By Brett Callwood
The City Council meeting on the evening of Tuesday, January 14 started with a lengthier closed session than usual. Upon their return, City Attorney Carmen Vasquez announced details of an investigation involving Council Member Wanda Love and two City employees.
Item 2B saw Love recuse herself while the other four members – Mayor Tasha Cerda, Mayor Pro Tem Rodney Tanaka, and Council Members Mark Henderson and Paulette Francis – were all present. A vote of 3-1 took place, to waive the attorney client privilege and read the executive summary. Francis was the only “no” vote.
That executive summary stated that the City had retained attorney Jeff Love to investigate concerns regarding the conduct of Council Member Wanda Love towards two City employees. This investigation aimed to determine whether Council Member Love’s action constituted inappropriate behavior, and considered findings from a prior inquiry involving one of the employees.”
It continued with findings regarding employee number one. “The investigation substantiated allegations that Council Member Love unfairly criticized employee one in connection with two City projects – The Willows Wetland Grant Project, and the demolition of the Chase Bank building. With regards to the Willows project, the Council Member criticized employee one, alleging failures in stakeholder communication. However, the evidence demonstrated that employee one had complied with all applicable protocols and Council Member Love’s complaints were unfounded.”
“With regards to the Chase Bank demolition, Council Member Love alleged inadequate neighbor notification, and dust mitigation efforts,” it continued. “The investigation found that employee one adhered to all legal requirements and implemented appropriate measures to mitigate dust, including fencing and water-based controls. The investigation identified a pattern of tension resulting from employee one’s refusal to comply with Council Member Love’s request to prioritize specific contractors for City projects. Employee one’s adherence to established procurement rules and the failure to route operational concerns through the appropriate supervisory channels appeared to contribute to the concerns.”
That was followed with findings regarding employee number two. “The investigation also substantiated allegations regarding Council Member Love’s conduct towards employee number two during a City event. The Council Member expressed dissatisfaction with the placement of her booth at the event, perceiving it as less favorable compared to another elected official’s booth. Council Member Love made statements suggesting that she would raise the issue during a public meeting, which employee two reasonably interpreted as a potential threat to their job security.”
“The investigation found that Council Member Love’s remarks were inappropriate, and caused employee two undue apprehension. In a broader context, the investigation revealed a pattern of Council Member Love bypassing appropriate channels for addressing operational concerns,” it continued. “Instead of engaging through supervisory structures, Council Member Love directly communicated with staff and occasionally involved other City officials in a manner inconsistent with City protocols.”
“The investigation concluded that Council Member Love’s conduct towards both employees was inappropriate, and substantiated the allegations,” it stated. “The behavior, which included unfounded criticisms and targeting of employees, created unnecessary strain and undermined the ability of City staff to perform their duties effectively. To date, the City has spent approximately $20,000 in the investigation.”
At the conclusion of the meeting, Love stated, “Wow, this has been a night. I have no remarks.”
The GVN reached out to Council Member Love after the meeting, and she told us that the statements read out were “definitely inaccurate.” She said that the accusations are a lie, and that she has issues with the competency of some of the staff.
“I questioned how many contracts have been awarded by a certain department to people of color,” Love said. “I should have used the term ‘disadvantaged minority-owned businesses,’ but I said ‘people of color.’ However, that person said that I had told him to hire people of color. I was asking the question.”
Council Member Love said that she would still like an answer to that question.
On the subject of the booth placement, Love said that council members never had booths at city events prior to her being elected to the council. Love started having booths in order to engage with constituents. She said that, once she started doing that, some of her colleagues tried to stop her. When that wasn’t an option, some of them started having booths of their own, and the booths of Love and also Council Member Paulette Francis would be placed in an unfavorable location, without her banner.
Finally, Love wanted to point out that, for the report from closed session to be read during the public part of the meeting, a vote had to take place and, for the vote to take place, somebody had to raise the motion. That motion would have to be seconded. Love feels that was done to attack her character.
