No one else was in the room where it happened
The room where it happened
The room where it happened
No one else was in the room where it happened
The room where it happened
The room where it happened

My God, In God We Trust
But we never really know what got discussed
Click boom! Then it happened
But no one else was in the room where it happened…

Lin-Manuel Miranda, “The Room Where It Happens,” Hamilton, 2015

The risk with posting breaking news is that you never know when the news is fully broke. Shortly after I hit go on the post highlighting that former city manager Lori Ann Farrell Harrison was named as the plaintiff in a lawsuit against the city, Costa Mesa First publicly revealed the complaint itself.

It’s a doozy. You can read it yourself here, in fully unredacted form.

The CliffsNotes of Ms. Farrell Harrison’s allegations:

• In the months before her firing, Farrell Harrison had raised concerns with at least certain council members that Mayor John Stephens had engaged in numerous unethical and potentially illegal acts, including (but not limited to!) potential conflicts of interest, quid pro quo activities, violations of state, local and federal laws and regulations, and gender and racial discrimination towards City employees.
• Although — and I’m reading between the lines here — Farrell Harrison tried to work through Council Member Loren Gameros to address these activities with Stephens, Gameros eventually rebuffed this approach — going so far as to suggest that Farrell Harrison consider an early retirement instead.
• Council Member Andrea Marr then requested a closed session item at the April 15, 2025 meeting titled “potential litigation” to permit the City Council to discuss the allegations against Stephens.
• The next day, the inquiry into Stephens progressed to an internal investigation. At some point — either before or after the April 15th meeting, the petition isn’t clear — a 14-page memo was produced by Farrell Harrison outlining her allegations. It was circulated to the other six members of the City Council on April 29.
• In the midst of this, a performance review of Farrell Harrison was scheduled for the closed session on May 6, 2025. The same day the City Council was to review, also in closed session, “potential litigation” which referred to the allegations against Stephens. However, the only action reported out was the decision to terminate Ms. Farrell Harrison.
• Prior to the beginning of the May 6 meeting, Gameros allegedly told a president of a local union, “You watch, we’re going to switch this whole thing around — instead of this being about the Mayor, we are going to make it about Lori Ann [Farrell Harrison].” This president then almost immediately turned around and told Farrell Harrison about the conversation and her likely imminent firing.
• At the May 6 meeting, the City Council then voted 4-2-1 in closed session, with Stephens abstaining and Marr and Council Member Arlis Reynolds voting no, to terminate Farrell Harrison.

All of this leads up to Farrell Harrison claiming that this chain of events violated the California Ralph M. Brown Act and that, therefore, she was wrongfully terminated. This, she claims, entitles her to her job back and her attorneys’ fees for bringing the suit — though I would suspect that she would settle for a healthy severance payment.

Since then, none of the members of the city council have discussed the reason for Farrell Harrison’s termination publicly.

At least, that is, until the study session item this past week regarding the potential adoption of a code of ethics. Honestly on my first pass I found this discussion to be a real snoozer. But with the additional context of the Farrell Harrison petition, it reads now as the first (coded) public discussion of what has been happening behind the scenes. So I’d read Farrell Harrison’s complaint, review the video of the code of ethics discussion, and then read on.

Decoding the code of ethics discussion

For the “too long, didn’t watch” set, here’s a quick rundown of the relevant highlights:

• Council Member Marr made the request to agendize the code of ethics item and provided staff with the example codes of ethics from other cities that she had in mind.
• Staff produced a fairly middle-of-the-road code of ethics for Council review.
• Council Member Marr made three comments on the staff’s draft:
  • She wanted there to be more language addressing “incompatible employment.” The Daily Pilot printed the relevant quote: ““Essentially, [the language should address] that we not use the fact that we’re elected to benefit ourselves financially by hawking our services or wares in other cities as an expert in municipal matters… I’d like to extend that to the county of Los Angeles, such that we’re not using our positional authority, as it were, on the council to financially benefit ourselves.”
  • She asked that the incompatible employment prohibition cover employment in both Orange and Los Angeles counties and that it extend to one year after a council member leaves office.
  • She wanted more protections for city staff from retaliation from council members.
• Council Member Buley made the following observations:
  • He questioned whether the city needed a code of ethics at all, given that many of the prohibitions were duplicative of existing state law regarding council and staff conduct.
  • He wanted the code of ethics to apply to staff members as well as to elected and appointed officials.
  • He questioned the wording of proposed paragraph 14, “Policy Role of Members”, and wondered if the wording was too limiting of city council’s ability to question staff actions and investigate city policy.
  • The language in proposed paragraph 16, “Positive Work Place Environment”, strayed a bit close for his liking to violating the council’s First Amendment rights to critique city policy.
• Council Member Reynolds repeatedly emphasized the educational benefits of adopting a code of ethics, particularly the elements that reaffirmed the limitations on the Council’s role in implementing policy and carrying out day-to-day city operations.
• Mayor Pro Tem Manuel Chavez, who said he was there “mostly to listen”, said that the most important aspects of the policy to him were the conflict of interest provisions, the prohibitions on gifts and favors, and the protection of confidential information. He also affirmed Buley’s request that the code of ethics apply to senior city staff.
• Neither Council Member Gameros nor Council Member Pettis asked any questions or made any comments.
• Mayor Stephens seemed eager to wrap the discussion up and adjourn the meeting. He also didn’t provide any comments himself.

What can we glean from all of this? Here a few of my speculations based on this discussion, read through the lens of the Farrell Harrison complaint. Please note my heavy emphasis on “speculation” here: as the quote from Hamilton above indicates, we never really know if we weren’t in the room where it happened. And I certainly was not.

First, Farrell Harrison’s petition makes it seem like Marr was an active participant in the investigation of Stephens — and may still be, given her code of ethics comments. Based on those comments, I think we can infer that her concerns centered on incompatible employment (of Stephens? Of someone close to him? Of someone else?) and on him meddling with Farrell Harrison’s administration of the city. Whether these concerns originated with her or with Farrell Harrison isn’t clear.

[Sidebar: I hesitate to suggest this, but what the hell. Could Marr’s interest in “incompatible employment” be related to cannabis in some way? There is no doubt that Stephens has been the cannabis industry’s most vocal supporter, and Marr one of its fiercest critics. There is also at least one former city official that I’m aware of that pivoted from city service to cannabis consulting. Could that be what this is about?]

Reynolds, who has been Marr’s ally through this saga, seemed to me to imply through her comments that she suspects Farrell Harrison’s firing may have come about, at least in part, because the four acting council members didn’t understand their proper roles. She repeatedly emphasized that a code of ethics could educate and remind council members of their limited powers. Why make those comments if she didn’t think such reminders were needed? It also makes me think that the clash regarding the council’s role in policymaking I speculated about at the time of Farrell Harrison’s termination really might have been at play here.

Buley’s questioning of the need of a code of ethics, as well as his comment that, if one were adopted, it ought to apply to city staff as well, indicates to me that he’s more concerned about the council’s ability to police city staff than the other way around. Buley was one of the four council members who voted to terminate Farrell Harrison. If he believed the allegations against Stephens had merit, this would be an odd line of commentary. But if he thought the allegations were essentially a byproduct of a power struggle between the city manager and the mayor — one where he may have been more sympathetic to the mayor’s position — it makes a lot more sense.

Chavez’s comments are interesting because it now looks like an attempt to split the baby between the Marr/Reynolds faction and the other council members. On the one hand, he appeared supportive of adopting a code of ethics as Marr and Reynolds clearly want, but on the other hand he wanted the code limited to uncontroversial matters such as conflict of interest, gifts, and confidentiality. Given that he, too, voted to terminate the city manager and also wanted any code of conduct to apply to city staff as well as to elected officials, I wonder if this is a signal that he also isn’t all that interested in the allegations against Stephens.

Stephens eagerness to end the conversation and adjourn the meeting, as well as his conspicuous disinterest (he’s usually loquacious it comes to legal, technical matters like these), suggested he found the item unnecessary at best. Which, again, would make sense if it were a continuation of the behind-the-scenes battle between himself and Farrell Harrison.

Finally, the silence from Pettis and especially Gameros speaks volumes. These two formed the balance of the coalition against Farrell Harrison. Furthermore, Gameros now appears to be even more involved in the termination saga than Marr: not only did he allegedly work with Farrell Harrison to diffuse the situation with Stephens, he also allegedly counseled her to take an early retirement when he was not longer “interested” in that role. He was also the one that allegedly let slip his plans to terminate Farrell Harrison to an unidentified labor union president.

So, in sum: the code of ethics discussion suggested, to me at least, that a tit-for-tat power struggle between Stephens and Farrell Harrison has been going on for some time. My guess is that it goes back at least to the very awkward discussion between the two back in March 2024, where Stephens requested information about certain city staff’s qualifications. Whether Farrell Harrison was in fact fired due to retaliation by Stephens and his council allies, or whether Farrell Harrison’s internal allegations were themselves made in retaliation against Stephens’ perceived overreach into her administrative affairs, is unknown.

Either is possible. But in any event, I am now more convinced than ever that this rivalry was at the heart of Farrell Harrison’s termination.

Final questions, at least for now

Like many of the city’s ongoing problems, this one is far from over. We are just at the beginning of where Farrell Harrison’s allegations will go. So, naturally, I have a lot of questions. Most of these will probably never be answered. But I think they’re worth speaking into the void anyway:

• Who hired the investigator into Stephens (and who is the investigator)? The petition glaringly engages passive voice to state that such investigator, who is unnamed in the petition, “was hired”. By whom? The City Council? That would have required a vote, and I don’t see a meeting on the calendar that would have fit the bill given the timing. An individual council member? Farrell Harrison? In any event, such a hiring feels outside the normal budget process, and I wonder why that might have been.
• What were the specific allegations against Stephens made by Farrell Harrison? Will Farrell Harrison’s 14-page memo be made public? If her allegations are true, then it would seem releasing such information would be in the public interest: Stephens still holds his seat and is still acting on city decisions. If he shouldn’t be there, every decision is at risk of being tainted going forward.
• Speaking of that memo, Farrell Harrison alleges that it was developed by her and “other members of the Executive Team based on the their interactions with the Mayor and his requests for inappropriate or unlawful activities.” Who were these “other members of the Executive Team”? And does that mean that there will be significant impairment of these “other members” ability to interact with the City Council going forward?
• Gameros emerges as a key player in Farrell Harrison’s petition. Did Gameros have a specific grievance against Farrell Harrison that extended beyond the present controversy with Stephens?
• Why was a “president of a local labor union” freely wandering about City Hall, speaking both to Gameros and to Farrell Harrison prior to a closed session of the city council? Why did this president tip Farrell Harrison off? It seems concerning that these casual conversations are happening in the midst of significant labor negotiations. It seems even more concerning given that a labor union president is tipping off the city manager who is also the city’s principal labor negotiator. Did this president hope to gain something by being helpful to Farrell Harrison?
• What was the role of the City Attorney in this tale? Interestingly, it was City Attorney Kimberly Barlow that told Farrell Harrison that her presence wasn’t necessary for the discussion of alleged Stephens’s misconduct on May 6, a discussion that Farrell Harrison claims then inappropriately turned into a vote to fire her. Farrell Harrison goes on to say that Barlow was “visibly distraught” as she broke the news to Farrell Harrison about her termination. Why did Barlow say that Farrell Harrison’s participation wasn’t necessary when the item purportedly was agendized to discuss her allegations against Stephens? I would think she would have been the critical witness in such a conversation. Furthermore, Barlow is usually quick — sometimes, in my view, too quick — to bring up potential Brown Act violations. That she would allow a discussion about potential litigation involving Stephens devolve into a motion to fire Farrell Harrison without comment seems extremely unlikely to me. Did the City Council press on over Barlow’s objections?
• … or was Barlow even there? There is a scant reference in the Farrell Harrison petition to an outside attorney being engaged “to attend and advise at the May 6, 2025 meeting pertaining to Ms. Farrell Harrison.” Farrell Harrison’s petition alleges that this counsel was directed to be engaged by… Council Member Buley. IF that’s true, that raises even more questions. Who is the attorney? And what is a single council member doing engaging outside counsel on behalf of the entire City Council? Similar to the mystery investigator, this mystery counsel seems to be off-the-books in terms of public disclosure. And why would Buley have engaged such counsel in advance of the May 6 meeting? What is Buley’s role in all of this, then? He’s been flying a bit under the radar as a new council member. But, if this allegation is true — and it may not be! — then perhaps he’s been far more active behind the scenes than we’ve been led to believe.
• And finally: now what? If the council-manager power balance was the precipitating event, has anything about that balance been resolved? Staff seem to be giving the city’s commissions and committees a bit more free rein since Farrell Harrison’s firing. Does that signal that Interim City Manager Cecilia Gallardo Daly is attempting to negotiate a detente with the Council majority on this issue? And how would Marr and Reynolds feel about that?

I’m sure some, maybe even all, of my speculations and questions look a bit silly to those who really were “in the room where it happened.” But I hope they will forgive me. The rest of us are stuck a bit like Aaron Burr, on the outside looking in.

And from what we can see, it’s a mess.

Maybe, as Marr quipped after Farrell Harrison’s termination, we are going to spend the next 18 months mired in self-imposed chaos. I hope not. But as much as I want there to be a quick and tidy resolution to all of this, I don’t think that’s on offer. When things get this tangled, usually the only way out is through.