In June, the Grand Jury clobbered the 209 Times disinformation site and its City Council allies for poisoning Stockton government. City Hall was given 90 days to respond.
On Tuesday, the council okayed a slate of fixes and other responses. Let’s have a look.
Below, the recommendations of the San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury (preceded by “R” for “recommendation”) are in italics.
R1.1. The City Council should stop enabling the SMP (Social Media Platform, the 209 Times) from interfering with effective city government through their continued association and/or support of individuals associated with the SMP.
CITY RESPONSE:
The City Council acknowledges the Grand Jury’s recommendation R1.1
Pause for laughter. This is a lame non-response. But what can officials say? “Yes, Councilmember Michele Padilla (and possibly Mayor Kevin Lincoln) should stop being stooges for the 209 Times” lacks the dignity befitting an official municipal response. As does “Well, duh.”
I asked Padilla by email whether she would follow the Grand Jury’s recommendation and cut ties with the 209 Times. She did not reply.
R1.2: By March 31, 2025, the City Council should adopt rules for handling unlawful threatening Communications received by City officials and employees. Unlawful threats, not covered under the First Amendment, should be referred to the District Attorney’s office.
CITY RESPONSE:
Short version: The City will draft a policy.
This step is doubtless being taken by officials all over the land. Such are the times we live in.
R1.3: By March 31, 2025, the City should adopt an ordinance similar to the City of San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code Section 1500 et seq., to strengthen election transparency. That ordinance requires political consultants and candidates to file reports directly to the City in all municipal elections listing business relationships, financial investments, and who they pay for political help or receive in-kind support from, as well as indicating who they support in elections.
CITY RESPONSE:
Short version: A council committee and city staffers are working up rules for council consideration.
This is one of the meatier recommendations. Councilman Dan Wright approves of it “in general.”
“Obviously we’re not San Francisco, so there might be some slight variations,” Wright said. “We should not be allowing people to contract with people who do not follow the rules. And somebody should be checking to see if they follow the rules.”
At the least, such rules would allow the public to see who’s paying the 209 Times or any other outlet for good press or to smear rivals. It also could reveal if a campaign consultant is given a sinecure or overcompensation.
R1.4: By March 31, 2025, the City should not agendize Chartered Officers performance reviews on an ongoing basis but set them annually or for specific situations which require notice by law.
CITY RESPONSE:
Short version: it’s already done.
Officials overcompensated for a previous personnel agenda omission by putting performance reviews on the agenda of every meeting. As if it’s fair to calendar possibly firing someone every two weeks. Performance reviews should be scheduled once a year or when the situation calls for it, and now they are.
R1.5: By March 31, 2025, the City should amend its policies and procedures to make all Form 700 filings available to the public online.
CITY RESPONSE:
“The City agrees with this recommendation.”
Form 700s are statements of a public official’s economic interests. They enable the public to see if an official is making decisions for the public good or lining their pockets. The City has already linked to form 700s on via the FPPC tab on the City Clerk’s webpage.
R1.6: By March 31, 2025, the City shall enact a policy that all employees of the Mayor’s office are under the same mandated employment rules and laws as the rest of the City staff.
CITY RESPONSE:
“The City’s Charter Officers (Manager, Attorney, Auditor, and Clerk) plan to work together, in coordination with the City Council’s Audit and Legislative Committees, to discuss and prepare appropriate and relevant draft policies …”
An intriguing sidelight of the Grand Jury’s report was a swipe at the Mayor’s Office because, “There are employees of the Mayor’s Office that are not bound by the same employment standards as City Staff.” Translation: Some or all of Mayor Kevin Lincoln’s three staffers don’t put in a full day’s work. The Grand Jury did not expand. Nor did it say how it knows the mayor’s staff plays hooky as opposed to being out of the office on legitimate city business. Nevertheless, the City says it will figure out a way to keep tabs on the mayor’s staff to ensure they do an honest day’s work on taxpayers’ dime.
R2.1 By March 31, 2025, the City should amend its Closed Session policies and procedures to minimize the risk of revealing confidential information. … no phone, electronic communication or recording devices … Additionally, each attendee should sign a pledge of secrecy on entering each meeting …
CITY RESPONSE:
Short version: The City Attorney’s Office is drafting an ordinance “for discussion and feedback” and possible Council approval next year.
This recommendation stems from the notorious March 1, 2023, Council closed session over whether to fire City Manager Harry Black. When a majority voted to keep Black, an unknown councilmember contacted, in violation of the law, Motecuzoma Sanchez of the 209 Times and divulged the situation. Sanchez then contacted Councilman Brando Villapudua and urged him to change his vote.
A pricey outside investigation failed to ID a culprit.
Maddeningly, closed session leaks have continued, said Councilwoman Susan Lenz.
“I have gone to meetings and by the time I get home at night people know what we’ve discussed in closed session,” she said. “I’m just shocked.”
Lenz supports banning phones: “Get rid of phones. Absolutely.”
That’s a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, it’s no fix. A person dishonorable enough to betray closed-session confidentiality won’t hesitate to violate a secrecy pledge.
“Even if we take the phones away, they’ll just text when they get out,” Lenz predicted. Yes, but at least the ban will stop real-time interference from unauthorized outside parties.
R2.2 By March 31, 2025, the City should develop … an impartial process for determining whether the Brown Act confidentiality requirement related to Closed Session has been violated and appropriate sanctions for the violator …
CITY RESPONSE:
Short version: the City Attorney’s Office is working on it.
But what “process” can determine who leaked?
R2.3 By March 31, 2025, the City should enact a policy that all findings of Brown Act violations investigations must be released to the Civil Grand Jury within seven days of receipt by the Council.
CITY RESPONSE:
To paraphrase: The city will look into it, but no promises.
As mentioned above, outside investigators failed to bust the culprit. They did issue a report. City leaders angered the Grand Jury by not releasing the report — which ‘“tied the hands of the Grand Jury” — nor has the report been made public.
This is the most complex of all the Grand Jury’s issues.
“I think it should be released,” Lenz said. “Taxpayers are paying for it.”
I agree that an investigator’s report on public figures and processes, paid for by public money, should be public — in principle. In this case, however, it’s impossible to know without a deeper dive whether public release of the investigator’s report runs afoul of laws regulating closed session and personnel confidentiality. The Council should figure it out and err on the side of transparency.
R2.4 By March 31, 2025, the City should amend their policies and procedures regarding the use of City Stationery.
CITY RESPONSE:
Short version: done deal.
Councilmember Michele Padilla denounced Black on city letterhead. Her cronies at the 209 Times published it as an “official news release,” which it was not. City officials, including Councilman Michael Blower, who sits on the Legislative Committee, have already created a rule prohibiting city stationery misuse.
“It is interesting that in 174 years we never had to have that policy,” Blower said.
Finally, R3.1 By March 31, 2025, the City should hire an independent third party to investigate the City’s Ethics Hotline process to regain employee and public trust in the system.
CITY RESPONSE:
Short version: Okay.
The city’s Ethics hotline is managed by Moss Adams, the city’s outside accounting firm. Why? Because the hotline started as a financial ethics hotline and expanded. The hotline is supposed to be confidential. “However,” the Grand Jury reported, “this confidentiality appears to have been compromised by leaks.” City officials are hiring a third party to evaluate the ethically compromised ethics hotline. Only in Stockton.
The 2023-24 San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury deserves thanks for a job well done on this report. City government will be better armored against underhanded players and back-room misconduct when the Grand Jury’s recommendations become law. Of course, the best remedy for the malign influence of ethics-challenged elected officials is unchanged: vote the bums out.
Michael Fitzgerald’s column runs on Wednesdays. On Twitter and Instagram as Stocktonopolis. Email:mfitzgeraldstockton@gmail.com