HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 5b - Complaint and Request for Censure HearingPersonnel Board
Advisory Opinion
City of San Luis Obispo Personnel Board
August 11, 2026
TO:
FROM: Calvin Stevens, Chair of the Personnel Board & Markie Kersten, Assistant City
Attorney and Legal Advisor to the Personnel Board
I.INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to Chapter 8 of the City of San Luis Obispo’s Council Policies and Procedures (the
“Censure Policy”), on July 13, 2026, Councilmember Jan Marx submitted to the Chair of the
Personnel Board, Calvin Stevens, a written complaint and request for a censure hearing against
Mayor Erica A. Stewart (the “Complaint”). (Attachment A.) Specifically, the Complaint alleges
that Mayor Stewart arguably violated California Penal Code Section 933.05(f) and City of San
Luis Obispo Code of Ethics Section II(D) by sending a 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 (the “Disclosure”). The
Complaint further alleges that communications between Mayor Stewart and Kienow raise the
inference that they both “understood that the document was confidential and therefore the Grand
Jury did not give the draft document to Cal Poly” (Attachment A, p. 19) as well as the inference
that Mayor Stewart “did not intend to disclose the fact that she had leaked the draft Report to Cal
Poly herself…” and that such non-disclosure “could be considered a cover-up.” (Id. at p. 20.)
On July 23, 2026, Mayor Stewart submitted a letter in response to the allegations in the Complaint
for the Personnel Board’s consideration, stating in part: “At the time [I received the Report] on
June 13, I believed the report was already distributed by the Grand Jury to Cal Poly as a stakeholder
and that my sharing of the report, when done, was to an approved and authorized recipient who
was a qualified ‘affected agency’ or ‘entity’ entirely entitled to the report at the time. My good-
faith understanding, in that moment, was that providing the report to Cal Poly was not a disclosure
to an outsider, but a sharing among those the statute itself contemplates as entitled to review it, for
the very purpose that brought it to me: to ensure the accuracy of the findings before they became
final.” (Attachment B.)
II.STATEMENT OF FACTS
As described in the Complaint, on June 13, 2025, Mayor Stewart received a copy of the San Luis
Obispo Grand Jury Report titled “Round & Round with Town & Gown” and within a few hours,
sent it to Courtney Kienow, a senior member of Cal Poly administration, in advance of the public
release of the Report. The cover page of the Report included a “confidential” stamp and advised
Mayor Stewart of Penal Code Section 933.05(f)’s prohibition against disclosure prior to the public
release of the report. In the days following, Mayor Stewart and Kienow exchanged text messages
Page 9 of 12
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
regarding the contents of the Report generally as well as the Mayor’s Disclosure to Kienow in
advance of the Report’s public release. (See Attachment A, Exhibits A-C.)
On June 16, 2025, Kienow sent an email to the Grand Jury proposing factual corrections to the
draft Report and provided a copy to the City Manager, Mayor Stewart, and Cal Poly Pres ident’s
Chief of Staff. (Attachment A, Exhibit E.) The Report was released publicly on June 23, 2025,
with no changes to the original draft provided to Mayor Stewart. Kienow also later submitted a
copy of Cal Poly’s proposed corrections to the Report as agenda correspondence for the September
15, 2025 City Council meeting, during which the City finalized its public response to the Report.
(Attachment A, Exhibit D.)
On April 27, 2026, approximately ten months after the City and Cal Poly’s submission of
comments to the Grand Jury prior to public release, the Grand Jury issued its Compliance Report,
which stated in relevant part: “Evidently Cal Poly was given a copy of the final report prior to its
release date. This action is not in compliance with the procedure described in the Penal Code,” in
reference to observing, through review of agenda correspondence for the City’s September 16,
2025 meeting, that Kienow sent Cal Poly’s corrections to the Report to the Grand Jury a week in
advance of the public release (Attachment A, Exhibit H.) On or about May 30, 2026, social media
posts began circulating regarding the premature disclosure of the Report, with speculation that it
may have come from City Manager, Whitney McDonald. Ms. McDonald responded to a concerned
citizen that contacted the City Council denying these allegations. At that time, the City Attorney’s
Office was unaware of any prior allegation of premature disclosure in violation of law. On June 2,
2026, to better understand the Grand Jury’s comment in the Compliance Report and the public’s
concern, City Attorney’s Office staff reviewed potentially responsive records gathered in response
to several pending requests for voluminous scopes of records, which confirmed the truthfulness of
Ms. McDonald’s statements and revealed that Mayor Stewart provided an advance copy of the
Report to Kienow. On June 11, 2026, after completing a more focused review of records potentially
responsive to the multiple pending records requests and with specific focus on those potentially
related to the alleged premature disclosure by the City, the City Attorney’s Office identified and
produced a series of texts previously provided by Mayor Stewart, but that were erroneously omitted
from prior productions. The June 11 production included an email from Mayor Stewart reflecting
the Disclosure that was in a batch of records that had not yet been reviewed for production, as well
as the subject text messages determined to be responsive to a pending Public Records Act request
for communications between Mayor Stewart and Cal Poly officials.
III. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
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 pol icies by another member.”
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.
(Censure Policy §8.3.3.)
Page 10 of 12
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
The Personnel Board met on July 27, 2026, in the Council Hearing Room located at 990 Palm
Street, San Luis Obispo, California, to review the Complaint in accordance with Section 8.3.3.
Only three members of the five-member Board were present (Chair Stevens, Member Ponce,
Member LeMieux), which was sufficient to establish a quorum. Based on the evidence presented
in the record before the Board, the Board concluded there was sufficient evidence to issue an
advisory opinion and that additional investigation was unnecessary. The majority direction from
the July 27, 2026, meeting is discussed in further detail in Section IV below.
IV. ADVISORY OPINION
The Personnel Board is tasked with determining whether “there is sufficient evidence to believe or
not believe that the alleged violation of law or serious violation of adopted City policy occurred….
[and] shall also make a recommendation to the Council [as to whether] the complaint is supported
by sufficient evidence of a violation of law or serious violation of adopted City policy to warrant
a censure hearing….” (Censure Policy § 8.3.8). As a matter of statutory construction, the Censure
Policy requires the Board to determine both whether the factual allegations are supported by
sufficient evidence and whether a censure hearing is warranted. (See Censure Policy §§ 8.3.8 and
8.3.9.)
According to Section 8.2.1 of 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.”
At the July 27, 2026, meeting, the present Board unanimously agreed that there was sufficient
evidence in the record to issue an advisory opinion regarding the Complaint, however, the then-
present Board was split as to the substantive conclusions and recommendations of such advisory
opinion. By a 2-1 vote (Member Ponce dissenting), the majority of then-present members directed
the Chair and the Assistant City Attorney to prepare an advisory opinion finding that the Disclosure
constituted a serious violation of the City’s Code of Ethics prohibiting disclosure of confidential
information, but that in light of the definition of censure and the Censure Policy’s purpose, and all
facts and evidence before the Board, a censure hearing before the Council is not warranted.
Specifically, the majority of the then-present Board found that the facts and evidence before the
Board indicated that Mayor Stewart’s Disclosure was done in good faith as an effort to increase
collaboration between the City and Cal Poly and ensure an accurate Report, and was based on an
incorrect assumption that Cal Poly was an “affected agency” under Penal Code Section 933.05(f)
that would receive an advance copy of the Report from the Grand Jury directly. The majority of
the then-present Board reasoned that Mayor Stewart’s Disclosure was an unfortunate, but
occasional and unintentional error in judgment. Therefore, while the alleged violation of City
policy prohibiting disclosure of confidential information occurred, and is “serious” in nature, the
majority of the Board does not recommend that a censure hearing is warranted before the Council.
Page 11 of 12
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
The Board did not conclude whether the Disclosure violated law, specifically Penal Code Section
933.05(f). As of the date of this advisory opinion, to the City’s knowledge, no agency with
jurisdiction over the alleged Penal Code violation has issued any official determination that Mayor
Stewart’s Disclosure constitutes a criminal violation of the Penal Code section alleged or any other
law, nor has the District Attorney filed any charges against Mayor Stewart related to the
Disclosure.
V. CONCLUSION
Pursuant to the Censure Policy and for the reasons stated in Section IV above, the Personnel
Board finds that Mayor Stewart’s Disclosure is a serious violation of Code of Ethic’s Section
II(D), but it does not recommend a censure hearing before the City Council.
The Council Policies and Procedures direct that this advisory opinion shall be “forwarded to the
City Council and no further action shall be taken, unless the City Council directs, by a majority
consensus of the City Council during Council Communications, the matter to be placed on its
agenda for further consideration.” (Censure Policy §8.3.9.)
Page 12 of 12