Reso 2026-021 Discipline - Councilmember Aguilar

Home

16 The audio recording revealed that Aguilar stated, “I see nothing but Bowen’s priorities listed here.” “I feel completely blindsided by this. I feel like I can’t vote without knowing what the other priorities are.” He recommended another work session because he felt unprepared to make decisions (presumably because neither he nor Simon submitted their own proposed priorities). Aguilar wanted to add items to the list, including protection for non-traditional family relationships. But rather than presenting his own proposals, he made snide remarks aimed at gaslighting Bowen: “I could be like Bowen and add 30 items — my constituents are being disenfranchised.” Aguilar declared, “I am just traumatized to see Bowen all over the list.” Then he disingenuously added, “no disrespect.” After some additional discussion about whether to add any items to the list of priorities, Aguilar stated, “I do not want one Council Member bombarding the list,” as if to imply that she was doing this on purpose to his detriment. Bowen stated that she did not appreciate that anyone should feel “bombarded” and [and that everyone] needed an opportunity to be heard. According to both Robustelli and Bowen, Aguilar acted as if the agenda was suddenly sprung on him with no prior notice when he said, “we should have been told we were voting on this.” According to Bowen and Robustelli, each of the Council Members were informed that the clear purpose of the annual Planning Meeting is to discuss and then vote on the priorities for the City in the coming year. Therefore, it is inconceivable that Aguilar or any other Council Member with his tenure on the Council could have misunderstood the purpose of the Planning Meeting and the need to submit their proposed priorities ahead of time for consideration at the meeting. Aguilar claimed that after he saw that the list of City Council priorities had contained only Bowen’s submissions, he decided to call this out. He claimed that he did not attack her personally; rather, he was merely challenging the process itself that enabled only her priorities to appear on the list presented for the Council Members to vote on. When this investigator pointed out that he did say a number of times during that meeting, which was recorded, that he felt “bombarded” and “blindsided” by Bowen, but he did not challenge the process itself, Aguilar first denied this. When this investigator informed him that the audio recording of the meeting is posted on the City Council’s webpage and provides verification that he did actually make these comments a number of times, he then claimed that was not his intention — and claimed that he meant only to challenge the process and not attack Bowen personally. Aguilar claimed that the process itself was unfair to him and the other City Council Members because their priorities were not included in the list.12 After Simon stated that he would like to see the previous list of priorities so he could see what else was put forward (and presumably what was omitted), Gonzalez stated that he wanted to obtain consensus on the key priorities. Aguilar once again exclaimed, “I felt completely blindsided by this list. No disrespect to Bowen.” Gonzalez reiterated that “this list was part of the agenda packet, so it was public information and that past items for the prior year were not included.” Gonzalez stated that City Council Members “need to hold ourselves accountable” and declared that the City Manager will provide [another] deadline for members to add to the list and obtain a prior list of items to create a comprehensive final list, which would then be voted on by the City Council to determine 12 However, when queried about whether he had received an email from Robustelli requesting that City Council Members submit their proposed priorities by March 18, 2024, he claimed he could not specifically recall if he received an email from Robustelli on March 11, 2024. This investigator asked him to check his emails and submit any proof that he submitted his own proposed priorities before the Annual Planning Meeting took place so that this investigation could include an examination of how the process itself deprived him of an opportunity for his proposed priorities to be considered at the annual planning meeting. His interview took place on June 4, 2025, and as of the date of this report, he has not yet submitted any proof that he had timely submitted his own proposals for consideration. Instead, the audio recording of the meeting clearly supports Bowen’s claim that he repeatedly lambasted her simply because her name appeared alongside her list of priorities — in other words, for simply doing her job, which he attempted to undermine with his abusive conduct. Exhibit A Resolution No. 2026-021 Page 16