Bribery, corruption allegations highlight ex Livingston city manager’s claim against city
Allegations levied in a government tort claim filed against the City of Livingston in Merced County by the former city manager may provide insight into why he was terminated from his position – a question that residents have speculated about ever since he exited his longtime role.
The claim, filed Dec. 10 by Jose Ramirez’s attorneys and obtained by the Sun-Star on Wednesday, alleges multiple illegal incidents involving several city officials throughout the 10 years Ramirez intermittently served as city manager.
Ramirez’s claim was considered by Livingston City Council on Tuesday during a closed session meeting. The council rejected the claim 4-0 with Councilmember Gagandeep Kang absent, City Attorney Tom Hallinan told the Sun-Star in an email.
None of the city officials named in Ramirez’s government claim returned calls to the Sun-Star this week. Hallinan did respond, saying the accusations are false and completely without merit or credibility.
“This (claim) was page after inaccurate page,” Hallinan said in the email. “We will vigorously defend the City of Livingston and its citizens against this baseless claim.”
A lawsuit against the city may soon follow the rejected government claim.
Ramirez’s attorney Maria Bourn with the Law Offices of Tanya Gomerman said her client’s hope is that his case will lead to overall reform and transparency in Livingston.
“Mr. Ramirez is very open about what happened to him and is looking forward to giving back the city the promise that he gave them – an open and clear government that the city pays for,” Bourn told the Sun-Star.
Circumstances behind the claim
Ramirez’s account states that much of the upheaval in Livingston took root in May 2020, when Sgt. Wapinder Kang, brother of Councilmember Kang, contacted former mayor Gurpal Samra regarding an issue with the driveway at the Kang brothers’ shared home not being up to city municipal code.
The Kang brothers requested that the driveway be expanded at the city’s expense, according to the government claim.
But a city assessment found no code violation, meaning the driveway would have to be expanded at the Kangs’ expense.
Councilmember Kang continued to pressure Ramirez to get the city to pay, the claim alleges. Sgt. Kang later filed his own government claim over the disagreement.
In June 2020, the Kang brothers allegedly entered Ramirez’s office and stated they would fire the city engineer and withhold Measure V funds if the driveway wasn’t paid for. The encounter allegedly occurred in the presence of Livingston’s public works and human resources directors.
“The Kang brothers were visibly infuriated and stated that they would wait until the November election where they claimed they would have the ‘majority’ support needed to get the city to approve their driveway modification,” the claim says.
The Kang brother’s government claim was discussed during an August 2020 City Council meeting. To show Councilmember Kang had no conflict of interest, Sgt. Kang allegedly lied during the meeting by stating that he, not his brother, was the legal owner of their shared home.
However, the publicly filed deed to the property was in Councilmember Kang’s name, according to Ramirez. City Council ultimately denied the Kangs’ claim.
According to Rameriz’s account, Sgt. Kang then approached the then city attorney and asked, ”How much do you want to be my personal attorney?” Ramirez interpreted this as an attempt to bribe that city attorney.
Soon after, Ramirez had the first of six performance evaluations that would take place over the course of the next year until his eventual termination. According to the claim, these evaluations occurred following incidents where he opposed Councilmember Kang.
Voting fraud accusations resurface
Ramirez’s claim also references accusations of voting fraud stemming from the November 2020 election.
The allegations are being taken seriously via an ongoing investigation by the Merced County District Attorney’s Office and California Secretary of State.
No suspects have been named, but investigators told the Sun-Star that multiple individuals intimidated or coerced Livingston residents into forfeiting signed but blank, unsealed ballots. The individuals then allegedly filled out the ballots with the candidates of their choice.
Livingston City Councilmember Jose Moran released a YouTube video in August where he accused the Kang brothers of being the perpetrators behind the alleged voting fraud scheme. Moran claimed that the Kang brothers personally told him that they could guarantee a winning number of votes for him were he to run for city clerk.
Moran later told the Sun-Star that his concern over this encounter led him to run for City Council. He is the only member of the council who isn’t subject to the recall campaign.
According to Ramirez’s claim, he was also informed of the Kang brothers’ alleged voting fraud.
“Mr. Ramirez was shocked and concerned that the Kang brothers were engaging in illegal conduct,” the claim says. “Mr. Ramirez shared these concerns with the city election’s office, the District Attorney, and even the Federal Bureau of Investigation who all said they would investigate the allegations.”
Ramirez alleges that Livingson’s new mayor, Juan Aguilar, plus Mayor Pro Tem Raul, each allied themselves with Councilmember Kang and his brother – an allegation also made by Moran, who stated that the Kang brothers asked him to join their “team.”
Did hiring a new police chief lead to city manager’s termination?
Ramirez’s claim goes on to state that Livingston’s former police chief Chris Soria failed to report a car accident Sgt. Kang was involved in with a pedestrian.
Ramirez suspected that the former chief did not report the accident, which would have triggered an outside investigation, because of his friendship with Sgt. Kang.
A Livingston planning commissioner in February informed Ramirez that the Kang brothers, Soria, mayor and mayor pro tem regularly met outside Livingston to discuss city matters and texted each other about decisions prior to voting during council meetings, the claim alleges.
Ramirez reported the alleged Brown Act violations to the former city attorney, but no action was taken, according to the claim.
Ramirez informed the Merced County District Attorney’s Office in April that he received retaliation due to hiring a new police chief rather than renewing Soria’s contract.
After former police chief John Markle was appointed by Ramirez, Soria allegedly told Markle, “Tell Jose (Ramirez) bye and that he won’t have a job in four months,” the claim says.
It was one month later that Ramirez was terminated. The 4-1 vote by City Council, with only Moran dissenting, designated the termination “for cause,” meaning that Ramirez wouldn’t be paid a six month severance.
“The Kang brothers along with other City Council members used their positions of power for their own benefit; they hatched a plan to get rid of Mr. Ramirez because Mr. Ramirez’s moral and ethical standards threatened their interests,” the claim says.
Former chief Markle too didn’t last long on the job, as he was placed on administrative leave just six months into leading the police department. Many Livingston residents protested his exit and noted that the situation mirrored Ramirez’s departure. A Merced County Sheriff’s lieutenant is now acting as police chief.
According to the claim, Ramirez believes that Markle was put on leave as an act of retaliation due to Markle investigating Sgt. Kang’s arrest in July for allegedly filing a false report in order to cover for another law enforcement officer.
Protests followed termination
Ramirez was ousted as city manager via a 4-1 vote by City Council in July following his sixth performance evaluation in less than a year.
The termination was met by protest outside of City Hall where residents demanded transparency about the City Council’s decision, although no reason for Ramirez’s termination was ever publicly provided by the city.
The severing of Ramirez’s contract came on the heels of hours of testimony by Livingston residents and several high-ranking Merced County officials who spoke in support of the then city manager, including District Attorney Kimberly Lewis and County Supervisor Rodrigo Espinoza, whose district encompasses Livingston.
In addition to urging the City Council to refrain from firing Ramirez, many residents asked why he was subject to so many recent performance evaluations – something even Livingston’s former mayor called “not normal.”
Ramirez’s termination was just one of several incidents in a chaotic year for Livingston, which included the voting fraud investigation by the California Secretary of State and the Merced County District Attorney’s Office, the recall campaign to remove most of the City Council and the arrest of two members of the police department for allegedly filing a false report.
The government claim alleges that many such incidents were connected to Ramirez’s forced exit.
This story was originally published December 24, 2021 at 5:00 AM.
