SISKIYOU COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY CIVIL TERM: 2026
Dawnmarie Autry and Lorenzo Love were recused from every part of this report.
SUMMARY
The Siskiyou County Civil Grand Jury investigated whether a vacancy occurred when a Councilmember in Question’s absence from all regular Yreka City Council meetings for 62 consecutive days between October 15 and December 3, 2024. The Grand Jury finds that Yreka is a city whose council ordinarily meets twice per month; that the 60-day vacancy threshold of § 36513(a) therefore applies; that the Councilmember in Question was absent without prior permission from all regular council meetings during that 62-day period; and that, by operation of law, his office became vacant.
The Civil Grand Jury also finds that the Council failed to follow a consistent, documented process for granting excused absences, and that the Council’s subsequent April 1, 2025 retroactive excuse of the Councilmember in Question’s October 15, 2024 absence — while legally uncertain — reflects the absence of any written absence policy, creating conditions for recurring governance disputes.
Two members of the Civil Grand Jury were recused in every way from this inquiry, investigation and report writing.
BACKGROUND
The Yreka City Council and Its Regular Meeting Schedule
The City of Yreka is a general law city incorporated under California law. The Yreka City Council is a five-member body that, pursuant to the City’s municipal code and consistent practice, holds regularly scheduled meetings twice per calendar month — typically on the first and third Tuesday of each month. This schedule is reflected on the face of every published Yreka City Council agenda.
California Government Code § 36513
California Government Code § 36513 provides, in relevant part:
“(a) If a city councilmember is absent without permission from all regular city council meetings for 60 days consecutively from the last regular meeting he or she attended, his or her office becomes vacant and shall be filled as any other vacancy.(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), if a city council meets monthly or less frequently than monthly and a city councilmember is absent without permission from all regular city council meetings for 70 days consecutively from the last regular meeting he or she attended, his or her office becomes vacant and shall be filled as any other vacancy.”
The statute is self-executing: upon the occurrence of the qualifying absence period without permission, the office becomes vacant by operation of law without any further council action. The council’s role is to recognize and fill the resulting vacancy pursuant to Government Code § 36512.
Councilmember in Question’s Attendance Record: October–December 2024
The following dates are relevant to this investigation:
● October 1, 2024: Councilmember in Question attended the regular Yreka City Council meeting — the last regular meeting he attended before his absence.
● October 15, 2024: Regular Yreka City Council meeting held. The Councilmember in Question was absent. No prior excused absence was formally granted or entered in the minutes.
● October 23, 2024: A special meeting of the Yreka City Council was held. The Councilmember in Question attended this special meeting. Special meetings are not “regular city council meetings” within the meaning of § 36513.
● November 5, 2024: The scheduled regular Yreka City Council meeting was canceled.
● November 19, 2024: Regular Yreka City Council meeting held. The Councilmember in Question was absent without formal excuse.
● December 3, 2024: Regular Yreka City Council meeting.
The Councilmember in Question attended — ending the consecutive absence period. The interval between October 1, 2024 (last regular meeting attended) and December 3, 2024 (next regular meeting attended) spans 62 consecutive days. During that interval, the Councilmember in Question missed all regular meetings (October 15 and November 19) without having obtained prior, formally recorded permission from the Yreka City Council.
The 60-Day vs. 70-Day Threshold Dispute
Following inquiry by a different Councilmember, the question of whether the seat had become vacant was placed on the March 18, 2025 Yreka City Council agenda as Item 11e, with the recommended action that “the City of Yreka comply with California Government Code § 36513 and that the Seat on the Yreka City Council has been Vacated by Non-Compliance with California Government Code § 36513.”
At that meeting, the different Councilmember argued that Yreka’s twice-monthly meeting schedule triggers the 60-day rule under § 36513(a), making the 62-day absence sufficient to vacate the seat. The Councilmember in Question and City Attorney argued that the cancellation of the November 5 regular meeting transformed the Council into a de facto “monthly” body during the relevant period, thereby invoking the 70-day threshold under § 36513(b). The City Attorney acknowledged that the Council lacked a formal written absence policy and deferred to the Council on the ultimate determination.
No vote on the vacancy question was taken at the March 18 meeting. On a motion by a Councilmember (passed 3-1, with one Councilmember dissenting), the item was continued to the April 1, 2025 regular meeting.
The April 1, 2025 Council Action
At the April 1, 2025 regular meeting, the Council voted 3-1 — to formally and retroactively excuse the Councilmember in Question’s October 15, 2024 absence due to illness. The stated purpose was to bring the unexcused absence within 60 days, thereby avoiding the vacancy trigger under § 36513(a).
A different Councilmember continued to object, calling for an independent legal opinion from an attorney other than the City Attorney, stating: “We need an attorney that’s going to not change their mind, that’s not going to say one thing to one council-member, and another thing to another council-member.” the Mayor remarked: “I hope moving forward we have learned from this.”
Following the April 1 vote, the Council took no further action to declare a vacancy, and the Councilmember in Question has continued to serve.
METHODOLOGY
The Civil Grand Jury reviewed the following materials in the course of this investigation:
● California Government Code §§ 36512, 36513 (current text)
● Yreka City Council regular meeting agendas and published minutes for the period September 2024 through April 2025
● The March 18, 2025 Yreka City Council meeting agenda packet (117 pages, including staff report at page 106)
● The minutes of the March 18, 2025 and April 1, 2025 Yreka City Council meetings
● The League of California Cities publication, “City Council Qualifications, Vacancies, Incompatible Offices and Related Issues”
● The Siskiyou County Civil Grand Jury Procedure Manual
● Published news reporting regarding the Council’s handling of Item 11e
The Civil Grand Jury interviewed several witnesses, including City officials and members of the public. Names and titles of interviewees are not disclosed to protect confidentiality. The Civil Grand Jury did not conduct its own independent investigation of the medical condition or personal circumstances during the relevant absence period of the Councilmember in Question.
DISCUSSION
Issue 1: Which Threshold Applies — 60 or 70 Days?
The plain text of § 36513 controls, and it applies the 60-day rule to Yreka.
Section 36513(b) raises the threshold to 70 days only “if a city council meets monthly or less frequently than monthly.” The relevant question is the nature of the council’s established meeting schedule, not the frequency of meetings actually held during any particular period.
Yreka’s city ordinances establish a twice-monthly regular meeting schedule, and this schedule appears on the face of every City Council agenda. The cancellation of a single regular meeting — the November 5, 2024 meeting — does not alter the council’s established meeting frequency or transform it into a body that “meets monthly.” A canceled meeting is an interruption of the schedule, not a change to it.
This interpretation is consistent with the purpose of § 36513, which creates an accountability mechanism for council attendance. Allowing a single meeting cancellation to raise the vacancy threshold from 60 to 70 days would permit an absence to be regularized by the fortuitous or purposeful cancellation of a meeting — an outcome inconsistent with the statute’s text and purpose.
The Civil Grand Jury concludes that the 60-day threshold of § 36513(a) applies to the Yreka City Council.
Issue 2: Was the Councilman “Absent Without Permission”?
No prior, formal permission was recorded in the minutes for the October 15 or November 19, 2024 meetings.
Section 36513 uses the phrase “absent without permission” but does not define it. The City of Yreka has no written absence policy. At the time of Councilmember’s absences, there was no ordinance, resolution, or established procedure specifying how a councilmember obtains permission, what constitutes acceptable grounds, or when permission must be requested and granted.
The Councilmember in Question has indicated he communicated his situation to fellow councilmembers at the October 23, 2024 special meeting. However, that meeting was a special meeting, not a regular meeting, and no motion, vote, or minute entry excusing his absence from the October 15 or November 19 regular meetings appears in the public record.
The only contemporaneous example of a formally granted excused absence in the record is the permission granted to a different Councilmember in October 2024, which was explicitly voted upon and entered in the minutes. No equivalent action was taken for the Councilmember in Question at the time of his absences.
The Civil Grand Jury concludes that the Councilmember in Question was absent without permission, as that phrase is used in § 36513, from the October 15 and November 19, 2024 regular meetings.
Issue 3: Did a Vacancy Occur by Operation of Law?
Yes. By the plain text of § 36513(a), Davis’s office became vacant on or about December 3, 2024.
When the conditions of § 36513(a) are met — consecutive absence without permission for 60 days from the last regular meeting attended — the office “becomes vacant” by operation of law. The vacancy is self-executing; no council vote is required to create it. The council’s role is to recognize the vacancy and fill it under Government Code § 36512.
The conditions of § 36513(a) were met no later than December 3, 2024, when 62 days had elapsed since the October 1, 2024 regular meeting that Councilmember in Question last attended. At that point, the office became vacant by operation of law.
Issue 4: Effect of the April 1, 2025 Retroactive Excuse
The retroactive excuse is of uncertain legal effect and does not clearly cure a vacancy that had already occurred by operation of law.
On April 1, 2025, the City Council voted to retroactively excuse Councilmember in Question October 15, 2024 absence. The Civil Grand Jury notes the following:
● Government Code § 36513 does not expressly authorize retroactive permission, nor does it prohibit it. No published California appellate decision directly addresses whether a retroactive excused absence can prevent or undo a statutory vacancy.
● The League of California Cities notes that whether retroactive permission is effective depends on local policy and council practice and that § 36513’s “absent without permission” language is undefined.
● The City of Yreka had no written policy governing the timing or form of permission at the time of the relevant absences.
● If a vacancy had already occurred by operation of law before the April 1, 2025 meeting, action taken at that meeting by a body that may have included an ineligible member could itself be subject to legal challenge.
The Civil Grand Jury makes no determination as to the legal validity of the retroactive excuse as a matter of civil law. The Civil Grand Jury does find that the Council’s handling of this matter — improvised, legally uncertain, and contested — reflects a failure of governance that damaged public confidence and the uniform application of state law.
Issue 5: Absence of a Written Absence Policy
The absence of a formal absence policy contributed to this dispute and creates ongoing governance risk.
The City Attorney acknowledged at the March 18, 2025 meeting that Yreka has no written policy governing how council absences are excused. The practical result was that identical conduct — being absent from regular meetings — was handled inconsistently: One Councilmember’s absence in October 2024 was formally excused by vote and minute entry; the other member’s absences were not. This inconsistency is a governance deficiency that a written policy would directly address.
FINDINGS
The Civil Grand Jury finds as follows:
Finding 1: The Yreka City Council is a city body that meets, pursuant to its ordinances and regular practice, twice per month. The 60-day absence threshold of California Government Code § 36513(a) therefore applies. The City of Yreka has no written policy governing the granting of excused absences. This absence of policy contributed materially to the dispute over the status of the Councilmember and to inconsistent treatment of councilmember absences.
Finding 2: The Councilmember in Question last attended a regular City Council meeting on October 1, 2024. He was absent without prior formal permission recorded in the minutes, from the October 15, 2024 and November 19, 2024 regular meetings. He returned to a regular meeting on December 3, 2024 — a span of 62 consecutive days. At no time before or during the relevant absence period did the City Council vote to or record in the minutes any grant of an excused absence for the Councilmember in Question from the October 15, 2024 or the November 19, 2024 regular meetings.
Finding 3: The conditions of California Government Code § 36513(a) having been met, the seat on the Yreka City Council became vacant by operation of law no later than December 3, 2024. The cancellation of the November 5, 2024 regular meeting does not alter Yreka’s established twice-monthly meeting frequency for purposes of code 36513 and does not trigger the 70-day threshold of code 36153(b). The April 1, 2025 Council vote to retroactively excuse the October 15, 2024 absence was of uncertain legal effect and does not clearly cure a vacancy that had already occurred by operation of law.
Recommendations
Recommendation 1 (to the Yreka City Council): The City Council should formally declare that a vacancy occurred in the council seat held by the Councilmember pursuant to California Government Code § 36513(a), effective no later than December 3, 2024, and should fill that vacancy in accordance with Government Code § 36512.
Recommendation 2 (to the Yreka City Council): The City Council should adopt a written absence policy — by ordinance, resolution, or formal rules of procedure — that defines: (a) the procedure by which a councilmember may request an excused absence; (b) the grounds upon which such a request may be granted; (c) the timing requirement (specifically, whether requests may only be made prospectively); and (d) the requirement that any grant of permission be recorded in the official minutes.
Recommendation 3 (to the Yreka City Council and City Manager): If the Council declines to declare the vacancy, the Council should retain independent outside counsel — not currently employed by the City — to opine on (a) whether a vacancy occurred under § 36513(a), and (b) the validity of retroactive excused absences under California law, and should make that opinion publicly available.
Required Responses
Pursuant to California Penal Code §§ 933 and 933.05, the following agencies are required to respond to the findings and recommendations in this report within the time periods specified below. Each response shall indicate whether the agency agrees or disagrees with each finding and whether each recommendation will be implemented, partially implemented, will not be implemented (with explanation), has already been implemented, or requires further study.
| Responding Agency | Findings Addressed | Response Due |
|---|---|---|
| Yreka City Council | Findings 1–3; Recommendations 1–3 | 90 days from date of report |
| Yreka City Manager | Finding 1; Recommendation 2 | 60 days from date of report |
Appendix A — California Government Code § 36513
(a) If a city councilmember is absent without permission from all regular city council meetings for 60 days consecutively from the last regular meeting he or she attended, his or her office becomes vacant and shall be filled as any other vacancy.
(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), if a city council meets monthly or less frequently than monthly and a city councilmember is absent without permission from all regular city council meetings for 70 days consecutively from the last regular meeting he or she attended, his or her office becomes vacant and shall be filled as any other vacancy.
(Amended by Stats. 1990, Ch. 1558, Sec. 2.)
Source: Justia Law — California Government Code § 36513
Appendix B — Timeline of Relevant Events
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| October 1, 2024 | Councilmember in Question attends regular meeting — last attendance before absence period |
| October 15, 2024 | Regular meeting held; Councilmember in Question absent without formal excuse (Day 1 of absence period) |
| October 23, 2024 | Special meeting held; Councilmember attends (not a “regular meeting” under § 36513) |
| November 5, 2024 | Scheduled regular meeting canceled |
| November 19, 2024 | Regular meeting held; Councilmember in Question absent without formal excuse |
| ~December 2, 2024 | Day 60 from October 1 — 60-day threshold reached under § 36513(a) |
| December 3, 2024 | Regular meeting; Councilmember in Question attends — 62 days elapsed since last regular attendance |
| March 18, 2025 | City Council agendizes Item 11e; debate held; item continued 3-1 to April 1 |
| April 1, 2025 | Council votes 3-1 to retroactively excuse Councilmember in Question’s October 15 absence |
Appendix C — Sources
- California Government Code § 36513 (Justia Law)
- Yreka City Council Meeting Minutes, March 18, 2025
- Siskiyou News — “What’s Going On with the Yreka City Council?” (March 20, 2025)
- Skip Descant — “Councilmember in Question Remains on Yreka City Council” (April 4, 2025)
- League of California Cities — “City Council Qualifications, Vacancies, Incompatible Offices and Related Issues”
- Siskiyou County Civil Grand Jury Procedure Manual (on file with the Court)
