title
PUBLIC CENSURE HEARING TO REVIEW THE CENSURE AD HOC COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION, CONSIDER EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY, AND DETERMINE IF CENSURE IS WARRANTED
recommended action
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council review the Censure Ad Hoc Committee Recommendation, consider the evidence and testimony, and determine if censure is warranted.
body
Summary
On March 24, 2025, the City Clerk received the recommendation of the Censure Ad Hoc Committee directing the report be forwarded to the City Council and the matter set for a public censure hearing before the City Council.
Today the City Council is tasked with reviewing the recommendation, considering the evidence and testimony, and determining if censure is warranted.
DISCUSSION
Background
Council Policy Manual Chapter 4.08 (Council Censure) establishes the process for the censure of councilmembers. The process begins with the submission of a complaint by two councilmembers and an initial discussion before Council to determine whether the process should move forward. Absent a unanimous vote by the uninvolved councilmembers (those who did not submit and are not the subject of the complaint), the process continues.
On January 21, 2025, Councilmember Padilla and Vice Mayor Lee submitted a complaint to the City Clerk pursuant to Council Policy 4.08 (Attachment A- Complaint, Attachment B - Council Policy 4.08) requesting a censure hearing regarding an alleged violation of Council Policies 3.13 and 4.07 (Attachment C - Council Policy 3.13, Attachment D - Council Policy 4.07) by Councilmember Villapudua.
At the February 04, 2025, Council Meeting, there was no vote to stop the process, and the Council Censure Ad-Hoc Committee was created pursuant to Council Policy 4.08 with the Mayor naming the members.
The Ad Hoc met on February 25, 2025, to consider the following evidence:
1. Complaint
2. Council Policy 4.08
3. Council Policy 3.13
4. Council Policy 4.07
5. Video Link- Facebook Reel (Attachment E)
Following review of the evidence and discussion, the Committee decided there was enough evidence to support a public censure hearing, and appointed member Enríquez to draft the censure report and recommendation. The recommendation of the Ad Hoc was received by the City Clerk on March 24, 2025 (Attachment F - Censure Ad Hoc Committee Report and Recommendation).
The City Council is now tasked with reviewing the recommendation, considering the evidence and testimony, and determining if censure is warranted.
Present Situation
The recommendation of the Ad Hoc Committee is as follows.
“Following a thorough review of the complaint and evidence, the Censure Ad-Hoc Committee recommends the following actions:
1. The complaint is supported by sufficient evidence of a violation of law or a serious violation of adopted policy to warrant a censure hearing.
2. The Committee directs the City Clerk to forward this report and recommendation to the entire City Council.
3. The matter shall be set for a public censure hearing before the City Council at the next available meeting date, ensuring compliance with due process requirements.”
Council Policy 4.08 requires that the member:
1. Receive notice of the hearing.
2. Be given an opportunity to be heard during the hearing, including the opportunity to refute evidence
Councilmember Villapudua was notified of the hearing and provided the Ad Hoc recommendation on March 25, 2025 (Attachment G - Notice of Public Censure Hearing).
Council Policy 4.08 states, “A City Council decision to censure requires the adoption of a Resolution with appropriate findings. Findings must be based on substantial evidence that the member has engaged in conduct that violates a law, regulation, City policy, or the City Code of Ethics. The issuance of a resolution of censure requires a majority vote of the City Council. The accused Councilmember shall not participate in the City Council’s deliberations after the public hearing is closed or in any vote by the City Council on the proposed censure.”
Findings are essentially a conclusion by the Council based on the evidence, testimony, and discussion regarding this item. The findings presented in the proposed Resolution are based on the Censure Ad Hoc Committee discussion and recommendation. The Council is entitled to adopt ‘as is’ or make changes if desired.
City Council should now, review the recommendation, consider the evidence and testimony, and determine if censure is warranted.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY
There is no direct financial impact should Council adopt a resolution censuring Councilmember Padilla.
Attachment A - Complaint
Attachment B - Council Policy 4.08
Attachment C - Council Policy 3.13
Attachment D - Council Policy 4.07
Attachment E - Facebook Reel
Attachment F - Censure Ad Hoc Committee Report and Recommendation
Attachment G - Notice of Public Censure Hearing