The City Council on Oct. 13 reviewed and reaffirmed the council code of ethics and public service values adopted in 2021 and approved annually, voting unanimously to confirm the current language while directing staff to monitor legal developments and return with recommendations for any needed revisions.

Director of Constituent and Clerk Services Faviola Medina briefed council on the item’s history: the council originally requested a formal code in 2021, held facilitated workshops and adopted the code Nov. 16, 2021; the council has reviewed the code annually since. Staff also noted a boards and commissions code of ethics was approved April 29, 2025 and that a 2024 motion had prompted additional review of letterhead and related guidance.

Public commenters presented divergent views. Several speakers urged the council to keep the code as written and praised its commitment to inclusive civil discourse, arts and community values; Diane Aguirre and Chi Wu Chang urged reaffirmation. Other speakers, including Mike Barillo and Tamara Dixon, criticized the code’s references to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), called for removal of DEI provisions and said mandatory DEI language and trainings are objectionable or unlawful.

Council discussion reviewed state and federal guidance, training requirements and legal risk. The city attorney told council staff that current federal guidance does not categorically prohibit DEI programs but that the administration and caselaw are evolving; the office said it would monitor changes and advise the council if any legal conflict emerged. Medina said required trainings for council and volunteers remain those mandated by state law for ethics and sexual harrassment (the AB rules and workplace harassment prevention requirements); DEI training referenced in the code is implemented as part of local education efforts and not a state mandate.

Several councilmembers said they supported reaffirming the code now but asked staff to return with a shorter, clearer draft later and requested the city attorney monitor litigation and executive‑order developments. Councilmember Acosta and others emphasized that the code grew from a facilitated process and was intended to strengthen civic discourse. Councilmember Blackburn moved to adopt the code for the year; the motion passed unanimously.

No punitive enforcement mechanism was added at the meeting; staff noted that the boards and commissions code likewise does not impose formal disciplinary mechanisms beyond existing appointment and removal authorities. The council requested follow‑up on whether the city should revise the document length and whether any language should be modified once the legal picture stabilizes.