After a lengthy emotional debate, the Milpitas City Council will begin the censure process against Councilmember Evelyn Chua over an alleged attempt to hold a meeting in violation of the Brown Act and other possible breaches of city codes.
The City Council also called a special meeting to discuss the alleged incidents that led to the resignation of City Manager Deanna Santana who apparently clashed with Chua over the reported actions.
“Let’s look at both sides and determine if there’s a violation,” said Councilmember Garry Barbadillo. “Let’s subject it to the process.”
According to city documents released in advance of this week’s meeting, Chua nearly violated the law by requesting a meeting of the City Council without properly announcing it to the public. Under the California open meetings law known as the Brown Act, meetings of public bodies like city councils must be announced to the public, even if they are held behind closed doors.
In late August, Chua had requested for staff member Michelle Ramirez to set up an interview with a candidate for city attorney, without involving other staff. Ramirez mentioned this to a superior, who instructed Ramirez to direct Chua to the city manager. When Ramirez asked whether to involve the city manager, Chua specified that “this is only for elected officials and no staff involved,” according to text messages included in the report.
“I would have been involved in something that could have broken the law, made me look like a co-conspirator, and damaged the City’s reputation. Just realizing that was incredibly scary,” wrote Ramirez in a written statement. “I could have made a serious and costly mistake for myself professionally and for the City. I wish that (Councilmember) Chua would have left me out of this, it has caused for a lot of stress.”
Even so, the staff member eventually involved Santana, who contacted Chua and told her that holding the meeting would be illegal. Chua disagreed, according to an email by Santana included in city documents, though Chua maintained that she “understood what (Santana) said and thanked her.” Following the conversation, Santana announced her two month notice of resignation in an email on August 29, with October 31 as her last day.
The meeting was later officially scheduled, and the incident was reported to the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office. “Fortunately the system worked as it should, and the city manager was able to avert the violation,” said Deputy District Attorney John Chase in a letter included in the documents. “Had the interviews been conducted in violation of the Brown Act, any subsequent appointment of a new city attorney would have been subject to nullification, and the individual councilmembers potentially subject to criminal persecution.”
Along with the legal near-miss, the staff report found that Chua’s actions violated several city codes, including by directing a staff member without going through the city manager and by improperly calling a meeting.
Chua said she was “taken aback” by the involvement of the district attorney’s office and was not given time to give her input on the report or agenda. She also maintained that she used the same process to hold meetings as in previous hirings — though both the interim city manager and the acting city attorney said this was not the case — and noted that ultimately, no laws were broken. “The meeting I requested was scheduled with proper procedure and Brown Act compliance,” said Chua. “To me that means the system worked.”
Milpitas Mayor Montano insisted that the council had to “take some action,” but expressed that censure was a bridge too far. “There was no malice,” said Montano of Chua’s actions. “I think it was an honest mistake.”
Councilmember Barbadillo maintained that documents that were not included in the staff report explained Chua’s actions. He also questioned why city staff would have suggested that Chua had violated city code when the City Council makes the final determination on whether a code was breached or not. Barbadillo maintained that the censure process would give Chua a way to “defend herself.”
“We are a laughingstock,” said Barbadillo. “What pains me is this report … We’re calling it (a violation) without due process.”
After the Acting City Attorney Christopher Creech explained that the city manager and the city attorney are obligated to share their opinion about a potential violation of code, Barbadillo suggested that both the city manager and the city attorney should face a performance evaluation. Later in the evening, he was joined by Chua and Councilmember William Lam to add a discussion of Creech’s position to the agenda, which could include whether to revoke Creech’s acting city attorney designation or assign the role to someone else.
In Milpitas, the censure process can be initiated by one councilmember on another, with a committee from the remaining councilmembers deciding whether to investigate further, hold a censure hearing or take no further action.
In a remarkable moment, Chua attempted to begin the censure process against herself, though her request was soon denied since that was not allowed under the city’s process. “We need more information,” Chua said. “I want this resolved myself.”
Councilmember Hon Lien then chose to begin the process against Chua. “Why is it as leaders we are here trying to cover up for one another? We undermine the trust and we erode our credibility with the public,” said Lien, highlighting Rodriguez’s statements, Santana’s resignation and the legal near-miss. “Had this meeting happened … I don’t want to go to jail for someone else doing the wrong thing.”
In addition to initiating the censure process, the City Council called for a special meeting, with Barbadillo, Lam and Chua in favor. That meeting would be set for Friday, pending city council availability.
According to city spokesperson Charmaine Angelo, City councilmembers receive trainings at least every two years, and the council has received trainings on the Brown Act and how to avoid Brown Act violations.