After secret investigation, Oakley cuts off councilman’s City Hall access

OAKLEY — An elected city councilman here has been effectively cut off from City Hall — barred from contacting the city manager or staff, stripped of access to his government email and routed through the city attorney for nearly all official business — following an investigation whose most critical findings the city has not made public.

The extraordinary restrictions on Councilman George Fuller, which carry no expiration date and could last until his term ends in 2028, have alarmed civil liberties advocates and raised sharp questions about how far a government can go to discipline an elected official — and how much transparency the public is owed when it does.

City officials say the measures were necessary to protect employees after an investigation found Fuller treated City Manager Joshua McMurray in a manner that was “disrespectful, offensive, or undermining,” and accused the councilman of making false and potentially defamatory statements in McMurray’s performance review.

But while the city has released more than 100 pages of records defending its actions, it has withheld the underlying investigative report and redacted the statements it deemed defamatory — leaving the public unable to see the conduct that triggered penalties one free-speech expert described as “grossly disproportional.”

“It’s basically telling (Fuller) he can’t do his job or is significantly limiting him doing his job,” said David Loy, legal director of the First Amendment Coalition. “Now, I’m not saying his conduct was appropriate and polite … but I do think what’s going on here raises very significant First Amendment questions.”

The records, released to the Bay Area News Group in response to a California Public Records Act request, provide the first detailed explanation for why the Oakley City Council censured Fuller and called for his resignation last October — but stop short of disclosing what he actually said.

According to those records, the dispute grew out of a breakdown in the relationship between Fuller and McMurray, which investigators said was fueled by Fuller’s belief that the city manager worked against him during the council’s annual mayor and vice mayor selection process.

Investigators concluded Fuller retaliated by issuing unusually low performance scores and writing inaccurately critical statements about McMurray, creating what they described as a “negative work environment,” according to a summary memo.

Based on those findings, City Attorney Derek Cole imposed sweeping communication restrictions, ordering that Fuller have no contact with McMurray or city staff outside of public meetings, disabling his access to internal email systems, and directing employees not to provide him even routine materials such as council agendas.

Cole said the city had a duty to protect employees from retaliation and maintained that the restrictions preserve Fuller’s ability to perform his official duties while respecting his constitutional rights — a claim critics dispute.

City cites criticism it says went too far — but withholds specifics

City records show Cole acknowledged Fuller’s right to criticize city leadership — even sharply — before objecting to specific claims he said were false and potentially defamatory.

One email from Cole to Fuller references Fuller’s critiques of McMurray’s participation in a local Rotary Club, but large portions of the message are redacted, obscuring the statements Cole said crossed that threshold.

“In short, you are alleging Josh (redacted). Are you serious?!?!” Cole wrote. He later added: “You are saying Josh (redacted). Come on. That’s absolutely preposterous. And to compound the offense, you go on to suggest (redacted).”

Cole concluded: “I can’t believe I even have to write this email.”

Fuller said the restrictions that followed have effectively handcuffed him from doing his job.

The city’s directive states that Fuller “may have no contact” with McMurray or other city employees and instructs staff not to speak with Fuller outside of a convened meeting — whether in person, by phone, or via text or email.

It also bars staff from sending Fuller the City Council agenda — a public document — and orders that his email access to the city manager and administrative staff “shall be disabled.”

The directive is separate from the City Council’s October censure vote and does not include an end date, meaning the restrictions could remain in effect until Fuller’s term expires in November 2028.

On Friday, Cole said he believes Fuller’s statements met the legal threshold for defamation, even for a public official.

“Oakley has a duty to provide a workplace free from retaliation,” Cole told this news organization. “The limitations placed on Fuller’s interactions with the city manager and staff allow him to continue performing official duties and respect his First Amendment rights.”

Loy disagreed, calling the constitutional implications “significant.”

“There is case law stating it can violate the First Amendment to prevent council members from communicating with staff to advocate their constituents’ positions,” he said.

Fuller pushes back

Fuller, who in 2024 won a second term representing District 5, which covers south Oakley, including neighborhoods along Sellers Avenue and Delta Road, said the restrictions have prevented him from effectively serving his constituents.

During a 90-minute interview Friday, Fuller described himself as an iconoclast councilmember who challenged what he characterized as a complacent political culture, accusing city officials of wasting public funds and padding each other’s pockets.

He also alleged — without providing evidence — that city officials interfered with his emails, claimed his evaluation of McMurray was “doctored” to question his sanity and suggested that when text messages disappeared from his phone, “I assume (McMurray) took them off.”

Fuller said the real trouble began when he gave McMurray a “less than outstanding” performance review, which he said focused on McMurray’s use of technology and hiring decisions — criticism he described as routine in city governance.

In Fuller’s view, his reelection unnerved city leadership.

The reaction was, “‘What are we going to do now? We don’t want him knowing anything we’re doing, we want to hide everything,'” Fuller said.

“So, all of a sudden, the city manager says, ‘Oh, I made a complaint,'” Fuller said. He has since retained an attorney who is pressing the city to release the full investigative report.

Fuller entered politics after a 44-year career in public service, split between the Los Angeles Police Department and teaching students with special needs. He previously served on a school board in Southern California.

When he sought elected office in the Bay Area, he said a well-wisher gave him a heads up: “I was warned, ‘Watch out for Oakley.'”

Investigation findings and broader consequences

Records show the city hired an outside firm to investigate McMurray’s claims that Fuller bullied and intimidated him and city staff, and retaliated by issuing low performance scores in 2024 and 2025.

Investigators concluded Fuller’s conduct toward McMurray was motivated by his belief that McMurray aligned himself with councilmembers who voted to bypass Fuller for mayor and vice mayor rotations, according to a memo summarizing the probe.

The investigation found Fuller gave McMurray low scores and wrote inaccurately critical statements in his 2024 performance review, creating a “negative work environment,” and repeated similar conduct in 2025.

Investigators also cited Fuller’s insistence that his interactions with McMurray and city staff be recorded. Fuller was cleared of other allegations, including claims that he stared at McMurray in an intimidating manner during meetings or implied McMurray would be forced to resign after Fuller’s election.

The investigation’s conclusions extended beyond City Hall.

Police Chief Paul Beard instructed officers to document all interactions with Fuller and route non-emergency requests through command staff, according to internal emails reviewed by this news organization.

The messages — marked do “not share, forward or otherwise disseminate” — state that emergency calls from Fuller should be handled the same as any other resident’s.

McMurray rejects allegations, defends record

Cole, the city attorney, released the records Tuesday but withheld the full investigative report, citing attorney-client privilege — a decision he said was made with the City Council’s agreement not to waive that protection.

McMurray said he maintains a strong professional relationship with other councilmembers, staff and residents, describing the situation with Fuller as “frustrating and unfortunate.”

“We collaborate effectively, and that has not changed,” McMurray said, adding that he remains focused on serving Oakley residents and businesses.

While declining to discuss most allegations, McMurray addressed one accusation Fuller raised during an October 2025 council meeting, when the censure and calls for the councilmember’s resignation were approved.

Fuller claimed that during a meeting in McMurray’s office, he bent down to tie his shoe and heard two loud “clunks,” prompting him to look over the desk.

He alleged he saw McMurray holding a “brown wooden object,” which he concluded was a gun positioned between his legs “at the low ready.”

McMurray rejected the claim.

“The allegation that I committed a crime, specifically that I pointed a gun at councilmember Fuller, is patently false,” McMurray said. “The claim is absurd, defamatory and entirely without merit.”

McMurray said Fuller weaponized the performance review process and that the accusations have affected his ability to manage the city.

Council says actions were about conduct, not speech

Councilmember Shannon Shaw, who brought the 2025 motion to censure Fuller and call for his resignation, said the action was not about a personal dispute.

“The council has a responsibility to address behavior that affects the functioning of our city, and that is what we did,” Shaw said in a statement.

She said the directives were administrative and intended to protect employees.

“It was not about limiting speech,” Shaw said. “It was about managing conduct and maintaining appropriate boundaries.”

Shaw said the council acted on Cole’s advice throughout the process.

“Nothing we did restricted any councilmember’s ability to speak, debate, make motions or vote,” she said. “First Amendment rights were fully preserved.”