Six days after missing a state-mandated deadline, the Stockton City Council will consider a response to a civil grand jury report criticizing dysfunction at City Hall during its Tuesday meeting.
The proposed response partially agrees with all nine of the grand jury’s findings while disputing portions of its conclusions about councilmembers’ conduct.
The meeting will give councilmembers their first opportunity to publicly consider the proposed response and determine whether to adopt it, amend it or request further revisions. The proposed reforms would still require additional action before many could take effect.
The 36-page proposed response, included as a draft in the agenda for this week’s meeting, addresses the findings and eight recommendations in the San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury’s June report, “Governance in Turmoil,” which identified public infighting, interference with city employees, questionable fiscal practices and inadequate responses to previous grand jury recommendations.
Although the draft commits the city to implementing all eight recommendations, it repeatedly distinguishes between acknowledging broader governance problems and accepting the grand jury’s conclusions about specific conduct.
The council had until Sept. 23 to submit its response to the Superior Court’s presiding judge. City officials had nearly three months to prepare it but failed to bring it before the council for approval ahead of the deadline.
At the Sept. 15 meeting, councilmembers said they had not yet reviewed the draft.
Mayor Christina Fugazi acknowledged during that meeting that considering the response Sept. 29 would put the city beyond its deadline, but said she did not know what repercussions it might face.
City Manager Johnny Ford said officials were considering a special meeting before Sept. 23, which ultimately did not result in an approved response by the deadline.
City acknowledges problems but disputes grand jury’s conclusions
The proposed response partially agrees with every finding, acknowledging concerns about government operations while challenging aspects of the grand jury’s characterization of council conduct.
The draft partially agrees with the grand jury’s finding that councilmembers interfered with city employees in violation of the City Charter, which establishes boundaries between elected officials and the city’s administrative staff.
However, it disputes treating council interactions with employees or actions by the council collectively as established charter violations without examining specific circumstances.
The city also partially agrees with the grand jury’s finding that disrespect toward employees contributed to staff departures and substantial financial losses. While acknowledging the potential costs of employee turnover, the draft does not accept that particular departures or financial losses resulted from council conduct without individualized factual analysis.
Similarly, the city disputes the suggestion that recurring divided votes or disagreements among councilmembers are inherently improper, arguing that elected officials have the right to express differing opinions and challenge staff recommendations.
The draft also disagrees with the grand jury’s conclusions that councilmembers pursued personal agendas and advanced business interests outside council chambers, arguing that officials must evaluate such conduct against specific legal standards.
In its proposed response to the finding concerning campaign finance, the city acknowledges that Stockton lacks a comprehensive local campaign contribution ordinance. However, it disputes the conclusion that the absence of local limits necessarily results in a lack of transparency, citing disclosure requirements already established under state law.
All eight recommendations accepted, but most remain unfinished
The draft categorizes the grand jury’s first recommendation as already implemented. That recommendation called for written documentation of actions taken to comply with the council’s existing standards governing professional conduct, meetings, public statements and online activity.
The city argues that its proposed response and accompanying exhibits provide the requested documentation, while acknowledging that several underlying reforms remain incomplete.
The city has not yet fully implemented the remaining seven recommendations but commits to carrying them out.
These include mandatory training on the city charter and fiscal procedures, revisions to the council’s ethics code and written guidelines governing social media and public communications. The city proposes completing those measures by Dec. 31.
Other reforms would take considerably longer.
The draft calls for documented progress toward an independent ethics commission by the end of this year, with the goal of establishing and operating the commission by January 2028.
Under the city’s proposed timeline, the council would adopt a local campaign contribution ordinance by Dec. 31, 2027.
The draft does not establish how much implementing the complete package of reforms would cost. Several measures would require additional council action, legal review, budget authorization or other government approvals.
Missed deadline prompts political response
Stockton Democrats Together, a chartered affiliate of the San Joaquin County Democratic Central Committee, announced Sept. 24 that it would contact the Superior Court’s presiding judge and the current civil grand jury to document the missed deadline and request follow-up.
“We are not interested in theatrics. We are interested in follow-through,” organization President David Sengthay said in a statement.
The organization called on the city to release its draft response at least one week before a council vote and said it would review the final response against the requirements of state law.
It also announced plans to track how councilmembers vote on the response, an independent ethics commission, local campaign contribution limits and an election transparency ordinance.
The group said those votes would inform its future endorsements and decisions about recruiting challengers to incumbent councilmembers.
A recurring problem with grand jury responses
The city’s handling of the deadline adds to concerns raised in the grand jury’s report about Stockton’s previous responses.
The grand jury found that the city had repeatedly failed to follow the response format required by state law. Its review of the council’s September 2025 response to an earlier investigation found that Stockton adequately addressed only three of six outstanding recommendations.
The California Penal Code requires a governing body to respond within 90 days. It also specifies how agencies must address each finding and recommendation, including explaining disagreements and providing implementation timelines where required.
Before the Sept. 23 deadline expired, University of the Pacific political science professor Keith Smith told Stocktonia that state law does not specify a penalty for failing to respond.
“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 at the time.