The Selma City Council held a special meeting on Thursday evening to ratify the results of the November election, but there remained controversy if the meeting itself was legal.
The election results were ratified by the city council on a 4-0 vote, but a letter from the Fresno County District Attorney’s Office hung over the meeting, which said the city could not take any legal action with the four councilmembers who were present.
The backstory: One Dec. 12, the Selma City Council held a special meeting to swear in the new city councilmembers: Jim Avalos and Santiago Oceguera. Outgoing councilmembers Beverly Cho and Blanca Mendoza-Navarro were not present, however, and neither was Councilmember John Trujillo, whose term runs to 2026. That raised the question on if the city council actually had a quorum.
- Mayor Scott Robertson proceeded with swearing in Avalos and Ocequera. The new council also terminated the contract for City Attorney Megan Crouch and appointed Neil Costanzo to the position.
- Following the meeting, the Fresno County District Attorney’s Office’s Public Integrity Unit sent a letter to Robertson and the council saying they violated state law by not having the outgoing council ratify the election results before installing new officers. Without a quorum from the council that served up until this point, the city could legally not swear Avalos and Oceguera in.
The big picture: Robertson proceeded with the special meeting on Thursday despite only having himself and Councilmember Sarah Guerra present. Avalos and Ocequera were also present, but the Fresno County District Attorney’s Office said in the letter that they are not legally on the council yet.
- Per the letter, the council would have to have one of Cho, Mendoza-Navarro or Trujillo present to establish a quorum alongside Robertson and Guerra on Thursday. But none of them attended the meeting.
- Robertson, Guerra, Avalos and Ocequera moved forward with ratifying the election results despite repeated warnings from City Manager Fernando Santillan that there was not a quorum.
What they’re saying: Santillan sparred with Robertson and Costanzo during Thursday’s meeting. When Costanzo addressed the council, Santillan called Costanzo a member of the public and said he is not the legal city attorney.
- At one of the times when Santillan said there is not a quorum to proceed with the meeting, Santillan interjected, saying, “I’m not aware the gentleman is a lawyer. I am. I am certain there is a quorum. I’m looking at four members of the City Council of the City of Selma. It only takes three.”
- Santillan responded by saying the city is following the advice of the Fresno County District Attorney’s Office and that the city does not currently have “a city attorney that has been legally installed.”
- Costanzo responded, “Yes you do.” Robertson added, “We do, in fact.”
- Later in the meeting, when the council was discussing future agenda items, Santillan reminded the council that there is not a quorum so any requests are not legally binding.
- Costanzo responded once again by stating that Santillan is not a lawyer.
- “The gentleman is relying on the opinion of a district attorney, or someone in the District Attorney’s Office, that has no knowledge of this city, no knowledge of what’s going on, and it’s completely improper,” Costanzo said. “There is a quorum. You called the roll. You had four of them answer. You’re [a] duly constituted city council, and I would suggest that you disregard any further comments from your city manager to the effect that you are engaged somehow in an illegal meeting because there’s no quorum present.”
Go deeper: The council moved into closed session for Santillan’s performance evaluation. Robertson announced after the closed session that there was no reportable action to announce.
What we’re watching: The next regularly scheduled meeting for the Selma City Council will take place on Jan. 21.
