Livingston city manager terminated, despite strong opposition from residents, local officials
Ongoing political contention in the City of Livingston flared up Tuesday night as scores of residents — as well as city and county officials — gathered in the City Council chambers to defend City Manager Jose Ramirez.
Even so, Ramirez, who has intermittently served as Livingston’s top administrator for a decade, was terminated by City Council in a 4-1 vote during closed session after the public meeting.
Prior to the vote, emotions ran high as more than 30 individuals spoke to, called or emailed City Council. A majority voiced distress over treatment of the city manager.
The City Council has not said why Ramirez’s contract did not deserve renewal. Ramirez’s contract with the city was renewed in February, but he has faced five additional performance evaluations over the last 11 months.
While evaluations are part of any public employee’s job, many officials and citizens said that the frequency of Ramirez’s assessments were excessive, likening them to “bullying.”
The fifth evaluation on Tuesday night ended with his termination.
Support for city manager
Criticism of Ramirez was dwarfed by testimonies of support, counting among them several high-ranking local officials and former City of Livingston leadership.
Merced County District Attorney Kimberly Lewis was one such supporter.
Lewis told the council that she doesn’t typically involve herself in local city politics since it is not her job to do so. But it is her job to be involved with the quality of policing within the City of Livingston, which would be impacted by the city manager’s performance evaluation, Lewis said.
“To the best of my knowledge and experience, your city manager has done his best to counsel you and encourage you and to make sure you have been guided under the correct operation of law as well. And of course we always encourage that,” Lewis said. “So because of that, we at the District Attorney’s Office stand behind your city manager Mr. Ramirez.”
Lewis told Livingston City Council that she would be available as a witness to give information and evidence during the closed session performance evaluation of Ramirez.
County Supervisor Rodrigo Espinoza also urged Livingston City Council members to reevaluate their decisions. “I’m here in support of Mr. Ramirez. I would say that the council should think about the evaluation,” Espinoza said at the meeting.
A former Livingston mayor whose County Supervisor district encompasses the city, Espinoza said the frequent evaluations look like “retaliation.”
“It’s just mind boggling why the council keeps bringing it up again . . . I would advise the council not to go ahead and fire the city manager, I think its leading to illegalities.”
City staff testified to Ramirez’s commitment to residents’ best interests when making tough decisions.
Other residents said the frequent performance evaluations make the city look indecisive and shows a lack of leadership as well as transparency. “It’s a waste of your time and what’s worse my time,” said resident Kenneth Abeloe.
The staunchest denunciation of Ramirez came from former resident Dwight Larks, a local businessman. He said he believes that the city manager is responsible for creating a toxic environment in Livingston.
Larks recently started a change.org petition rallying for the city manager’s removal. There are 52 signatures to date.
Some residents on Tuesday asserted that Larks spread false information via the petition and during spoken comments during the meeting about Livingston schools, but a couple other individuals supported Larks’ statements.
Reasons for termination unclear
Residents and officials alike appeared unclear about what motives led to the council’s move to terminate the city manager.
Several individuals speculated that it related to several employees — including police officers — recently being put on administrative leave. Others said that the termination related to efforts to recall four members of the five-person City Council.
One city resident explicitly asked the council who put the performance evaluation on the agenda and why. The resident met no response from city officials, but former Livingston mayor Gurpal Samra reiterated the question to each of the council members present. Officials questioned responded no, but Mayor Pro Tem Raul Garcia was absent.
Samra said that the public is entitled to the knowledge of which council members put certain items on the agenda, but City Attorney Tom Hallinan later disputed this. Samra asked Hallinan to explain what part of the law prevents disclosure but didn’t receive an answer.
The former mayor also suggested that the performance evaluation be moved from closed session to open session.
“Let just the whole city know what the concerns of the council and concerns of the city manager (are) . . . if he’s doing something wrong, we the citizens want to support you as well, if he’s corrupt or something let us know,” Samra said.
Ramirez said he would waive his right for the evaluation to take place behind closed doors. “I have nothing to hide,” he told City Council and the public.
Hallinan urged the council to refrain from an open session evaluation because it could expose the city to a “tremendous” possibility of litigation. Councilmember Jose Moran made a motion to move the evaluation into open session, but the motion failed due to lack of a second.
It was past 11 p.m. when City Council reported out of closed session that action had been taken. Samra told the Sun-Star that residents present in the council chambers asked who would be in charge as city manager now, but were told that was confidential information.
“Right now, we don’t even know who’s in charge of Livingston,” Samra said. “How can you keep secret who’s in charge?”
This story was originally published July 21, 2021 at 11:08 AM.
