Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the City Manager Contract Allegations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident urges council to consider Palmdale forensic-audit notice and past employment issues in city manager deliberations
Summary
At a special Malibu City Council meeting on Aug. 18, 2025, public commenter Barbara Burke asked whether the council had considered a Palmdale forensic-audit request for proposals and the city of Palmdale’s non-renewal and family medical leave actions regarding the proposed city manager during council deliberations on extending the city manager contract.
Get email alerts on the City Manager Contract Allegations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Barbara Burke, a member of the public, used the Aug. 18 special meeting’s public-comment period to press the Malibu City Council to consider a series of allegations and outside actions as it deliberates the city manager contract.
Burke asked whether the council had “taken into account that the city of Palmdale has issued a request for proposals for a forensic audit in a time period that is concurrent with the service of the proposed city manager” and whether council members had considered that “the city of Palmdale did not renew her contract, and placed her on family medical leave,” and that “people have been expressing concerns that…she is recovering from an addiction concern.”
Her remarks were made immediately before the council recessed to closed session to discuss items listed on the closed-session agenda, which the council later reported produced no reportable action.
The council took no public response to Burke’s specific allegations during the meeting’s public-comment portion. Meeting staff later reported in open session that all five council members were present for closed session, with Mayor Riggins participating remotely, and that no reportable action resulted.
Why it matters: Public comments that raise employment-related allegations can influence public expectations about pending personnel decisions and may prompt additional public records requests or requests for clarification of the council’s decision-making criteria. Burke explicitly asked whether the council had discussed these matters during four executive sessions and whether they would affect any contract extension.
What was not resolved: The meeting record contains Burke’s allegations and her questions but does not show a public response, verification, or corroboration of the claims. The transcript does not record any council acknowledgement that it considered the Palmdale RFP, the non-renewal, the family medical leave, or the alleged addiction recovery in its closed-session deliberations; staff later stated only that no reportable action was taken in closed session.
The council also heard one other public comment offering support for the council; that speaker did not address the allegations raised by Burke. The meeting then recessed to closed session and returned to report no reportable action before adjourning.
Quotes from the meeting: “Are you taking into account that the city of Palmdale has issued a request for proposals for a forensic audit in a time period that is concurrent with the service of the proposed city manager?” Burke asked. “And are you taking into account they did not renew her contract, and placed her on family medical leave?”
Next steps: The transcript records the questions and the council’s move into closed session; it does not record any public response or subsequent verification. Any follow-up — such as staff clarification, investigation, or future council discussion — would appear in later meeting records or public communications.

