Ethics dominates council meeting again

“This is something that has to be done,” a resident identified as Rod said during the public comment portion of the discussion. “[The Brown Act] is a flawed act. But I understand the purpose of it and so I have kind of a love/hate relationship with the Brown Act.”

Rod said that the current city policy, like the Brown Act, is well-intended but can impede the council’s ability to hold each other accountable. His support of the policy amendment was echoed by another resident, Carolina Villaseca, who stressed the importance of “flexibility” when it comes to their options for navigating potential ethical violations.

Based on the council’s existing policy, a five-person council like Brentwood’s could not have two council members discuss a potential ethics violation of a third council member and then go to the mayor as the policy dictates because that would result in a majority of the council (three out of five) having met outside of a scheduled meeting, according to the agenda for the Oct. 11 meeting. In a situation like the one alluded to during the meeting in which two members of council bore witness to the same alleged ethics violation, they would be unable to bring it to the mayor without creating a majority and violating the Brown Act.

The proposed amendment to the policy would allow a councilmember to reach out to the city manager instead of the mayor to add an agenda item regarding an alleged violation, according to City Attorney Damien Brower when presenting the amendment.

The motion to amend the policy carried unanimously, but not before the importance of the amendment could be highlighted.

“I heard some people in the public at the last meeting say I had violated city policy,” Councilmember Karen Rarey said, referring to the fact that she had discussed a potential ethics violation with another member of council and could not then bring it to the mayor. This example was the catalyst that began the discussion of the ethics policy as part of the September meeting. “We are trying to bring to light a serious matter. I stopped due to a procedural error, not a city policy violation.”

Rarey alluded once again to the unspecified violation that had ignited the discussion, saying she and another council member had taken a “very troubling concern” to the city attorney and noting that current policy had barred them from taking the matter to the mayor.

Following the adoption of the policy amendment, the council turned to future agenda items, which included a potential overhaul of the City Council Ethics and Conduct Policy, as requested by Mendoza.

“I don’t want to sit next to someone who I think broke the law and act like nothing happened,” Mendoza said while requesting staff to look into holding each other accountable for Brown Act violations. “I think we need to discuss those things and our city needs to hear.”

At this point, Mendoza again alluded to the alleged violation by a council member that has become the elephant in the room at recent meetings.

“If you’re telling me to call the police, that’s probably something we should talk about at a council meeting,” she said. The nature of the violation Mendoza was referring to has not been made public, but this comment follows a movement by Mendoza at the Sept. 13 council meeting to censure Vice Mayor Johnny Rodriguez after allegedly receiving phone calls regarding his behavior.

“Censure is a formal statement of the City Council officially reprimanding one of its members. It is a punitive action, which serves as a penalty imposed for wrongdoing,” the council’s ethics policy states. “Censure should be used for cases in which the City Council determines the policy violation is a serious offense.”

Following further discussion by council members at the Oct. 11 meeting, council unanimously agreed that staff would look into reworking parts of the ethics policy, particularly those regarding Brown Act violations, and would establish a community forum to allow the public to be a part of the process as well. No set schedule was established for the forum.

Other topics discussed by the council included:

The unanimous decision not to earmark the former Women’s Club building at 648 Second St. as surplus that the city may look into selling.

Directing staff to look into ways to increase the number of city-sponsored activities for youths and teens.

The second reading of an ordinance adopted by the council on Sept. 27 that increased council’s monthly salaries from $939.26 to $1,150.59.

The full council meeting can be viewed online at https://bit.ly/3RWGNNu