HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/14/2026 Item 5b, Walker
kathie walker <
To:Advisory Bodies
Subject:Personnel Board Advisory Opinion
Attachments:Personnel Board Meeting 8-14-2026.pdf; Email 5-31-2026 Grand Jury Compliance
Report.pdf
City Clerk,
I have attached a letter to the members of the Personnel Board for the meeting on August 14, 2026 and
an attachment referenced in the letter.
Thank you.
1
1
Members of the Personnel Board,
The August 11, 2026, draft Advisory Opinion concludes that Mayor Stewart committed a serious
violation of the City's Code of Ethics prohibiting disclosure of confldential information but
recommends against a censure hearing because it characterizes her conduct as an “occasional
and unintentional error in judgment.”
The Advisory Opinion attributes a flnding that Mayor Stewart's conduct was “unintentional” to the
Personnel Board when the Board did not deliberate upon or make that flnding during its July 27
meeting.
It also omits material facts concerning what occurred after Mayor Stewart disclosed the report,
what City Manager Whitney McDonald knew in June 2025, and when she knew it and uses
carefully qualifled language concerning the knowledge of the City Attorney's Office that leaves
important questions unanswered.
The Personnel Board Did Not Find That the Disclosure Was “Unintentional”
The City's Censure Policy states: “Censure should not follow an occasional error in judgment,
which occurs in good faith and is unintentional.” The draft Advisory Opinion then states that the
Board majority “reasoned that Mayor Stewart's Disclosure was an unfortunate, but occasional and
unintentional error in judgment.”
That is not what occurred at the July 27 meeting.
The Board discussed whether Mayor Stewart acted in good faith, her explanation that she believed
Cal Poly was an affected agency, and whether her conduct warranted a censure hearing. But the
Board did not deliberate upon whether Mayor Stewart's disclosure was “unintentional,” nor did it
make such a flnding. The flnding of “unintentional” disclosure was also not included in the motion
made to the City Clerk.
That word cannot be imported from the Censure Policy into the Board's flndings after the meeting.
The policy does not say that censure should not follow an error committed merely “in good faith.”
It states that the error must occur in good faith and be unintentional.
The facts show that Mayor Stewart intentionally disclosed the report. She did not inadvertently
attach the wrong document, mistakenly send an email to the wrong recipient, or accidentally
disclose information to Ms. Kienow. She asked Ms. Kienow whether she had received the Grand
Jury report. When Ms. Kienow said she had not, Mayor Stewart deliberately forwarded the report to
her.
2
Mayor Stewart's explanation is therefore not that the disclosure was unintentional. Her
explanation is that she intentionally disclosed the report under a mistaken belief that she was
permitted to do so. Those are different things.
If the Personnel Board wishes to conclude that an intentional disclosure made under an alleged
mistake concerning authorization constitutes an “unintentional” error for purposes of the Censure
Policy, the Board must deliberate upon that issue and make that flnding itself. It should not appear
for the flrst time in an Advisory Opinion drafted after the public meeting.
The Report Was Confidential
The Advisory Opinion acknowledges that the Grand Jury report was stamped “confldential” and
that its cover page speciflcally advised Mayor Stewart of Penal Code 933.05(f)'s prohibition
against disclosure before public release which states: “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 flnal report.”
The Advisory Opinion nevertheless gives substantial weight to Mayor Stewart's claim that she
believed Cal Poly was an “approved and authorized recipient.”
Whatever Mayor Stewart says she believed, the document in front of her identifled itself as
confldential and expressly stated the statutory prohibition against disclosure.
The “Accuracy” Explanation Does Not Resolve the Disclosure
The Advisory Opinion also relies heavily upon Mayor Stewart's explanation that she provided the
report to Cal Poly to “ensure an accurate Report.”
That explanation does not authorize the disclosure. The Grand Jury controls that process. The
statute does not authorize the recipient of a confldential Grand Jury report to decide
independently that another institution should receive it so that institution can review, rebut or
propose corrections to the flndings.
Whether Cal Poly believed the report contained inaccuracies is not the issue. The issue is whether
Mayor Stewart was authorized to give Cal Poly the confldential report, and whether she was not.
Even if Mayor Stewart's explanation for the initial disclosure is accepted at face value, it does not
account for what happened afterward.
By the early morning of June 14, Ms. Kienow had recognized the problem. She told Mayor Stewart
that Cal Poly was not a required respondent and the Grand Jury did not intend to share the report
with Cal Poly at all before it was published.
3
Whatever Mayor Stewart may have believed when she sent the report the previous afternoon, she
knew by the next morning that Cal Poly was not supposed to have the confldential report prior to
its publication.
However, Mayor Stewart did not end the discussion with Ms. Kienow. She continued to receive
feedback, coordinate responses, and ask Ms. Kienow to discuss the matter over the phone later
that day. The text communications continued through Monday, June 16.
The Advisory Opinion focuses on Mayor Stewart's asserted belief at the instant she initially sent
the report while failing to address her conduct after she was told that the assumption underlying
that disclosure was wrong. However, that subsequent conduct is directly relevant to good faith,
intent, judgment and accountability.
The City Manager Knew Cal Poly Was Preparing a Rebuttal Before the Report Was Public
The Advisory Opinion also omits communication between Courtney Kienow and City Manager
Whitney McDonald.
On the evening of June 13, Ms. Kienow told Ms. McDonald that she had heard about the Grand Jury
report. By the following morning, June 14, Ms. Kienow told Ms. McDonald that Cal Poly was
“Working on a rebuttal to some of the grand jury ‘flndings’ I'll send once we're done with it.”
Ms. McDonald responded: “Thank you!! We will need to have our council and planning
commission discuss the report in some way at a public meeting because of the flndings that they
are directed to respond to.”
4
That exchange is relevant to understanding what City leadership knew about Cal Poly's possession
and use of the unreleased report. It is absent from the Advisory Opinion.
By June 16, Ms. Kienow told Mayor Stewart: “so many people have the advance copy of the report
now... they'll never know it came from you.” Mayor Stewart responded: “So interesting. I told
Whitney that I had assumed the university was going to be asked to respond and therefore I gave it
to you. I’m flne with being outed if I have to.”
According to Mayor Stewart herself, she told City Manager Whitney McDonald that she gave the
report to Courtney Kienow. Thus, by June 16, 2025, the documentary record indicates that the City
Manager knew not only that Cal Poly had access to the report, but that Mayor Stewart had
provided it.
The Advisory Opinion omits this fact. Instead, its narrative jumps forward almost one year to May
and June 2026.
The Advisory Opinion's Description of the City Manager's 2026 Denial Is Incomplete
The Advisory Opinion states that social media posts began circulating around May 30, 2026,
speculating that City Manager McDonald had been responsible for the disclosure, that Ms.
McDonald responded to a concerned citizen denying those allegations, and that subsequent
records review “conflrmed the truthfulness of Ms. McDonald's statements.”
That description is incomplete without the June 2025 communications. Ms. McDonald could
truthfully deny that she personally gave the report to Cal Poly while simultaneously knowing that
Mayor Stewart had given it to Cal Poly. Those are entirely different propositions.
Describing Ms. McDonald's denial as “truthful” establishes only that Ms. McDonald denied being
the person who made the disclosure. It does not address whether she already knew who had. And
based on the records, Ms. McDonald knew that Mayor Stewart had disclosed the report to Ms.
Kienow by June 16, 2025. The Advisory Opinion should disclose that distinction.
The Statement About the City Attorney's Office Is Carefully Qualified and Leaves a Question
Unanswered
The Advisory Opinion states: “At that time, the City Attorney's Office was unaware of any prior
allegation of premature disclosure in violation of law.”
The Advisory Opinion does not state that the City Attorney's Office was unaware that Cal Poly had
received the unreleased report or that the City Attorney's Office was unaware that Mayor Stewart
had given the report to Ms. Kienow.
It states that the office was unaware of a prior “allegation of premature disclosure in violation of
law.”
5
The existing language leaves open whether anyone in the City Attorney's Office knew about the
disclosure but did not understand or characterize it as a violation of law. The records presently
available to me do not establish what the City Attorney's Office knew in June 2025, and I will not
speculate. But neither should the Advisory Opinion use qualifled language that leaves the reader
with the impression that no one at the City knew about Mayor Stewart's disclosure until June 2026.
We know that is not true with respect to the City Manager because Mayor Stewart's text says she
told Ms. McDonald.
If the intended representation is that no one in the City Attorney's Office knew before May 2026
that Mayor Stewart had given the confldential report to Ms. Kienow, the Advisory Opinion should
say that directly. If that representation cannot be made, the Opinion should not imply it.
The June 2, 2026 “Discovery” Was Not When City Leadership First Learned Mayor Stewart
Was the Source
The Advisory Opinion states that on June 2, 2026, City Attorney's Office staff reviewed records and
“revealed that Mayor Stewart provided an advance copy of the Report to Kienow.”
Mayor Stewart provided screenshots of her texts with Courtney Kienow to the City Attorney’s
Office staff in late March 2026, including multiple screenshots containing discussion of the Grand
Jury report from June 13 – 16, 2025. A large batch of those texts were provided to me on April 15,
2026, but did not include the conversations about the Grand Jury report or some other City
matters.
The City Attorney’s Office claims that it did not discover the texts until June 2, 2026.
The City Attorney’s Office had the texts since late March and only decided to review the texts after
it became aware of the Grand Jury Compliance report in late May. It then produced over a dozen
screenshots of texts between Mayor Stewart and Ms. Kienow including the Grand Jury report
discussion on June 11, two months after the original production of texts.
Also, according to records, City Manager McDonald knew by June 16, 2025, that Mayor Stewart
disclosed the confldential Grand Jury report to Courtney Kienow. But the Advisory Opinion
includes the June 2026 “discovery” while omitting the documented June 2025 knowledge of the
City Manager. The result is an incomplete chronology.
I Asked the Council How the Report Reached Cal Poly
On May 31, 2026, after reading the Compliance Report, I emailed the entire City Council. (May 31,
2026, email attached) At that time, I did not know who had provided the confldential report to Cal
Poly. I did not accuse the City Manager or anyone else of doing so.
6
I wrote: “How it reached Cal Poly a day or so after being sent to the City has not been explained.
That explanation is owed to the public.” Mayor Stewart received that email and she knew the
answer. She did not respond to me or admit that she had provided the report to Ms. Kienow. In
fact, no one responded to my email.
Eleven days after my email, on June 11, the City produced the previously omitted text messages
and the Grand Jury report forwarding email to me. Although those texts were legally required to be
provided to me with the original production in April, they were not. The City Attorney’s Office told
me it was “a mistake” but it is notable that I never would have received those texts if it were not for
the Grand Jury’s Compliance Report that cited the unauthorized disclosure of the confldential
report.
The Advisory Opinion Acknowledges the Grand Jury’s Finding, Then Narrows the Issue
The Advisory Opinion acknowledges that the 2025-2026 Grand Jury concluded that giving Cal Poly
the report before public release was “not in compliance with the procedure described in the Penal
Code.”
What the Grand Jury apparently did not know was who had made the disclosure. Based on the
Compliance Report, it discovered Cal Poly’s early possession of the report through Ms. Kienow’s
June 16 correspondence that later appeared in the City Council agenda in September 2025, while
Council was giving its response to the Grand Jury. The Compliance Report did not identify Mayor
Stewart as the source.
The Advisory Opinion then shifts to a different question, stating that no agency with criminal
jurisdiction has issued an official determination that Mayor Stewart’s disclosure constituted a
criminal violation and that no charges were flled.
Those are different issues. The Grand Jury had already determined that the premature disclosure
to Cal Poly was “not in compliance with the procedure described in the Penal Code.” The later
question was who made the disclosure and whether that person could still be criminally
prosecuted.
The Advisory Opinion places emphasis on the absence of a criminal prosecution. However, the
Grand Jury did not know who leaked the report to Cal Poly.
Based on the Compliance Report, the Grand Jury discovered that Cal Poly had received the report
through Ms. Kienow's June 16 correspondence sent to the Council in September 2025, when the
Council was flnalizing its responses to the Grand Jury’s report. Ms. Kienow did not tell the Grand
Jury who gave her the confldential report which is evident from her text correspondence with
Mayor Stewart at 9:29 a.m. June 16, 2025: “…they'll never know it came from you.”
7
Six minutes after she sent that text, at 9:35 a.m., Ms. Kienow sent the email to the Grand Jury
secretary, Reggie Rini. Ms. Kienow did not tell Ms. Rini who provided her with the confldential
report. The evidence indicates that the Grand Jury knew Cal Poly had improperly received the
report but did not know Mayor Stewart was the source.
The Advisory Opinion states: “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 flled any charges against Mayor
Stewart related to the Disclosure.”
That statement should not be used to suggest that the absence of prosecution bears on whether
the underlying conduct occurred. It clearly occurred. The Personnel Board's standard is not
whether the District Attorney flled criminal charges.
Based on records I received, the Grand Jury Foreperson sent a referral to the District Attorney for
an investigation into the matter at the end of the 2025-2026 term. The one-year statute of
limitations had already expired by the time it was discovered that Mayor Stewart was responsible
for leaking the Grand Jury report, therefore no charges could be flled.
Penal Code 933.05(f) is a Misdemeanor Not Subject to the Discovery Rule
Because § 933.05(f) creates an official duty but does not specify a criminal punishment for
violating that duty, Government Code § 1222 supplies the misdemeanor penalty for a public
8
officer's willful failure to perform a legal duty when the underlying statute does not specify the
punishment.
Since Mayor Stewart’s unlawful disclosure of the Grand Jury report was made public, the San Luis
Obispo County District Attorney has stated that it is a violation of § 933.05(f) and cited a similar
case in Santa Clara County where a city councilman was found guilty of a misdemeanor for
sharing an embargoed copy of a Grand Jury report to the 49ers football organization. The
councilman was charged under Govt Code § 1222. In California, most misdemeanors have a 1-
year statute of limitations, regardless of when the crime was discovered. Some misdemeanors are
charged from the date the crime was discovered (“the discovery rule”) but the discovery rule does
not apply to 933.05(f) Therefore the statute of limitations expired on June 13, 2026, and no charges
could be brought against Mayor Stewart for sharing the unauthorized copy of the Grand Jury report
with Courtney Kienow.
It is my understanding that it is possible that a Civil Grand Jury can make a referral under a
different Government Code section for “willful misconduct” in office for up to six years after an
offense was committed. However, that referral is not charged as a criminal matter and results in
removal from office rather than any criminal record.
Regardless, the Advisory Opinion itself states that the Board must determine 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 whether sufficient evidence exists to warrant a censure
hearing.
The Board has already determined that Mayor Stewart's disclosure constituted a serious violation
of the City's Code of Ethics. The absence of criminal charges does not erase that flnding and does
not convert an intentional disclosure into an unintentional one.
The Advisory Opinion Should Be Corrected Before It Is Adopted
The Advisory Opinion should not attribute a flnding of “unintentional” conduct to the Personnel
Board because the Board did not deliberate upon and make that flnding.
It should include the June 14 communications establishing that the City Manager knew Cal Poly
was preparing a rebuttal to the unreleased report.
It should include Mayor Stewart's June 16 statement that she told the City Manager she had given
the report to Ms. Kienow.
It should distinguish Ms. McDonald's denial that she made the disclosure from the separate
evidence that she knew Mayor Stewart had made it.
9
It should explain precisely what is meant by the statement that the City Attorney's Office was
unaware of a prior “allegation of premature disclosure in violation of law.”
It should not create the impression that City leadership flrst learned Mayor Stewart was the source
in June 2026 when Mayor Stewart's texts indicate that the City Manager knew in June 2025.
It should not minimize the signiflcance of the 2025-2026 Grand Jury’s conclusion that giving Cal
Poly the report before public release was “not in compliance with the procedure prescribed in the
Penal Code” by immediately shifting the focus to the absence of a criminal prosecution or criminal
adjudication. Those are separate issues. The Grand Jury had already determined that the
premature disclosure itself was contrary to the Penal Code procedure. What it apparently did not
know at the time was that Mayor Stewart was the person who made the disclosure. By the time
that was disclosed, the statute of limitations had expired.
It should not rely upon the absence of criminal charges as a substitute for evaluating the evidence
under the City's own Censure Policy.
And it should evaluate Mayor Stewart's entire course of conduct rather than limiting its analysis to
what she says she believed at the moment she initially forwarded the report.
The Personnel Board has already determined that Mayor Stewart committed a serious violation of
the City's Code of Ethics. The written Advisory Opinion should accurately refiect the Board's
actual deliberations and the complete documentary record. As presently drafted, it does not.
I request that the Advisory Opinion be corrected before it is adopted and forwarded to the City
Council.
Sincerely,
Kathie Walker
mil
kathie walker <kathiewalkerslo@gmail.com>
Grand Jury Complaince Report
1 message
kathie walker <kathiewalkerslo@gmail.com> Sun, May 31, 2026 at 3:15 PM
To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>, Jan Marx <jmarx@slocity.org>, "Francis, Emily" <EFrancis@slocity.org>, "Stewart,
Erica A" <estewart@slocity.org>, mboswell@slocity.org, "Shoresman, Michelle" <mshoresm@slocity.org>
Members of the SLO City Council,
After reading the outgoing Grand Jury's Compliance Report published last month and noting that the jurors reviewed the September
16, 2025 agenda correspondence, I am attaching my correspondence submitted for that meeting.
The Compliance Report confirmed something that strikes at the foundation of public trust in this City's governance. Cal Poly received a
copy of the confidential "Round & Round with Town & Gown" Grand Jury report before its public release. The Grand Jury cited
Courtney Kienow's email to the Grand Jury, with the subject line "Corrections: Cal Poly — City of SLO Grand Jury Report," dated June
16, 2025, a full week before the report's public release on June 23, 2025. It was submitted as agenda correspondence to your
September 16, 2025 meeting and is part of the public record.
Penal Code section 933.05(f) explicitly states, "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." The Grand Jury provided the report to the City Manager, who is an
attorney and should understand the severity of that prohibition. How it reached Cal Poly a day or so after being sent to the City has not
been explained. That explanation is owed to the public.
Public confidence in government depends on the belief that oversight processes are conducted fairly, independently, and without
favoritism. The Grand Jury is one of the few mechanisms residents have to hold local government accountable. When a confidential
Grand Jury report is disclosed to an institutional partner before the public can read it - allowing that partner to prepare responses and
"corrections" in advance - the integrity of the entire oversight process is compromised. It raises a question about whose interests were
being protected?
The records I have reviewed since September 2025 make that question harder to avoid. I will share one example.
In December 2023, 1 was helping an 89-year-old neighbor who reached out to me after a fraternity moved in next door to her. She was
frightened. I emailed Code Enforcement Supervisor John Mezzapesa on her behalf and included her in the email. He responded to
both of us on December 8, 2023, that he had contacted Christine Wallace of SLOPD to make the department aware of the situation
and that Code Enforcement would be coordinating a larger effort to identify and address unlawful fraternity operations in the
neighborhood.
The records tell a very different story.
SLOPD had been receiving weekly Cal Poly -approved fraternity party address lists since at least February 2022, nearly two years
before my email to Mr. Mezzapesa. Those lists identified specific addresses, dates, and times of fraternity events throughout our
neighborhoods. The property next door to my elderly neighbor appeared on those lists multiple times. An email received by SLOPD on
October 20, 2023, more than a month before I contacted Mr. Mezzapesa, confirms the fraternity was operating and holding parties at
that address. Cal Poly had approved the party and sent the address to SLOPD before the weekend. SLOPD already knew.
When Mr. Mezzapesa contacted Ms. Wallace before December 2023 to make SLOPD "aware" of illegal fraternity operations, Ms.
Wallace had been receiving and cross-referencing those weekly address lists for almost two years. Whether she disclosed that to Mr.
Mezzapesa during that conversation is a question I put to him directly in writing on May 23, 2026. He has not responded.
The disconnect continued. In October 2024, Mr. Mezzapesa submitted a records request to Cal Poly asking it to confirm whether
specific addresses were operating as fraternities. Cal Poly refused. But SLOPD already had that confirmation, repeatedly, going back
to at least 2022. My neighbor, now in her 90s, still lives next door to the same operation that prompted her plea for help. Theta Chi still
holds fraternity parties there!
I will also note that records show some of my emails to the City Council were forwarded to Ms. Kienow by Mayor Stewart, and a coffee
meeting was arranged to discuss them, while I received no response. Resident concerns were being routed to Cal Poly. Residents
were not being protected from the operations those concerns described.
This is the pattern the Compliance Report's finding about the Penal Code violation fits into. Information flowed upward and outward to
institutional partners, to Cal Poly, but not across City departments in ways that would have protected residents. The City disagreed with
every one of the Grand Jury's six findings. The records now available support those findings.
The Compliance Report urges the 2026-2027 Grand Jury to follow up. That investigation should have access to the records the prior
Grand Jury did not include the weekly address lists, the interdepartmental communications, and the documented timeline of what each
department knew and when. Those records tell a materially different story than the one the City presented in its September 2025
response.
Residents deserve an honest accounting about why information known to one City department was not shared with another, why illegal
operations identified years ago continue today, and why the confidential findings of an independent oversight body were shared with
the very institution those findings implicated before the public could read them.
Trust is not restored by denying findings or offering process as a substitute for accountability. It is restored when the people
responsible for governing this City demonstrate, through transparency and action, that the residents who live here come first.
Sincerely,
Kathie Walker
. 9_16_2025 Item 7b, Walker.pdf
18687K