Documented by Rachel Youdelman
Summary: What you need to know
- City Attorney Scott Cross presented updates to laws regarding public meetings, including the Brown Act, the Public Records Act and ethics. A couple of public commenters suggested that Brown Act violations had occurred at the previous meeting, but Cross explained that all behavior cited was acceptable and protected by the 1st Amendment.
- The council and heads of city departments discussed initial ideas for updating the “City of Clovis Vision, Mission Statement, and Values,” the most recent of which was completed in 2010. Mayor Ashbeck explained that feedback from council, staff and the public would be considered when the document is updated.
- The council decided to draft a very limited council member handbook, which will include only three points, rejecting inclusion of subjects such as how to manage a meeting, guidance on decorum, interacting with the public and expectations about behavior and professionalism.
- The council rejected a claim brought by Leuthvilay Keohavanga, who alleges that “on Feb. 6, 2023, the Clovis Police Department responded to his residence due to a domestic disturbance and used excessive force with the use of a K-9, which caused bodily injuries, emotional distress and loss of wages.” There was no discussion.
Council and Staff
Lynne Ashbeck, mayor
Vong Mouanoutoua, mayor pro tem
Drew Bessinger, council member
Matt Basgall, council member
Diane Pearce, council member
John Holt, city manager
Andy Haussler, assistant city manager
Scott Cross, city attorney
Karey Cha, city Clerk – ABSENT
Rebecca Simonian, administrative assistant
The Scene
The Clovis City Council met on Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2023, for its second meeting of the month. Mayor Ashbeck called the meeting to order at 6 p.m. The council sat not at the dais but at a large table in front of it, along with city department heads. Ashbeck opened the meeting and before asking Basgall to lead the flag salute, asked everyone to stand and observe a moment of silence for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks carried out by al-Qaeda against the United States. Ashbeck mentioned that Holt’s 14th grandchild had just been born.
Staff member Rebecca Simonian substituted for Karey Cha, who was absent. Assistant City Manager Haussler called the roll; all council members were present. There were fewer than 20 people attending in person, about 40 viewing via YouTube, and a handful via Webex. The meeting lasted nearly four hours.
There are several ways to participate in the council’s meetings: in person, you may comment on specific agenda matters as they are discussed, or on those not on an agenda at the scheduled time. Just show up. Commenters are normally limited to five minutes each. Note that laws regarding public meetings preclude council members from making definitive responses about matters not on the agenda. You can also call in to a Webex when the meeting is in progress, or you can submit a written comment. Easy instructions are found here.
All council members are elected at large; none represent specific districts of Clovis. To contact any of them with questions or to comment about issues, phone 559-324-2060 (one phone for all) or email:
Lynne Ashbeck lynnea@cityofclovis.com
Vong Mouanoutoua vongm@ci.clovis.ca.us
Matt Basgall mbasgall@cityofclovis.com
Drew Bessinger drewb@cityofclovis.com
Diane Pearce dianep@cityofclovis.com
Members of the public may attend meetings at the Council Chamber, 1033 Fifth St., Clovis, CA 93612, or online via Webex. The next meeting will be Sept. 18. Videos of past meetings and agendas are available here.
Public Comment This is the segment of the meeting for members of the public to raise any issue that isn’t on the agenda but is within the council’s jurisdiction. There were six people present to comment on a variety of matters.
Brent Burdine, a regular commenter at local public meetings who, throughout the pandemic, often spoke against vaccines, was not happy about last week’s meeting. Opponents of Pearce’s anti-LGBTQ+ social-media posts and attempts to remove or limit sex education books from the local branch of the public library far outnumbered her supporters (by about 5 to 1). Burdine felt it was a “clown show” and that Ashbeck permitted people Burdine did not agree with to speak “way over” the time limit and to snap their fingers in approval afterwards. He also complained about people holding signs he didn’t like, which he felt was “intimidating.” Why didn’t the council have a timer on the public speakers’ mic, asked?
Eric Rollins, a local business owner and a member of a right-wing group called Constitutionalists for California, among whose beliefs is “the restoration of the Republican Party of California to the great foundation of conservatism it is intended to be” [sic], election denial and the promotion of anti-vaccine information, said that he agreed with Burdine and that there were “Brown Act violations” committed at this meeting. He had “run a lot of meetings” himself, he said. Ashbeck let people speak over the three-minute limit “when she liked what they were saying,” showing “a lack of professionalism,” he said. These remarks were addressed later in the meeting by Cross.
Next, a man who identified himself as Nicky Stallard complained about the pandemic-era lockdown, saying that the state and federal governments had “flattened our lives” but that Clovis had done a good job by keeping all businesses open, which was not true. The council had created that perception when they voted to not comply with state orders to close certain businesses or public venues. What really happened at the time was that, per an email from the then-City Manager Luke Serpa, “On May 4 [2020], the Clovis City Council repealed Clovis’ local orders, which had generally been rendered redundant after the state adopted their order. However, since the state’s order remained in effect, this action did not give any business official permission to reopen; it was basically a record-keeping action.” Nevertheless, Stallard complained about the state and federal governments, repeating a right-wing extremist canard that America “is not a democracy; it’s a republic.” In fact, the two terms are effectively the same and are often used interchangeably.
Sean Burdine spoke next and said he wanted to address the “vision” mentioned in agenda item 13, despite this segment of the meeting being reserved for subjects not on the agenda. He said he was a fourth-generation Clovis resident. His interests were “strong family values” and “rugged individualism.” He was “very concerned” with what was to come from “Sacramento,” echoing the oft-observed hostility toward the state government in City Council meetings. He was worried about losing the things that “make Clovis ‘Clovis’.” He regularly attends several local public meetings, he said, and as a result, he said, he felt a crisis was imminent, because of what was coming from Sacramento. Mouanoutoua was often “spot on” about things, he said. Concluding, he said that “Clovis was the last hope for California.”
The next commenter was Jeni-Ann Kren, a resident of Clovis who lives close to the city border (“You can’t cross the street without leaving Clovis,” she said). She commended Ashbeck for her management of last week’s meeting, when about 50 members of the public were present to comment about Pearce’s anti-LGBTQ+ social media posts and attempts to remove or limit sex education books from the local branch of the public library. Kren said that it was a difficult meeting and that Clovis was growing and changing; such change can’t be stopped, she said. She emphatically said that “we’re a democracy,” and someone in the audience appeared to interrupt her, as Webex attendees saw her pause and turn toward the audience; an unintelligible voice was responding to her. Kren resumed speaking, saying that “Sacramento is not our enemy,” and that our elected officials there represent the views of the majority. She added that there was “no point” to “endless lawsuits” brought or defended by the city, likely referring to the recent affordable housing lawsuit, which Clovis lost, lost on appeal, and lost in its attempt to de-publish the decision. She was glad to hear from Ashbeck that Clovis needs to be a “welcoming” city.
The final commenter was Steven Trevino, who complained about unauthorized garbage dumping in his neighborhood.
Consent Calendar, Agenda Items 1-12 The council approved the consent calendar 5-0, excluding item 2, which was pulled for discussion by Mouanoutoua. Item 2 concerned the purchase from the state of the former Clovis courthouse. Mouanoutoua asked about details such as parking associated with the site. After discussion, item 2 was approved 5-0.
Notably, another claim rejection appeared on the consent agenda, and there was no discussion about it; it concerned a claim by a Mr. Leuthvilay Keohavanga, who alleges that “on Feb. 6, 2023, the Clovis Police Department responded to his residence due to a domestic disturbance and used excessive force with the use of a K-9 [a police dog], which caused bodily injuries, emotional distress and loss of wages.” Claims such as this one routinely appear on the consent agenda, precluding discussion.
The “consent calendar” is a group of agenda items considered routine; they are decided with a single vote. A council member, staff person, or a member of the public may pull any single item for discussion; otherwise, the vote proceeds without discussion.
Agenda Item 13 The council and heads of city departments discussed initial ideas for updating a one-page document called “City of Clovis Vision, Mission Statement and Values,” the most recent of which was completed in 2010. There was no vote on the matter; Ashbeck explained that feedback from council, staff and the public would be considered when the document is updated. Editing was not the goal of the evening, she said.
A handout was made available; it included the 2010 document and a draft of an update.
The current “city vision” is “A city that is committed to the Clovis community family, their needs, their values, and a quality way of life for all, reflecting that commitment in how it develops and in the activities it undertakes,” and the current “mission statement” is “To define and deliver local government better than anyone today and tomorrow.” There is a list of eight “community values,” such as “collaboration,” “inclusivity,” “sustainability” and the like. The draft of the update includes values such as “do the right thing” and “innovation.”
Some highlights of the discussion were Mouanoutoua’s suggestion that the phrase “local control,” frequently invoked by right-wing extremists who want to resist state or federal law, be added to the mission statement. The League of California Cities included it, he said, though they have “strayed from it.” Mouanoutoua frequently speaks as though he is thinking out loud: he added, “I want the ‘protect’ part.”
At this point Ashbeck emphasized that “this is not group editing,” but a chance to express thoughts, and that feedback would later be incorporated into another draft. She noted that “local control” is a “value” but maybe doesn’t belong in the mission statement.
Public comment was invited. Stallard returned to the lectern and talked about “the role of government,” which he said was to “protect life and liberty.” He assured the council that “I could go deep into it” and said he could send an email outlining his thoughts.
Kren next told the council that the phrasing, “to do local government better than anyone” sets us up for failure and that it would be preferable to simply say “to provide outstanding government.” Burdine said that he liked the phrase “better than anyone,” and again said that Mouanoutoua was “spot on,” this time about “local control.”
At this point Mouanoutoua interjected comments directed to the staff about how grateful he was for their expertise and that council members “take a bullet” on their behalf when things go wrong. He rambled about being humble and told staff in conclusion to “make it where you own it”— what did he mean by that? Holt obligingly translated, telling the staff, “I work for them [for the council], you don’t.” Returning to the subject at hand, Holt said that he recommended that the mission statement not be changed.
Renee Mathis, director of planning and development, remarked that “laws from Sacramento are forced on us” and that she liked the word “protect” but that “there are some things we can’t control.” Belatedly, all the staff department heads introduced themselves at this point.
Bessinger said a mentor had taught him to question if an issue was “legal, ethical or the right thing,” and that just because something was legally permissible, it shouldn’t necessarily be done. He remarked, referring to the previous council meeting, that “last week democracy got messy” but that all voices needed to be protected. People will come to council meetings and comment only if they feel comfortable doing so, and when they don’t “they come in with signs and bullhorns.”
More discussion ensued, with most staff and council members commenting multiple times, though Pearce commented only once. A few agreed that the current values were preferred and didn’t need improvement; otherwise, there was no consensus.
The few members of the public present commented: Burdine objected to the word “inclusion,” and said that “welcoming” was better. Linda Hebert said that the word “serve” should appear in the mission statement and that politics should be kept out of the wording. Kim Armstrong, president of Clovis Community College, was present to say that she also preferred the word “welcoming” over “inclusivity” and agreed with Hebert about the word “serve.” Bessinger pointedly thanked Armstrong. Other commenters who had spoken earlier again gave input. Chad McCollum, director of communications, noted that a survey had been sent to selected Clovis residents, the results of which would also be considered in drafting new mission and values statements.
Ashbeck asked for closing statements. Mouanoutoua said “he says to himself and to my peers as well” that Clovis shouldn’t compare itself to neighboring cities but that “we’ve got to compare ourselves to Irvine,” presumably because the bar was higher there. Pearce said, “I’ll just echo that,” and that “we’ve had that local control,” which accounts for the success of Clovis. “I believe with every fiber of my being that we have to make sure that ‘local control’ remains a permanent value.” Ashbeck thanked everyone and said that more of the public needed to be engaged; she was grateful for everyone who was present to comment.
Agenda Item 14 Cross gave a presentation outlining updates to the various laws and rules regarding public meetings, including the Brown Act, the Public Records Act and ethics. Though he promised to be brief, his presentation took nearly two hours.
Cross first reviewed the Brown Act, which governs the way public meetings are held and managed, when agendas are published, where meetings are held, who can attend and how technology affects the process. Agendas must be published 72 hours in advance of a meeting, for example, and action by a council or board can’t be taken on any topic that does not appear on an agenda. Agendas must be made available to the public; in Clovis, they are posted to the city’s website.
Meetings are public, but closed sessions are permitted for certain confidential matters. Actions and decisions must be made publicly; if an action is taken in a closed session, the public must be informed. Meetings must include a majority of a council or board; only matters within an entity’s jurisdiction can be considered. Individual get-togethers, social functions, etc., do not constitute meetings. “Serial” meetings, text-messaging or emailing through a series of communications by individual council members, is prohibited. In other words, a majority of council members cannot discuss city business outside of a formal meeting with its own agenda.
Cross reviewed AB992, which became law in 2020, and which covers how government officials can interact with each other on social media. They may answer questions from or provide information to the public or ask for information from the public about matters within the body’s jurisdiction. They may not, as a majority, discuss council business or respond individually to another council member, including posting comments, “likes,” and emojis. It was the same, he said, as “meeting in a coffee shop” to discuss city council business.
There were some questions about the permissibility of attendance at rallies, an issue which arose in Dec. 2020 when Bessinger attended a Trump rally and spoke there as mayor of Clovis, something he drew criticism for. Mouanoutoua, who asked the question today, also attended a similar rally but did not speak at it. Cross noted their 1st Amendment rights to attend such events but said that discussion with other council members there would be “constrained.” He also said that attendance at a political rally “shows your position” and that speaking at a rally “could be problematic.”
Regarding public participation in council meetings, Cross noted that members of the public are permitted to comment on items on or off the agenda. Reasonable time limits apply. Regarding time limits for public comments, he said, addressing the earlier complaint about comments at the last meeting, “perfection is not required,” and a timer is not necessary. Ashbeck addressed this point as well, saying that at last week’s meeting, she was not “perfect” but “did her best with the clock” and the accusation made by Eric Rollins was “unfair.” Cross affirmed that “reasonableness is key,” and if there had been an actual pattern of one side getting more time to comment, that would be different. But that was not the case.
Cross noted that photography, audio or video recording, even live streaming, are all permissible by members of the public at public meetings. Attendees should be aware that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy at such meetings. Signs are permissible, and commenters are not required to give their names or addresses as a condition for speaking.
What about intimidation, Ashbeck asked, referring to an earlier comment. Cross said that “the standard for disruption is high” and is defined as when the council or other body is “prohibited from continuing with the meeting.” It’s OK to ask people not to clap. Finger-snapping, about which Eric Rollins and Brent Burdine had complained, was “not disruptive,” said Cross, because it wasn’t loud enough. What about the people who paraded around the chambers with posters during the public-comment period at the last meeting? Cross said that they could be asked not to come into the “well” in front of the dais, but that just holding a sign is “silent protest” and is an activity protected by the 1st Amendment. Ashbeck noted that she had never seen anything like that in 22 years of service on the council; it was “a new era in Clovis.” Cross, however, said that he had been to “crazier meetings” in Clovis.
Cross said that per the Brown Act, criticisms of government officials by public speakers can’t be prohibited.
Bessinger then asked if the “council comments” segment of the council meeting (ordinarily a time for council members to discuss committee work) was a good time to raise issues that council members may want to add to a future agenda. Cross pointed out that the Clovis city council does not have protocols for such things but that they could use the time to discuss if they like.
The issue came up because Pearce had managed to raise the issue about sending a letter of complaint about the Clovis branch of the Fresno County Public Library’s children’s LGBTQ+ books to the county Board of Supervisors because the library is a county, not a city concern, and a “consensus” of three council members agreed in principle to sending a letter, and Holt agreed to draft it. All this action happened despite the issue not being on the agenda. The matter led to the “messy” meeting of last week, with an overflow crowd of members of the public attending the meeting.
Mouanoutoua said, without citing examples, that the same scenario had come up in the past, so he was “thrown,” but that it was better not to do it this way. Ashbeck agreed, and suggested that how it happened was a “violation of the Brown Act.” Cross, however, said he would not concede that it was a violation but that it was not practiced that way in the past. He would “never allow” three members of the council to “hash out” a letter, composing it “behind closed doors.” He emphasized that the council has no formal “rules and procedures,” so it could not be consulted.
Regarding public comments about matters not on the agenda, council members may “respond briefly.” No action may be taken unless an item is on the agenda.
Cross next reviewed the California Public Records Act (PRA). Legislators “wanted to make it more confusing” so this act was recently moved to another area of government code, though it is not otherwise different. The PRA entails any writing that is “prepared, owned, used, or retained” by the council. Anyone, including nonresidents of California, can request to inspect such a record, which includes records (such as text messages or emails) on private cellphones or computers. The city must respond to a request within 10 days with an estimated date of availability. Cross noted that if a council member puts anything in writing, “be prepared to see it quoted in the newspaper.”
Next, Cross reviewed “ethics.” Basically, this subject calls for avoidance of “participation in the making of, or using influence on, a governmental decision that has a reasonably foreseeable material financial effect.” Cross outlined many ways council members should avoid conflicts involving money, including limits on the value of gifts. Bessinger said he’d “editorialize” and asked if these rules apply to state politicians? No, they did not. “Thank you, Sacramento,” Bessinger said. Cross, however, pointed out that the rules existed because of “too much ‘pay-to-play’ at the local level.” Bessinger was silent.
Public comment was opened on the matter. Malcolm Gibson of Clovis, a retired journalist, asked if there was a cost to someone requesting a copy of a public record. Cross said only the cost of duplication could be charged, if applicable.
Agenda Item 15, City Manager Comments The council voted 3-2, with Ashbeck and Basgall the “no” votes, to include only three points in an abbreviated handbook for council members: the role of the mayor in placing items on the agenda, creation of the agenda and creation of proclamations.
Holt began a discussion by asking if the council would like to add to a future agenda a “handbook” for council members. He had a draft of a 2017 handbook that had not been adopted. The summary Holt submitted included subjects such as how meetings are scheduled and recorded, formal decision-making processes(voting, etc.), developing an agenda, code of conduct, conflicts of interest, interacting with the public, and the like.
Discussion followed, and there appeared to be confusion about how this item came to be on the agenda and in what form it would reappear. Mouanoutoua and Ashbeck disagreed. Cross stepped in and said the council could direct Holt to draft a handbook or just tell him if they want one or not. Quiet for much of the meeting, Pearce said that a handbook would be “incredibly helpful,” because she “didn’t know how to be a council member” after she was elected, but maybe that was because of “more Brown Act regulations” or because the current council membership had not “worked together for decades.”
Bessinger simply said, “I have no interest in this,” and did not elaborate. No one asked him for further explanation.
Basgall said, “I’m not a fan of this.”
Ashbeck noted that “how we use the city logo is a huge problem” and that they should all agree on the “logo and branding” because “that’s gotten us into trouble,” likely referring to Pearce’s social media use of the city logo, which she posed before in a video she made accusing her colleagues of lack of respect for the U.S. flag.
Holt asked for a motion and a second, but everyone was confused about what the motion would entail. Basgall moved to include only the process for creating an agenda. Ashbeck asked about adding use of the city logo; Basgall said no. The motion was not seconded.
Mouanoutoua, still appearing to think out loud, moved to ask for a draft handbook that included only a process for creating an agenda and one for creating “ordinances and proclamations and the role of the mayor” in creating these. Why did he want the process for creating proclamations in a special handbook? He didn’t say. Ashbeck said that proclamations are not complicated, but we just made them so.
Just moments before, Cross had pointed out that the council has no formal set of “rules and procedures,” which led to the fiasco about the letter to the Board of Supervisors. Having a handbook to consult could have prevented it, so why the council opposed a more robust handbook was a mystery.
Council Comments
Pearce said she wrote her own letter explaining her objections to children’s sex education books in the public library and sent it to the Board of Supervisors.
Bessinger had no comment.
Basgall said he attended a 9/11 memorial and that he was interviewed there by two elementary school kids.
Mouanoutoua talked about the retirement of “the corporal,” but explained nothing else about who that was. He went to a grand opening of a Walmart and attended the 9/11 memorial. The site of the 9/11 memorial in Clovis is a great place to take visitors, he said, because there is free parking and “it’s quick.”
Ashbeck also attended the Walmart opening. She also referred to “the corporal” and his retirement but did not identify who she was talking about.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:48 p.m.
If you believe anything in these notes is inaccurate, please email us at fresnodocs@fresnoland.org with “Correction Request” in the subject line.
