A new, powerful Citizen Portal experience is ready. Switch now

Selma City Council recesses into closed session to consider liability claims, litigation and labor negotiations

June 17, 2026 | Selma City, Fresno 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 »

Selma City Council recesses into closed session to consider liability claims, litigation and labor negotiations
The Selma City Council convened a special meeting on June 16, 2026, and recessed into closed session to consider three liability claims, pending litigation and labor negotiations, the council announced at the meeting’s opening.

The Clerk called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. in the Selma City Council Chambers and provided teleconference access for remote participants. After reading conduct rules and taking roll, the Clerk stated, "For the record, Mayor, all present," confirming attendance by Councilmember Avalos, Councilmember Osaguera, Councilmember Torihio, Mayor Pro Tem Garra and Mayor Robertson.

The City Attorney outlined the closed-session agenda items the council would consider behind closed doors under provisions of the California Government Code. The items listed for confidential discussion were three liability claims—identified on the public agenda as claims presented June 1, 2026 by Jerome Keen, Lewis Franco and Laura Atkins—pending litigation in Rodriguez A v. City of Selma (FCSC No. FR102297), and a conference with labor negotiators under Government Code Section 54957.6. The agenda named Markie Fowler, Deputy City Manager, as the agency’s designated representative and listed employee organizations including the International Association of Firefighters Local 3716 and Middle Management Employees (as noted on the agenda).

The Clerk opened oral communications and explained the public comment procedures; the Public Information Officer reported there were no hands raised online or by phone at the time public comment was called. The meeting then recessed into closed session; the council did not disclose any votes or formal actions on the public record before the recess.

The meeting agenda cited Government Code Section 54956.9 and Section 54957.6 as the legal authority for the closed-session matters. The council’s public record for this special meeting does not include outcomes of the closed-session discussions; any formal actions, settlements, or directions resulting from the closed session would be reported in subsequent public minutes or as required by law.

Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!

Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.

Get instant access to full meeting videos
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee