SUPPORT THIS INDEPENDENT JOURNALISM
The article you’re about to read is from our reporters doing their important work — investigating, researching, and writing their stories. We want to provide informative and inspirational stories that connect you to the people, issues and opportunities within our community. Journalism requires lots of resources. Today, our business model has been interrupted by the pandemic; the vast majority of our advertisers’ businesses have been impacted. That’s why the SC Times is now turning to you for financial support. Learn more about our new Insider’s program here. Thank you.

By Shawn Raymundo

As one of the final acts of the current city council, it voted Monday, Nov. 23, to censure acting Mayor Laura Ferguson for “unacceptable conduct,” as she faced a litany of accusations from Councilmember Kathy Ward.

The council had met for a special meeting to deliberate the laundry list of charges Ward had brought forth that included instances of interfering with the city manager’s powers and duties, disclosing confidential information to the public and the press, and also openly criticizing city management, to name a few.

According to the city, “a censure does not levy a fine, suspension, or other penalty, but nevertheless represents the formal opinion of the City Council and, therefore, carries weight in the public arena.”

The nearly six-hour meeting concluded just before midnight in a 3-1 vote, with Ferguson dissenting. Leading up to the vote, Ferguson, who was represented by her own legal team throughout the night, characterized the perceived violations as allegations that lacked evidence.

“All they are, are allegations, because no facts have been proven. You didn’t have any findings of facts today that I could see, that broke any rule, standard or any law,” she said just before the vote. “So, this is just a big charade to embarrass me and harass me, in my opinion.”

Out of the gate, Monday night’s meeting got off to a rocky start when Ward suggested that Ferguson, who as the acting mayor chairs all council meetings, not run the discussion and deliberations, instead handing the reins over to Councilmember Gene James.

The motion, which had been backed by outgoing Councilmember Chris Hamm, was vehemently objected to by Ferguson, who challenged Ward to cite the law that allows them to remove her as the chair of the meeting.

“It’s not the policy and it’s not the law,” Ferguson said, adding: “Cite the law that allows you to do that … I’m going to chair this meeting until I’m not the acting mayor anymore.”

City Attorney Scott Smith explained that, based on his reading of meeting policies, such an action would be considered a parliamentary item that is explicitly part of a council agenda. Ferguson accused Smith of taking sides, which he disputed.

The council eventually voted, 3-1, to have James chair the censure portion of the meeting.

After getting into the crux of the censure, Ward outlined her allegations, citing several instances in which she felt Ferguson’s actions violated the city’s rules and standards. One such example was Ferguson’s decision during a September meeting to announce a potential lawsuit from former City Manager James Makshanoff.

Ferguson had made public the contents of a letter from Makshanoff’s attorney alleging claims of breach of contract, wrongful termination and retaliation against the city. Ward said that Ferguson made the announcement after Smith had advised councilors not to comment because the California Joint Powers Insurance Authority requested cooperation.

“It was inappropriate for Councilmember Ferguson to interfere with the duty of the city to cooperate with the California JPIA,” Ward said.

The initial draft of the resolution for censure stated that “Ferguson interfered with the City’s duty to cooperate with the California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (CJPIA) in connection with personnel claims made against the City and tendered to the CJPIA, thereby jeopardizing the City’s coverage.”

Ward also raised the issue of Ferguson using her city councilmember Facebook page back in May to publicly criticize then-interim City Manager Robert Dunek about fencing installed around the Pier Bowl parking lot to deter overcrowding at the beaches amid the pandemic.

“Ferguson used her Facebook page to put pressure on the city manager to reverse his order putting up this fence,” Ward said. “The city manager received many, many emails criticizing the city manager and ordering him to remove the fence when, in fact, he no longer had the authority to do so.”

Ferguson’s attorney, Brad Malamud, argued, however, that none of these instances, nor the others brought up, show a violation of the city’s laws, as they’re protected by the First Amendment. 

“Those aren’t evidence. At best, it’s hearsay … there is no case. So, the public understands, what the council just did was become judge, jury and executioner,” Malamud said, later adding: “You didn’t cite a single municipal rule she violated.”

And in regard to the Makshanoff letter, Malamud cited a conversation he and Ferguson had with the CJPIA, which told them she may release the letter but would prefer she didn’t.

Smith later went over his analysis of the proposed resolution for censure, recommending that certain portions and findings cited be struck from the record based on a lack evidence and input from both sides of the censure.

One instance of this regarded the fencing issue, as Smith noted that there was quite a bit of confusion around the time because of the pandemic, as well as circumstances surrounding the council’s decisions, which were often deadlocked in 2-2 votes.

Smith advised that this specific example be deleted from the findings for censure, as the testimony and situation from the incident lacked clarity.

After revising the resolution for censure, the council decided to move forward with the reprimand. Ward had reasoned that the decision for censure wasn’t political nor meant “to go after Mayor Pro Tem Ferguson because we don’t like her.”

“There’s been clear instances that have happened that have really hindered the work of the city council and potentially caused a hostile work environment,” Ward said, before slamming Ferguson for using outside counsel as representation. “This is a reprimand or censure of colleagues to each other, and it’s just indicative of how she works with the council.”

Ward added that she hopes the censure would encourage Ferguson to work with her colleagues and prompt her to “think differently in her role as a councilmember.”

“Her power is in working with the council; it’s not in going online and saying things to the public,” she said. “It’s really working with us, and that’s how we get things done.”

Ferguson later clapped back, noting that Ward and the rest of the council had legal counsel representing them and to the tune of $3,000 to $5,000.

“Would you expect me to just show up and get tarred and feathered? I don’t think so,” Ferguson said, adding: “I came prepared. You came prepared at the taxpayers’ expense.”

The next city council meeting is scheduled for Dec. 1, when the newly elected councilmembers are expected to be seated.

SR_1Shawn Raymundo
Shawn Raymundo is the city editor for the San Clemente Times. He graduated from Arizona State University with a bachelor’s degree in Global Studies. Before joining Picket Fence Media, he worked as the government accountability reporter for the Pacific Daily News in the U.S. territory of Guam. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnzyTsunami and follow San Clemente Times @SCTimesNews.

BECOME AN INSIDER TODAY
Trustworthy, accurate and reliable local news stories are more important now than ever. Support our newsroom by making a contribution and becoming a subscribing member today.

About The Author Staff

comments (2)

  • Who runs the city, the council or the employees? Guess we know now!

    This will have to change.

  • Laura role as a city council member is to serve all the citizens of San Clemente and she must uphold her fiduciary responsibility to avoid unnecessary costs to the city—it is not her 1st amendment right to use an email account to communicate to citizens confidential info regarding the city under pretense of transparency, That is a personal vendetta and a power hungry act.. Plus, if she got e-mails from some citizens about a fence the city manager installed due to a pandemic, that issue should have been discussed and resolved with the city manager and her colleagues. And she should had virtual town meetings with citizens reason/purpose of the fence was constructed and resolution of the issue..

    If the military is going to a conduct a secret mission off the island of San Clemente, would she go her email account to notify the citizens under the pretense of transparency? I don’t have faith in what she would or would not do.

    This city, county, and country desperately need leaders who are courageous individuals, and intelligent in office who can anticipate, communicate, and are analytical thinkers to lead, not power grabbers. Otherwise,
    in a global world, even the small city by the sea of San Clemente, will be continued exposed when has poor leadership. Such as the negatively portrayed of the city in the media—social, broadcast, and print—for almost 2 years as a result of racial bulling of a child at San Clemente Hi football game by adults and students in the stands of the game, a protest by a wanna cult leader with his out of towners followers and his thinking he’s the 2nd coming of Jesus religious cult meetings on the beach, protest from BLM due to killing of homeless Black male, fence gate around skate park, and the homelessness problem. All issues were handled poorly due to fail leadership by the city council members, chief of law enforcement, and many in the religious community, etc.

comments (2)

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>