Willows council declines emergency proclamation as residents demand answers on policing gap

Willows, Calif. — The Willows City Council on June 25 considered but did not adopt an emergency proclamation aimed at securing outside law-enforcement assistance after the city's contract is set to end June 30, leaving officials and residents to pursue further talks before July 1.

City attorney Gretchen told the council the proclamation is intended as a temporary, "stop gap" tool to allow the city to seek other agencies, including state partners, to provide municipal law enforcement while the contract terminates. "This declaration or proclamation of emergency is just to free up some ability for the city to look into other agencies to possibly provide municipal law enforcement to the city," she said.

The proposal and council debate came amid a steady stream of public comment criticizing the timing and the city's management of contract talks. Karen Johnson said she had "watched the dysfunction and animosity grow around our city manager" and urged council members to meet the sheriff directly. Michelle Knight called the emergency meeting rushed and called for the city manager's dismissal, citing a pattern of delays on projects and unfinished work.

Council members described the proclamation as an "insurance policy" to keep options open if negotiations fail. Vice Mayor Thomas and others said attempts to contact Cal OES, the governor's office and the attorney general had produced voicemail or no response; Council member Hansen said a representative from Senator Dolly's office advised the city to submit a portal notification for tracking. City manager Marty Brown, speaking by Zoom, urged executing the proclamation quickly and forwarding it to state offices so the city could press for help.

Several residents warned against giving the city manager unilateral authority under an emergency declaration without "guard rails." Marina Sparkman and other commenters asked whether the city manager could impose curfews or close facilities and urged the council to require frequent reporting and limits on how emergency powers would be used.

Council discussion traced the recent contract history and the city's limited finances. Mayor Hudson and other members said a feasibility study and earlier planning had shown reestablishing a local police department would be expensive; the council has considered that option but does not have a near-term funding plan. Council members said the sheriff's proposed price increases were difficult to reconcile with the data the city has received.

A motion to adopt the proclamation was made and seconded, and Vice Mayor Thomas initially registered a "yay" vote but then left the meeting for a prior obligation; the mayor later explained that Mr. Thomas's departure meant his vote would not count under Rosenberg's rules for the two-thirds threshold the proclamation required. Council member Pride announced a "no" vote. With the absence and voting rules, the measure failed to reach the required margin and was not adopted.

Mayor Hudson said the council would pursue additional outreach and members proposed a special meeting on June 30 to continue negotiations and to try to meet with the sheriff before any implementation steps. Officials also referenced a sheriff's press release circulating that some residents said indicated continued law-enforcement coverage; the council discussed the likelihood that the California Highway Patrol, not the National Guard, would be the state agency most likely to provide interim coverage if needed.

The special meeting adjourned at 5:18 p.m. with the proclamation unresolved and further action planned. The council asked staff to continue outreach and to return with information at a follow-up meeting.