Limited Time Offer. Become a Founder Member Now!

Yucaipa council records Miller recusal, selects city manager finalists; motion on check warrants yields ambiguous on-record vote

October 13, 2025 | Yucaipa, San Bernardino County, California


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Yucaipa council records Miller recusal, selects city manager finalists; motion on check warrants yields ambiguous on-record vote
Yucaipa City Council reported on Oct. 13 that it had selected finalists in its city manager recruitment, recorded a recusal by Council Member Miller from a litigation-related closed-session item, and considered a motion to require council approval of all check warrants; the recorded vote on the motion was unclear.

The city attorney told the council after the closed session that on item A the panel reviewed applications for the city manager position and "selected finalists to be interviewed by the city council at a future date," and that there was "no other reportable action out of today's closed session." The attorney provided that report in open session at about 8:44 a.m.

The matter that prompted the recusal was identified before the closed session as item B, described by the mayor as "significant exposure to litigation" and tied to a potential conflict of interest for Council Member Miller. Council Member Miller said he would recuse himself and that he had been notified by the city attorney about six minutes earlier that the recusal was necessary.

Hanson Wong, who identified himself as a city resident during public comment, said he appreciated the council's work but expressed concern about transparency and the early hour for a special meeting, saying some members of the public might prefer sessions during regular hours.

During discussion of committee and commission assignments (item 1), a council member who identified herself as serving on the finance committee moved that "all check warrants be brought to the council for approval." The motion was seconded. The minutes record one speaker answering "Aye" when asked for those in favor, and later someone saying "All abstain" when asked if there were any opposed; the transcript does not clearly record individual yes or abstain votes by name or a definitive outcome on the motion. The council then directed staff to prepare a staff report for a future meeting to discuss whether the finance committee should continue to meet outside the general counsel's purview during open session.

The council convened the special meeting at 7:00 a.m., moved into closed session shortly thereafter, reconvened in open session at about 8:44 a.m., and adjourned at 8:49 a.m.

No ordinances, resolutions, contract awards, or budget actions were reported or adopted in open session during this meeting.

The council's action on the city manager recruitment advances the process by naming finalists for future interviews; the recusal was recorded on the public record before the closed session, and the motion about check warrants will require follow-up because the transcript does not show a clear, attributable final vote.

View full meeting

This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.

View full meeting

Sponsors

Proudly supported by sponsors who keep California articles free in 2025

Scribe from Workplace AI
Scribe from Workplace AI
Family Portal
Family Portal