Chaos continues to reign with new Selma City Council. Was Calif. ethics law violated?

Selma lawmakers voted to rescind elements of a legal settlement with their City Manager and took up new business out of conformity with the Brown Act, California’s public transparency and ethics law.

After a controversial December for the Selma City Council, the council’s first meeting of 2025 on Tuesday was largely more of the same with a potential raft of legal headaches on the horizon.

The big-ticket item taken up by the council was to rescind language placed in City Manager Fernando Santillan’s employment contract that required a 5-0 vote by the council to terminate him. 

The backstory: Much of the dispute between Santillan and Selma Mayor Scott Robertson dates back a few years. 

  • Robertson filed a complaint alleging that Santillan harassed and intimidated him. The complaint, which was submitted in October 2023, found Robertson’s allegations to be either not supported by factual findings or not sustained. 
  • One such allegation accused Santillan of sending a message to Robertson and the council addressed as “Members of the Selma City Council” instead of “Mayor and Members of Selma City Council,” which Robertson said was an attempt to subtly disrespect him. 
  • Robertson, through his complaint, demanded a variety of relief from the City included taxpayer-funded health insurance until he reached Medi-Care age.
  • For his part, Santillan filed an unfair labor practice against the city, leading to the then-City Council reaching a legal settlement for a new contract that required a unanimous, 5-0 vote of the Council to terminate him.

Driving the news: On Dec. 12, 2024, the council held a special meeting to ratify the results of the November election. 

  • Jim Avalos and Santiago Oceguera were elected, joining Robertson, Sarah Guerra and John Trujillo on the dais. Beverly Cho and Blanca Mendoza-Navarro were on the way out of office. 
  • Avalos and Oceguera were sworn in during that meeting, but Trujillo, Cho and Mendoza-Navarro were not present, raising the question if there was a quorum. 
  • The Fresno County District Attorney’s Office’s Public Integrity Unit sent a letter to the city saying the council violated state law by not having the outgoing council ratify the election results before installing new officers. 
  • The council held another special meeting one week later to ratify the election results, but experienced the same issue. 

The big picture: Controversy during Tuesday’s meeting was apparent from the start, when new City Attorney Neil Costanzo took issue with the roll call on the agenda including Cho and Mendoza-Navarro while excluding Avalos and Oceguera. 

  • Robertson called the roll himself to reflect the new council, operating as if the two December meetings were legally valid.
  • The agenda also included an item to ratify the results from the November election, which Santillan said was not legally adopted under state law. Costanzo recommended that the council remove the item, which it did. 
  • Cho and Mendoza-Navarro then received plaques to commemorate their service on the council. 
  • Later in the meeting, Costanzo listed off several items to add to the agenda, despite the fact that they were not included on the publicly posted agenda 72 hours in advance, which is required under the Brown Act. 
  • Costanzo and Robertson said they asked for the items to be included on Tuesday’s agenda in December and once again this month in a meeting with Santillan. But the City Clerk, who posts the city’s agendas, did not include the items. 

Go deeper:The council voted 4-1 to rescind the provision requiring a 5-0 vote to terminate Santillan’s contract. Trujillo sided against the rest of his colleagues. 

  • The 5-0 vote requirement was approved by the council last November and came as part of a settlement that Santillan agreed to with the city after he filed a labor complaint following the investigation. 
  • At the end of the meeting before going into closed session, Trujillo, who was attending the meeting on Zoom, asked to have the city clerk read a statement that he submitted. Robertson denied his request because it was too long – five pages – and said they can hear it at the next meeting. 
Total
0
Shares
Related Posts