law says the governing body “shall” respond within that period. A separate section of state law outlines the required format for that response.
For each grand jury finding, the responding agency must state whether it agrees or disagrees wholly or partially and explain any disagreement.
For each recommendation, the agency must state whether it has already implemented the recommendation, plans to implement it, needs further analysis or will not implement it because it considers the recommendation unwarranted or unreasonable. In some cases, the response must also provide a timeline.
University of the Pacific political science professor Keith Smith said the state law creates a requirement for governing bodies to respond but does not spell out a penalty for failing to do so on time.
“The code does not specify a penalty for not responding, and it does not specify who might enforce any penalty, even if one existed,” Smith said.
Without a defined enforcement mechanism, Smith said much of the grand jury’s influence comes through “moral suasion and public pressure.”
That does not make the reports meaningless, he said. For residents, grand jury reports provide information about elected officials and how their government is functioning.
“It’s a source of information about the elected officials and their behavior,” Smith said, “and it’s information that voters can use to, at the next election, decide whether or not they want to continue supporting those people.”
The law does not specify an automatic fine or other immediate penalty simply for missing that deadline. California court guidance notes that courts may contact or direct governing bodies that fail to comply with the response requirements.
Another California city’s experience shows how continued noncompliance can escalate, including additional grand jury scrutiny and the possibility of court action.
Monterey County city responded months late
The Monterey County Civil Grand Jury examined the City of Marina after its council failed to submit a required response to the 2015-16 grand jury report “Housing Homeless Women?” within the required 90-day period.
The subsequent grand jury reported that responses from city governments were due Sept. 30, 2016. According to its follow-up report, jurors repeatedly sought responses from two cities through letters, emails, telephone calls and eventually in-person demands from the grand jury foreperson and Continuity Committee chair.
The report said Marina offered no explanation for failing to respond.
Marina finally submitted its response in January 2017, more than four months after the deadline and, according to the grand jury, only after being faced with the possibility of sanctions if delays continued. The grand jury later found that Marina’s eventual response complied with the required format and contents.
At its Jan. 18, 2017 meeting, the Marina City Council considered the response publicly. Councilmembers discussed changes to the draft before voting 5-0 to approve a resolution, accepting the response with modifications and directing that it be forwarded to the presiding Superior Court judge.
The follow-up grand jury found Marina’s failure to respond on time was unacceptable and said the city risked legal expenses if the grand jury pursued court action to compel compliance. It also warned of possible sanctions if Marina then failed to comply with a court order.
The report did not say Marina automatically received a fine or sanction simply because the 90-day deadline passed. Instead, the case shows how continued noncompliance can lead to additional grand jury scrutiny and potentially escalate to court enforcement.
Stockton faced criticism over past grand jury responses
“Governance in Turmoil” also raises questions about whether Stockton will adequately respond this time.
The civil grand jury said Stockton had “consistently failed” to follow the format required by state law when responding to previous findings and recommendations.
The issue traces back to the 2024 “Crisis in Government” report, which made 11 recommendations involving city government.
A later grand jury found Stockton had adequately addressed five of those 11 recommendations, leaving six requiring further follow-up. The current report says the council’s response last September adequately addressed only three of those six remaining recommendations.
Outstanding issues included recommendations involving outside social media influence on city government, policies for threatening communications, election transparency and the city’s ethics hotline.
The latest grand jury investigation expanded beyond Stockton’s previous responses, finding broader problems involving council infighting, ethics, staff interference and instability in city leadership.
The grand jury did not blame individual councilmembers for its nine findings, instead directing them toward the council as a body.
City Hall turmoil continues to surface
Broader concerns raised by the grand jury have continued to surface since the report’s release.
Last week, the Stockton Police Officers’ Association said political disputes at City Hall were pulling officers away from regular assignments for security details, escorts, council meetings and other work connected to city officials.
The union did not provide staffing numbers, overtime costs or other records supporting several of its allegations.
On Tuesday, Councilmember Michele Padilla asked city officials to determine how many Stockton Police Department officers provide security during council and committee meetings, how much those assignments cost the city and whether new City Hall security measures could reduce police staffing needs.
“I want to make sure that we’re keeping everyone safe while also being mindful of our police resources and the additional expense at our city,” Padilla said.
Ford said the city had already started reviewing its security plan and expected to bring a report back within 45 to 60 days.
Padilla did not link her request to the police union’s statement.
Lee later connected the two issues during his council comments, saying he agreed with Padilla’s call for a security review while directly addressing SPOA’s concerns.
“I know Councilmember Padilla commented about the security review, and I agree with that,” Lee said.
Lee said he wanted officers to know the council had heard the union’s concerns and acknowledged what he described as City Hall’s role in how the situation developed.
Meanwhile, the council’s immediate deadline remains Sept. 23.
Ford said Tuesday that officials would spend the next few days determining whether they could schedule a special meeting before then. Fugazi said officials had nearly finished the response but emphasized that councilmembers and the public should have an opportunity to review it.
Fugazi, Ford and Interim City Attorney Donald Larkin did not respond by Wednesday afternoon to questions about the Sept. 23 deadline, the status of the draft and the potential consequences of a late response.