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

Home Browse Search

ATTORNEY -CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT Sonia Carvalho, Esq. Tamara Bogosian, Esq, October 9, 2024 Page 7 would rather the City make a determination of who to partner with outside the bounds of a transparent public contracting process was evidence to the Investigator of special treatment and consideration to this community -based organization beyond that available to others. The Investigator further found that Hernandez' comments at the meeting, specifically that "rb]lacic history should be led by the Black community... " showed special consideration beyond that available to others in violation of the Code. The Investigator also found Hernandez' comments to inhibit meaningful public involvement in the City's decision -making processes and discouraged full participations of all persons and groups, in further violation of the Code. Lastly, Hernandez failed to respect the distinction between his Council Member role and staff. To start, the Investigator incorporates by reference its analysis of the factual findings for Allegation No. t and No. 3 above. Moreover, Hernandez would routinely not involve staff in meetings with entertainers/vendors and would not keep staff informed until a decision to involve said entertainer/vendor had already been made. Hernandez would also schedule meetings with CBOs without staff involvement. Further, when confronted with his improper behavior in his interview, Hernandez would not acknowledge the issue but rather explain the City's issue was a result of racism, an attempt to criminalize him and impeded his role of doing whatever was needed to ensure his constituents felt "supported and validated". Hernandez was not merely serving the interests of his constituents but rather attempting to take responsibility, and credit, for the City's special events without the involvement of City staff. As a result, the Investigator found that the preponderance of the evidence did support this allegation and it is SUSTAINED. III. Credibility Analysis of Complainant The Investigator found the Complainant to be credible, in part. However, it appeared to the Investigator that the Complainant made allegations inMComplaint that were either overreaching and/or that® knew lacked factual support. For example, Complainant claimed that Hernandez was improperly involving himself with the City's special events despite constant admonishment from the City to refrain from doing so. However, Complainant initially neglected to explain to the Investigator that Hernandez was originally asked for input on these events. When confronted with this information in® second interview, ■ only asked for suggestions in an initial meeting and specifically did not ask for a list a vendors. However, the documentary evidence suggested otherwise. Moreover, when the Investigator asked for information relating to Hernandez' alleged solicitation of donations, Complainant responded in conclusory terms and admitted that® did not have specific knowledge of Hernandez' involvement but only suspected this was the case. As further example, when asked about the allegation that Hernandez was involved in a vendor's donation of shirts that were sold by a CBO at a Chicano Heritage Festival, Complainant stated that this was only M assumption because N saw Hernandez wearing and promoting the shirt. Complainant's speculation on these two serious accusations detracted from credibility given® admission that opinion was based on personal belief rather than concrete facts and/or direct evidence. 21217231.1