Stockton Councilmember Michele Padilla is facing a possible censure following accusations by her fellow councilors that she misused public funds.
But how a censure is issued and the possible consequences Padilla could be facing if the Stockton City Council ultimately votes to censure her may seem a bit convoluted for those unfamiliar with the process. Here’s what Stocktonians should expect.
Councilmembers Michael Blower and Brando Villapudua submitted an official letter to the city clerk’s office earlier this month requesting a censure hearing against Padilla be put on the agenda of the City Council’s next meeting.
In July, Padilla may have violated Stockton City Council policy by providing a platform during her annual community BBQ for local officials and candidates running for office in the upcoming November election to make speeches, some of whom addressed their campaigns and political opponents.
The event reportedly cost the city thousands of dollars, which has drawn ire from both the community and some of Padilla’s fellow councilmembers. Padilla used her allotted discretionary funding to help pay for the event according to city documents.
City Council will convene next Tuesday following a six-week summer session break for its first regular meeting since the beginning of July. Discussions for a censure hearing will likely be on the meeting’s agenda, though the full censure process could take weeks or months to work through.
Both Blower and Villapudua have accused Padilla of misusing public funds and violating City Council policy, which stipulates that discretionary money can only be spent on resources that benefit the city and its residents and are not “religious or political in nature” or providing “personal benefit” to the member requesting the funds.
“I had a lot of community feedback from constituents and people that were concerned that city dollars were spent on a political event,” Blower told Stocktonia last week. “They didn’t think it was right — and they don’t think that it should be left unchallenged.”
To censure one of its members the City Council must go through a multi-step process that includes an investigation by an ad hoc committee.
According to City Council policy, a censure is a formal reprimand for councilmembers who have engaged in conduct that constitutes a general “violation of law or of City policy where the violation of policy is considered to be a serious offense.” Censures are only intended to be issued for serious acts of misconduct and “should not follow an occasional error in judgment, which occurs in good faith and is unintentional.”
Two members of the Council first submit a complaint and request for a hearing in writing to the city clerk’s office. The complaint must contain a specific allegation and any relevant supporting evidence. The councilmember accused of the misconduct is then notified of the complaint within 72 hours and the matter is agendized for consideration at a regular City Council meeting.
As the complainants and the accused, Blower, Villapdua and Padilla are not allowed to participate in voting to start the censure process. All four of the remaining members of council, which includes the mayor, would need to unanimously agree to not move forward with a censure investigation to stop the process from moving forward.
“I don’t think that’s going to happen, considering the evidence seems pretty overwhelming that the policy was violated,” Blower said.
If the City Council doesn’t squash the censure, Mayor Kevin Lincoln will appoint a three-member ad hoc committee to investigate the complaint submitted by Blower and Villapudua, made up of himself and two other councilmembers. In an even year such as 2024, the councilmembers appointed to the committee must represent even-numbered city districts and cannot be the complainants or the accused.
This means the councilmembers who could be chosen for the ad hoc committee include Vice Mayor Kimberly Warmsley in District 6 and Councilmembers Susan Lenz in District 4 and Dan Wright in District 2.
The ad hoc committee is then tasked with reviewing the allegations, conduct whatever investigation is necessary, and prepare a report and recommendation to be reviewed by the full City Council. A date will be set for a public hearing if the committee finds the complaint has merit, with Padilla being afforded up to 30 days to review the allegations and evidence against her in order to prepare a defense.
Following the hearing, the Council will vote whether or not to approve a resolution accepting the committee’s findings. At least four members need to support the motion for Padilla to be censured. Padilla would be required once again to sit this vote out.
The complaint by Blower and Villapudua does not indicate what possible disciplinary actions Padilla could be facing if she is censured.
A censure is meant to “deter violations of law and serious violations of adopted City policies.” However, the censure does not carry any fines or suspension of councilmember rights. The process essentially serves as an avenue for the City Council to provide a public dressing down of a member it has determined engaged in wrongdoing.
But City Council does have additional disciplinary options outside of the censure process to address the specific violation Padilla is alleged to have committed, outlined in Council policy, including loss of reimbursement privileges, paying restitution to the city, civil financial penalties, criminal prosecution for misuse of public resources and/or being reported to state and federal tax authorities.
Blower says he wants to see how the censure process plays out before considering any possible additional disciplinary actions.
“I’m guessing it will probably go to an ad hoc committee, and we’ll see what their recommendations are,” Blower said.
Traditionally, City Council is granted discretionary funds to support local nonprofits, Villapudua told Stocktonia in a statement Tuesday evening. However, he said, Padilla instead “misused city funds and donations from local non-profits to host a political event.”
“All while homelessness has doubled under her leadership as the Chair of Council’s Homelessness Ad-Hoc Committee over the past two years,” Villapudua said. “Our non-profits and taxpaying residents deserve equitable justice through the proper disciplinary actions allowed under the law.”
Padilla told Stocktonia in July that she’s well aware of California state law surrounding the use of public resources and that she “can emphatically state that there was no violation.”
“Every expenditure of public funds for this event was reviewed by legal counsel from the city and approved,” Padilla wrote in a statement. “This event was open to the public, and all community members, elected or not, had the opportunity to speak. I believe in upholding the First Amendment right to speech and do not censor community members.”
But city documents and emails obtained by Stocktonia last month relating to the community BBQ show that nowhere did the District 1 councilmember mention her event would include speeches from political candidates.
The city later confirmed to Stocktonia that discretionary spending for Padilla’s event would not have been approved if it was known candidates running for office would be making political speeches at any point during the event.
“I think it really undermines when Councilmember Padilla tries to defend herself by saying that she had (the event) vetted by city staff,” Blower said. “She wasn’t up front with all the facts of what kind of an event it was going to be.”
Padilla has not responded to a recent request for comment on her facing a possible censure.
Want more? Sign up to get Stocktonia delivered to your inbox three days a week.