Independent investigator finds councilmember Gutierrez’s conduct intimidating; council schedules censure hearing and refers financial allegations to DA

Kelly Jameli, founder and managing attorney of Jameli Employment Law, presented an independent investigation the council commissioned into interpersonal complaints among council members. Jameli told the council the review — which included 13 interviews, more than 700 documents and multiple audio/video records — concluded by a preponderance of the evidence that Councilmember Brian Gutierrez engaged in unprofessional conduct that others reasonably perceived as intimidating and retaliatory.

"After a thorough review of the evidence, I find by a preponderance of the evidence that council member Gutierrez engaged in unprofessional conduct that others reasonably perceived as intimidating and retaliatory," Jameli said, summarizing her factual findings. She also reported that Mayor Lehi Lopez Viotto was not found to have engaged in intimidating or retaliatory conduct, and that Councilmember Tony Wu made unprofessional comments on two occasions but not conduct that was objectively intimidating.

Jameli described her methodology as exhaustive: 13 interviews across nine witnesses, two days of in‑person interviews with the subject, review of recorded council meetings, and analysis of more than 700 documents. She said credibility determinations were part of the factfinding and that her findings are final.

Council debate after the presentation was heated. Councilmember Gutierrez disputed Jameli’s conclusions, argued the investigation excluded or downplayed documentary context for some of his inquiries and proposed mischaracterized his oversight duties, and said he repeatedly provided additional documents to the investigator. Gutierrez said his communications and cease‑and‑desist letters were responses to perceived threats and conflicts and criticized what he called omitted evidence.

Following public comment and council discussion, members voted on several related actions. The council voted to agendize a censure hearing for Councilmember Gutierrez (motion passed 3–1–1). The council also voted unanimously to refer alleged financial misconduct in the matter — including any related evidence submitted to the city — to the Los Angeles County District Attorney for investigation and to terminate the contract with the accounting firm (Plan* Moran) that had been retained to look into financial irregularities, citing overlapping referral to oversight authorities and the DA’s subpoena power. The council then voted to receive and file Jameli’s report and to direct staff and outside counsel to prepare recommendations on governance structure and administrative protocols for a future meeting.

Acting City Manager Mylin and the city attorney described next procedural steps: staff will publish the Jameli report in the city’s agenda packet (with redactions as required by law), schedule the censure hearing and coordinate referrals to oversight agencies. Several council members said they hoped referral to the DA would allow subpoena power to obtain records some parties had not provided voluntarily.

The actions taken at the meeting do not themselves impose employment discipline or criminal guilt; they document findings from a workplace investigation and set out procedural next steps for potential further review by oversight agencies and for a local censure process.

The council’s motions on the Jameli investigation included: receive and file the investigation report; terminate the Plant Moran contract for the financial review; refer alleged financial misconduct to the district attorney; agendize a censure hearing for the council to consider during a future meeting; and direct staff and outside counsel to draft governance reform recommendations.

The city clerk will publish the motions and supporting materials and set a date for the censure hearing. Council members who voted in favor said the actions were needed to protect city staff and to resolve credible reports of intimidation; council members who opposed or abstained emphasized concerns about completeness, omitted documents, or the proper scope of inquiry.

Next procedural steps include staff coordination with the DA’s office, scheduling of the censure hearing and preparation of governance recommendations for a subsequent council meeting.