Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Council Ethics topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press Lompoc council to act after felony charges against a sitting member
Summary
Multiple residents urged the Lompoc City Council to take action after a judge found sufficient evidence to send felony charges against a council member to trial, calling for censure or temporary removal from duties. Councilors discussed asking staff to return with options for potential censure or limits on duties.
Several residents used public comment at the Lompoc City Council meeting on May 19 to demand the council address criminal charges that a judge has ruled enough evidence to send to trial against a sitting member. Lillian Street, who identified herself as a longtime Lompoc resident and licensed fiduciary, told the council that "ethics are not optional in my profession" and said continuing to tolerate alleged misconduct "damages not only the reputation of this city, but public confidence in local government itself." (Lillian Street)
The comments spurred a broader conversation among council members about whether the council should explore options such as censure or restricting an accused member's city duties while the legal process proceeds. Councilor Ball said he was not asking council to pass judgment but asked for staff to return with information on possible measures, calling for "staff to bring back an item or two where we might consider censure or stripping a council person of their assigned responsibilities." (Council member Ball)
Other speakers, including public commenter Aaron Crocker and Alexis Otero, urged accountability and expressed frustration that council has not publicly addressed the situation. Some commenters repeated earlier allegations—naming possible charges such as forgery and misappropriation—saying the judge’s screening decision justified a council response. The city attorney told the council that a judge had reviewed evidence and that the question of how the council should respond could be explored procedurally by staff and legal counsel.
Council discussion emphasized process. Ball reiterated he was seeking options and information, not immediate expulsion, and asked for staff study so the council could consider formal steps in future meetings. No formal censure or removal motion was introduced during the May 19 meeting.
The council did not take action to censure or remove the member at the meeting; Ball said he would seek support for a staff report that would outline possible responses the council could consider. The matter remains in the criminal justice process, and the council’s next step will depend on any future staff recommendations and any formal motions the council chooses to place on a future agenda.
