When the Avenal City Council was faced with a deadline to respond to a lawsuit alleging Brown Act violations at its December 11 meeting, and to set a date for a recall election, the council took decisive action – they didn’t show up.
Kings County Supervisor Richard Valle, whose district includes Avenal, attended the meeting and was shocked to see only one city council member at the dais.
Council Member Ricardo Verdugo was the only member to attend the meeting. He is also the only member not subject to the recall.
Regular council meetings are held on the 2nd and 4th Thursday of each month at 5:15pm.
Mayor Alvaro Preciado told FOX26 News that the meeting had been canceled because several members could not attend for personal reasons. Preciado said that the cancellation was posted on the city’s Facebook page an hour before the meeting.
“The Avenal City Council meeting was adjourned due to lack of quorum. The next meeting will be on January 8, 2026 at 5:15 PM,” a post on the City of Avenal’s Facebook page read – on December 11 at 4:59pm, 15 minutes before the meeting started.
“I have never in my 18 years in office seen a city council where 4 out of 5 councilmembers did not attend their publicly noticed council meeting. Even the city manager & city clerk failed to show up. Why wouldn’t the staff show up? Someone has to be there to see that there isn’t a quorum and to therefore adjourn the meeting. How do you adjourn a meeting that has not even been opened up?” Valle asked on his Facebook.
Preciado responded to Valle’s post in the comment section.
“For the record meeting was canceled that day before the meeting….It was announced on CITY’S website and on other social media websites….. Council Member verdugo (sic) knew of meeting being canceled but decided to still show up to instigate confrontation,” he wrote.
Lupe Villa, the Kings County Registrar of Voters, announced on November 21 that the signatures had been validated for the recall and that certificates of sufficiency would be presented at the Avenal City Council meeting on Dec. 11, 2025.
Villa attended the December 11 meeting to give a brief PowerPoint presentation and serve the council with the documents – but the meeting was cancelled.
Kings County District Attorney Sarah Hacker said that the December 11 meeting was also the council’s last opportunity to remedy their Brown Act violations.
“The Brown Act gives us a very short window to file a complaint if the city council does not comply with the law,” said Hacker.
The complaint was filed December 19, 2025.
Villa attended the January 8, 2026 city council meeting and successfully served the city’s governing body recall papers for Mayor Alvaro Preciado and council members Leticia Gamez, Pablo Hernandez, and David Reynosa.
Kings County District Attorney Files Complaint alleging Brown Act Violations
In response to complaints from concerned residents, Kings County District Attorney Sarah Hacker sent a letter to the City of Avenal in the Spring of 2025 outlining the alleged Brown Act violations and asked them to rectify the issue.
The Brown Act is a California law that restricts what can be discussed in closed session to personnel issues, litigation, real estate negotiations, and labor discussions.
She followed up with a cease and desist letter instructing them to stop discussing plans and funding to create a city fire station in closed session.
“The government code does not give an exemption to discuss the formation of a fire department in closed session,” said Hacker. “The city made no good faith effort to discontinue the violations.”
Avenal currently pays the Kings County Fire Department for their services, but the council and city manager have complained about the cost – claiming they were coerced into signing a contract that they did not agree with.
The complaint alleges 10 Brown Act violations:
On April 9, 2025, the City entered into a Consultant Agreement with Hector Marin regarding the establishment of a volunteer organization and/or a municipal fire department, without any notice to the public or opportunity to be heard, violating the Brown Act’s open meeting and agenda requirements.
On May 16, 2025, the City notified the County of Kings of its intent to establish its own Volunteer Fire Department and to transition away from the Kings County Fire Department; the City proposed a month-to-month agreement with the County effective July 1, 2025, aiming to launch a Volunteer Fire Department by August 1, 2025, apparently without prior agenda notice or public hearing.
On May 19, 2025, the City announced via press release and Facebook its plan to launch a Volunteer Fire Department, including hiring an Interim Fire Chief and recruiting and training volunteers, without prior agenda notice or deliberation in open session, again bypassing statutory public process.
On May 22, 2025, the City agendized Resolution 2025-31 to authorize initiation of a City-operated Volunteer Fire Department; the Council tabled the resolution after public comment.
On June 16, 2025, Mayor Preciado stated that no decision had been made and that the City Council was only exploring options, confirming that deliberations regarding fire services were occurring behind closed doors and without proper agenda disclosure or public participation
On June 19, 2025, at a Town Hall meeting, City officials disclosed they had hired a fire consultant, despite the hiring occurring approximately two months earlier via contract with Mr. Marin, reflecting action taken outside open session.
On June 19, 2025, the City received an invoice for fire equipment totaling $442,441.58 for multiple fire apparatus purchases; those public expenditures, supporting a new fire department, were made without prior public notice, evidencing decisions made behind closed doors.
Between June 22 and June 26, 2025, the City twice announced on Facebook that it was no longer pursuing a primarily volunteer-based model, reflecting material policy decisions and reversals made without agenda notice, public deliberation, or vote.
On July 1, 2025, Plaintiff sent correspondence to the City expressing concern that the City appeared to have decided to create a municipal fire department and requested documentation of Brown Act compliance. The District Attorney specifically flagged apparent decisions to create a municipal fire department; the City replied on July 8, 2025, that no decision had been made and any decision would occur at a noticed meeting; yet on July 7 and July 22, 2025, the City advanced a proposed FY 2025–2026 budget listing $1,101,000 for fire contract services and minimal miscellaneous expenses, with professional services marked “-,” obscuring earlier consultant and equipment commitments, which were later ratified on September 11, 2025.
On July 9, 2025, during a Special City Council meeting, the City discussed the potential formation of a municipal fire department as part of budget review and planning.
At the cancelled December 11 meeting, the agenda listed item #10 under New Business states, “Consider Re-Ratification of Prior Actions Related to Establishing the Avenal Municipal Fire Department (Discussion/Action).”
Hacker said that ratifying prior actions and expenditures discussed in closed session would not have remedied prior alleged Brown Act violations.
“The city council never fixed those problems before the expiration date, so the Kings County District Attorney’s office was obligated under California code to file the lawsuit,” she said.
“The Complaint has nothing to do with the proposed fire department. It has to do with transparency,” she added.
Hacker said that even if it were appropriate to discuss a fire department in closed session, the item should be properly agendized – which it was not, she claims.
The council would also be required to report out what happened in closed session and any vote taken – which she says didn’t happen either.
Violations of the Brown Act have happened before, Hacker said, but “most of the time one letter to the governing agency resolves it.”
In an interview with FOX26 News, Mayor Preciado said, “I can say 100% it is not true. We are 100% sure we have not violated any law.”
Preciado told FOX26 News that everything concerning the fire station was approved in open session.
Avenal’s City Manager Anthony Lopez said in a phone interview that during the September 11 city council meeting they ratified a resolution in open session that approved expenditures for purchasing the fire equipment for the fire department.
Lopez said that resolved the alleged Brown Act violations. Hacker disagrees.
“The September 11 resolution did not address the problem of discussing the fire department in closed session,” she said.
In addition, the September resolution was after the alleged dates of violation listed in the complaint, from April 9 to July 9.
This reporter asked Lopez how the city council could vote on ratifying the purchase of fire equipment for a fire department they supposedly had never discussed.
Lopez said the city had three town halls during the summer of 2025 where a fire department was discussed. He said the council also discussed creating a city fire department in open session during the city’s often tense negotiations with Kings County fire services about their contract.
Lopez said that he could not “comment on what was said or not said in closed session” when asked about whether the city council ever discussed a fire department in closed session.
The Brown Act states that city councils cannot discuss issues concerning unless they are properly agendized.
Impromptu items cannot be discussed during open session because concerned citizens would have had no notification to attend the meeting. When issues come up for discussion during a city council meeting that are not on the agenda, the city manager or city attorney usually stops the discussion and advises the council to place it on the next meeting’s agenda so those concerned citizens can be present.
Four of five city council members face recall in spring
Also on the December 11, 2025 agenda was item #6, “Special Presentation by Kings County Election Department, Registrar of Voters: Lupe Villa. (Discussion/Action).”
Villa attended the December 11 meeting to present a PowerPoint and serve the city council the Certificates of Recall Petition Sufficiency for the four council members.
City Manager Lopez said that Villa tried to serve him the certificates but that, according to the election code, the recall documents have to be served to the governing body at a “duly noted meeting.” Because four of the five city council members were not there Villa could not serve the council.
“The papers need to be presented to the governing body,” said Lopez.
Villa was successful at their January 8 meeting. According to election code the city council has 14 days to call the election.
Villa said, “The standard recall election timeline is to hold the election not less than 88 days nor more than 125 days after the date the election is called. If the Council does not call for the election by January 28 the Registrar of Voters will then have 5 days to call the election.”
According to Villa’s power point, 646 signatures were submitted to recall Mayor Preciado. Of those, 526 were valid, 83 disqualified, and 37 were not checked. For Gamez, 642 signatures were submitted, 526 verified, 85 disqualified and 31 were not checked. For Hernandez 649 signatures were submitted, 526 verified, 78 disqualified and 45 not checked. For Reynosa 648 were submitted, 532 verified, 82 disqualified and 34 not checked.
Villa said that once they verify the required number of signatures there is no need to keep verifying.
According to Villa there are about 2200 registered voters in Avenal. To qualify for the recall ballot petitioners had to collect 526 valid signatures for each council member. Voters could sign all four petitions if they so chose. Avenal elects their council members in at-large elections and not by district.
Villa said each signature goes through a rigorous verification process. In order to determine if the signature qualifies, Villa said they check to see if the person is registered, if they have a valid address and if their signature on their registration card matches the petition.
In an interview with Your Central Valley.com Avenal residents Ginger Wallis and Dalila Barajas said they kicked off their recall efforts in June 2025.
Wallis told the news outlet, “It just seems like they’re not listening to what the community has to say. And if we feel that they’re making a mockery of us.”
During the January 8 meeting the city manager and mayor questioned the Villa’s authority to call an election. They also questioned the validity of the signatures saying that some voters were coerced to sign the petition.
Lopez said, “We will be working with our city lawyer to review the validity of the recall.”