Dozens of residents filled the Waterford City Council chamber to speak for or against Councilmember Liz Talbot after a statement she signed — on behalf of the Stanislaus County Democratic Party — declined an invitation to a local vigil for Charlie Kirk. The statement said the party "cannot in good conscience attend an event that centers on Charlie Kirk given his associations with fascist ideology."

The matter drew sustained public comment from both directions Thursday night. Supporters said Talbot was exercising conscience and condemning political violence; critics said the language was inflammatory and called for her resignation. "No one should be pressured to resign for refusing to elevate hate," a speaker who identified themself as Magnifico said. "Declining to honor Charlie Kirk is not a failure of leadership. It is a demonstration of integrity." Conversely, Brandon Walker, a longtime Waterford resident, told the council: "I'm here tonight to call for the immediate resignation of council member Liz Talbot."

City Deputy Attorney Darren DuPont told the council before public comment that Waterford's municipal code contains "no provisions that allow for removal or censure of a council member by council." He said legal removal would involve outside processes such as recall statutes or action by a state attorney general, not unilateral council action. "There are means by common law or possibly statutory law, that would allow for the attorney general or a third party, outside of the city council," DuPont said, "but there is no rule under the municipal code that allows for the council to remove a single council member."

Speakers who opposed Talbot's statement said the choice of language — particularly the use of the word "fascist" or "fascist ideology" — escalated local tensions after the assassination of a public figure. "You cannot respectfully or professionally call a dead man a fascist," Jessica Tims said. Others urged council members not to bow to outside pressure and noted Talbot's local service; Melinda Rodriguez said Talbot had secured grants and worked on parks and other local projects.

Councilmembers did not take disciplinary action at the meeting. After closing public comment, the council moved through consent items and then heard staff reports and council remarks. Talbot opened her council comments by thanking residents for attending and said, "Whether you agree or disagree with me, I think our First Amendment is vital. Of course, what happened to Charlie Kirk is devastating. It should never have happened to him or to anyone." She did not announce any resignation or retract her county-party letter.

The council did not vote on any recall, censure, or other removal measure during the meeting. Mayor Charlie Gokin and other councilmembers repeatedly urged civility and reminded the audience that council responses to public comment were limited by the rules of the evening. The city attorney's statement that the council lacks authority to remove a colleague framed the meeting's practical limits: any formal challenge would require a separate legal process outside the council's internal powers.

The controversy closed without a formal city action and with no directed staff follow-up reported at the meeting; councilmembers repeated appeals for cooler heads and community safety. The dispute left unresolved questions about political speech by local elected officials and how a small city balances constituent pressure, free expression, and the limits of municipal authority.