Vallejo has released how councilmembers voted on whether to petition the state Supreme Court to suppress an investigative report into the police department’s “Badge of Honor” scandal.
Deputy City Attorney Sukhnandan Nijjar wrote in a statement Thursday that city staff “erroneously” withheld the vote count in response to a public records request from Open Vallejo.
Councilmembers have been receiving heavy community backlash in response to a July 28 Open Vallejo report that the city is seeking to appeal a unanimous June 27 appellate decision ordering the investigation’s release. Open Vallejo first revealed the so-called “Badge of Honor” tradition, in which Vallejo police officers bent down the tips of their star-shaped badges to commemorate on-duty shootings, five years ago this week. The American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California brought the case with amicus support from this newsroom.
The city council voted 4-3 to authorize the city attorney’s efforts to keep the investigation and its findings secret. Councilmembers J.R. Matulac, Charles Palmares, Helen-Marie Gordon and Peter Bregenzer voted to seek review by the state Supreme Court, and thus stop the investigation’s release. Mayor Andrea Sorce, joined by councilmembers Alexander Matias and Tonia Lediju, voted in favor of disclosure.
Only three of Vallejo’s seven city council members, Sorce, Matias, and Palamares, responded to requests for comment from Open Vallejo in its initial report about the appeal. Neither Matias nor Palmares disclosed how they voted on the petition, and both declined to comment on whether they supported releasing the report. Sorce told Open Vallejo that she favors disclosure.
The city initially denied a public records request for the vote count filed by this newsroom on July 25. Official vote breakdowns, including in closed session, are generally considered public under state law. The city disclosed the councilmembers’ individual votes after close of business on July 31, following several days of controversy.
“Your request for records was erroneously denied by City staff,” Nijjar, the deputy city attorney, wrote. “We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused.”
Council members have received a steady stream of criticism since Open Vallejo reported on the decision to seek Supreme Court review of the Court of Appeal’s pro-transparency ruling. As the furor grew, they called an emergency special meeting for Tuesday, where several speakers condemned the vote. Community members also criticized the decision to convene a meeting that the mayor and vice mayor were unable to attend.
Matias asserted during the Tuesday meeting that it was within the council’s right to call a special meeting, arguing that the city needed to take action in light of recent news reports.
In addition to the controversy surrounding the petition to the state’s high court, the ACLU recently called for an investigation into the city attorney’s office, alleging potential criminal activity and other misconduct. Lediju said at the meeting that the city needed to hold the meeting in order to give City Manager Andrew Murray guidance following the recent reports.
Palmares was the sole vote in favor of postponing the closed session to next week. In closed session, the council voted to appoint Renne Public Law Group to assess whether the ACLU letter merits investigation and to help prepare the city’s response to the allegations.
