Karen Fitch’s Aug. 22 letter, “Mayor aims to silence councilmember,” presents a passionate defense of Councilmember Yvonne Martínez Beltrán. However, it is essential to clarify the facts and challenge the narrative that Beltrán is merely “daring to speak up” against power.
The truth is more complex and deserves thoughtful examination.
An independent investigation concluded that Mayor Mark Turner did not push, yell at or behave aggressively toward Councilmember Martínez Beltrán during their Feb. 7 interaction. The report found that Turner “lifted his right arm slightly” and “appeared to touch” Beltrán’s forearm—an act that investigators described as casual and non-aggressive.
Yet Martínez Beltrán filed a police report alleging that Turner pushed her in the stomach, causing pain and yelled at her. These claims were not substantiated by video evidence or witness testimony.
This raises a troubling question: why do Martínez Beltrán’s supporters continue to ignore the findings of the investigation and instead perpetuate a narrative of victimhood? Why is casual contact—common in everyday conversation—being distorted into something vicious or demeaning?
Moreover, Martínez Beltrán’s pattern of behavior toward colleagues and community members has included documented instances of bullying, intimidation and discriminatory remarks. These actions have sown division and disrupted the collaborative spirit that Morgan Hill’s leadership strives to uphold. Yet her supporters remain silent on these issues. Why is that?
Even more concerning is Martínez Beltrán’s recent alignment with Sean Allen, President of the Silicon Valley NAACP. According to a public document from the Santa Clara County Personnel Board, Allen was terminated from the Sheriff’s Office for sustained sexual harassment over a two-year period. This association raises serious questions about judgment and accountability.
Why does this not seem to trouble those who claim to champion justice and integrity?
Karen Fitch also suggests that Mayor Turner is retaliating against Martínez Beltrán. But the only consistent reference to retaliation appears to come from Martínez Beltrán herself, who frequently cites her 42% vote share in the last mayoral election.
While it’s natural to be proud of electoral support, the repeated invocation of this statistic—especially after losing in every precinct—suggests unresolved resentment. Is this frustration fueling the ongoing hostility toward Mayor Turner?
Fitch’s assertion that women who speak out against powerful men are dragged through the mud deserves scrutiny. Certainly, women must be empowered to raise concerns. But we must also ask: What happens when those concerns are fabricated or exaggerated? When a woman disrupts proceedings, acts unprofessionally, and then resorts to claims of assault without evidence, it undermines the credibility of genuine victims.
Martínez Beltrán did not claim she was touched on the arm—she claimed she was pushed in the stomach. That distinction matters.
Women, especially Hispanic women who have fought hard for representation and respect, should be outraged that such tactics are being used to manipulate public perception. Martínez Beltrán’s actions risk setting back the progress of the very movements she claims to support. Accountability is not betrayal—it is a necessary step toward integrity.
Those closest to Martínez Beltrán, who know the truth, must find the courage to speak honestly. If they continue to enable her behavior out of loyalty or political convenience, they contribute to the erosion of trust in our local government. Morgan Hill deserves leaders who unite, not divide; who tell the truth, not twist it; and who serve with humility, not hostility.
Let us move forward with clarity, compassion, and a commitment to facts—not fiction.
Kathy Sullivan
Morgan Hill
<
Because we have eyes and brains, and there is an unaltered version of the video the City was forced to eventually release that shows what 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐝. And, we don’t have a petty, vindicative, years-long grievance against a council member like you and your husband do.
Most Morgan Hill residents don’t expect our local government to give us absurd amounts of money for our pet projects. We don’t think we’re entitled to taxpayer dollars for our personal interests. I’ve lived here for 26 years and I’ve never been to ‘Villa Mira Monte’ or any historical society function and I don’t know a single person that has. So our feelings aren’t hurt, and we don’t hold a hateful grudge that Yvonne has looked out for the Public Interest and rejected your repeated asks for hundreds of thousands of dollars the City doesn’t have. With a more than $4,000,000 PER YEAR deficit despite Police, Fire & EMS services that are nowhere near generally accepted standards, Yvonne has been 100% right to deny giving you what you think the ‘Mira Monte’ deserves.
<
Because like Yvonne, we don’t care that Mark Turner thinks protocol in decision-making means “you just have to listen to what I’m saying” as he told Yvonne on Feb 7th when he was having a fit that she was trying to request the council consider an emergency meeting – as is the right of any council member to do.
What were the ‘findings’ of the investigation Kathy? Have you even watched the video? Did you even read the report?
I bet the answer is no, because if you had, you would realize the 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝘁𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 question is this: Why do City Manager Christina Turner, City Attorney Don Larkin, and council members Marilyn Liebers, Soraida Iwanaga, and Miriam Vega just make up outrageous stores about what they saw which the video unambiguously shows are 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐡𝐲, 𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐟𝐚𝐥𝐬𝐞, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐛𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐛𝐢𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐨𝐛𝐯𝐢𝐨𝐮𝐬 𝐠𝐨𝐚𝐥 – 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐌𝐚𝐫𝐤 𝐓𝐮𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐫 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐭 𝐘𝐯𝐨𝐧𝐧𝐞 𝐌𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐳 𝐁𝐞𝐥𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧?
Ms. Turner is staring directly at YMB from the second she rises from her seat, tracks her movement and is staring directly at Turner and YMB when Turner initiates contact, yet says she saw no physical contact. Until she sees the video.
Ms. Liebers is fixated on her cell phone, her head literally not moving whatsoever but claimed she was standing and able to see that Turner “lightly brushed her hand” but “denied seeing Turner touch Martínez Beltrán’s arm. She lied.
Ms. Vega “maintained that Turner barely tapped Martínez Beltrán to get her attention”. To get her attention! Vega “noted that she was standing with her back to the audience, facing the wall, and that C. Turner was standing nearby to the left of her. According to Vega, Iwanaga and Librers were also standing near them. There is almost NOTHING even remotely accurate about this statement.
Ms. Iwanaga can’t believe how arrogant Yvonne was to dare walk by Turner but Just Made Up what she saw. Iwanaga “opined that Martínez Beltrán should have gone around the other side of the tables to the food table because there was more room to walk” and “advised that if Turner touched Martínez Beltrán, it would have been for a millisecond because she saw Martínez Beltrán walk towards him. She stated that she did not see exactly where Turner’s hands were in relation to Martínez Beltrán and did not see any physical contact between them. “
City Attorney Don Larkin “explained that he observed Turner extend his arm and hand as if he were going to tap Martínez Beltrán on the shoulder, but Larkin did not see Turner actually touch Martínez Beltrán.” But upon further thought, oh yeah wait a second. “Turner has tapped him on the shoulder before, in a reassuring manner” and so it “did not surprise him to see Turner do it to Martínez Beltrán.” So, Larkin didn’t see any ‘touch’, but he saw a ‘reassuring tap’ on the shoulder – which somehow does not show up on the video
If you read the report you will discover that even the lawyer hired by Don Larkin and Christina Turner came to the inescapable conclusion that none of these witnesses could be used to corroborate anything what 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐝 during the break.
But there is a video and video doesn’t lie.
A MHPD officer reviewed the video, offered specific things he thought he saw and concluded there wasn’t any 𝒐𝒃𝒗𝒊𝒐𝒖𝒔 signs of a push. That’s a careful and correct choice of words. There isn’t any obvious sign that Turner lost control and pushed a female colleague.
But the video does show Turner raising his right hand making contact with Yvonne Martinez-Beltran (YMB) on her left forearm slightly below the elbow even though she has raised both hands. The officer was wrong when he said Turner made contact at her wrist. When contact is first made, she is almost completely orthogonal to Turner who had changed his path to head directly for YMB.
YMB is able to momentarily continue her normal stride, taking about a half-step with her left leg anchored on the ground and her right leg moving forward with her right foot off the ground in a normal walking gait. Turner first leans his body weight to the left ‘following’ YMB’s path.
Before YMB’s right foot hits the ground, her torso is twisted (her left shoulder rotates toward the camera) so that the front of her torso is almost facing directly toward Turner instead of being orthogonal to him.
To maintain contact as YMB proceeds from right to left across the camera image, Turner rotates his right foot and slightly twists his entire body. While his right elbow does not extend with obvious force as if he was trying to push a 200-pound man to the ground, neither his right elbow nor his upper torso remains stationary.
When someone is walking with a normal gait, and force is applied from a mostly orthogonal position, especially when one of their feet is not grounded, it does NOT take much force to constitute a push, enough to cause the orientation of the person’s torso to change and with near certainty causing a sense of imbalance and a step out of place. That is what the video shows. A push.
During the break, he lost control, confronted and pushed Yvonne Martinez-Beltran as she tried to walk by to get a refreshment. His behavior is inappropriate and unacceptable and he should resign.
Instead , he launched a retaliatory attack based on claims made by people who embarrassed and TOTALLY discredited themselves by lying about what they saw when they didn’t know a video had captured the incident and shows what actually happened.
Even though the report claimed to rely primarily on the video to make ‘factual conclusions’ about what occurred during the break period, many other conclusions and ‘findings’ that had nothing whatsoever to do with the incident were made using statements from these same witnesses who showed themselves to be willing to say anything to protect Mark Turner. Some people with a petty grudge against a twice-elected councilwoman are all to happy to use a shoddy report that offfers NO explantion whatsoever as to how it arrived at its conclusion of what actually happened to join Mark Turners vindicative attack.
Wow Joe, you sure get worked up don’t you?
Let’s see, from my perspective there are four parties in action, maybe five. I’ll expand here…
We have council member Yvonne Martinez-Beltran (YMB), mayor Mark Turner (Turner), the Morgan Hill Police Department (MHPD), and Independent Investigator Kramer Workplace Investigations (Kramer). You can consider the City of Morgan Hill a possible fifth party but they hired an outside attorney to stay neutral but boy did the outside attorney’s summary make YMB look bad… call it four or five parties, doesn’t matter in my comments.
First, I know Kathy Sullivan has read the independent report which included the MHPD report (you get a two for one there, right… 😉). I have read it multiple times myself, and seen the videos multiple times.
Now the question Mr Baronowski is have you?
The Kramer report, the MHPD investigation (and lack of interest by the DA), the statements by Turner all refute the claims by YMB which includes her own damming escalation of assault and injury claims. That’s three to one and if you add in the DA that’s four to one – do those numbers sound familiar…?
I’m reasonably sure that some of those parties know how aggressively any sense of improprieties would be expanded upon loudly by her small band of vocal supporters so fully believe they were careful and did their jobs correctly (I asked nicely and they said yes).
So if anyone can point out where the improprieties are please point them out so they can be rationally and civilly discussed, you know, in a way where we’re not attacking each other… 🤷🏼
Thank you for your civility in advance.