Item 33 - Investigation Regarding Councilmember Johnathan Ryan Hernandez (Continued from the 10/28/24 Special Meeting)

Home Browse Search

--ATTORNEY—CLIENT P.RIVILEOE_AND—ATT RNEY.WORK PRODUCT Sonia Carvalho, Esq. Tamara Bogosian, Esq. October 9, 2024 Page 10 Hernandez was involved in choosing vendors for one of the City's Juneteenth events, he said no because he was not Black. Hernandez Ruilier explained that he was not involved in the City's 2024 Juneteenth event because there was a RFP in place which constituted the silencing of the Black community. When asked about a meeting between a CBO and the City where it was alleged he admonished staff members for not being more culturally sensitive and careful when speaking to members of the Black community, he.deflected by stating that if his constituents felt they were not being valued, racially targeted, and did not want to work with racists, he could see why they would be offended. When questions were asked about his conduct, such as whether he told staff that a certain partner CBO were to create the marketing and imagery for the Juneteenth Festival, Hernandez responded that it was an inflammatory, incorrect statement in an attempt to "criminalize him" for advocating for Black people. Hernandez' attempt to use perceived issues of race as a shield for his behavior was an exercise in hyperbole aimed to deflect from his own behavior that was clearly established through independent documentary evidence, and witness statements. This also substantially diminished Hernandez' credibility. Moreover, Hernandez attempted to equivocate and claim the Investigator was being misled and lied to when he was asked whether he requested at a City Council meeting that the Council provide direction to the City Manager concerning the Juneteenth Festival being led by a certain CBO for 2024. While neither the requested report, nor the agenda nor Hernandez' opening comments of his agenda item explained that the request was only for 2025, Hernandez took it as an opportunity to explain his ethics, rather than confirm whether he provided the requested direction. Hernandez' refusal to admit the nature of his agenda item regarding the CBO further detracted from his credibility. Lastly, Hernandez' explanation of his former policy aide's termination was simply not logical to the Investigator. First, Hernandez conveniently explained the policy aide's termination was due to a May®, 2022 e-mail wherein he contacted a vendor without Hernandez' approval. This explanation would be beneficial to Hernandez' position that he never contacted vendors related to City events. However, Hernandez later explained that he terminated the policy aide's agreement "for cause" almost seven months later — in December 2022. When the Investigator asked what constituted "for cause", Hernandez clarified that it was related to a Christmas event where the aide opened the door an hour earlier than Hernandez had requested. The employment and subsequent termination of a policy aide is not directly relevant to the allegations present. However, the fact that Hernandez would attempt to couch the termination of the aide's agreement as evidence that he would not authorize or approve the contacting of vendors, yet admit that the termination was the result of a much later, separate event, also detracted from his credibility. Based on all of the above, the Investigator found Hernandez lacked credibility overall, and was not forthcoming with factual information. 21217231.1