Stockton City Council and the Brown Act:

R3

That the City Council adopt an ordinance prior to October 1, 2014, requiring all volunteers working for any City elected official to undergo training through the City’s Human Resources Department and Information Technology Department on the City’s directives related to computer access, e-mails and security and be required to sign an acknowledgement that they understand and will comply with the directives. Conclusion The release of confidential information from closed sessions was persistent throughout the recruitment for Stockton’s city manager position. Even before the City Council interviewed the recruiter’s short list of six candidates, names were known in City Hall and among a limited number of the public. Shortly after the October 10, 2013, Closed Session meeting when the City Council selected two finalists for further consideration, certain members of the public knew what the votes were in the closed session, who the finalists were, and very clearly who the Mayor’s choice was for the city manager position. The people contacting Council Members about who they should vote for have supported Mayor Silva. All of the Council Members were aware of the confidential leak – yet took no steps to address it. While there was no legal requirement for the Council Members to take action, there was an ethical obligation. Are they not as culpable as the Mayor? The Grand Jury believes there is an ongoing culture in Stockton City Hall, among elected and appointed officials and city employees that ignores the need for confidentiality when it suits their personal advantage. Details of closed session labor negotiations are known by employee unions before the next negotiation session. Details of sensitive financial negotiations mysteriously are known by the public and the media. Liability, unfair decisions, financial impacts and public ridicule are all potential results from violations of the Brown Act’s confidentiality requirements. Changing that culture is not something that can be legislated or adjudicated. Change must come from a dedicated commitment from ALL elected officials and city employees. The entire City Council needs to stop pointing fingers and start showing the public that it is serious about confidentiality requirements! The release of confidential information by the Mayor potentially exposed the City to substantial financial liability, subjected the City to ridicule and lowered public confidence in the City’s legislative body. The Grand Jury has no authority to recommend or to take legal action against the Mayor. The Government Code provides no additional criminal or civil judicial redress for the Mayor’s actions. A professionally conducted recruitment of a city manager is a process that works as confirmed by the hundreds of recruitments that occur each year in California and throughout the United States. The Stockton City Council left those on staff with experience in executive recruitment out of the process. It hijacked a professional recruiter’s efforts to the point the recruitment was not effective. Why did the elected officials not leave the details of a matter as important to a community as hiring a city manager to those with experience? The Council’s principal role during a city manager recruitment is the evaluation of the candidates and the selection of a finalist. That role is important enough as the focus of their energy. Any action at this point rests solely with the citizens of the City of Stockton. This is not an issue that can be solved through a legal process, it is a political issue. How much more of these detrimental activities will the citizens of Stockton tolerate? Disclaimers Grand Jury reports are based on documentary evidence and the testimony of sworn or admonished witnesses, not on conjecture or opinion. However, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing such evidence except upon the specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Code Sections 911. 924.1 (a) and 929). Similarly, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing the identity of witnesses except upon an order of the court for narrowly defined purposes (Penal Code Sections 924.2 and 929). Response Requirements California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05 require that specific responses to all findings and recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the San Joaquin County Superior Court of receipt of the report. The Stockton City Council shall respond to each Finding and Recommendation contained in this Report. Mail or hand deliver a hard copy of the response to: Honorable Lesley D. Holland, Presiding Judge San Joaquin County Superior Court P.O. Box 201022 Stockton, CA 95201 Also, please email a copy of the response to Ms. Trisa Martinez, Staff Secretary to the Grand Jury at: grandjury@sjcourts.org.