Stockton Vice Mayor Jason Lee announced his resignation Tuesday evening during a contentious City Council meeting, but a majority of the council voted against accepting his resignation and proceeded with a 4-2 vote to remove him from the position.
Mayor Christina Fugazi made the motion to remove him, with Councilmembers Michele Padilla, Brando Villapudua and Mariela Ponce voted with the mayor. Councilmembers Mario Enríquez and Michael Blower opposed the removal.
As he left the chambers, Lee picked up his nameplate and handed it to community advocate Julie Dunning.
The decision followed months of public disagreements between Lee, Fugazi and other city officials over government oversight, transparency and council conduct.
Fugazi nominated Lee as vice mayor in January 2025, and the council unanimously approved his appointment. His term as vice mayor was originally scheduled to expire Dec. 31.
Lee remains Stockton’s elected District 6 councilmember.
Fugazi cites breakdown in trust
During the discussion, Fugazi acknowledged that her relationship with Lee had deteriorated since she nominated him.
“When I first made the decision, Vice Mayor Lee and I had a long conversation about all the things that we could do together,” Fugazi said. “And I thought we were going to do a lot of those things. And ultimately, we have not done a lot of those things.”
Fugazi said trust was essential to the position, which allows the vice mayor to preside over council meetings in the mayor’s absence. She also acknowledged her role in the deteriorating communication between them.
“There was a breakdown in communication. I apologize for that,” Fugazi said. “I will say that that is on me.”
The mayor maintained that she had the authority to nominate someone for the position, subject to council confirmation, and said she took no pleasure in reconsidering Lee’s appointment.
“I do want the circus to end,” she said.
Before Tuesday’s meeting, the council’s agenda raised questions about whether councilmembers could legally remove Lee before his term expired.
Interim City Attorney Donald Larkin acknowledged that the City Charter does not explicitly address whether the council can revoke a vice mayor’s appointment.
“It’s not a simple question,” Larkin told councilmembers.
He explained that the charter establishes a term but neither expressly permits nor prohibits revocation. Courts generally give city councils some deference when interpreting ambiguous charter provisions, he said.
“I can’t say that it’s a black and white yes,” Larkin said. “I think there’s a small risk, but it’s not a non-existent risk.”
Lee defends his record before removal
The discussion drew public comments from residents who criticized Lee’s conduct and others who defended his efforts to scrutinize city spending and hold officials accountable.
Some questioned why the council was considering removing him with approximately 11 weeks remaining in his term. Others argued that his public statements and interactions with city officials had undermined confidence in his leadership.
Lee challenged the process, questioning why the council had not provided a more detailed explanation for the proposed removal.
He also alleged that councilmembers had previously sought legal advice about removing him during a closed session, which he argued went beyond what California’s open-meetings law permits.
Lee maintained that his disagreements with other officials stemmed from his efforts to investigate government spending and demand greater transparency.
“I did not enter public service for a title, a committee assignment, or anyone’s approval,” Lee said. “I came to serve the people of Stockton.”
He also questioned the council’s legal basis for removing him before his term expired.
“These are questions of governance, due process, and institutional accountability,” Lee said. “They deserve answers to the public, regardless of today’s outcome.”
The discussion followed a separate agenda item proposing changes to council committee assignments, including replacing Lee as chair of the Audit Committee with Councilmember Michele Padilla.
The proposed roster also excluded Lee from other listed committee and board positions.
The proposal followed a contentious Sept. 21 Audit Committee meeting during which Lee questioned police officials over the city’s handling of investigative records involving elected officials.
The agenda did not establish whether the proposed committee changes were connected to that confrontation.
Before departing, Lee apologized to city staff and residents for the conflict surrounding his leadership.
“I’m sorry that you’ve had to witness all this division,” Lee said.
He announced he would resign, telling councilmembers he would continue representing District 6 and using his public platform to raise concerns about city government.
Council rejects resignation proposal
Fugazi moved to remove Lee as vice mayor, while a substitute motion proposed accepting his resignation instead.
The substitute motion failed, and the council approved Fugazi’s removal motion 4-2. Lee had already left the chamber.
Councilmembers who voted to remove Lee, except Fugazi, declined Stocktonia’s requests for comment after the meeting.
During council comments, Fugazi said she had previously suggested that Lee resign so the council could move forward without further conflict.
Blower, who opposed Lee’s removal, criticized the council’s decision to reject his resignation, warning that the vote could expose the city to unnecessary legal liability.
Blower said he believed the council had clear authority to revise committee assignments but faced greater legal uncertainty over removing a vice mayor before the end of the designated term.
“We could have just accepted his resignation and avoided a liability,” Blower said.
He described the decision as frustrating and questioned why the council would expose the city to potential legal challenges when another option was available.
Blower urged his colleagues to put their emotions aside and make decisions based on the city’s interests rather than seeking a “pound of flesh.”
Padilla also addressed the meeting’s contentious atmosphere, criticizing the shouting and confrontations among audience members.
She noted that a toddler had been present in the council chambers and questioned the example elected officials and residents were setting for children.
“What kind of role model are we giving to our youth, to our toddlers?” Padilla asked.
She said she would continue representing her district and would not allow intimidation to influence her decisions.
Fugazi, meanwhile, defended her handling of the situation during her closing comments.
She said she had previously discussed the possibility of resignation with Lee after he indicated that the vice mayor title was not important to him.
According to Fugazi, she suggested that he could resign so the council could move forward without further conflict.
Fugazi also said she had faced threats, personal attacks and racially charged remarks at City Hall. She said she had been threatened during a conversation about the vice mayor situation but did not identify who made the alleged threat in those remarks.
A council divided
The leadership dispute unfolded against a backdrop of disagreements that have followed the current council since it took office in January 2025.
Lee and Fugazi previously clashed over the use of diversity, equity and inclusion funding, and an outside investigation examined the city’s financial support for a Wild ‘N Out entertainment event involving Lee.
Investigators found that Lee had not violated state or local conflict-of-interest laws in connection with the event.
In May 2026, Fugazi prevented Lee from participating remotely in a council meeting, citing California’s teleconferencing requirements. Lee subsequently called for her resignation.
The broader council also faced scrutiny from a San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury report titled “Governance in Turmoil,” which identified public infighting, leadership instability and problems involving council conduct.
The report examined the council collectively rather than attributing its findings to individual members.
On Sept. 29, the council unanimously approved its response to the grand jury, partially agreeing with all nine findings and accepting eight recommendations.
Tuesday’s events brought those longstanding divisions back into public view, even as several councilmembers called for an end to the infighting.
Lee, who left the meeting before the final vote, said his commitment to serving Stockton would continue regardless of his title.
“My purpose was not given to me by this council,” Lee said, “and it cannot be taken away by a vote of this council.”