Feb 01, 2026
Chula Vista Alert! Councilmember Cesar Fernandez posts about a shocking Minnesota death and federal cover-up on IG. Days later? A special meeting agenda pops up to condemn the same immigration raids. And guess what—another councilmember liked it from a private account. Is this a Brown Act violation? Serial meetings via likes? Transparency at risk! What do you think? #ChulaVista #BrownAct #ImmigrationRaids #CouncilDrama”
The Instagram post in question, sourced from the link
(https://www.instagram.com/p/DT824HJElna

Deputy Mayor Cesar Fernandez on Instagram: "I stand with Minnes…

is from Cesar Fernandez’s account (@chula_vista_district_4), dated around January 25, 2026. It states: “I stand with Minnesota ✊🏼.” This garnered 40 likes and a mix of supportive and critical comments, though specific likers aren’t visible in the public view. Notably, a like reportedly came from Mike Inzunza’s private Instagram account, potentially signaling alignment on the topic.

About a week later, a pertinent agenda item surfaced for a special city council meeting on February 2, 2026. This item proposes adopting a resolution affirming Chula Vista's commitment to individual rights, condemning certain immigration enforcement activities (including references to incidents in Minnesota involving the deaths of American citizens Renee Good and Alex Jeffrey Pretti), and directing the display of flags at half-staff through February 17, 2026.
Source : https://pub-chulavista.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=3aae3fc0-dac5-41e5-ae0c-74c2c1ce2a3e&Agenda=Agenda&lang=English

This timeline raises questions under California’s Brown Act, which bans “serial meetings” where council members indirectly discuss or signal positions on upcoming votes outside public forums. Social media interactions, such as liking posts on related subjects, could be seen as conveying voting intentions or agreements. In a council where three votes constitute a majority, even one more member observing these signals might infer stances on issues not yet addressed publicly, undermining transparency mandates.
Source :https://pub-chulavista.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=58128
from a recent brown act presentation at planning commission

If a council requiring only three votes for a majority, even limited visibility of such signals might allow members to infer positions on matters not yet discussed publicly, potentially circumventing transparency requirements.
WROTE BY ROBERT JOHNSON
AI USED FOR FLOW AND SPELLING.
EMAIL : [email protected]
For ANY Corrections

