Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026_07_26 Personnel Board Staff Reportt' '{ Personnel Board Agenda • Report iiil � I� GL Department: For Agenda of: Placement: Estimated Time FROM: Markie Kersten, Assistant City Attorney Item 4d City Attorney 7/27/26 Business N/A SUBJECT: COMPLAINT AND REQUEST FOR CENSURE HEARING BY COUNCILMEMBER JAN MARX REGARDING MAYOR ERICA A. STEWART RECOMMENDATION Review and consider complaint and request for a censure hearing submitted by Councilmember Jan Marx against Mayor Erica A. Stewart in accordance with Chapter 8 of the Council Policies and Procedures and either: 1. Direct the Chair of the Personnel Board, with support from the Assistant City Attorney, to prepare an advisory opinion to the City Council as to whether there is sufficient evidence to determine if the alleged violation of law or serious policy violation occurred or not; or 2. Appoint an ad hoc committee to conduct further investigation and/or hearing on the matter to gather facts and sufficient evidence to reach such conclusion, with direction to the committee and staff regarding the scope and content of the committee's report to the full Board. POLICY CONTEXT According to Section 8.2.1 of the City of San Luis Obispo's Censure Policy (the "Censure Policy"): "Censure is a formal Resolution of City Council reprimanding one of its own members for specified conduct, generally a violation of law or of City policy where the violation of policy is considered to be a serious offense. Censure should not follow an occasional error in judgment, which occurs in good faith and is unintentional. Censure carries no fine or suspension of the right of the member as an elected official, but a censure is a punitive action that serves as a punishment for wrongdoing." A copy of the City's Censure Policy is included with this report as Attachment A. DISCUSSION Page 9 of 162 COMPLAINT AND REQUEST FOR CENSURE HEARING REGARDING MAYOR ERICA A. STEWART Page 2 On July 13, 2026, Councilmember Jan Marx submitted to the Chair of the Personnel Board, Calvin Stevens, a written complaint and request for censure hearing against Mayor Erica A. Stewart in accordance with Chapter 8 of the City of San Luis Obispo's Council Policies and Procedures (the "Complaint"). Specifically, the Complaint alleges that Mayor Stewart arguably violated California Penal Code Section 933.05(f)' as well as City of San Luis Obispo Code of Ethics Section II(D) (Use of Confidential Information )2 by sending a confidential copy of the San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury Report "Round & Round with Town & Gown" (the "Report") to then Cal Poly Community Relations Director, Courtney Kienow, prior to the Report's public release. A copy of the Complaint with exhibits provided by Councilmember Marx is included as Attachment B to this report. Digital copies of the Complaint's exhibits are provided here for legibility purposes. On July 23, 2026, Mayor Stewart submitted a letter to the Personnel Board in response to the Complaint for the Board's consideration, which is included as Attachment C to this report per the Mayor's request. Pursuant to Section 8.3 of the Censure Policy, "any member of the City Council may submit, in writing to the Chair of the Personnel Board, a complaint and request for a censure hearing concerning an alleged violation of law or serious violation of City policies by another member." Furthermore, as noted in Section 8.3.3 of the Censure Policy, within thirty (30) business days of receipt of the Complaint, the Personnel Board shall review the record and either: 1) issue an advisory opinion to the Council; or 2) conduct further investigation and/or a hearing on the matter. Whether the Personnel Board proceeds with option 1 or option 2, it is ultimately tasked with determination as to whether "there is sufficient evidence to believe or not believe that the alleged violation of law or serious violation of adopted City policy occurred." If there is sufficient evidence of an alleged violation of law or serious violation of adopted City policy, the Board shall recommend to the Council to hold a censure hearing. Alternatively, if there is not sufficient evidence to reach the conclusion that a violation has occurred, the Board shall recommend that a Council censure hearing is unwarranted. The purpose of this meeting (July 27, 2026) is for the Personnel Board to review the Complaint and the exhibits submitted and determine if, collectively, there is sufficient evidence currently in the record to allow the Board to conclude whether the alleged violation of law or policy did or did not occur. If the Board concludes the evidence presented is sufficient, the Board should provide input to staff to prepare an advisory opinion for the Council (to be brought back to the Board for review and final consideration). If the Board determines the evidence currently in the record is insufficient or requires Section 933.05(f) of the California Penal Code provides: "A grand jury shall provide to the affected agency a copy of the portion of the grand jury report relating to that person or entity two working days prior to its public release and after the approval of the presiding judge. No officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to the public release of the final report." 2 Section II(D) of the City of San Luis Obispo's Code of Ethics (Use of Confidential Information) provides: "Employees should not disclose confidential information acquired by or available to them in the course of their employment with the City or use such information for personal gain. This applies to improper disclosure within the organization as well as to the public." A copy of the City's Code of Ethics is attached as Attachment C. Page 10 of 162 COMPLAINT AND REQUEST FOR CENSURE HEARING REGARDING MAYOR ERICA A. STEWART Page 3 further investigation, the Board may appoint an ad hoc committee to gather additional information or to conduct additional investigation and/or hold a hearing to gather additional evidence to enable it to reach such conclusion. (See Step 3 below; Censure Policy Section 8.3.3.) For the Board and the public's awareness, the Council Censure Procedure as detailed in the Censure Policy is summarized as follows: Step 1: Any Councilmember may submit, in writing, to the Chair of the Personnel Board, a complaint and request for censure hearing concerning an alleged violation of law or serious violation of City policies by another member. The complaint must contain specific factual allegations and any supporting evidence of specific conduct alleged to violate existing law or adopted City policies. Here, the complaint and request for censure was Drovided in writina to Chair of the Personnel Board on July 13. 2026. Step 2: Provide a copy of the complaint to the accused Council member ASAP, but no later than 72 hours Drior to the Personnel Board meetina as reauired by SteD 3. Step 3: Within 30 business days of receipt of the complaint (here, no later than August 24, 2026), the Personnel Board shall review the record and either: 1) issue an advisory opinion to the Council; or 2) conduct further investigation and/or hearing on the matter, and if so, appoint an ad hoc committee to complete the necessary investigation and make a written report of the investigation to the full Board. If necessary, the Personnel Board and ad hoc committee shall be staffed by the Assistant City Attorney and such other admin support staff as may be necessary to assist. Step 4: Upon completion of its review of the complaint and any additional investigation, the ad hoc committee shall determine if, considering all the facts and evidence, there is sufficient evidence to believe or not believe that the alleged violation of law or policy occurred and prepare a written report of the investigation for the full Board. The full Board could direct the ad hoc committee to also prepare a draft of the report required in Step 5 to be brought back to the Board for review and finalization. Step 5: The Board shall then make a written report to the Council stating the specific law or policy alleged to have been violated, and summarizing the complaint, evidence, and results of any additional investigation. The Board shall also include a recommendation to the Council as to whether there is sufficient evidence that a violation of law or policy occurred to warrant a censure hearing. Regardless of the recommended next step by the Board, this report shall be provided to the entire Council, including the accused member. Step 6: If the Personnel Board does not recommend a censure hearing, no further action will be taken, unless a majority of the Council directs the matter to be placed on an agenda. Page 11 of 162 COMPLAINT AND REQUEST FOR CENSURE HEARING REGARDING MAYOR ERICA A. STEWART Page 4 Step 7: If the Personnel Board recommends a censure hearing, it shall be set by the Clerk before the City Council at least 14 days, but no longer than 30 days, following the Board's recommendation. Step 8: At the censure hearing, the subject member shall have an opportunity to make an opening statement, a closing statement, and to question his or her accusers. The hearing is not a formal adversarial hearing, and the Rules of Evidence do not apply. Step 9: A City Council decision to censure requires the adoption of a Resolution making findings, based on substantial evidence that the member has engaged in conduct that constitutes a violation of law or a serious violation of an adopted City policy. The Resolution must be affirmed by at least three votes of the Council. ATTACHMENTS A — City of San Luis Obispo's Censure Policy B — Councilmember Jan Marx's Complaint and Request for Censure Hearing Against Mayor Erica A. Stewart C — Mayor Erica A. Stewart's Letter to the Personnel Board, dated July 23, 2026 D — City of San Luis Obispo's Code of Ethics Page 12 of 162