Evidence shows that Councilmember Michele Padilla violated Stockton City Council policy when she allowed local candidates running for office to make speeches at a community event funded by public money, an ad hoc committee investigation has found.
As a result, Padilla will face a censure hearing before the full City Council at its Nov. 12 meeting.
The Censure Ad-Hoc Committee, made up of Stockton Mayor Kevin Lincoln and Councilmembers Dan Wright (District 2) and Susan Lenz (District 4), was established over the summer to investigate allegations that Padilla misused public funds at her annual community cookout in July by violating a City Council policy prohibiting events that are “political in nature” be paid for by city money.
Padilla used more than $10,000 in City Council discretionary funding to host what was described in the event’s advertisements on social media as a BBQ for her district’s constituents with free giveaways, food and entertainment.
Councilmember Lenz said the evidence clearly showed Padilla had committed a violation.
“They made speeches. They weren’t just invited to the picnic. They were all asked to be on, come upstage, and could talk if they wanted to talk,” Lenz said of seeing video from the event showing candidates running for office being allowed to speak, claiming that those candidates were ones that Padilla also supported politically. “It’s hard for me to get past that.”
Padilla did not immediately provide a requested statement or comment on the committee’s decision as of publication.
The censure committee met for the first and only time Monday morning. It took under two hours for committee members to conclude that Padilla should face a censure hearing.
News reports, video of the event, council policy and the original complaint against Padilla were also in agenda documents for the censure committee to consider in its decision-making process.
Per committee members’ request, there was a long pause in the meeting’s proceedings for the committee to review city documents pertaining to Padilla’s discretionary funding requests, which were not initially included in the agenda’s list of evidence to be reviewed.
All three committee members ultimately agreed there had been a violation.
“That comes down to, did anything political in nature happen here? And I think the answer is yes,” Wright said, though he believes that it’s the full City Council that needs to decide whether the violation should be classified as “serious.”
Councilmembers Wright and Lenz were selected to author a report summarizing the committee’s findings that will be distributed to the full City Council for the upcoming censure hearing against Padilla in November. Per the committee’s direction, city staff will assist the councilmembers in drafting the report.
Mayor Lincoln also clarified that the only evidence that should be included in the report are videos and photos of the event, as well as city documents relating to Padilla’s discretionary funding requests.
“There were some articles that were written that maybe some aspects of those articles may be opinion in nature,” Lincoln said. “I think you need to stick to the facts of the matter.”
Both Blower and Villapudua told Stocktonia Monday afternoon that they were pleased with the censure committee’s decision to move forward with a censure hearing.
“The ad hoc committee did a good job of going through the evidence and looking at what they had to work with,” Blower told Stocktonia via phone. “I think they made the right determination.”
Villapudua says it’s crucial for the City Council to address these committee findings.
“I am encouraged by the committee’s conclusion and look forward to the full censure hearing,” Villapudua said in a written statement. “It is essential that we hold … Padilla accountable for her actions and uphold the integrity of our council.”
City Council policy 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 previously told Stocktonia. “They didn’t think it was right — and they don’t think that it should be left unchallenged.”
Padilla has emphatically denied any wrongdoing.
“Every expenditure of public funds for this event was reviewed by legal counsel from the city and approved,” Padilla wrote to Stocktonia in a statement following the BBQ. “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.”
However, city documents and emails obtained by Stocktonia in July relating to the BBQ show that nowhere did the District 1 councilmember mention her event would include speeches from political candidates.
City officials later told Stocktonia that Padilla’s expenses wouldn’t have been approved had it been known that any component of the event was political in nature.
“I think it really undermines when Councilmember Padilla tries to defend herself by saying that she had (the event) vetted by city staff,” Blower has previously said. “She wasn’t up front with all the facts of what kind of an event it was going to be.”
Padilla has described the hoopla surrounding her BBQ as a result of slanted media coverage and accused other members on the Council of conspiring against her.
“This isn’t about ethics. This is about silencing someone who isn’t a member of their bought-and-paid political cliqué and agenda,” Padilla said at a City Council meeting in August. “I’m sorry I don’t want to join the Mickey Mouse Club — that’s not me.”
To censure one of its members the City Council must go through a multi-step process, which may take weeks or months to resolve. Per policy, two councilmembers must submit a formal complaint to the city clerk’s office. The complaint is then put on the agenda for the Council’s next meeting, where members are given the option to squash the censure before it heads to an ad hoc committee investigation.
In August, the complaint against Padilla was brought before City Council, where the dais remained silent as Mayor Lincoln called for a motion to block the censure process against Padilla from continuing.
As the complainants and the accused, Blower, Villapudua and Padilla were initially barred from voting on the matter. All four remaining members of the Council, which included the mayor, would have needed to unanimously agree to not move forward with a censure investigation. However, the issue never even made it to a vote, as none of the eligible councilmembers called for a motion to do so.
The mayor was then tasked with forming a censure ad hoc committee to include himself as chair and two other members, for which Lincoln chose Wright and Lenz to serve. Members chosen for the committee must represent an even district as it was formed in an even year and cannot include the accused or their accusers.
The ad hoc committee was tasked with reviewing the allegations, conduct whatever necessary investigation, and prepare a report and recommendation to be reviewed by the full City Council.
Padilla will afforded up to 30 days to review the allegations and evidence against her in order to prepare a defense. Per council policy, the earliest the censure committee’s report can be submitted for review is Oct. 13.
Following the censure hearing, the City Council will then 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.
Community BBQ or political event?
The event in question, described on social media as the “2nd Annual Council Member Padilla’s Community Cookout,” was held July 20 at Michael Faklis Park in north Stockton. Padilla used a large chunk of her city-provided discretionary funding to host the cookout.
Members of the City Council are given $15,000 in discretionary funding per fiscal year, which runs from June to July, while the mayor is allocated $60,000.
To access their discretionary funding, Stockton spokesperson Connie Cochran said that the mayor and councilmembers have to first fill out a form. The form is then submitted for review and approval by the city attorney. If approved, the city manager’s office processes the requested payment.
Part of the process in applying to use discretionary funding includes identifying the purpose of the request.
According to documents and emails provided to Stocktonia by the city of Stockton, Padilla portrayed the cookout as an event that would benefit her constituents, sponsored by their councilmember.
A flier advertising the event boasted live music, free food, face painting, backpack giveaway and a raffle drawing with some premium prizes, such as a 70-inch television.
“The object (of the event) is to bring together the diverse residents of District 1 in a relaxed and enjoyable setting,” Padilla wrote in her expenditure forms. “This is to create a sense of belonging and strengthen the bonds within our community. Constituents will be able to engage with one another, exchange ideas, and build relationships.”
She also emphasized this purpose in email communications to city staff and the mayor, where she sought support from city departments “so we can really reap the benefits of coming together as a community.”
City Council policy states that councilmembers’ expenses must have incurred within “the performance of official duties” in order for them to be covered by their discretionary funding allocations, in addition to not being political or religious in nature or personally beneficial to the councilmember.
However, videos recorded at the cookout by an attendee showed four candidates that are running for office locally in San Joaquin County on a stage with Padilla and other officials giving speeches.
The videos show that at some point during the event a few public officials in attendance joined Padilla on stage to say a few words.
Speakers included current Stockton mayoral candidate former Vice Mayor Christina Fugazi, Stockton City Council candidates Jason Lee and Mario Enríquez, and San Joaquin County Supervisor candidate Mario Gardea.
Topics mentioned by several of the candidates included the election and their campaigns.
Lee even hinted that he, Fugazi, Padilla and Enriquez would together be able to take action on the City Council.
“I do a lot of education that it takes four votes to make things happen,” Lee said, before encouraging the audience to count with him the potential four-member City Council voting block on the stage with him. “All of us are aligned on the big bucket vision of the full potential of this city.”
The only candidate not seen in the video to explicitly mention they were running for local office was Fugazi, though she was shown wearing a campaign-style T-shirt.
It was later confirmed that California State Assembly candidate Rhodesia Ransom also spoke, though she told Stocktonia last month she doesn’t recall saying anything that was political or related to her campaign.
What does it mean to be censured?
It’s unclear what possible disciplinary actions Padilla could be facing if she is censured.
According to City Council policy, a censure is a formal reprimand for councilmembers who’ve 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.”
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 a councilmember’s 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.
It’s unclear whether or not the City Council would move forward with any additional consequences for Padilla if the allegations against her are found to have merit.
Blower has said he wants to see how the censure process plays out before considering any possible disciplinary actions.
“We’ll see what their recommendations are,” Blower said in August, referring to the ad hoc committee.
He also did not specify Monday whether or not the City Council would pursue additional avenues for disciplinary action against Padilla.