A Brentwood City Council representative has withdrawn her request to investigate city employees over concerns that doing so would not be legally permissible.
Councilmember Jovita Mendoza abandoned her request following discussion at the Jan. 9 council meeting, ending what had been a months long effort to explain patterns of city employee resignations and layoffs, along with what Mendoza said were private communications detailing problems occurring within the Parks and Recreation Department.
“My biggest fear would be that we get into a situation that other cities have gotten in when their councils are hearing things … and no one did anything, and now it’s like national news,” Mendoza said during the meeting. “When you hear the pain from people, and it’s not just one, and it’s not people who are friends, it’s not even people who talk to each other … am I legally liable when I know I’ve heard examples of things going on, and I’m on Council, and I don’t call for it?”
The discussion had previously garnered a legal warning from former City Attorney Damien Brower, who during a September meeting reminded the council that as a general law city it can only get involved in employee issues pertaining to the two employees that councilmembers supervise — the city attorney and the city manager.
“If your discussion involves employees and investigating employees, that’s not appropriate, and you’re not able to do so,” Brower had said at the time.
A risk of liability
Unsatisfied, Mendoza called for further discussion on the item. During Tuesday’s meeting, she said, “I need to understand legally what I can and can’t do, and I need the rationale in a staff report, not just a verbal ‘you can’t do it.’”
While clarifying that she wasn’t providing legal advice, Councilmember Pa’tanisha Pierson, who is also an attorney in the private sector, came to the dais with additional research. In answer to Mendoza’s concerns about liability, Pierson explained that getting involved in personnel matters actually created a greater risk for councilmembers.
“One of the things is, we can be personally sued,” Pierson said. “By getting involved in internal affairs, we will violate rights of privacy that are under our California Constitution that are ensured to our employees — to every employee — that we just can’t violate.”
Pierson offered a caveat: “In order to change municipal code, we have to determine if we want to become a charter city, which I know you don’t want to be a charter.”
“My frustration now is that I keep trying to do the right thing, and I keep getting blocked.” Councilmember Jovita Mendoza
She further suggested addressing concerns during quarterly meetings in closed session with City Manager Tim Ogden. Mendoza complained that her emails requesting to reschedule the quarterly meeting that was previously missed went ignored, noting she felt forced to bring it up in public.
“My frustration now is that I keep trying to do the right thing, and I keep getting blocked,” she said.
Vice Mayor Susannah Meyer raised the point that staff should be able to bring unaddressed concerns to the council — just as a staffer at a nonprofit can escalate their grievances to the board of directors. Pierson agreed, noting that city staff do not even need to file a formal grievance — they can personally address the council members who can in turn address it with the city manager.
Mendoza agreed to withdraw her request and to discuss the issues during the next quarterly meeting, though gave no formal motion to table the item.
Brown Act information request motion fails
In a separate action, Mendoza made a motion to direct staff to prepare information on a portion of the Brown Act, but the motion failed. The Brown Act guarantees the public’s right to attend and participate in meetings of legislative bodies.
She had called for the information, saying she felt her voice was being silenced during city meetings. She had previously criticized city procedures during a City Council meeting and was read the city’s code of ethics by Mayor Joel Bryant.
“I watched that meeting, and I didn’t violate any ethics policies at that meeting,” Mendoza said, adding that she has a right as a resident to criticize her government. “If I need to stand at the podium (instead of the dais) to say what I need to say, I’ll go over there.”
Pierson said that while she agreed, she didn’t believe requesting Brown Act information would get to the heart of the issue.
“I think it’s a misunderstanding of our policies and our procedures that could be clarified better,” Pierson explained, before casting her ‘no’ vote in the 3-2 decision alongside Bryant and Councilmember Tony Oerlemans. Meyer voted yes with Mendoza.
“I’m sorry, no, I think there’s a better way to do this,” Pierson said.