San Luis Obispo Mayor Erica Stewart avoided an official slap on the wrist as the SLO Personnel Board rejected City Councilmember Jan Marx’s censure complaint against her for sharing a confidential SLO County grand jury report with Cal Poly.
The verdict? Even though the mayor improperly shared confidential materials,city policy states that censuring doesn’t apply to an occasional error in judgement.
The Personnel Board voted 2-1 on July 27, with board member Patricia Ponce dissenting. Board members Sharon Seitz and Chintan Desai were absent.
“I will say the whole narrative reads to me like every good intent was made in order to try to get an accurate report together,” board member Calvin Stevens said. “I don’t know what’s being covered up other than it was wrong because [the report was shared] 10 days early.”
The Personnel Board gathered after Marx announced during the July 21 City Council meeting that she filed the censure request and complaint.
“The issue of the grand jury’s confidential draft report ‘Round & Round with Town and Gown’ being leaked prematurely to Cal Poly has been widely discussed in the community, the press, the radio, television, letters to the editor, and social media,” Marx told New Times. “The only group that has kept silent about this troubling issue is the San Luis Obispo City Council. Keeping confidentiality and not breaching it is the high ethical and legal duty of all members of the San Luis Obispo City Council. So, why hasn’t council discussed this issue?”
Public records obtained by SLO resident Kathie Walker in June revealed that Stewart had disclosed an unofficial copy of the grand jury’s 2025 report, about the city’s alleged mismanagement of fraternity parties, with Cal Poly Senior Director of Economic Development Courtney Kienow. The city subsequently denied all the grand jury’s findings.
Text messages between Stewart and Kienow showed that the mayor sent Kienow the report the same day she received an advance copy from the grand jury, which was accompanied by specific instruction that the draft shouldn’t be shared with anyone before the public release of the final report.
The revelation sparked outrage among many SLO residents—with some stressing her allegiance is with Cal Poly and not the city and others claiming they wouldn’t vote for her again.
Stewart apologized at the most recent City Council meeting.
“I’m sorry that I did that, and I take full responsibility for my actions,” she said at the meeting. “I sincerely apologize to the members of the grand jury who worked on this report. I sincerely apologize to my city colleagues for the discomfort that this has caused, and I apologize to the San Luis Obispo greater community.”
Marx declared her censure request filing after Stewart’s apology. The mayor told New Times that Marx told her about it prior to the announcement.
“She’s doing what she feels is her due diligence, and I don’t have a feeling about the due diligence aspect of it,” Stewart said. “I mean, I feel terrible that I made a mistake. … I just wish I had done it differently.”
The Ralph M. Brown Act guarantees the public’s right to attend and participate in local legislative body meetings and prevents the City Council from discussing the mayor’s conduct except in an agendized open hearing.
Marx saidshe submitted the censure request to facilitate that discussion.
‘[A censure] can lead to a resolution of disapproval and permanent historical record, and then damage to one’s reputation. It can lead to, according to my understanding, should council decide upon that, loss of privileges such as committee memberships.’
—Christine Mulholland, former SLO City Council member
Censuring the mayor or a City Council member is a lengthy process in SLO.
Once a council member files the censure request, the Personnel Board—an appointed five-person body made up of residents and registered voters—must meet within 72 hours.
Within 30 days, the board must either issue an advisory opinion or investigate further via an ad hoc committee. Based on those findings, the board reports to the City Council the specific law or policy that was allegedly violated and whether a censure hearing is warranted.
If warranted, the council would take up the issue within two weeks to a month of receiving the board’s recommendation, and the accused would have an opportunity to defend themselves. An official censure needs to be approved by at least three council members.
In Stewart’s case, the board recommended against censure, so city staff will present a draft advisory opinion to the Personnel Board at its next meeting on Aug. 14.
In 2014, the SLO City Council criticized former Councilmember John Ashbaugh for an outburst that revealed closed session proceedings—allegedly violating the Brown Act—but ultimately chose not to censure him.
According to former SLO City Councilmember Christine Mulholland, a censure has little legal impact.
“It’s a harsh criticism,” she said. “It can lead to a resolution of disapproval and permanent historical record, and then damage to one’s reputation. It can lead to, according to my understanding, should council decide upon that, loss of privileges such as committee memberships.”
Mulholland, who served as a City Council member from 2000 to 2008, suggested in a letter to New Times that Stewart should be held accountable through a censure. She clarified that her sentiment isn’t personal.
“I have talked to a lot of people, and there’s no one I have spoken with in town who is not upset and concerned about this,” she said. “I think, at the very least, council should be talking about this. … I’m grateful to Jan that she’s keeping this in the public eye, at least for a little longer, that this isn’t just swept under the rug.”
Stewart apologized in a July 22 letter to the Personnel Board. She wrote that her “good-faith understanding” was that she could share the report with Cal Poly because the university, like herself, was entitled to confirm if the grand jury’s findings were accurate.
“The letter did not identify who else was receiving the report; it named its recipients only by those general terms and, unlike many transmittals, listed no copied parties,” Stewart wrote. “Cal Poly is a central subject of this report; its own pages record the grand jury’s appreciation for Cal Poly’s cooperation, and I understood Cal Poly to fall within that class.”
The pushback has made her reevaluate how she’d ask questions in the future, possibly even updating council procedures with more clarity regarding grand jury issues.
“I’ve … had a lot of conversations with people, and with the intent of rebuilding trust again with people,” she told New Times. “Some are willing to rebuild trust, and some are not.”
SLO voters will pick their next mayor in November, and Stewart is working on her reelection campaign. So far, her only challenger is perennial mayoral candidate and artisan welder Donald Hedrick.
Marx didn’t respond when New Times asked whether she plans to run for mayor again. The candidate filing deadline is Aug. 7.
“From what I’m hearing, the public has lost their support for Erica. But if nobody else runs, then what?” Mulholland said. “Don always runs, he ran for council back when I was running for council.” ∆
Reach Staff Writer Bulbul Rajagopal at brajagopal@newtimesslo.com.
This article appears in July 30- August 6, 2026.
