The disputed membership of the Selma City Council could be resolved next week. However, a feud between the mayor and city manager continues.

City officials are at odds with the council about the governing board of the town of approximately 25,000 residents, 15 miles south of Fresno along Highway 99.

The city’s website still lists Beverly Cho and Blanca Mendoza-Navarro as councilmembers even though Cho did not run in November and Mendoza-Navarro lost her race.

New members Jim Avalos and Santiago Oceguera took the oath of office in December, but the city manager and the Fresno County District Attorney’s office haven’t recognized their places on the board —  yet.

But questions about the council’s composition will likely be resolved at the next meeting on Tuesday, Jan. 21.

The agenda, released after this story first published, includes Cho and Mendoza-Navarro as councilmembers; and items such as certifying the Nov. 5, 2024 election (perhaps erroneously listed as taking place Nov. 7, 2024); new members taking the Oath of Office; and comments from city councilmembers.

Related Story: A Civil War in Selma? Problems Exist with Seating New Council

Two City Council Factions

The Selma City Council has two factions — Robertson and his sister-in-law, Councilmember Sarah Guerra; and the remainder of the council, John Trujillo, Cho, and Mendoza-Navarro.

Three members were up for election in November. Robertson, the mayor who serves on the council as well, won. Redistricting meant Cho no longer lived in the area she served. By law, she is allowed to serve the remainder of her term. She opted not to run for re-election.

Mendoza-Navarro ran, and lost to Avalos. Oceguera won the open Cho seat, defeating Jovita Camacho, against whom county prosecutors pressed criminal charges saying she lied about her residency.

Earlier this month, Camacho pleaded no contest to one fraudulent registration count, with two related counts dismissed. The judge sentenced her to probation and a fine.

Contract Extension Vote with a Twist

The bad blood spilled two years ago when Robertson filed a harassment and intimidation complaint against City Manager Fernando Santillan.

In a third-party investigation dated Oct. 23, 2023, Robertson alleged Santillan addressed a message to the council as “Members of the Selma City Council,” instead of “Mayor and Members of the Selma City Council.”

There were also hard feelings over a Dec. 2022 performance review of Santillan. The mayor accused Santillan of several instances of disrespectful behavior.

In turn, Santillan filed a labor complaint against the city.

The city hired a third-party investigator to examine the claims, clearing Santillan. The council voted to settle the matter with its city manager.

The settlement included giving Santillan a five-year extension (from 2027 through 2032), with an already existing annual 5% raise. The vote to approve, scheduled for June 3, 2024, was delayed by more than five months, after the November election.

In a lame-duck council meeting on Nov. 18, the  council finally approved Santillan’s contract extension along faction lines — Trujillo, Mendoza-Navarro and Cho voted in favor; Robertson and Guerra voted no.

The contract had an additional twist that wasn’t in the June version — a move to terminate Santillan would require a 5-0 vote. Anything less, even to change the contract, would constitute a “constructive termination,” and obligate the city to pay a severance of nearly $342,000 — Santillan’s rate of pay for the last year of his contract.

Robertson, Guerra, and members of the public criticized the vote, specifically the fact that two exiting councilmembers made a decision affecting the new council.

Also at the Nov. 18 meeting, the council also added a unanimous vote requirement to terminate its contract for city attorney services, provided at the time by Megan Crouch of Hanford-based firm Griswold, LaSalle, Cobb, Dowd & Gin.

Neither Robertson nor Santillan responded to requests for comment from GV Wire.

Will the Real City Council Please Stand Up?

The newly elected councilmembers had to wait until the county certified the election, which happened on Dec. 3, before taking their seats. The council had already canceled the two regular meetings after the certification — Dec. 16 and Jan. 6 — because of the holiday break. The next regularly scheduled meeting is Jan. 21.

Robertson did not want to wait until then to hold a meeting with the new council and on Dec. 12 called for the special meetings.

At the meeting, Robertson and Guerra attended, as Oceguera and Avalos were sworn in and took their seats. Trujillo, Cho and Mendoza-Navarro did not attend.

The newly-seated council took drastic action, firing the law firm that provided city attorney services, and hiring Neal Costanzo as the new city attorney.

The Fresno County District Attorney’s Office intervened of sorts. It sent out a warning letter on Dec. 17 to the council, saying the city had its order of operations wrong. Before a new council can be sworn in, Senior Deputy District Attorney Victor Lai wrote, the prior council needs to declare the results of the election.

Any action, including changing the city attorney, could be null and void, Lai said.

Costanzo wrote a rebuttal letter that same day, arguing everything the new council did was within the law.

At another special meeting on Dec. 19, the new council declared the election results. The firing of the prior city attorney became moot when Crouch and the firm quit on Dec. 16.

“The City would not have placed (the results declaration) item on the agenda if it believed that its actions on December 12th were wholly effective,” Lai wrote in a follow-up Jan. 7 letter.

Lai said his office will not litigate whether the Dec. 19 vote was “effective.” He did say the council did not violate the state’s open meeting law, the Brown Act, because there was not a majority of the council — the “old” city council — present, and either way, the meeting was open and public.

Avalos and Oceguera are rightfully elected, Lai said, and if the old councilmembers purposely avoided declaring the results, that would be a problem. Because the city canceled December meetings in years past, “it would appear that business was proceeding in an established and normal manner.”

“You are all elected officials. I urge you to put your differences aside and act with sober minded civic responsibility, incorporating the decorum, restraint, and magnanimity your position deserves,” Lai said.

Trujillo and Mendoza-Navarro said they would attend the Jan. 21 meeting, which would solidify a election declaration vote and allow the newly elected members to take their places, if any doubt remained.

Mayor Warns Mendoza-Navarro

Mendoza-Navarro is welcome at the Jan. 21 meeting, but only as a member of the public, Robertson warned in an email.

“What you cannot do is continue to pretend the election did not happen and continue to use city resources, such as the city email address, and portray yourself as the District 1 council member. That is an impersonation of a public official,” Robertson wrote on Jan. 4.

Robertson also challenged Mendoza-Navarro to file legal action, if she thought that actions taken by the city council on Dec. 12 and 19 were wrong. He called her allegations of wrongdoing, “slanderous.”

If Mendoza-Navarro wants to participate at the Jan. 21 meeting, Robertson wrote, it would be during public comment time and not from the dais.

“I will have you removed for disrupting the meeting if you continue to make what are absolutely slanderous claims that you are still a council member despite having lost your bid for reelection.  You can make those claims in court if you wish, but it will not be tolerated at the city council meeting,” he wrote.

Robertson said Mendoza-Navarro’s no-showing at the Dec. 12 special meeting was “not very classy or mature.”

Mendoza-Navarro said she had prior engagements.