Investigative Summary Regarding the Complaint of Illegal Recording of

Confidential Communication by the former Alameda City Manager

Introduction

The City of Alameda is an incorporated city within Alameda County. The City Charter
sets forth the government structure which includes a City Council comprised of four
elected council members and an elected mayor. In addition to the City Council, Alameda
has an appointed City Manager, an appointed City Attorney and other administrative
staff. The City Charter delineates the powers and duties of the elected and appointed
officials and establishes certain rules of governance. Contained within the City Charter is
the provision that “Neither the Council nor any of the members thereof shall interfere
with the execution by the City Manager of his or her powers and duties.” (Alameda City
Charter, Art. VII, sec. 7-3.)

In 2017, the City of Alameda began a recruitment process to select the next Alameda Fire
Chief. Then Alameda City Manager Jill Keimach was in the position of oversight.
During the process, Councilmember Jim Oddie made statements to Police Chief Paul
Rolleri regarding the process. Following the statements of Councilmember Oddie, he and
Councilmember Malia Vella had a meeting with Ms. Keimach. Ms. Keimach
surreptitiously recorded the audio of that meeting without the knowledge or consent of
either councilmember. A complaint was lodged with the City and ultimately with the
Alameda County District Attorney’s Office. The complaint alleged that Councilmember
Oddie had violated the City Charter by interfering with the City Manager’s hiring process
and that Ms. Keimach had violated California law by surreptitiously recording the
meeting conversation without the knowledge and consent of either councilmember.

The Alameda County District Attorney’s Office has concluded its investigation. The
scope of the investigation was limited to whether conduct by Ms. Keimach violated state
criminal law. The investigation found that Ms. Keimach intentionally audio recorded the
August 16, 2017 meeting and did so without the consent of either Councilmember Oddie
or Vella. However, California law allows recording a confidential communication under
the reasonable belief that the communication would relate to certain criminal conduct,
including bribery or extortion. As the investigation revealed, and this report details, Ms.
Keimach was made aware of hearsay comments by Councilmember Oddie that she felt
could affect her continued employment as City Manager if a particular Fire Chief
candidate was not selected. Thus, we conclude that based on the available evidence,
there is insufficient evidence to prove a criminal violation of California state law beyond
a reasonable doubt.

This report focuses solely on the facts found during the investigation and our legal
conclusions. It is not the intent, nor within the legal authority, of the District Attorney’s
Office to interject ourselves into the governance of the City of Alameda.

The question of whether Councilmember Oddie or others violated the Alameda City
Charter or issues related to poor governance surrounding the Fire Chief hiring process
has already been referred to the Alameda County Grand Jury. The Civil Grand Jury is an
arm of the Superior Court tasked with examining the operations of local government and
the conduct of local officials. This independent group of nineteen citizens has the
authority to subpoena witnesses and documents ultimately reporting on their findings
with recommendations for improvement. The Grand Jury also has the authority to start
an accusation process which could ultimately lead to a public official’s removal from
office in certain circumstances involving willful or corrupt misconduct.

Investigation Background

In an October 2, 2017 letter to the City Council, Ms. Keimach asserted that she was
subjected to “unseemly” political pressure regarding her appointment of Edmond
Rodriguez as the City of Alameda’s Fire Chief. Ms. Keimach wrote that she had been
“approached by elected and appointed officials in Alameda and even at the state level,
requesting that [she] put aside the best interests of the City and select the Fire Chief that
has been handpicked by the local IAFF [International Association of Firefighters Local
689] union.” The letter went on to list specific allegations of pressure including those
involving councilmembers pressuring Ms. Keimach to select the IAFF candidate, Captain
Domenick Weaver, and conditioning her continued employment as City Manager on her
selection. Ms. Keimach’s letter did not mention either Councilmember Vella or Oddie.

Based on Ms. Keimach’s allegations, the City Council directed the City Attorney at the
October 17, 2017 City Council meeting to retain the law firm of Jenkins & Hogin, LLP to
provide an independent legal analysis of the questions raised by Ms. Keimach’s letter.
The City Council also postponed the performance evaluation of Ms. Keimach scheduled
to be done at that meeting in closed session.

The analysis of Jenkins & Hogin, LLP was provided in a report authored by Michael
Jenkins dated January 30, 2018. This report was presented to the City Council in closed
session that same day. After the closed session a follow-up report was generated dated
March 7, 2018. During the Jenkins & Hogin investigation, Ms. Keimach disclosed to Mr.
Jenkins that she had recorded her August 16, 2017 meeting with Councilmembers Vella
and Oddie. Mr. Jenkins noted the following in Footnote 100 of the January 30 report:
“Keimach tape-recorded her meeting with Councilmembers Oddie and Vella without
their knowledge. Keimach asked [City Attorney Janet] Kern in advance whether she
could record the conversation. According to Kern, she did not advise Keimach that she
could record the meeting. According to Keimach, Kern said that Keimach could record it
based on Penal Code §633.5, which authorizes such recording for the purpose of
obtaining evidence reasonably believed to relate to the commission of the crimes of
extortion, kidnapping, bribery, and any felony involving violence. The principal
investigator, Mr. Jenkins, did not listen to the recording or consider it in preparation of
this report.” (Jenkins & Hogin Report, Jan. 30, 2018, p. 37, fn. 100.)

On March 9, 2018, the City Council voted unanimously to place Ms. Keimach on paid
administrative leave. Subsequently, on April 16, 2018, the Alameda City Council voted
unanimously in closed session to instruct the City Attorney to refer the subject audio
recording to the Alameda County District Attorney. Although, the Jenkins report had not
yet been made public, several media outlets reported that Ms. Keimach had secretly
recorded Councilmembers Vella and Oddie. Ms. Keimach stated to the press that she
recorded a meeting between her and the two councilmembers and did so with the
approval of the City Attorney Janet Kern. The press reported Ms. Kern’s strong denial of
this claim. At the April 16, 2018 City Council meeting, Ms. Keimach’s attorney, Therese
Cannata, acknowledged that Ms. Keimach recorded Councilmembers Vella and Oddie,
offered legal justification under Penal Code section 633.5 for the recording, and reiterated
that Ms. Keimach had sought and received approval from the City Attorney prior to
making the recording.

A copy of the recording was provided by the Alameda City Attorney’s Office to the
District Attorney’s Office on April 17, 2018. Witness interviews began on April 19,
2018, and concluded on October 9, 2018. The investigation consisted of interviews and a
review of the recording itself, city emails and calendars, the Jenkins & Hogin report,
media reports, and several public records from City Council meetings. Some of these
items took several weeks after being requested to obtain. Some items requested from the
City were not provided. The City Attorney’s Office declined to provide the report by
Michael Jenkins until it was released to the public on May 2, 2018. A less-redacted copy
was provided by the City on June 18, 2018. The notes and recordings of the interviews
conducted by Mr. Jenkins were requested as part of our investigation, but were not
provided by the City.

Much of the factual basis for this report has already been made public through the
released version of the Jenkins & Hogin report, the public comments and correspondence
at Alameda City Council meetings and through various media reports. Where the
investigation revealed additional or conflicting information it is so noted.

Our investigation began before the Jenkins & Hogin report was released. Thus, our
initial focus was ascertaining the validity of certain issues surrounding the circumstances
of the recording. These issues included whether Ms. Keimach had surreptitiously
recorded anyone else. It also included whether Councilmember Oddie told Police Chief
Rolleri that Ms. Keimach would be fired if she did not select the union backed Fire Chief
candidate and whether Chief Rolleri communicated these comments to Ms. Keimach.
Additionally, it included whether Ms. Keimach had consulted with the City Attorney
before recording the August 16 meeting. To this end, Chief Rolleri, Jeff DelBono, and
Assembly Member Rob Bonta were interviewed in late April. An interview of City
Attorney Janet Kern was scheduled for April 30 and then rescheduled for May 9 through
Alameda’s outside counsel, Thomas Mayhew of Farella Braun + Martell, LLP.

In May, Ms. Kern, Lois Butler, Michael Jenkins, and Assistant City Attorney Alan Cohen
were interviewed. Beginning in mid-May, efforts began to schedule an interview with
Ms. Keimach. The interview of Ms. Keimach was initially delayed several months out of
respect for unrelated personal matters affecting Ms. Keimach and subsequently her
attorney, Ms. Cannata.

In June, Rod Gould and former Assistant City Attorney Andrico Penick were
interviewed. Although the investigation continued and additional evidence was collected,
scheduling issues prevented further interviews from occurring until late September 2018.
Beginning in August 2018, attempts to schedule an interview with Ms. Keimach through
Ms. Cannata began, which eventually led to an interview on September 28, 2018.
Attempts to schedule interviews of Councilmembers Vella and Oddie began in early
September 2018. These interviews were also delayed several weeks initially for the city
to determine legal representation and then to organize the schedules of the
Councilmembers Oddie and Vella and their respective attorneys. In neither instance was
there any indication the delay in the interviews of Ms. Keimach, Councilmember Vella or
Councilmember Oddie was intended to evade or hinder the investigation and is noted
only to document the timing in issuing our conclusion.

Criminal Filing Standards

Under California law, it is the responsibility of the District Attorney to respond to

allegations where California laws may be violated. In determining whether to file
criminal charges, the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office is guided by the same
standards used by prosecutors throughout the state. In summary, a prosecutor may only
file criminal charges if he or she believes, based on the evidence available after a
thorough investigation, that the accused is in fact guilty of a crime and that guilt can be
proven beyond a reasonable doubt at trial. In evaluating whether the evidence is
sufficient to prove guilt, prosecutors are obligated to consider not only the statements of
the accused, but the likely defenses to be asserted at trial.
Applicable Law

Recording Confidential Communications

Penal Code section 632
The intentional electronic recording of confidential communications without the consent
or knowledge of all parties to such communication is illegal in California. Penal Code
section 632, subdivision (a) states in relevant part: “A person who, intentionally and
without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, uses an electronic
amplifying or recording device to eavesdrop upon or record the confidential
communication, whether the communication is carried on among the parties in the
presence of one another or by means of a telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a
radio, shall be punished by a fine... or imprisonment....”

“Confidential communication” is defined in Penal Code section 632, subdivision (c) as

“any communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any
party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties thereto, but excludes a
communication made in a public gathering or in any legislative, judicial, executive, or
administrative proceeding open to the public, or in any other circumstance in which the
parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be
overheard or recorded.” The California Supreme Court has further held, “a conversation
is confidential under section 632 if a party to that conversation has an objectively
reasonable expectation that the conversation is not being overheard or recorded.”
(Flanagan v. Flanagan (2002) 27 Cal.4th 766, 776-777.)

Exemption under Penal Code section 633.5

California law provides certain narrow exceptions to the general prohibition of recording
or eavesdropping on confidential communications. Relevant here is the exception
provided in Penal Code section 633.5 which states in part: “Sections 631, 632, 632.5,
632.6 and 632.7 do not prohibit one party to a confidential communication from
recording the communication for the purpose of obtaining evidence reasonably believed
to relate to the commission by another party to the communication of the crime of
extortion, kidnapping, bribery, any felony involving violence against the person…” As
the California Supreme Court has noted, California courts “have examined the
relationship between Penal Code sections 632 and 633.5. All have concluded—correctly
—that the latter exempts from the former an unconsented recording made with the
requisite reasonable belief although the recording fails to capture the anticipated evidence
[citation] or where the initial purpose of the recording is self-protection rather than to
gather evidence for use in criminal prosecution [citation].” (Lubetsky v. State Bar (1991)
54 Cal.3d 308, 321.) Thus, under California law, to avail oneself of the exemption under
Penal Code section 633.5, it is not required that evidence of the enumerated crimes
actually be obtained, that the evidence obtained prove one of the listed offenses or that
the recording be made with the purpose of “instituting a prosecution” for the enumerated
offense. (People v. Ayers (1975) 51 Cal.App.3d 370, 377.)

Bribery
A “bribe” is defined in Penal Code section 7, subdivision (6) as “anything of value or
advantage, present or prospective, or any promise or undertaking to give any, asked,
given, or accepted, with a corrupt intent to influence unlawfully, the person to whom it is
given, in his or her action, vote or opinion, in any public or official capacity.”
CALCRIM provides jury instructions for all criminal trials in California. The jury
instruction found in CALCRIM 2600 states that “[a] person acts with corrupt intent when
he or she acts to wrongfully gain a financial or other advantage for himself, herself, or
someone else.” Penal Code section 67 specifically prohibits any person from giving or
offering any bribe to any executive officer in this state, with the intent to influence any
act, decision, vote, opinion or other proceeding. The Alameda City Manager is an
executive officer under this section. Penal Code section 165 applies to the members of
city councils and prohibits any council member from receiving or offering to receive a
bribe upon an understanding that his or her official vote, opinion, judgment or action
shall be influenced.
Extortion
Penal Code section 518, subdivision (a) defines extortion as “the obtaining of property or
other consideration from another, with his or her consent, or the obtaining of an official
act of a public officer, induced by a wrongful use of force or fear, or under color of
official right.” Penal Code section 524 further punishes anyone “who attempts, by means
of any threat, such as is specified in Section 519 of this code to extort property or other
consideration from another…” Consideration is defined in section 518, subdivision (b) as
“anything of value.” Fear that constitutes extortion, “may be induced by a threat of any
of the following: 1. To do an unlawful injury to the person or property of the individual
threatened or of a third person. 2. To accuse the individual threatened, or a relative of his
or her, or a member of his or her family, of a crime. 3. To expose, or to impute to him,
her, or them a deformity, disgrace, or crime. 4. To expose a secret affecting him, her, or
them. 5. To report his, her, or their immigration status or suspected immigration status.”
(Pen. Code, § 519.) No precise or particular form of words is necessary in order to
constitute a threat, rather threats can be made by innuendo and the circumstances under
which the threat is uttered and the relations between the defendant and the target of the
threats may be taken into consideration.  (People v. Bollaert (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th
699.) Apart from the listed conduct, threatening to do something that a person has a legal
right to do is not a threat to commit an unlawful injury. (CALCRIM 1830; People v.
Umana (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 625.)

Duties of the City Council and the City Manager

The Alameda City Charter establishes the following elective officers: The Mayor and
four Councilmembers who shall constitute the Council; Auditor; Treasurer. (Art. II, sec.
2-1.)

The Charter also establishes the offices of City Manager, City Attorney and City Clerk
who “shall be appointed or removed by a vote of the majority of the full Council.” (Art.
II, sec. 2-2.) Jill Keimach’s employment agreement for her term as City Manager
included this provision of the City Charter by stating, “The City, through its City Council,
may terminate this Agreement prior to the expiration of the term of this Agreement as set
forth in Section 2 above, at its sole and absolute discretion, with or without cause.”
(Keimach Employment Agreement, p. 5.)

The Charter also provides that the City Council “shall establish by ordinance offices for
the administration of departments of the City and the incumbents thereof shall be
appointed by and hold office at the pleasure of the City Manager. Once established those
offices may be changed, deleted, or new ones added by vote of a majority of the
Council.” (Art. II, sec. 2-3.)

The Charter declares that the City Manager “shall be the Chief Administrative Officer of
the City.” (Art. VII, sec. 7-1.) Article VII, section 7-2 further delineates the powers and
duties of the City Manager including: “(B) To enforce all laws and ordinances…” and
“(C) To appoint, discipline and remove all officers and employees of the City under his or
her jurisdiction, subject to Civil Service requirements.”

The City Charter expressly limits certain conduct by City Councilmembers in relation to
the powers and duties of the City Manager, stating: “Neither the Council nor any of the
members thereof shall interfere with the execution by the City Manager of his or her
powers and duties. Except for purposes of inquiry, the Council and its members shall deal
with that portion of the administrative service for which the City Manager is responsible
solely through him or her. An attempt by a Councilmember to influence the City Manager
in the making of any appointment or the purchase of any materials or supplies shall
subject such Councilmember to removal from office for malfeasance.” (Art. VII, sec. 7-
3.)

Charging Decision

Insufficient Evidence to Support a Charge of Penal Code section 632(a)

Pre-Meeting Circumstances
Ms. Keimach admits intentionally recording Councilmembers Vella and Oddie during
their August 16, 2017 meeting. The evidence establishes that the meeting was a
confidential communication and that neither Councilmember Vella nor Oddie consented
to the meeting being recorded. However, Ms. Keimach asserts that her conduct was
permissible under Penal Code section 633.5. To avail herself of the statutory exemption,
Ms. Keimach must have reasonably believed that either Councilmember Vella or Oddie
would attempt to bribe or extort her during the meeting or that recording the meeting
would provide evidence related to such criminal conduct. In a criminal prosecution, this
exemption would have to be disproved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Specifically, and most notably, our investigation confirmed that Ms. Keimach was
informed by Police Chief Rolleri that Councilmember Oddie had told him directly that
unless she hired the right person as Fire Chief, that there were two votes to fire Ms.
Keimach and that they would get the third vote. Chief Rolleri informed Ms. Keimach of
Councilmember Oddie’s comment prior to the August 16 meeting. Councilmember
Oddie denies making this specific statement. Councilmember Oddie recalls discussing
Ms. Keimach with Chief Rolleri while riding together during National Night Out on
August 1, 2017, but recalls the conversation discussing the issues that Mayor Trish
Spencer and Councilmember Vella had with Ms. Keimach, which he described as well-
known City Hall gossip. The circumstances that existed before the August 16 meeting
surrounding the selection of the Fire Chief support both Chief Rolleri’s and Ms.
Keimach’s assumptions that the right person to whom Councilmember Oddie was
referring was Captain Weaver and that the two votes were Councilmembers Oddie and
Vella.

Against this backdrop, Councilmembers Vella and Oddie scheduled a meeting with Ms.
Keimach for August 16, 2017. The subject of the meeting was not included in Ms.
Keimach’s calendar. Councilmember Vella stated during our investigation that she told
city staff when scheduling the meeting it was concerning the Fire Chief selection process.
Ms. Keimach was not aware of the reason for the meeting but surmised, correctly, that it
was regarding the Fire Chief selection process. Ms. Keimach was aware that the IAFF
had made efforts to garner the support of City Councilmembers including
Councilmembers Vella, Oddie and Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft, and was aware that
Councilmember Ashcraft had declined saying the decision was Ms. Keimach’s. Ms.
Keimach had not yet received Councilmember Oddie’s July 31, 2017 letter strongly
recommending Captain Weaver for Fire Chief.

Ms. Keimach expressed her intention to record the August 16 meeting to City Attorney
Janet Kern. Our investigation obtained conflicting statements from Ms. Kern, Ms.
Keimach and Mr. Cohen in regard to what was said by whom prior to the August 16
meeting. Ms. Keimach said that she expressly sought and received approval to record
from Ms. Kern. Ms. Keimach said this occurred during a conversation in Ms. Kern’s
office where only she and Ms. Kern were present. Ms. Keimach stated that she only
recorded the meeting because she had the approval of the City Attorney. Ms. Keimach
said that after the August 16 meeting, she told Ms. Kern that she had recorded the
meeting. According to Ms. Keimach, at that point Mr. Cohen was brought in, who
confirmed Ms. Keimach was authorized to record under the Penal Code.

Both Mr. Cohen and Ms. Kern deny that Ms. Keimach sought approval beforehand and
deny that Ms. Kern gave approval. Mr. Cohen and Ms. Kern both describe being present
in Ms. Kern’s office when Ms. Keimach stopped by and stated that she was going to
record the meeting with Councilmembers Vella and Oddie. Mr. Cohen described Ms.
Kern saying to Ms. Keimach that it was a bad idea and not to do it. Ms. Kern could not
recall exactly what she said but it was along the lines of it being a bad idea and any
recording would not be admissible anyway. Ms. Kern said she would never have given
such approval since she was not knowledgeable of the applicable law.

What is not disputed is that Ms. Keimach expressed her intention to record the August 16
meeting to at least one member of the City Attorney’s Office prior to the meeting.
Additionally, our investigation confirmed that the City Attorney’s Office did not advise
Councilmember Vella or Oddie of Ms. Keimach’s intention to record their meeting or
make efforts to prevent the meeting.
The August 16 Meeting
The meeting occurred in the library of the City Manager’s office with the sole door to
library closed. No one else was present during the meeting. Ms. Keimach admitted using
the recording feature on her personal cell phone, a Samsung Galaxy, to record the
meeting. Councilmember Vella and Oddie were unaware that they were being recorded
and did not consent to their meeting being recorded.

It is important to note that the content of the August 16 meeting does not establish the
crime of extortion or bribery by either Councilmember Vella or Oddie. However the
meeting did concern the selection of the Fire Chief and during the meeting both
Councilmember Vella and Councilmember Oddie supported and recommended Captain
Weaver as the next Fire Chief. To fall within the exemption of Penal Code section 633.5,
Ms. Keimach must have recorded the meeting to obtain evidence reasonably believed to
relate to bribery or extortion. The statutory exemption is supported here by the fact that
the meeting, which occurred after Councilmember Oddie’s comments were relayed to
Ms. Keimach, was in fact about the selection of the next Fire Chief, that both
Councilmembers recommended a particular candidate, and that the Councilmembers
expressed concern of a breakdown in the relationship between the City Manager’s Office
and the Alameda Fire Department and referenced former City Managers who had toxic
relationships. The entirety of the recorded conversation need not be repeated in this report
because the reasonable belief to record must have been held by Ms. Keimach when she
began recording.

Post-Meeting Circumstances
Several post meeting circumstances support Ms. Keimach’s defense to recording the
August 16 meeting. Ms. Keimach stated that she told several individuals about the
recording prior to disclosing it to Mr. Jenkins. Ms. Keimach stated that she told or
discussed the recording with Janet Kern, Alan Cohen, Chief Rolleri, Liz Warmerdam,
Sarah Henry and Jennifer Williams. Other than the conversations with Ms. Kern and Mr.
Cohen who declined to discuss any post-August 16 conversations with Ms. Keimach, our
investigation confirmed the other conversations took place and that Ms. Keimach
discussed recording the August 16 meeting. Additionally, it was Ms. Keimach who
brought the existence of the recording to light and thereby disclosed the fact that she had
recorded the two Councilmembers during the Jenkins & Hogin investigation. While not
dispositive it does support that Ms. Keimach actually believed she could record the
meeting.

Other Recordings
Allegations were made before and during our investigation that Ms. Keimach had
potentially recorded other conversations. Our investigation found that Ms. Keimach
unintentionally recorded a non-confidential conversation with Alameda City employee
Lois Butler. Our investigation found no additional evidence that Ms. Keimach recorded
anyone else. Ms. Butler informed us that she believed the recording was unintentional as
the conversation occurred by happenstance and was initiated by Ms. Butler. Ms.
Keimach stated that she did not intend to record Ms. Butler and that the recording was an
accidental misuse of the recording app on her Samsung Galaxy phone.

The audio quality of the conversation with Ms. Butler is poor and muffled and several of
Ms. Butler’s statements are unintelligible. The recording also includes audio before the
conversation of a loud gathering where conversation is not intelligible. After the
conversation several minutes of audio is captured with no talking but includes the sound
of walking, then entering a car, and then driving with several minutes of music playing in
a car. Other than the music, the only word captured after the conversation was an
expletive, for which no context is apparent in the recording, uttered by Ms. Keimach
before sounds of entering in a car are heard.

Based on our interviews of Ms. Keimach and Ms. Butler and our review of the recording,
there is insufficient evidence to show either that this recording was made intentionally or
that the communication was confidential. As such, it is not a violation of California
criminal law.
Conclusion

After interviewing fifteen witnesses and examining the Jenkins & Hogin report, emails,
correspondence, calendar entries, City Council agendas, and the recording itself, we
conclude that while Ms. Keimach did record a private conversation there is insufficient
evidence to prove a criminal violation of California state law beyond a reasonable doubt.
We reach this conclusion based on the fact that under California law surreptitious
recording of a confidential communication is permitted for the purpose of obtaining
evidence reasonably believed to relate to the commission of certain criminal conduct by
another party to the communication. The recording at issue here was made against the
backdrop of the recruitment and selection of the City of Alameda’s next Fire Chief,
which Ms. Keimach decided would be an open recruitment process facilitated by an
outside agency. During the process, members of the local IAFF union engaged in a
campaign to have their favored internal candidate, Captain Domenick Weaver, selected as
the next Fire Chief. Ms. Keimach felt pressured by these efforts, which included
soliciting support from members of the City Council. In Alameda, the hiring of the Fire
Chief, and all department heads, is within the sole discretion of the City Manager and the
City Council is expressly prohibited from influencing this decision. Additionally, the
Fire Chief hiring process was proceeding simultaneously to the City Council’s evaluation
of the City Manager, for which the City had also hired an outside consultant to help
facilitate.

Ultimately, Ms. Keimach’s decision to record the meeting was made after she was
informed that Councilmember Oddie had told Police Chief Paul Rolleri that she would be
fired if she did not select Captain Weaver as the Fire Chief. Ms. Keimach believed that
Councilmembers Vella and Oddie would pressure her to select a certain candidate during
the scheduled August 16 meeting, and that such pressure could potentially amount to
bribery or extortion. Our investigation found that although such criminal offenses were
not committed by either Councilmember Vella or Oddie during the August 16 meeting,
Ms. Keimach’s belief that recording the meeting may gather evidence related to such
conduct was not unreasonable considering all of the circumstances. A criminal
prosecution would have to prove the criminal offense but also disprove any defense or
exemptions to criminal liability beyond a reasonable doubt. Our investigation did not
find criminal liability for Ms. Keimach’s conduct.

The District Attorney’s investigation has concluded without criminal charges being
brought. However, should new or additional evidence of allegations of criminal
wrongdoing be brought to our attention, the District Attorney’s Office will investigate.
This report should not be read to condone or condemn the actions of any party and
should be read strictly as to whether the surreptitious recording of this particular meeting
under these particular circumstances constituted a criminal violation of California law.