Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics Conflict Of Interest topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents allege council conflicts, ask city attorney to review engineering invoices
Summary
Two residents told the council they believe Councilmember Raymond has a longstanding financial relationship with a local engineering firm and questioned his participation in votes; they said they have filed documents with the state and asked the city attorney and FPPC to review invoices and possible conflicts.
Several residents used the meeting—s public-comment period to accuse a local engineering firm and a councilmember of a potential conflict of interest and asked the city and state authorities to investigate.
Terry Gunter and Rudy Gabbor urged the council to review past approvals tied to an engineering firm variously identified in public comments as "BBH," "VVH" or "EVH" engineering. Gabbor said he had filed paperwork with the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) and alleged that "since October 2020, Mr. Raymond has employed the owner of EVH engineering" and that "every time Mr. Raymond voted on a project that VVH Engineering was involved in ... his vote had bias" (Rudy Gabbor).
Terry Gunter asked the council to produce engineering documents, traffic studies, field surveys, directives and internal communications explaining markings and traffic decisions on Futland Avenue and questioned why Councilmember Raymond did not recuse himself from related votes (Terry Gunter).
Council did not take immediate disciplinary action during the meeting. No member of the firm or councilmember Raymond offered a public response on the record during the meeting. City staff did not announce an investigatory step at the meeting beyond noting the comments and that filings had been made to outside authorities.
The council has formal channels for ethics and disclosure complaints: complaints to the FPPC and inquiries to the city attorney are the typical next steps. Residents requested the city attorney and staff provide guidance and to make related invoices and supporting documents available to the public if permitted by law.
Next steps recorded at the meeting: staff acknowledged the public comment and indicated the filing of complaints with the FPPC; the council did not vote or direct staff to take a specific internal action during the session.
