HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/18/2026 Item Public Comment, Schmidt
Richard Schmidt <
To:E-mail Council Website
Subject:mayoral censure hearing needed to clear the air of fetid stench of scandal
Dear Council,
Regardless of the personnel board’s recommendation, the council must hold a censure discussion on the mayor’s grand
jury misdeeds. To do otherwise would be an act of moral cowardice and a disservice to our community.
I don’t care what conclusion the council comes to after a frank public censure discussion; what’s important is that council
members discuss this matter of moral turpitude in a manner that is open, inquisitive, fearless, and demonstrative of having
a firm ethical grounding in understanding the moral demands of public service, and a commitment to acknowledging and
exposing to daylight city failures to live up to those moral demands. I should hope each of you carries within the
willingness to think out loud, in public, on such issues. I should hope all of you would want to get to the bottom of “grand
jury gate” so ALL the parties involved are spotlighted. To do so would reinforce your commitment to carry out public
responsibilities in good faith and with strong ethics.
Everyone’s talking about the mayor’s misdeeds — everyone, that is, except the council, which appears to consider talking
about it an act of disloyalty to the mayor. That belief would have it backwards — the disloyalty in council silence is to we
the people, to your claim to be viewed as honest public servants, as keepers of the public well-being. You cannot pretend
“there’s nothing to see here” without losing the respect of the governed. There is no rug under which council silence may
be swept. The situation will fester, and no amount of city public relations department output will clean it up. We, the
people, deserve to know how you think about what’s happened, and how you might approach a similar situation were you
to find yourselves on the brink of it.
What happened at the first personnel board hearing on censure was a moral failure on their part. It was clear from the
start the chair didn’t want a motion to censure. So he manipulated the proceedings by preemptively making proposals for
motions — prior to issue discussion — that would avoid censure. After extensive bullying of the two female members
present, he got what he wanted with a 2-1 vote (on a 5-member board). That conclusion, that the mayor had acted in
“good faith,” is absurd in light of accumulated evidence which shows the mayor acted in bad faith towards her electoral
constituents (and the grand jury), knew she was violating the law, and then said she’d do it again. Her ultimate apology
doesn’t change those facts. So, for the council to use the board’s “good faith” conclusion as excuse to avoid putting its
thoughts about the mayor’s moral turpitude on record is wrong. We need to hear from you, our elected leaders, and we
need to hear from your ethical voices of courage and strength, not from the moral weakness of your penchant for
avoidance.
Sincerely,
Richard Schmidt
PS. While the censure matter is specifically about the mayor’s actions, there’s much more that needs to be investigated,
uncovered, and genuine apologies made for. For example, Courtney Kienow has indicated lots of people at Cal Poly
besides herself had access to the embargoed grand jury draft report. Where did they get the report if not via someone at
the city? From whom did they get it? We don’t know yet, but your censure hearing could provide a framework for the
necessary investigation to get to the bottom of this conundrum. Also, the public record shows the city manager discussed
the embargoed report with Kienow early in the embargo period. So she knew of the breach. What we don’t know is
whether she then acted ethically, or if she contributed to the coverup. Did the manager follow up by passing along to the
grand jury there had been a breach? Did she discuss this with the city attorney? And speaking of the attorney, what did
she know and when, and what did she do about it? The attorney’s office “explanation” at the personnel board made no
sense to me, and felt more like evasion than truthfulness. There’s so much that needs to be cleared up. I’d suggest a
censure investigation is the perfect vehicle for doing this (think: congressional investigative committee hearing minus the
political speechifying). Yes, it will be uncomfortable; it will be awkward; it will be embarrassing for those found to be
culpable; there will be mud on many distinguished faces, but you will have cleared the air of the fetid stench of scandal
that will otherwise taint it for long to come.
1
PPS. Google: “scandal erica stewart san luis obispo” just for the heck of it. This is not going to go away. Your actions will
either add to it or help to begin healing.
2