In today's newscast, ethical and legal ambiguity surrounding a recent Salinas City Council meeting.
Next November, Salinas voters will determine the fate of four rent stabilization and tenant protection laws. The City Council made that decision in a Sep. 23 meeting, after a signature-gathering campaign forced council members to reconsider a decision to repeal the four laws.
The outcome of the vote—to put the ordinances on the November 2026 ballot—was welcomed by many renters and property owners alike.
But, in the moments leading up to the Sep. 23 vote, something happened that may have violated the intent of the Brown Act, California’s open meetings law.
After Council member Andrew Sandoval made a motion to put the ordinances on next year’s ballot, there was no immediate second—a necessary step before taking a vote.
The conversation continued, and about 10 minutes later, local realtor Jeff Davi—who was sitting in the front row—texted Council member Aurelio Salazar.
Sandoval said he saw the interaction from the dais.
"I saw Jeff Davi—what appeared to be—signaling Salazar and then Salazar looking at his phone," Sandoval said.
Through a public records request, KAZU obtained a screenshot showing that Davi texted Salazar the following: “Doesn’t the attorney (everyone) need to know that you second the substitute motion?”
Soon after, Salazar brought attention back to the motion by asking the attorney for clarification. Then, he seconded it. It passed in a 5-2 vote.
Last year, Davi’s property management company, A.G. Davi, contributed to the campaigns of four council members, including Salazar.
KAZU tried several times to reach Salazar and Davi to ask about the text interaction. Neither responded.
University of the Pacific law professor Mary-Beth Moylan says the Brown Act is meant to ensure transparent local meetings.
"By text messaging someone in a meeting, that is contrary to the intent of the Brown Act," she said. However, she said that doesn't necessarily mean it's a violation of the law.
