Williams Council and individual councilmember responses

Response says

Partially disagrees: unions selected a 10% furlough rather than possible layoffs, all employees including the administrator participated, executive pay did not increase during that period, and furloughs ended in January 2026.

Audit analysis

Identifies the accepted furlough and disputed unequal-treatment claim with specific timing. This does not independently establish compensation history across the broader three-year period discussed in the report.

Response says

Partially disagrees: accepts that declining revenues were reported at the May Council meeting, but cites leaving the Public Works director position vacant and obtaining pool-operation donations as spending responses.

Audit analysis

Separates the accepted revenue warning from the disputed failure to adjust. Examples explain the position but do not establish the size or sufficiency of savings.

Response says

Wholly disagrees, explaining the furlough/layoff choice and saying the City did not control how union representatives presented it to members.

Audit analysis

Addresses furlough negotiations but does not discuss the no-confidence vote or complaints against a director. Whole disagreement is explicit, yet reasons for rejecting those material components are missing.

Response says

Wholly disagrees: two employees left in approximately seven months after full pay resumed, compared with three during furloughs; says only employees know their motives.

Audit analysis

Gives turnover counts but does not resolve the denied COLA component or establish why people left. Counts are agency assertions, not independently verified retention evidence.

Response says

Wholly disagrees, stating that the City follows contracting laws and analyzes conflicts when it becomes aware of them.

Audit analysis

General compliance assertion does not explain the particular contract, relationship or disclosure questioned by the jury.

Response says

Partially disagrees: a former administrator memo made him the first contact for staff/Council communications to manage staff time, remain informed, foster transparency and ensure legal compliance.

Audit analysis

Identifies the communication directive and explains its intended purposes, but does not clearly separate acceptance of the directive from rejection of its alleged effect on oversight. Troughton disputes that effect in his separate response and supplies the memo.

Response says

Wholly disagrees: the June 5, 2024 special meeting adopted exception findings for the Morning Star Old Highway 99 project because of imminent road failure and insufficient time for bidding and construction.

Audit analysis

Explains the emergency-bidding rationale and cites a meeting, but does not address the finding’s private-financing component. This is not a legal determination of the exception.

Response says

Wholly disagrees: mere presence together is not a violation, and the report gives no dates or evidence of discussions, deliberations or actions by a Council majority.

Audit analysis

Directly identifies the evidentiary and legal distinction underlying its disagreement. Neither the jury’s concern nor the response establishes whether an unlawful meeting occurred.

Response says

Wholly disagrees, saying Council members prepare in varied ways depending on preference and subject matter.

Audit analysis

Varied preparation methods do not explain the alleged lack of role understanding or identify examples demonstrating preparation.

Response says

Wholly disagrees, stating the City has a hiring policy and follows it for all hiring.

Audit analysis

Does not identify the policy, describe the disputed hire, or explain how prior employment concerns were evaluated.

Response says

Wholly disagrees: Council oversees the City Manager and City Attorney, while management of other staff belongs to the Manager.

Audit analysis

Explains role allocation but does not address whether the Council identified or corrected misconduct and mismanagement by its own executive appointee.

Response says

Declines as unwarranted or unreasonable, saying Council already satisfies state-mandated training.

Audit analysis

States a clear refusal of the annual recommendation. Existing statutory training is not evidence that the jury’s requested annual scope has been completed.

Response says

Claims implemented: policy updated in March 2025, employee training followed, and usage is reviewed by department heads, finance, management and the check-signing Council member.

Audit analysis

Records the City’s implemented claim. The letter does not specify an annual policy-review schedule or attach policy, training or transaction-review records.

Response says

Declines as unwarranted or unreasonable because Council and managers meet state-mandated training requirements.

Audit analysis

Explicit refusal does not demonstrate the expanded annual training recommended by the jury.

Response says

Claims implemented through standard background checks on all new hires.

Audit analysis

Records an existing-practice claim; no hiring records or explanation of how adverse findings are evaluated is supplied.

Response says

Declines as unwarranted or unreasonable, distinguishing Council budget/spending authority from the Manager’s day-to-day employment responsibility.

Audit analysis

Explicit refusal continues onto physical page 5. Delegation explains the position but is not evidence a comprehensive review occurred.

Response says

Declines as unwarranted or unreasonable, saying this letter serves as the Penal Code section 933 response.

Audit analysis

A submitted response is distinct from agendized reports of completion; no such reporting is promised.

Response says

Agrees with mandatory training and reports completing required training with a certificate.

Audit analysis

Individual completion is claimed, but annual training by every Council member is neither demonstrated nor committed. Agreement alone does not establish an implementation disposition.

Response says

Strongly agrees with annual policy/use review and employee training; pages 1–2 describe alleged misuse and support stronger oversight and auditing.

Audit analysis

Supports the recommendation and calls for independent review of alleged misuse, but supplies no adopted implementation plan, responsible implementer or completion date. Allegations remain the respondent’s account, not findings of legal liability.

Response says

Agrees robust ethics/conflict training is needed and says accountability and enforcement must accompany annual training.

Audit analysis

Support for training and stronger enforcement is not an adopted City action or scheduled individual undertaking.

Response says

Agrees with formal comprehensive background investigations; page 3 calls for pre-hire verification of history, qualifications, references and other lawful information.

Audit analysis

States desired standards, not a completed or scheduled reform; anecdotes of previous hiring are attributed to the individual respondent.

Response says

Agrees with a comprehensive review and supports appropriate Council access to operational information; recounts warnings and communication restrictions.

Audit analysis

Expresses support and recounts experience without a specific review plan or timetable. Do not merge this position with the Council’s refusal.

Response says

Says F6 is supported by the administrator’s written directive; describes required routing and quotes municipal code provisions placing the administrator under Council control.

Audit analysis

Expresses agreement in substance and supplies the directive as attachment on physical page 6. Municipal Code sections 2.06.010 and 2.06.040 are cited on page 4. This demonstrates traceable engagement, not an independent legal conclusion that the directive obstructed oversight.