Why the removal of Planning Commissioner Denise Lite sets a dangerous precedent for Santa Clarita:
Three Santa Clarita City Council members — Mayor Bill Miranda, Mayor Pro Tem Laurene Weste, and Councilwoman Patsy Ayala — recently voted to remove Denise Lite from her position as planning commissioner. They relied on the letter of the law, specifically Santa Clarita Municipal Code Section 2.06.010, rather than considering the spirit and purpose behind it. In doing so, they revived a rarely used precedent and sent a troubling message to future appointees.
What does the law actually say? SCMC §2.06.010(A) states: “Any member of a board or commission of this city may be removed from office at any time, with or without cause, by a majority vote of the City Council …”
There’s no ambiguity: City Council members may remove appointees at will. However, just because something can be done doesn’t mean it should be. The law’s clear language must be weighed against its underlying intent.
As a litigation paralegal with over 30 years of experience, I believe the intent of §2.06.010 is straightforward: to provide a mechanism for the council to act swiftly when an appointee is unfit, negligent, or acts contrary to the city’s best interests. It is not a tool for political retaliation, personal conflicts, or differences in communication style.
Let’s be clear: No council member accused Lite of incompetence or misconduct. On the contrary, when she was appointed unanimously on Sept. 24, 2024, Weste called her a “highly qualified attorney” and a “respected community advocate,” and Mayor Miranda described her as an “exceptional selection.” So what changed?
The real reason for the vote: Mayor Pro Tem Weste claimed she could no longer work with Lite due to a lack of communication. Yet, she offered no evidence — no missed emails, unanswered calls, or texts.
Just her word. If Lite was truly unresponsive, Weste could have easily documented her efforts. The absence of proof suggests something else was at play.
Before casting her vote, Councilwoman Ayala asked two questions that appeared innocuous but served a calculated purpose:
1. Is it legal for council members to negotiate deals prior to a vote? This helped deflect scrutiny from Weste’s $750,000 negotiation with developer Jason Tolleson of Serrano Development, in which funds were initially (intended) to benefit the Santa Clarita Valley Historical Society — a nonprofit where Weste serves as a board member and owns nearby property. While not illegal, The Signal rightly noted a “moral conflict of interest.”
2. Was there precedent for removing a planning commissioner without cause? This question helped Ayala shift responsibility by implying she wasn’t setting a new standard. But precedent alone doesn’t make a decision wise or ethical.
This wasn’t just a personnel decision — it was a political maneuver with long-term consequences. The council has now reset a precedent where an appointee can be dismissed for vague or subjective reasons, with no misconduct alleged. That’s a slippery slope.
Who would willingly serve in a city role knowing they can be removed at any moment — not for failing in their duties, but for falling out of favor? This chilling effect could deter the very type of competent, civic-minded individuals the city needs.
The decision to remove Denise Lite might have complied with the letter of the law, but it ignored its spirit. The result? Political instability, diminished public trust, and a weakened pipeline of qualified appointees. Santa Clarita deserves better. Our laws must be applied with wisdom — not just power.
Paul Martinez
Canyon Country
