Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Admonishment motion over council mailer with city logo fails after heated debate
Summary
The council considered (and then failed to approve) an admonishment over the use of the city logo on a mailer paid for by two council members inviting residents to a budget workshop. The discussion included questions about prior staff communication, Brown Act limits on council contact, and whether the matter should have been handled privately.
Council members debated whether to admonish two colleagues for using the city's logo on a mailer that invited residents to a public budget workshop. The mailer, paid for by Council Members James Casey and Serino/Sereno Tero, included the city seal; staff and the city attorney said the municipal code requires express authorization before using the logo for communications that could be perceived as representing the city.
City Attorney reviewed the municipal-code provision that prohibits use of the city name, seal or logo without authorization from the city manager and reminded council that a separate rule asks elected officials to avoid using city letterhead or logos when expressing individual views. The council considered an admonishment (a formal warning rather than a reprimand or censure). Some council members said they expected the matter to be handled in closed session or administratively, while others said public notice and a reminder of the rules were warranted.
Members of the public and several speakers urged leniency and asked why the issue was called out publicly; supporters of the mailing said it increased public participation in the budget workshop. Council Member James Casey said he had sought guidance by e‑mail and believed the mailer would not include the logo; he acknowledged a time-sensitive publishing deadline and said he did not intend to violate rules.
On a roll-call vote the motion to approve the admonishment failed (Council member votes produced a tie or split outcome depending on abstentions and a procedural objection). Council concluded no formal admonishment would be entered at this meeting; the city attorney noted the episode as a reminder about the municipal code and communications protocols and recommended clearer internal response practices for future requests.
