The California Fair Political Practices Commission has opened an investigation into allegations involving Cloverdale City Council candidate Steve Kawa, adding a new layer of scrutiny to a candidate who has positioned himself in one of the city’s most consequential development debates.

In a September 3, 2026 letter, the FPPC’s Enforcement Division informed complainant Adina Flores that it “will investigate” allegations contained in a sworn complaint concerning Kawa.

The matter has been assigned FPPC No. 2026-00790.

The agency emphasized that opening an investigation does not mean it has substantiated the allegations or determined Kawa violated California law.

The investigation nevertheless raises questions about Kawa’s financial disclosures as he seeks a seat on the Cloverdale City Council.

Kawa Is Running for Cloverdale City Council

Cloverdale’s official candidate records identify Steve Kawa, Small Business Owner, as a qualified candidate for one of three City Council seats in the 2026 election.

Notably, the City’s candidate page currently identifies Kawa’s Statement of Economic Interests as an “Amended” FPPC Form 700.

The Form 700 is intended to disclose financial interests that could potentially intersect with an official’s governmental decisions. The FPPC investigation now places increased attention on exactly what Kawa initially disclosed, what he subsequently amended, and why.

Complaint Raises Questions About Cruz Strategies

At the center of the complaint are allegations concerning Cruz Strategies and Kawa’s consulting relationships.

The complaint alleges that Kawa failed to properly identify Cruz Strategies and/or report relevant clients as sources of income on his Statement of Economic Interests.

Those remain allegations. The FPPC has not determined that Kawa was legally required to disclose any particular client or that his filings violated the Political Reform Act.

But the issue deserves a definitive answer.

If Kawa received reportable income through a consulting business, what interests were required to be disclosed?

Which clients, if any, constituted reportable sources of income under California’s disclosure rules?

What changed between Kawa’s original Form 700 and the amended filing now identified by the City?

And did any of those financial relationships intersect with matters that could come before him if elected to the Cloverdale City Council?

Those are questions that should be answered by the filings themselves and, ultimately, by the FPPC investigation—not by speculation.

A Former Top Newsom Adviser Seeking Local Office

Kawa isn’t entering Cloverdale politics without significant political experience.

He previously served as a longtime senior adviser and chief of staff to Gavin Newsom during Newsom’s tenure as mayor of San Francisco.

That background makes the transparency questions surrounding his financial disclosures particularly significant. Kawa is not a political newcomer unfamiliar with California government or its ethics infrastructure.

He has spent years operating in high-level California political circles.

Kawa Chairs the California State Protocol Foundation

Kawa also holds a prominent position with the California State Protocol Foundation, a Sacramento-based 501(c)(3).

Public IRS data compiled by ProPublica identifies Kawa as the organization’s Chair and Director for the 2024 fiscal year. The foundation reported approximately $1.27 million in revenue and $1.37 million in expenses that year. The filing reports $0 in compensation to Kawa for his position with the organization.

Kawa has had a leadership role with the organization for years, including previously serving as its secretary and director.

The foundation’s financial history is substantial. Its IRS filings show approximately $1.35 million in revenue for 2023 and $2.46 million in 2020.

None of this establishes wrongdoing. It does, however, illustrate that Kawa’s professional and political network extends considerably beyond Cloverdale.

The Esmeralda Question

Kawa’s candidacy also comes as Cloverdale wrestles with the controversial Esmeralda project.

The development has generated extensive community attention and opposition, with residents raising concerns about the project’s potential effects on Cloverdale.

The City itself has devoted substantial resources to the proposal. Its Esmeralda information portal contains materials from a November 2025 joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting, a December 2025 Council meeting, a February 2026 town hall and an April 2026 Council meeting.

Kawa has publicly emerged as a supporter of the project.

That makes transparency concerning his economic interests especially important.

A City Council member could eventually confront decisions involving development, land use, infrastructure, agreements, environmental review and other matters carrying significant financial consequences.

There is presently no evidence cited here establishing that Cruz Strategies, any alleged consulting client, or the California State Protocol Foundation has a financial interest in Esmeralda. Those connections should not be asserted without evidence.

But voters are entitled to know who financially supports the people asking to exercise governmental power on their behalf.

FPPC: No Finding of Wrongdoing Has Been Made

The distinction between an investigation and a finding is critical.

The FPPC’s September 3 letter states that its Enforcement Division will investigate allegations falling within the Commission’s jurisdiction. But the agency explicitly cautioned that it had “not made any determination about the validity” of the allegations or Kawa’s culpability.

The FPPC said the complainant will receive another notification when the case reaches its final disposition.

Kawa therefore should not be described as having violated the Political Reform Act unless and until evidence or an FPPC determination establishes that.

Cloverdale Voters Deserve the Complete Financial Picture

The controversy ultimately extends beyond whether a box was checked correctly on a government form.

Kawa is asking Cloverdale residents to entrust him with a City Council seat at a time when the community is confronting a development proposal capable of shaping the city’s future.

His political résumé reaches into the highest levels of California politics. His professional activities include consulting, according to the allegations now before the FPPC, and he chairs a nonprofit that has handled millions of dollars in contributions over recent years.

Those facts make complete financial transparency more—not less—important.

The FPPC investigation may ultimately determine that Kawa’s disclosures complied with the law, that amendments adequately corrected any issues, or that violations occurred. That determination remains to be made.

Until then, the most important documents may be sitting in plain sight: Kawa’s original and amended Form 700s.

Comparing those documents—and identifying precisely what changed—could answer the question Cloverdale voters deserve to have resolved before Election Day:

What financial interests does Steve Kawa have, and were all of the interests California law requires disclosed to the public?

“The integrity of the upright guides them, but the unfaithful are destroyed by their duplicity.” — Proverbs 11:3 (NIV)

While chairing a commission that helps shape Vista’s development decisions and operating her own ADU business, Lisa De Jesus entered a romantic and professional relationship with Damian Vincent Busby — a man with a lengthy incarceration history, a 2018 arrest involving assault, threats and child-endangerment allegations, a prior DV-prevention proceeding, and ties to a development company later named alongside him in a fraud lawsuit.

A Troubling Connection at the Center of Vista’s Development World

Lisa De Jesus is not simply a private business owner choosing whom to date.

She has occupied a position of public trust as chair of the City of Vista Planning Commission, while simultaneously operating ADU Gurus LLC, a private business focused on accessory dwelling units, real estate and land-use matters. Material reviewed for this investigation identifies De Jesus as president and owner of ADU Gurus, a California real-estate broker and land-use specialist, and states that she has chaired Vista’s Planning Commission since March 2023. She has also served on the Vista Chamber of Commerce Government Affairs Committee.

Against that backdrop, De Jesus’s close personal and professional connection to Damian Vincent Busby deserves scrutiny.

Busby has a lengthy incarceration history. Records supplied for this investigation also document a 2018 arrest involving allegations of assault, child endangerment and criminal threats; a DV-prevention court proceeding filed against him days later; his involvement with a development corporation called Maven Habitat Systems Inc.; and a subsequent civil fraud lawsuit in which both Busby and Maven were named as defendants.

Busby has since become professionally associated with De Jesus’s own ADU business. Material reviewed for this article identifies him as a project manager for ADU Gurus beginning in September 2025.

None of those facts establishes misconduct by De Jesus. Nor does a person’s past incarceration prevent legitimate employment after release. But for a public planning official whose private business operates in the development industry, the convergence of these relationships raises legitimate questions about disclosure, conflicts, judgment and — particularly given one of Busby’s prior arrest charges — safeguarding around children.

De Jesus Publicly Celebrated Her Relationship With Busby

De Jesus has made the romantic relationship public herself.

On December 22, 2025, she posted photographs with Busby and wrote:

“Happy 1st Anniversary, Damian. What a year of getting to know your giant heart.”

She added that she loved how Busby loved her and “our families.” The Facebook material identifies “Lisa De Jesus is with Damian Busby.”

Calling it their first anniversary indicates that the relationship dated to approximately December 2024.

But another public record raises an unresolved question: Was Busby’s prior marriage legally over by then?

Damian Busby’s Wife Had Filed for Divorce

San Diego Superior Court records establish that Amanda Marie Busby filed a dissolution proceeding against Damian Vincent Busby on August 16, 2023.

The case, Busby, Amanda Marie v. Busby, Damian Vincent, No. 23FL009280N, identifies Amanda as petitioner and Damian as respondent and categorizes the matter as a dissolution.

The court index proves the divorce proceeding was filed. It does not show from the material presently available when a judgment terminating the marriage was entered.

It therefore cannot yet be stated as fact that De Jesus began dating a legally married man. The accurate question is whether the Busbys’ dissolution had become final before De Jesus and Busby began their relationship around December 2024.

The underlying family-court docket and judgment would resolve that question.

Busby Had Spent Years Incarcerated

Busby’s history stretches much further back.

Material assembled for this investigation states that Busby spent roughly two decades incarcerated. While at the California Rehabilitation Center in Norco, he participated in prison higher-education programs, earned six associate degrees and pursued a bachelor’s degree through Pitzer College.

His educational work continued beyond being a student. The material identifies him with a 2023 presentation concerning teaching in prison and credits him as an editor of the California Rehabilitation Center Writing Center Handbook.

After his release, Busby said in December 2023 that he was living in San Diego and had become involved with Dancing Through Prison Walls after first participating in one of its classes while incarcerated.

Rehabilitation and reentry deserve to be recognized. But Busby’s later criminal record also includes a 2018 incident involving serious allegations.

2018 Arrest Included Assault, Child Endangerment and Threat Allegations

An arrest-record reports that Busby was arrested in San Diego County on April 30, 2018.

The image lists four offenses under “Arrested For”:

• Penal Code §245(a)(1) — assault with a deadly weapon or assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury;

• §273a(a) — child endangerment;

• §422 — threats of violence; and

• §667.5(a) — described in the displayed record as a prior prison term for a violent felony.

Additional material identifies criminal case SCN386014, an April 30, 2018 arrest and a May 3, 2018 charges-filed date. It characterizes the §422 allegation as a felony “threat crime cause death/gbi.”

Another entry describes §667.5(a) as “violent fel: prior con/prison” and lists the same April 30 arrest date.

These are serious records, but their limitations are equally important: an arrest is not a conviction. The evidence currently available does not establish that Busby was convicted of each of the offenses appearing on the arrest record.

The official judgment in SCN386014 is needed before making that assertion.

A DV-Prevention Case Was Filed Against Busby Days Later

Another court proceeding followed almost immediately.

On May 7, 2018, Jennifer Barnett initiated Barnett, Jennifer v. Busby, Damian Vincent, case No. 18FDV01927N.

San Diego Superior Court categorizes the proceeding as “DV Prevention.” Barnett is identified as petitioner and Damian Vincent Busby as respondent.

The index proves that the proceeding existed. It does not disclose the underlying allegations, whether the court found those allegations true, or whether a permanent restraining order was ultimately issued.

Maven Habitat Systems: A Development Company Connecting Damian and Amanda Busby

Busby’s history later intersected directly with the development industry.

A California Secretary of State Statement of Information filed on September 17, 2021 identifies Maven Habitat Systems Inc., whose stated type of business was “Developer.”

The corporate filing identifies Damian Busby in its officer information.

It also identifies Amanda Busby as a director. Damian Busby appears at the same San Diego address, is separately identified in the filing, and electronically signed the Statement of Information.

That filing establishes a documented corporate relationship among Damian, Amanda and Maven years before the couple’s divorce proceedings.

Amanda Busby Then Reported a Company Dispute to Police

The relationship had deteriorated substantially by 2023.

Amanda filed for dissolution on August 16, 2023.

Approximately five weeks later, on September 22, 2023, Amanda went to the Escondido Police Department.

According to the citizen-assist report provided for this investigation, Amanda told the responding officer that her husband had created a company. She claimed that she was legally a part owner because she possessed power of attorney.

Amanda then alleged that people were attempting to “force her out of the company” that she believed she had a legal right to be part of.

The report also records that Amanda was filing for divorce.

The company’s identity and several individuals’ names are blacked out. Consequently, the police report does not prove that Maven Habitat Systems was the company Amanda was discussing.

The connection is nonetheless noteworthy because the California Secretary of State record independently establishes that Amanda had previously been formally listed as a Maven director.

Amanda Alleged a “Violent History” and Vague Threats

The police report contains another striking allegation.

Amanda told the officer that a redacted individual “has a violent history.”

The report also states that vague threats had allegedly been made by a redacted person. The officer concluded that the information presented was insufficient to meet all the elements of Penal Code §422, California’s criminal-threat statute.

Police advised Amanda about obtaining a temporary restraining order and instructed her to contact law enforcement if any criminal incidents occurred. The event was then closed as an advisory/citizen-assist matter.

It would be improper to identify Damian as the person accused in that passage. The person’s name is redacted. Busby’s known history cannot be used to guess what lies underneath a police redaction.

The report therefore proves only what Amanda reported to police — not that her allegations were true or whom the redacted accusation concerned.

A Year Later, Amanda Filed a Fraud Lawsuit

The dispute subsequently reached civil court.

On August 22, 2024, Amanda Marie Busby filed Busby v. Alfonso, case No. 24CU007298N, in San Diego Superior Court.

The court categorizes the case as an unlimited civil fraud action.

Among its defendants are Damian Busby and Maven Habitat Systems Inc.

The court index also identifies Carlyn Alfonso, Rodolfo F. Alfonso, Anti Recidivism Coalition, Nigel Boyle, Bryan A. Bradley, Scott Budnick, Freddy Cisneros, Homeless Lives Matter, Pitzer College, Power House of Hope Ministries and Tiny Home & Transition Construction LLC as defendants.

The sequence is significant: Amanda was formally listed as a Maven director in 2021; filed for divorce from Damian in 2023; reported a dispute concerning an unidentified company to police weeks later; and in 2024 filed a fraud lawsuit naming both Damian and Maven.

But the lawsuit remains an allegation unless and until the claims are proven. The court index does not establish that Busby, Maven or any other defendant actually committed fraud.

From Maven Habitat Systems to the Planning Commission Chair’s ADU Business

Busby’s subsequent professional trajectory brings the story directly back to De Jesus.

Material supplied for this investigation identifies Busby as Project Manager for ADU Gurus LLC beginning in September 2025.

That creates a notable transition: a man previously associated with a development corporation that became a defendant alongside him in a fraud case subsequently became associated with the private ADU business operated by the chair of Vista’s Planning Commission.

That does not establish that De Jesus participated in the alleged Maven conduct or had any connection whatsoever to Maven.

There is no evidence presently reviewed showing that she did.

But her dual position as a private land-use professional and public planning official means her business relationships deserve the same transparency expected whenever private development interests overlap with governmental land-use authority.

Where Are the Taxpayer Dollars?

One allegation should not yet be made as fact: that De Jesus and Busby are using taxpayer money for ADU projects.

The evidence supplied so far does not establish a specific City of Vista payment, grant, contract or other taxpayer-funded award to ADU Gurus or Busby.

That issue requires a separate examination of Vista vendor payments, contracts, CDBG and HOME expenditures, housing grants, ADU incentives, fee waivers and other public programs.

Until such records establish a financial transaction, the appropriate question is whether their projects have benefited from public funding — not an assertion that they have.

The Most Concerning Unanswered Questions Involve Children

One part of De Jesus and Busby’s relationship warrants especially careful scrutiny because it moves beyond development and into child safeguarding.

De Jesus’s supplied professional history states that she served on the Board of Directors of the Boys & Girls Club of Vista from April 2025 through May 2026.

During that same general period, she was publicly in a romantic relationship with Busby. Her December 2025 anniversary post spoke specifically about how Busby loved “our families.”

And the 2018 arrest record reviewed for this investigation expressly lists Penal Code §273a(a), child endangerment, among the offenses for which Busby was arrested.

That does not prove Busby was convicted of child endangerment. It does not establish that he currently presents a danger to children. And nothing presently reviewed establishes that Busby harmed or endangered a child while associated with De Jesus.

But the combination creates questions that should be answered rather than sensationalized.

If Busby was brought into settings involving children while De Jesus held a leadership position with a youth-serving organization, was the organization aware of his history? Was Busby ever a volunteer, contractor, guest or participant in activities involving children? Was any background screening required or conducted? Did De Jesus know about the 2018 child-endangerment arrest charge? And, most importantly, what was the final disposition of that charge?

Those answers matter.

A past criminal record does not automatically define someone’s present character, and people who have served their sentences are entitled to reintegrate into society. But organizations entrusted with children also have an independent responsibility to assess risk using verified information.

The strongest concern raised by these records is therefore not simply that Vista’s Planning Commission chair is dating Damian Busby. It is the convergence of public authority, private development business, a romantic and professional partnership, unresolved litigation and a documented arrest history that included a child-endangerment allegation — while De Jesus herself occupied a leadership role connected to children.

Before drawing conclusions about danger, the public deserves the missing fact that can answer the most serious question: what actually happened to the 2018 child-endangerment charge?

“For nothing is secret that will not be revealed, nor anything hidden that will not be known and come to light.” — Luke 8:17

Temecula City Mayor Pro Tem Matthew Rahn’s final Statement of Economic Interests covering his 2022 term disclosed several outside business interests and employment positions. But one company does not appear anywhere on the filing: Friendly Earth Cremations, Inc.

That omission is notable because a California Secretary of State filing dated June 29, 2022 identified Rahn as both Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Friendly Earth Cremations, while Rahn was still serving on the Temecula City Council.

The Secretary of State record lists Friendly Earth Cremations, Inc. as a Delaware corporation with its principal, mailing and California office at 32787 Cleveland Street in Temecula. It identifies Matthew E. Rahn at that same address as the corporation’s CEO and CFO, identifies Kelcey Ann Stricker as secretary, and names Rahn as the corporation’s agent for service of process. The filing describes the company’s business as “Consulting and Energy Services.”

Rahn personally electronically signed that corporate filing on June 29, 2022, affirming that its information was true and correct.

Rahn Was Still a Councilmember When the Corporate Filing Was Made

Rahn’s leaving-office Form 700 states that he remained a Temecula City Council member until December 13, 2022 and that the disclosure covered the period beginning January 1, 2022 through the date he left office. Rahn did not file the statement until March 6, 2023.

That means Friendly Earth’s June 29, 2022 Secretary of State filing falls squarely inside the reporting period covered by Rahn’s leaving-office disclosure.

Yet a review of the Form 700 shows Rahn reporting other business and employment interests while Friendly Earth Cremations is not identified.

On Schedule A-2, Rahn disclosed Rahn Conservation Consulting, describing himself as a partner in the consulting business.

On Schedule C, he separately disclosed The Wildfire Conservancy, identifying his position as Research Director, and California State University San Marcos, where he identified himself as an instructor.

The same filing later identifies Rahn as Executive Director of the Wildfire Conservancy.

But searches of Rahn’s entire 2022 leaving-office Form 700 produce no reference to “Friendly Earth” or “Cremations.”

The Question Is Not Necessarily Whether Friendly Earth Paid Rahn

The distinction matters because Form 700 disclosure requirements do not concern only salary.

Schedule C is expressly titled “Income, Loans, & Business Positions.” Rahn’s own filing demonstrates the distinction: the form provides for disclosure of a “No Income — Business Position Only” interest, and Rahn used Schedule C to disclose outside positions.

Therefore, the relevant question is not simply whether Friendly Earth Cremations paid Rahn in 2022. It is whether his position as CEO and CFO constituted a reportable business position under the disclosure category applicable to his Temecula office.

The documents supplied here establish his corporate positions. They do not, standing alone, establish the precise ownership of Friendly Earth, whether Rahn received income from it, or whether the entity fell within his particular Form 700 disclosure category. Those questions should be resolved before characterizing the omission as a proven FPPC violation.

The Timing Makes the Friendly Earth Omission Significant

This was not a situation in which the corporate filing appeared after Rahn had already completed his Form 700.

Rahn signed Friendly Earth’s filing on June 29, 2022.

He remained a councilmember until December 13, 2022, and did not file the corresponding leaving-office disclosure until March 6, 2023.

More than eight months therefore elapsed between Rahn signing a state filing identifying himself as Friendly Earth’s CEO and CFO and filing the Form 700 that did not identify Friendly Earth.

Nor is Rahn’s connection to the corporation based merely on a similar name. The state record identifies him as CEO, CFO and agent for service of process, associates him with the corporation’s Temecula address and contains his own electronic signature.

Four Years Later, Rahn Launched REMHO LLC

A newly obtained Secretary of State filing provides significantly more information about another Rahn-associated company created while he was again serving on the Temecula City Council.

Rahn organized REMHO LLC on May 21, 2026. Its original Articles of Organization listed 32787 Cleveland Street as both its principal and mailing address, directed mail to “Matt Rahn,” named Matthew E. Rahn as agent for service of process, and stated that the LLC would be managed by more than one manager. Rahn personally signed the filing as organizer.

At that stage, however, the Articles did not identify the LLC’s managers or members. That meant the original May filing alone did not establish whether Rahn was an owner or manager.

A subsequent July 2026 filing now answers much of that question.

New Filing Names Rahn as REMHO CEO and Manager or Member

On July 11, 2026, REMHO filed its Statement of Information with the California Secretary of State.

The filing identifies four people under “Manager(s) or Member(s)”:

Matthew E. Rahn, Kelcey A. Stricker, Leah DiBernardo and Joanne DiBernardo.

Rahn and Stricker are listed at 32787 Cleveland Street, while Leah and Joanne DiBernardo are listed at 41881 5th Street in Temecula.

More importantly, the filing separately identifies Matthew E. Rahn as REMHO LLC’s Chief Executive Officer. It also continues to identify Rahn as the company’s agent for service of process.

Rahn personally signed the Statement of Information on July 11, affirming under penalty of perjury that the information was true and correct.

This new filing substantially strengthens the documented relationship between Rahn and REMHO. He isn’t merely the person who filed paperwork creating someone else’s LLC: the company’s subsequent official filing places him among its managers or members and expressly names him CEO.

There is still one technical qualification. The Secretary of State form groups managers and members together, so this document by itself does not tell us whether Rahn is specifically a manager, member, or both, nor does it disclose his percentage ownership.

But his role as CEO is explicit.

REMHO Is a Commercial Property Business

The July filing also reveals something the original Articles did not: what REMHO actually does.

REMHO describes its type of business as:

“Property Ownership/Management for Commercial Use.”

That detail potentially makes REMHO particularly relevant to an elected city official.

Temecula City Council routinely makes governmental decisions involving land use, zoning, development, infrastructure, economic development and other matters capable of affecting commercial property. The filing does not establish that REMHO owns property affected by any particular Council decision, and no such connection should be presumed.

But identifying REMHO’s actual properties becomes an important next step in determining whether Rahn’s private commercial-property activities intersect with matters before the City.

The Same Address Appears Again

REMHO also creates a striking continuity with Friendly Earth.

Friendly Earth Cremations’ 2022 filing listed 32787 Cleveland Street as its principal office, mailing address and California office. Rahn was listed there as CEO and CFO.

REMHO’s 2026 Statement of Information lists the same 32787 Cleveland Street as its principal office, mailing address and California office. Rahn and Stricker are also listed there in the managers-or-members section.

The overlap goes beyond the address.

In 2022, Friendly Earth identified:

Matthew E. Rahn — CEO and CFO
Kelcey Ann Stricker — Secretary

In 2026, REMHO identifies:

Matthew E. Rahn — Manager or Member and CEO
Kelcey A. Stricker — Manager or Member

That does not prove the two entities are legally the same enterprise or financially connected. But it establishes substantial commonality in their address and personnel.

REMHO Was Created After Rahn Had Already Filed His 2026 Form 700

The chronology remains crucial.

Rahn filed his annual Form 700 on March 27, 2026, covering the January 1–December 31, 2025 reporting period.

REMHO did not exist until May 21, 2026.

Its Statement of Information identifying Rahn as CEO and manager or member followed on July 11, 2026.

Therefore, REMHO’s absence from the Form 700 Rahn filed in March 2026 is not an omission. The company hadn’t been created yet.

That distinction separates REMHO from Friendly Earth.

REMHO instead creates a new economic-interest disclosure issue for the reporting period encompassing 2026. Whether and how it must ultimately be reported will depend on the applicable disclosure rules and Rahn’s precise economic interest in the entity.

Friendly Earth Remains the Original Disclosure Question

The new REMHO records make Rahn’s private business activities clearer, but they do not change the central issue raised by his older disclosures.

Friendly Earth remains the documented potential omission.

By June 29, 2022, a Secretary of State filing identified Rahn as Friendly Earth’s CEO, CFO and agent for service of process while he remained a Temecula councilmember.

Rahn subsequently filed a leaving-office Form 700 covering that period. It disclosed Rahn Conservation Consulting, the Wildfire Conservancy and other interests, but did not identify Friendly Earth.

REMHO presents a different situation. It was created after Rahn filed his March 2026 annual disclosure, so its absence from that statement is expected. But the July filing now establishes that Rahn is REMHO’s CEO and is listed among its managers or members, while REMHO describes itself as a commercial property ownership and management business.

The records therefore establish two distinct questions:

Friendly Earth raises a retrospective disclosure question: why did a corporation that identified Rahn as CEO and CFO during his 2022 Council term not appear on the Form 700 covering that period?

REMHO raises a prospective disclosure and conflict question: what commercial property does the company own or manage, what is Rahn’s economic interest in it, and will that interest be disclosed for the 2026 reporting period?

Those questions should be answered with records—not assumptions. But the newly filed REMHO Statement of Information makes the second inquiry considerably more concrete than it was when the LLC was first organized.

“The integrity of the upright guides them, but the unfaithful are destroyed by their duplicity.” — Proverbs 11:3

Temecula City Councilman Zak Schwank has built his political career around public service, transportation, community programs and local government. The city’s official biography identifies him as a longtime Temecula resident, a former Community Services Commission chair, and a City Council member first elected in 2018 and reelected in 2022. He currently represents District 5.

But California Secretary of State records reveal another chapter in Schwank’s professional history that deserves closer examination.

On February 5, 2024, a California limited liability company called Pennington Public Affairs LLC was formally organized. The Articles of Organization identify Zachary Schwank as the organizer and show that the LLC would be managed by its members.

Just two weeks later, on February 19, 2024, Schwank filed a Statement of Information identifying himself as the company’s manager or member. The filing describes Pennington Public Affairs LLC as a consulting firm.

The company did not remain in existence for long.

On March 31, 2025, Schwank signed the company’s Certificate of Cancellation as its manager/member, terminating the LLC.

That roughly 13-month corporate lifespan raises an obvious public-record question:

What business was Pennington Public Affairs conducting while Schwank was an elected Temecula official, and was that activity fully reflected in his required economic-interest disclosures?

A Consulting Company Appeared During Schwank’s Council Tenure

The timing is significant.

Schwank was already an elected Temecula councilmember when Pennington Public Affairs LLC was created in February 2024. The city’s records identify him as a Council member representing District 5, and the city currently lists him in that position.

The Secretary of State filings leave little ambiguity about who controlled the new company.

The February 2024 Statement of Information lists:

Zachary Schwank — Manager/Member

and identifies the company as a consulting firm.

The Articles of Organization similarly identify Schwank as the organizer and state that the LLC would be managed by all LLC members.

This was therefore not merely a business name appearing in a database. The state corporate filings directly connect Schwank to the company.

The Company Was Formed in February 2024

The Articles of Organization were received by the California Secretary of State on February 5, 2024, at 3:46 a.m.

The document identifies the company as:

Pennington Public Affairs LLC

and lists its principal office in Temecula. Schwank signed the filing as organizer that same day.

Two weeks later, the company filed its Statement of Information.

That filing again identifies Pennington Public Affairs LLC and lists Zachary Schwank as its manager/member. It also expressly describes the company’s business as consulting.

The corporate paper trail therefore establishes three important facts:

1. Pennington Public Affairs LLC existed.

2. Schwank was its manager/member.

3. The company identified itself to California as a consulting firm.

Then the LLC Disappeared

The company’s existence was short-lived.

On March 31, 2025, Schwank signed a Certificate of Cancellation terminating Pennington Public Affairs LLC.

The filing states that the cancellation was approved by all members and that, upon the effective date of cancellation, the company’s registration would be cancelled and its corporate powers, rights and privileges would cease in California.

The Secretary of State received the cancellation at 2:01 p.m. on March 31, 2025.

That leaves a remarkably narrow window:

February 5, 2024 → March 31, 2025

Approximately thirteen months.

The Form 700 Question

California elected officials are subject to economic-interest disclosure requirements.

The City of Temecula itself states that City Council members are elected officials identified under Government Code §87200 and are required to file Statements of Economic Interests, Form 700, with the City Clerk.

The purpose of these disclosures is not merely to provide information about a politician’s salary. They are intended to reveal financial interests that could potentially intersect with government decision-making.

The FPPC’s Form 700 instructions specifically address business interests.

For example, the FPPC’s Schedule A-2 instructions state that a business entity—including a consulting business or other independent contracting business—can be reportable when the official has the applicable ownership interest and the entity meets the jurisdictional requirements.

The FPPC’s Schedule C instructions likewise require disclosure of reportable sources of income and business positions, including the business position held even when no income was received during the reporting period.

That distinction is important.

A business does not necessarily become irrelevant for Form 700 purposes simply because it generated little or no income.

Where the Disclosure Issue Becomes Important

The records reviewed for this investigation raise a question about Schwank’s economic-interest disclosures during the period Pennington Public Affairs LLC existed.

The corporate records show that Schwank established and controlled a consulting company while serving as a Temecula councilmember.

Yet, according to the Form 700 records reviewed for this article, Pennington Public Affairs LLC was not identified as a business interest on the applicable Statement of Economic Interests reviewed, and the company’s clients were not identified there either.

That discrepancy warrants examination.

It does not, standing alone, establish that Schwank violated the Political Reform Act.

The precise disclosure obligation depends on factors including the particular Form 700 reporting period, Schwank’s applicable disclosure category, the nature of his ownership and business position, whether the company conducted business within the relevant jurisdiction, and whether the company actually received reportable income.

But those qualifications make the question more important—not less.

What About the Clients?

There is a second unanswered question: Who hired Pennington Public Affairs?

The Secretary of State filings describe the LLC as a consulting firm, but the corporate filings do not identify its customers.

That means the Secretary of State records establish the existence and nature of the company, but they do not by themselves establish who, if anyone, paid Schwank or the LLC for consulting work.

This is where the Form 700 becomes potentially significant.

The FPPC’s Schedule C instructions say reportable income sources must generally be disclosed when they meet the applicable jurisdictional and disclosure-category requirements. The form requires the filer to identify the source of income and provide a general description of the source’s business activity.

For a self-employed official, the FPPC also provides specific rules concerning disclosure of the business entity itself and income received through it.

Consequently, the question isn’t simply whether Schwank had a company.

It is:

Did Pennington Public Affairs have clients, did it receive reportable income, and were the required business position and income sources disclosed?

A Business Position Can Matter Even Without a Paycheck

One of the most important details in the FPPC’s instructions is that a business position can itself be reportable.

The Schedule C instructions state that an official must disclose the job title or business position held with a business entity even if no income was received during the reporting period, subject to the applicable disclosure rules.

Similarly, Schedule A-2 specifically covers ownership interests in business entities, including consulting businesses and independent contracting businesses, when the statutory and disclosure-category thresholds are met.

That makes the existence of Pennington Public Affairs more significant than simply discovering that Schwank once registered a company.

The state records don’t merely show his name somewhere in the paperwork.

They identify him as manager/member of a company whose stated business was consulting.

The Timing Deserves Public Scrutiny

The chronology is difficult to ignore.

February 5, 2024: Pennington Public Affairs LLC is organized. Schwank signs as organizer.

February 19, 2024: The LLC’s Statement of Information identifies Schwank as manager/member and describes the company as a consulting firm.

2024: Schwank remains an elected Temecula councilmember.

March 31, 2025: Schwank signs the company’s cancellation documents as manager/member, ending the LLC’s registration.

The result is a consulting business established during his council tenure and terminated approximately thirteen months later.

The public deserves to know what occurred in between.

Why Transparency Matters for Local Government

Temecula’s own conflict-of-interest framework emphasizes disclosure of financial interests that may be materially affected by official actions.

The city’s Conflict of Interest Code states that designated officials must disclose reportable investments, business positions, interests in real property and sources of income according to their applicable disclosure categories.

This system exists for a straightforward reason:

Residents should be able to identify financial relationships that could intersect with government decisions.

A councilmember who owns a consulting company potentially operating in the same geographic and governmental environment occupies a different transparency position than a councilmember with no outside business interests.

That does not mean the outside business is improper.

It means the relationship should be transparent when the law requires disclosure.

What We Still Don’t Know

The available corporate records answer some questions but leave others unresolved.

They establish Schwank’s connection to Pennington Public Affairs LLC.

They establish that the business described itself as a consulting firm.

They establish that the LLC existed for approximately thirteen months.

They do not, by themselves, establish:

• whether Pennington Public Affairs had paying clients;

• how much revenue it generated;

• what services it provided;

• whether any clients had business before the City of Temecula;

• whether Schwank performed consulting work personally;

• whether he received compensation;

• whether any clients had matters potentially affecting city decisions;

• or whether a particular Form 700 omission constituted a violation.

Those questions require examination of the underlying Form 700 filings, amendments, contracts, invoices, business records and potentially FPPC records.

This Is a Transparency Question, Not an Automatic Finding of Wrongdoing

There is an important distinction between an undisclosed business appearing in corporate records and a proven violation of California’s Political Reform Act.

The first is supported by the Secretary of State documents.

The second requires a legal analysis of the applicable Form 700 filing, disclosure category, reporting period, ownership, income and jurisdictional requirements.

That distinction should be maintained.

But it should not obscure the basic issue.

A sitting Temecula councilmember formed a company called Pennington Public Affairs LLC, the state identified him as its manager/member, and the company described itself as a consulting firm. The company was subsequently cancelled in March 2025.

If the applicable Form 700 did not disclose the business position or required financial interests associated with it, that is a legitimate transparency issue deserving a closer look.

And if the company had reportable clients whose identities or income should have been disclosed, that raises an additional question that should be answered from the underlying financial-disclosure records—not assumed away.

“For nothing is secret, that shall not be made manifest; neither any thing hid, that shall not be known and come abroad.” — Luke 8:17 (KJV)

Max Disposti Had a Unique Dual Role

When Oceanside revived its Community Relations Commission in 2023, Massimiliano “Max” Disposti assumed the chairmanship while simultaneously serving as Executive Director of the North County LGBTQ Resource Center.

That overlap matters because the CRC’s approved work plan expressly contemplated advocacy concerning the allocation of City resources.

On October 3, 2023, the CRC—chaired by Disposti—considered and approved its 2023–2025 Work Plan. Disposti personally presented the work plan, moved its approval, and Commissioner Satia Austin seconded the motion. The motion passed 7–0.

Among the work plan’s stated objectives was to:

“Advocate for budget allocation in community services in areas of the City where there are gaps in services while encouraging the support and creation of new Resource Centers.”

That language gave the newly revived commission an expressly budget-oriented advocacy role, even though the CRC itself did not possess the legal authority to appropriate City money.

The question is therefore not simply whether Disposti voted to spend City money. The more significant question is whether a City commission chaired by the executive director of a nonprofit was creating an institutional avenue through which priorities affecting that nonprofit could be advocated for, reviewed or advanced.

Safe Parking Began With the City Council—not the CRC

The chronology is important.

In October 2023, City Councilmembers Joyce & Robinson directed staff to develop a Safe Parking Program for people experiencing vehicular homelessness.

The City’s staff report identifies the Council directive as October 18, 2023 and states that the program was created to provide people living in vehicles with a secure overnight parking location and access to supportive services.

That means the available record does not support saying that Disposti or the CRC created Safe Parking.

The program originated with the City Council.

But what happened afterward raises a different set of questions.

The First Safe Parking Site Wasn’t the LGBTQ Center

When Oceanside issued its Safe Parking request for proposals on February 28, 2024, the City initially envisioned the program at French Fields, a vacant City-owned baseball field facility off Oceanside Boulevard.

The City’s December 18, 2024 staff report is explicit: French Fields was the envisioned location when the RFP was issued, but no proposals were received by the April 10 deadline.

The City then worked with Dreams for Change to identify another location.

After evaluating dozens of potential sites, the City selected 1919 Apple Street, a property leased by the North County LGBTQ Resource Center.

That is a critical distinction.

The evidence does not show that the CRC directed the City to put Safe Parking at the LGBTQ Center.

Instead, the documented sequence is:

City Council orders Safe Parking → City issues RFP → French Fields envisioned → no proposals → City searches for alternatives → 1919 Apple Street selected.

December 2024: Dreams for Change Gets the Operating Contract

On December 18, 2024, City Council considered a Professional Services Agreement with Dreams for Change.

The proposed agreement was for $229,368 to operate the Safe Parking Program at 1919 Apple Street for one year.

Council approved the agreement.

But there is an important question surrounding the role of Disposti.

What Was Disposti Doing While the City Was Selecting the Site?

The strongest evidence comes not from the CRC, but from the LGBTQ Resource Center’s own records.

On December 16, 2024, the Center’s board unanimously authorized Disposti to continue pursuing the Safe Parking Program at 1919 Apple Street.

That is significant because it establishes that Disposti was actively pursuing the Safe Parking arrangement in his capacity with the LGBTQ Resource Center at essentially the same time the City was finalizing the arrangement.

It does not, by itself, prove that Disposti caused the City to select 1919 Apple Street.

But it does establish an important intersection:

The City’s Safe Parking program was moving toward a property associated with the organization whose executive director was simultaneously chairing the City’s Community Relations Commission.

The City Then Paid the LGBTQ Resource Center for the Site

The financial relationship became even more direct in February 2025.

On February 19, 2025, City Council approved a $59,125 Professional Services Agreement with the North County LGBTQ Resource Center for use of the property’s facilities at 1919 Apple Street for the Safe Parking Program.

The City’s staff report identifies the Center as the facility host and says it would provide site management, hygiene and sanitation facilities, waste management, utilities, safety and security services, emergency preparedness, neighborhood engagement and coordination with the program operator.

The same staff report breaks down the Safe Parking funding:

• $383,809 — RTFH/Super NOFO Safe Parking grant

• $229,368 — Dreams for Change operator PSA

• $59,125 — LGBTQ Resource Center site-use/facility-maintenance PSA

• $85,000 — mobile camera security system

• $10,316 — remaining balance

This distinction is important.

The $229,368 was for Dreams for Change to operate the program.

The $59,125 was a separate agreement with the LGBTQ Resource Center for use of its property and facilities.

They should not be portrayed as one payment.

But together, they show that the City established a substantial financial and operational relationship with the nonprofit whose executive director was simultaneously chair of the CRC.

A Separate $100,000 CDBG Project

The Safe Parking arrangement was also separate from a $100,000 CDBG capital-improvement project associated with the LGBTQ Resource Center.

Those two amounts should not be combined.

The $59,125 was the Safe Parking site-use/facility agreement.

The $100,000 was a CDBG capital project for ADA parking-lot improvements.

The distinction matters because it prevents two different City funding streams from being inaccurately described as a single grant.

At the same time, the two projects are relevant to the larger question because both involved the same nonprofit organization during the period in which its executive director chaired the CRC.

January 26, 2024: The Center Was Already Raising the Need for More Space

The City’s CDBG outreach records identify a North County LGBTQ Town Hall on January 26, 2024.

The City recorded the needs identified at that meeting as:

“Need for more space – donations for purchase of Bread of Life building.”

The outreach also recorded “Legislation advocacy.”

That meeting occurred during the period when Oceanside was developing its 2024–25 CDBG/HOME funding priorities.

The significance is not that the January 26 meeting automatically produced a $100,000 award. The available records do not establish that.

Rather, it documents that the Center was actively communicating its facility needs to City officials during the same funding-planning cycle.

The $100,000 Project Appeared Later

There is another important chronological detail.

The March 27, 2024 draft Annual Action Plan did not contain the $100,000 LGBTQ ADA parking project.

The final Annual Action Plan subsequently included:

“LGBTQ - ADA Parking Lot Improvements — $100,000.”

That means the project appeared in the funding process sometime between the draft and final versions.

The records currently available do not establish exactly which person proposed or inserted that project.

That is an important unanswered question.

It would be premature to say that Disposti personally directed the $100,000 allocation without documentary evidence showing who made the recommendation and how it moved through the City’s funding process.

Disposti Continued Participating in Housing and Funding Policy

The overlap did not end with the Safe Parking site.

On March 4, 2025, the Housing and Neighborhood Services Department presented the draft 2025–2029 Consolidated Plan and 2025–26 Annual Action Plan to the CRC.

The City later reported that the CRC approved the plans for submission to the City Council.

The Consolidated Plan governs the City’s broader strategy for investing CDBG and HOME funds.

The City’s records emphasize that public input and advisory commissions are part of the process through which funding priorities are developed.

Thus, the CRC’s role was not merely ceremonial. It participated in the City’s formal HUD planning process.

September 2025: The CRC Reviewed the CDBG Performance Report

The overlap continued into September.

On September 2, 2025, the CRC reviewed the City’s 2024–25 Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report, or CAPER.

The City’s subsequent Council staff report confirms that the Community Relations Commission recommended approval of the CAPER on September 2, 2025.

The CAPER included reporting concerning the ADA Non-Profit/Safe Parking Lot Improvement among the City’s CDBG-funded activities.

This was not the vote that originally appropriated the $100,000.

It was a later governmental review of the performance of HUD-funded projects.

That distinction matters.

But so does the fact that a commission chaired by the executive director of the Center was participating in the City’s formal review of HUD-funded activities involving a project associated with that organization.

Then the Safe Parking Site Moved

The Apple Street arrangement did not last indefinitely.

In February 2026, the City Council approved moving Safe Parking from 1919 Apple Street to the Country Club Senior Center at 455 Country Club Lane.

Apple Street operations ended February 28, 2026, and the Senior Center became the new location on March 1.

The relocation generated objections and concerns from some senior-center users, including calls for greater opportunity for community feedback.

That is more precise than saying there was categorically “no notice” to seniors. The available reporting establishes concerns about the level of community input, but it does not establish that every senior was denied notice.

The move also changed the financial relationship: the City was moving the program from a privately controlled nonprofit property to a City-owned facility.

March 2026: Another HUD Funding Cycle

On March 3, 2026, the CRC considered the City’s FY 2026–27 HUD Annual Action Plan budget.

The staff report identified $1,338,732 in anticipated CDBG funds and $1,615,856 in HOME funds, for a total of $2,954,588 in anticipated HUD resources.

The report states that the Annual Action Plan determines how available HUD resources will be used and that the plan is based on public comment, outreach and City Council direction.

The report also states that the City’s CDBG funding can support public facilities, capital improvements, public services and other community-development activities.

The staff report recommends that the Housing Commission receive the budget report and recommend that the City Council review the funding priorities.

The Bigger Question

Taken together, the records establish a striking sequence.

A City commission was revived in 2023.

Its chair was simultaneously the executive director of a nonprofit serving the LGBTQ community.

The commission’s approved work plan expressly called for advocacy concerning City budget allocations and the creation of resource centers.

The City Council independently initiated Safe Parking.

The City’s first planned Safe Parking site was French Fields.

After the RFP failed, the City ultimately selected 1919 Apple Street, a property associated with the LGBTQ Resource Center.

Disposti’s own nonprofit board authorized him to continue pursuing the Safe Parking arrangement at that property.

The City subsequently approved $229,368 for Dreams for Change to operate the program and $59,125 to the LGBTQ Resource Center for use of its property and facilities.

Separately, a $100,000 CDBG ADA parking improvement project was included in the City’s final funding plan.

And the CRC later participated in the City’s formal review of HUD-funded programs.

But What Does the Evidence Actually Prove?

It proves institutional overlap.

It proves that Disposti occupied two important positions at the same time.

It proves that the CRC’s work plan included budget-allocation advocacy.

It proves that his nonprofit became financially involved in the City’s Safe Parking program.

It proves that Disposti’s nonprofit was actively pursuing the Safe Parking arrangement at 1919 Apple Street.

It proves that the City later paid the Center $59,125 under a separate Safe Parking agreement.

It proves that the Center was participating in CDBG outreach concerning its facility needs.

But the records presently available do not prove that Oceanside City Council revived the CRC specifically so that Disposti could obtain funding for the LGBTQ Resource Center.

They also do not prove that Disposti personally caused the $100,000 CDBG project to be added, or that he personally caused 1919 Apple Street to be selected.

Those are the questions that require the next layer of records.

What Should Be Investigated Next?

If the goal is to determine whether this was merely an overlap—or whether the overlap actually influenced City funding—the critical records are:

1. The 2023 City Council discussions reviving the CRC.
Who proposed bringing the commission back, and what did Council members say about its intended authority over funding and policy?

2. The complete 2024 CDBG decision trail.
Who proposed the $100,000 LGBTQ ADA parking project between the March 27 draft and May 8 final plan?

3. Disposti’s Form 700 disclosures.
What economic interests and sources of income did he disclose while serving as CRC chair?

4. CRC meeting minutes and recordings.
When did Disposti participate in discussions concerning CDBG, Safe Parking, the LGBTQ Resource Center, housing or related funding?

5. Recusal records.
Did Disposti ever disclose the Center’s financial interest or recuse himself when City decisions directly affected the organization he led?

6. The 1919 Apple Street site-selection record.
Who first proposed Apple Street to the City, when was Disposti involved, and what communications occurred between the City, Disposti, the Center and Dreams for Change?

The central issue is therefore not whether Disposti single-handedly controlled Oceanside’s budget.

The more consequential question is whether Oceanside’s revived Community Relations Commission gave a nonprofit executive who chaired the commission an unusually influential position inside the City’s process for identifying, advocating for and reviewing community funding priorities—and whether any of those priorities subsequently benefited the organization he led.

That is a question the City’s paper trail can answer.

“For nothing is secret, that shall not be made manifest; neither any thing hid, that shall not be known.” — Luke 8:17

A paid nonprofit executive serving as a city commissioner

Massimiliano “Max” Disposti held two roles that overlapped in ways that raise serious questions about conflicts of interest in Oceanside.

He served as Executive Director of the North County LGBTQ Resource Center while also serving as Chair of the City of Oceanside’s Community Relations Commission (CRC).

The financial connection between Disposti and the Center is not merely an honorary or volunteer relationship.

The Center’s 2024 federal Form 990 reports $120,000 in compensation to Massimiliano Disposti for his position as Executive Director. The same filing identifies the organization as the North County LGBTQ Resource Center, located at 1919 Apple Street in Oceanside.

That fact is critical when examining Disposti’s participation in City matters affecting the organization.

The question is not whether Disposti was legally prohibited from serving on a commission while working for a nonprofit. The question is whether, while receiving $120,000 from the Center, he participated in governmental decisions that could have a reasonably foreseeable and material financial effect on his economic interests.

That is precisely the type of issue California’s Political Reform Act and the Fair Political Practices Commission’s conflict-of-interest rules are designed to address.

The $120,000 economic interest

The Center’s 2024 Form 990 reports:

• Massimiliano Disposti — Executive Director

• Compensation: $120,000

• North County LGBTQ Resource Center

• 1919 Apple Street, Oceanside, California

The filing reports total organizational revenue of approximately $2.48 million and total expenses of approximately $2.23 million for 2024. Executive compensation was reported at $120,000.

In other words, Disposti was a highly compensated executive of an organization that subsequently became the beneficiary of City-funded projects and a City Safe Parking arrangement.

That creates a much more concrete conflict-of-interest question than would exist if Disposti were merely an unpaid volunteer.

California’s conflict-of-interest rules

California Government Code §87100 generally prohibits a public official from making, participating in making, or attempting to influence a governmental decision in which the official has a financial interest.

The FPPC explains that a conflict can arise when it is reasonably foreseeable that a governmental decision will have a material financial effect on an official’s economic interest.

One category of economic interest is a source of income.

The FPPC’s rules generally treat a source that has provided the official with at least $500 in income during the applicable period as a potentially reportable economic interest.

A $120,000 annual salary is therefore highly relevant to the analysis.

It does not automatically prove that a conflict existed on every City matter involving LGBTQ issues or the Center.

But it means that the Center’s financial interests cannot simply be treated as unrelated to Disposti.

Disposti was not merely a commissioner — he was Chair

Oceanside’s 2023–2025 CRC Work Plan identified Disposti as Chair.

The work plan included priorities involving LGBTQ programming, including Pride by the Beach, housing-related educational forums and advocacy concerning community-service budget allocations.

On October 3, 2023, the CRC considered the work plan.

The official meeting record shows that Disposti made the motion to approve the work plan and recommend Council approval. The motion passed 7–0.

Thus, Disposti actively participated in establishing the commission’s policy priorities while serving as the paid Executive Director of the Center.

The $100,000 CDBG project

The most significant financial issue concerns Oceanside’s Community Development Block Grant program.

The City’s CDBG budget included a $100,000 capital project titled “Non-Profit/Safe Parking – ADA Parking Lot Improvements.”

The project was identified under business unit 821201224237.

Contemporary reporting on the City’s HUD funding approval identified the $100,000 project as ADA parking-lot improvements associated with the North County LGBTQ Resource Center’s facility. (The Coast News)

This creates a documented financial connection:

City CDBG budget

→ $100,000 ADA/Safe Parking improvement

→ North County LGBTQ Resource Center facility

→ organization paying Disposti $120,000 annually

That does not prove that Disposti personally received any portion of the $100,000.

But it does establish why his financial relationship with the Center matters when examining his participation in City governmental decisions.

The Center’s 1919 Apple Street property

The Center’s 2024 Form 990 lists its address as 1919 Apple Street, Oceanside.

That same property subsequently became directly connected to the City’s Safe Parking program.

In February 2025, Oceanside City Council approved a $59,125 agreement involving the Center’s 1919 Apple Street property for the City’s Safe Parking Program.

This was separate from the $100,000 CDBG capital-improvement project.

The distinction matters:

$100,000 CDBG project

ADA parking-lot improvements associated with the Center’s facility.

$59,125 Safe Parking agreement

A separate City arrangement involving the Center’s 1919 Apple Street property.

The two amounts should not be combined and described as one grant.

But together they demonstrate that Oceanside had a substantial financial and operational relationship with the organization whose Executive Director was serving as Chair of a City commission.

Disposti later participated in review of the CDBG project

The overlap did not end with the original CDBG budget.

On September 2, 2025, the CRC reviewed the City’s 2024–25 Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) concerning HUD funds.

The CAPER specifically reported the “ADA Non-Profit/Safe Parking Lot Improvement” among the City’s CDBG-funded capital projects.

The official CRC meeting record shows that Disposti was present and personally moved to approve the CAPER.

The motion passed 7–0.

Again, this was not the original appropriation of the $100,000.

But it was a formal governmental review of a report documenting the performance of a CDBG-funded project associated with the nonprofit whose Executive Director was receiving $120,000 annually.

That distinction is important — but so is the participation itself.

The FPPC question

The evidence now supports asking a much more specific question:

Did Disposti participate in any Oceanside governmental decision involving the North County LGBTQ Resource Center while the Center was a reportable source of income to him and while the decision could foreseeably and materially affect his economic interests?

That is a substantially narrower and more legally meaningful question than simply asking whether he had a “conflict.”

The FPPC’s rules require examining several factors, including:

• the official’s economic interests;

• whether the governmental decision would have a material financial effect on those interests;

• whether the effect was reasonably foreseeable; and

• whether the official made, participated in, or attempted to influence the decision.

The $120,000 compensation figure establishes an important part of that analysis: the Center was a significant source of income to Disposti.

It does not, by itself, establish the remaining elements.

Form 700 becomes critical

The next document that should be examined is Disposti’s Statement of Economic Interests, Form 700.

If Disposti was a designated filer under Oceanside’s Conflict of Interest Code, his filings should reveal the economic interests he was required to disclose.

The key questions include:

1. Did he disclose the North County LGBTQ Resource Center as a source of income?

2. What disclosure category did he use?

3. Did his filings identify other economic interests connected to the Center?

4. Did he report any real-property interests relevant to City decisions?

5. Did he file on time?

6. Did he make any amendments?

7. Did he file any recusal or disqualification statements concerning matters involving the Center?

The answers could significantly change the legal assessment.

Potential FPPC violations

If the records ultimately show that Disposti was required to disclose the Center as a source of income but failed to do so, that could raise a Form 700 reporting issue.

If the records show that he participated in a governmental decision that had a reasonably foreseeable and material financial effect on his economic interest, that could raise a Political Reform Act conflict-of-interest issue under Government Code §87100.

If a governmental contract involving the Center was at issue and Disposti had a prohibited financial interest in that contract, additional questions could arise under Government Code §1090.

But those are legal questions that require the actual documents.

It would be premature to declare that Disposti committed an FPPC violation without reviewing those records.

The September 2025 CAPER vote

The September 2, 2025 CRC vote deserves particular scrutiny because it provides a clean example of the overlap.

The commission was reviewing a HUD performance report.

The report documented the ADA Non-Profit/Safe Parking Lot Improvement.

Disposti was the Chair.

Disposti made the motion to approve the report.

The motion passed 7–0.

And the organization’s 2024 Form 990 identifies Disposti as its $120,000-per-year Executive Director.

Again, the CAPER vote did not award the $100,000.

But it did involve formal governmental review of a report concerning a project benefiting the organization with which Disposti had a significant financial relationship.

A separate Safe Parking benefit

The 1919 Apple Street Safe Parking arrangement adds another layer.

The City later entered into a $59,125 agreement involving the Center’s property for Safe Parking.

This is not evidence that Disposti personally received $59,125.

The money was associated with the City’s Safe Parking arrangement and the use/maintenance of the Center’s property.

Nevertheless, the transaction is relevant because it demonstrates that the Center itself had an identifiable financial relationship with the City involving the same property listed on its 2024 Form 990.

And Disposti was the organization’s highly compensated Executive Director.

What the evidence establishes

At this stage, the public record supports these facts:

• Disposti served as Executive Director of the North County LGBTQ Resource Center.

• The Center’s 2024 Form 990 reports $120,000 in compensation to Disposti.

• The Center’s 2024 Form 990 lists its address as 1919 Apple Street, Oceanside.

• Disposti served as Chair of Oceanside’s Community Relations Commission.

• He personally moved to approve the CRC’s 2023–2025 Work Plan.

• The work plan included LGBTQ and community-service priorities.

• Oceanside’s CDBG budget included $100,000 for “Non-Profit/Safe Parking – ADA Parking Lot Improvements.”

• The project was associated with the Center’s facility.

• The Center’s 1919 Apple Street property was subsequently used for the City’s Safe Parking program.

• City Council approved a separate $59,125 Safe Parking-related agreement involving the property.

• On September 2, 2025, Disposti participated in and moved approval of the CRC’s HUD/CDBG CAPER, which documented the ADA/Safe Parking project.

What remains unproven

The available records do not yet establish:

• that Disposti personally received any of the City’s CDBG or Safe Parking funds;

• that he personally benefited financially from the $100,000 capital project;

• that he violated Government Code §87100;

• that he violated Government Code §1090;

• that he failed to file Form 700;

• that his Form 700 contained inaccurate information;

• or that he was legally required to recuse himself from each of the identified votes.

Those conclusions require examination of the underlying ethics records.

The public-interest question

The issue is not whether the North County LGBTQ Resource Center should receive government funding.

Nor is it whether Disposti was qualified to advise the City about LGBTQ issues.

The issue is whether a City commissioner who was simultaneously earning $120,000 a year from a nonprofit could participate in governmental decisions affecting that nonprofit without creating a disqualifying financial conflict.

That is precisely why California has conflict-of-interest disclosure and recusal requirements.

Public confidence depends not only on whether officials act properly, but also on whether the public can see that officials separated their governmental duties from their private financial interests.

A timeline of the overlap

October 3, 2023

Disposti, serving as CRC Chair, moved to approve the commission’s 2023–2025 Work Plan. The motion passed 7–0.

2024

The North County LGBTQ Resource Center’s Form 990 later reported $120,000 in compensation to Disposti for his work as Executive Director.

2024

Oceanside’s CDBG program included $100,000 for “Non-Profit/Safe Parking – ADA Parking Lot Improvements.”

May 2024

City Council approved the applicable HUD/CDBG funding plan.

February 2025

City Council approved the separate $59,125 Safe Parking-related agreement involving the Center’s 1919 Apple Street property.

September 2, 2025

The CRC reviewed the HUD/CDBG CAPER documenting the ADA/Safe Parking project.

Disposti was present, moved approval, and the motion passed 7–0.

The unanswered FPPC questions

The records now provide enough information to ask specific questions of the City and the FPPC:

Did Disposti disclose his $120,000-per-year relationship with the North County LGBTQ Resource Center on his Form 700?

Was he required to recuse himself when the CRC considered matters specifically benefiting the Center?

Did the CRC’s Conflict of Interest Code identify his position as requiring disclosure?

Did Disposti participate in any decision specifically naming the Center as a recipient or beneficiary?

Did he participate in any contract-related decision involving the Center or its property?

Did the City Attorney ever advise the CRC regarding his participation?

Those questions should be answered from the City’s official records rather than assumptions.

“For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known.”
— Luke 12:2 (KJV)

Oceanside Councilman Eric Joyce’s career in elected office began before he joined the City Council.

Joyce served as a trustee on the Oceanside Unified School District Board of Education from 2018 until 2022, when he did not seek another term and instead ran for the Oceanside City Council. He was elected to represent District 1 in November 2022 and began his City Council service in December 2022.

His transition from school district governance to City Hall is now raising questions about whether the professional interests of his spouse were adequately disclosed during his public service and whether any governmental decisions intersected with her employers.

Publicly available information appears to identify Joyce as married to Rachel Newton-Joyce, MA, MS, BCBA. However, the precise marital relationship and relevant employment dates should be independently confirmed through reliable public records before any legal conclusion is drawn.

Rachel Newton-Joyce’s Career in Behavioral and Early Childhood Services

Rachel Newton-Joyce’s publicly listed professional history reflects more than a decade of work in behavioral therapy, autism-related services, and early childhood developmental services.

Her reported employment history includes:

Sunny Days

Rachel Newton-Joyce reportedly worked for Sunny Days for approximately 15 years, beginning as a Behavioral Therapist in February 2010.

Her reported positions included:

• Behavioral Therapist — 2010 through 2013

• Behavior Supervisor — 2013 through November 2014

• BCBA Supervisor — December 2014 through May 2016

• ABA Program Manager — 2016 through 2025

Sunny Days of California, also known as Sunny Days Early Childhood Developmental Services, operates within the early intervention and developmental-services sector.

The company has been identified as a provider in California’s regional-center system, including services involving Early Start and behavioral intervention.

360 Human Services

After leaving Sunny Days, Newton-Joyce reportedly served as a:

Family Relationships Manager (BCBA)
360 Human Services
May 2025 through November 2025.

CBEM LLC

Beginning in December 2025, Newton-Joyce reportedly became:

Program Director
CBEM LLC
December 2025 through the present.

Her professional experience therefore spans organizations operating in behavioral services, developmental services, autism-related programs, crisis intervention, and family services.

The Disclosure Question

The central question is not whether Eric Joyce was prohibited from holding elected office while his spouse maintained professional employment.

Public officials are permitted to have spouses and family members who work for private companies, nonprofits, service providers, and other organizations.

The question is instead whether any of those interests were legally required to be disclosed and whether Joyce participated in governmental decisions that could have had a reasonably foreseeable material financial effect on his own economic interests or those legally attributable to him.

California’s Statement of Economic Interests, commonly known as the FPPC Form 700, requires public officials to disclose certain economic interests depending on the official’s reporting obligations and the nature of the interest.

A spouse’s employment does not automatically mean that every employer must necessarily appear as a reportable interest on an elected official’s Form 700.

Whether disclosure is required depends upon specific facts, including income, ownership interests, investments, business positions, and other reportable financial interests under the Political Reform Act.

A Potential Conflict Requires More Than Working in the Same Industry

The existence of early childhood and developmental services funding in a school district does not automatically establish a conflict involving a trustee whose spouse works in early childhood or behavioral services.

To establish a potential conflict, additional evidence would be necessary.

Among the questions requiring further investigation are:

• Did Sunny Days have a contract with Oceanside Unified School District?

• Did Sunny Days receive money connected to a program approved by the OUSD Board?

• Was Sunny Days a subcontractor or participating provider under an agreement considered by the Board?

• Did Rachel Newton-Joyce personally receive compensation or another financial benefit connected to a Board action?

• Did any decision involving early childhood services have a reasonably foreseeable material financial effect on Joyce or an economic interest attributable to him?

• Did Joyce participate in the specific vote?

• Did Joyce disclose or seek advice regarding any potential conflict?

The Question of Joyce’s School Board Disclosures Remains Open

An additional question remains unresolved: whether all reportable interests were properly disclosed during Joyce’s service on the Oceanside Unified School District Board.

Joyce’s OUSD service began in 2018 and continued until 2022, creating several years of potential Statements of Economic Interests that would need to be examined.

At the time of publication, a complete review of Joyce’s OUSD-era Form 700 filings and all attached schedules has not yet been completed.

That review is necessary before making a claim that any employer or financial interest was improperly omitted.

The appropriate next step is to obtain and compare:

1. Joyce’s complete Form 700 filings from his OUSD tenure;

2. all attached schedules and amendments;

3. Rachel Newton-Joyce’s employment dates and compensation arrangements;

4. OUSD contracts and vendor-payment records involving Sunny Days and related entities;

5. OUSD Board agendas and minutes involving early childhood, behavioral intervention, autism services, and developmental programs; and

6. records showing Joyce’s individual participation, abstentions, or recusals.

“For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.” — John 3:20 (KJV)

Campaign Filing Shows Contribution Came Between the Council Vote and Final Passage

San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria’s 2024 reelection campaign received a $1,350 contribution from Daniel J. Epstein on February 27, 2024, according to the California Form 460 campaign-finance filing. The filing identifies Epstein’s occupation as Founder and his employer as The ConAm Group.

The date is significant because it places Epstein’s contribution one day after the San Diego City Council acted on Resolution R-315374 involving Cuatro at City Heights, but before the resolution reached final passage on March 4, 2024.

Resolution R-315374 approved ancillary non-residential use for the Cuatro at City Heights affordable-housing project. The official City resolution is dated February 26, 2024, and lists March 4, 2024, as the date of final passage.

The resulting timeline raises potential questions under California’s campaign-finance and FPPC pay-to-play rules, particularly because the $1,350 contribution exceeded the $250 threshold applicable under Government Code Section 84308 in 2024 for covered proceedings.

The Timeline

February 26, 2024: City Council Acts on Cuatro Resolution

The San Diego City Council acted on Resolution R-315374 concerning the Cuatro at City Heights affordable-housing project.

The resolution involved approval of ancillary non-residential uses at the project. The resolution states that Cuatro at City Heights L.P. was the project’s developer under the City’s agreements and that non-residential uses required City Council approval.

February 27, 2024: ConAm Founder Gives Gloria $1,350

The FPPC Form 460 shows that Daniel J. Epstein contributed $1,350 to Re-Elect Mayor Todd Gloria 2024 on February 27, 2024.

The filing identifies Epstein as the Founder of The ConAm Group.

The contribution was therefore received after the February 26 Council action but before the March 4 date of final passage listed on the resolution.

March 4, 2024: Cuatro Resolution Reaches Final Passage

Resolution R-315374 lists March 4, 2024, as its date of final passage.

That chronology is important because the contribution was made during the period between the Council’s February 26 action and the resolution’s final passage.

ConAm Had a Business Role in the Cuatro Project

Public project records identify ConAm Management Corporation as the property-management company for Cuatro at City Heights. The project’s developer was identified as Wakeland Housing and Development Corporation, while Cuatro at City Heights L.P. was the owner/borrower and ConAm served in the property-management role.

That distinction matters.

The available records do not support describing The ConAm Group as the developer of Cuatro. However, they do establish that a ConAm entity had a direct business role in the project’s development team as property manager.

Why the Contribution Raises an FPPC Question

California Government Code Section 84308, commonly called California’s pay-to-play law or the Levine Act, regulates certain campaign contributions connected to governmental proceedings involving licenses, permits, contracts, and other entitlements for use.

In 2024, the contribution limit relevant to covered Section 84308 proceedings was more than $250. Contributions above that amount from qualifying parties, participants, or agents could trigger restrictions, disclosure requirements, and potential disqualification when an official participated in a covered decision.

Epstein’s $1,350 contribution exceeded the 2024 threshold.

The key legal question, however, is not simply the size of the contribution.

For Section 84308 to apply, additional facts would have to establish, among other things:

• Whether the Cuatro proceeding was an entitlement-for-use proceeding covered by Section 84308;

• Whether Epstein personally qualified as a party, participant, or agent in that proceeding;

• Whether ConAm’s property-management role gave the company or its representatives a qualifying financial interest or participant status;

• Whether Epstein’s contribution was legally attributable to a qualifying party or participant; and

• Whether Mayor Gloria participated in or influenced a decision covered by the statute after receiving the contribution.

The FPPC makes clear that Section 84308 does not apply to every campaign contribution involving a person or company with some connection to government business. The contributor’s legal status and the nature of the governmental proceeding are critical.

The Potential Conflict: Contribution Before Final Passage

The strongest factual issue revealed by the attached filing is the timing:

February 26, 2024 → San Diego City Council acts on Cuatro resolution.

February 27, 2024 → Daniel J. Epstein, identified as founder of The ConAm Group, contributes $1,350 to Mayor Todd Gloria’s campaign.

March 4, 2024 → Resolution R-315374 reaches final passage.

This means the contribution did not precede the February 26 City Council vote, so it would be inaccurate to claim that Epstein’s contribution came before that Council action.

However, the contribution did precede the resolution’s March 4 final passage.

Whether the proceeding was still legally “pending” for Section 84308 purposes at the time of the February 27 contribution would require analysis under the version of the statute and regulations in effect in 2024, as well as the precise governmental process applicable to this resolution.

Mayor Gloria Did Not Cast the City Council Vote

Another important distinction is Mayor Gloria’s governmental role.

As Mayor, Gloria was not a voting member of the San Diego City Council and therefore did not cast the February 26 Council vote on Resolution R-315374.

Any potential conflict analysis must instead focus on his role in the resolution’s subsequent approval and final-passage process and whether his actions constituted participation in a decision covered by Section 84308.

The resolution itself confirms that the City Council approved the measure and lists March 4 as the date of final passage.

Potential FPPC Issues That Require Further Investigation

The chronology creates questions worth examining, but it does not by itself prove an FPPC violation.

A complete investigation would need to determine:

1. Was the Cuatro proceeding still pending on February 27, 2024?

2. Did Mayor Gloria take any action or participate in the matter after receiving the contribution?

3. Did Epstein have a financial interest in ConAm’s role in the Cuatro project?

4. Did Epstein qualify as a party, participant, or agent under the version of Section 84308 in effect in February 2024?

5. Was ConAm itself a qualifying participant because of its financial interest as property manager?

6. Was the contribution properly disclosed and were any additional disclosures required in connection with the governmental proceeding?

7. Did the campaign return any portion of the contribution before the Mayor’s participation in the final decision, if a covered proceeding existed?

The answers to those questions would determine whether the facts constitute a potential appearance-of-influence issue only or whether they could support an actual complaint alleging a violation of the Political Reform Act.

“For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.” — John 3:20 (KJV)

November 2025 vote confirms Lothian supported a new Lemon Avenue safety corridor

La Mesa Councilwoman Laura Lothian voted yes on November 12, 2025, on a City Council consent calendar that included the designation of Lemon Avenue from Glen Street to Jackson Drive as an AB 43 safety corridor.

The vote is significant because, at the time, Lothian was actively involved in real-estate business on Lemon Avenue. Her Statements of Economic Interests identify 8560 Lemon Avenue as the location of her disclosed property interests and the address of Lothian Group Inc., a business she describes as engaged in real-estate sales and real-estate investments.

Just over a month before the Council vote, Laura Lothian was listed as the agent for a home at 8417 Lemon Avenue, which was listed for sale on October 8, 2025 through eXp Realty of Southern California.

The November 12 vote therefore establishes a documented overlap between Lothian’s role as an elected official making decisions affecting Lemon Avenue and her private real-estate activity involving properties on the same street.

Lothian voted yes on the consent calendar containing the Lemon Avenue designation

The November 12, 2025 La Mesa City Council agenda included Resolution No. 2025-137, which designated multiple street segments near schools as AB 43 safety corridors.

Among the designated locations was:

Lemon Avenue from Glen Street to Jackson Drive — Lemon Avenue Elementary School.

The item was included as Consent Calendar Item 9.15.

The Council subsequently approved the consent calendar items, including Item 9.15, by a 5–0 vote, with Councilmember Laura Lothian voting yes.

Because the Lemon Avenue safety-corridor designation was included in the consent calendar approved by that vote, Lothian’s yes vote included approval of the action affecting the Glen Street-to-Jackson Drive segment of Lemon Avenue.

Lothian was listing a Lemon Avenue home weeks before the vote

On October 8, 2025, the property at 8417 Lemon Avenue, La Mesa, California 91941, was listed for sale.

The public listing identifies Laura Lothian as the listing agent through eXp Realty of Southern California, Inc.

The timing establishes the following sequence:

• October 8, 2025: 8417 Lemon Avenue was listed for sale with Laura Lothian identified as the listing agent.

• November 12, 2025: Lothian voted yes on the consent calendar containing the designation of Lemon Avenue from Glen Street to Jackson Drive as a safety corridor.

That timeline does not prove that the safety-corridor designation financially benefited the sale of 8417 Lemon Avenue. However, it establishes that Lothian was actively involved in marketing a property on Lemon Avenue while participating in a governmental decision affecting another defined section of the same street.

Her disclosed real-estate business also operates from Lemon Avenue

Lothian’s Statements of Economic Interests disclose a real-property interest at 8560 Lemon Avenue.

Her disclosure also identifies an ADU at the address.

The same filing identifies Lothian Group Inc. at 8560 Lemon Avenue and describes its business activity as real estate sales and real estate investments, with Lothian listed as president.

Lemon Avenue therefore had multiple connections to Lothian’s disclosed private interests: it was the location of her reported property interest, the address of her real-estate business, and the street where she was actively listed as the agent for a home sale in October 2025.

The 2025 vote followed an earlier Lemon Avenue safety vote

The November 2025 vote was not the first time Lothian participated in a City Council action specifically involving Lemon Avenue.

In June 2024, the City Council considered an ordinance designating Lemon Avenue from Garfield Street to Bancroft Drive as an AB 43 safety corridor.

The measure was intended to allow the speed limit on the designated portion of Lemon Avenue to be reduced from 35 mph to 30 mph.

Lothian voted in favor of the measure’s first reading. She later made the motion for the second reading and final adoption of the ordinance.

The November 2025 vote continued Lothian’s documented participation in Council decisions specifically affecting Lemon Avenue.

The overlap raises questions about public office and private real-estate activity

The public record establishes that Lothian simultaneously occupied two roles.

As a La Mesa City Council member, she voted yes on governmental action designating a portion of Lemon Avenue as a safety corridor.

As a real-estate professional, she was listed as the agent for a home sale on Lemon Avenue beginning October 8, 2025.

Her economic-interest disclosures additionally identify a real-estate sales and investment business operating from an address on Lemon Avenue.

Those overlapping facts raise a legitimate public-interest question: Should an elected official actively involved in selling homes on a particular street participate in governmental decisions affecting safety and traffic conditions on that same street?

A vote on the same street is not automatically a legal violation

The available records do not establish that Lothian personally received taxpayer money from the safety-corridor decision or that the November 2025 designation increased the value of 8417 Lemon Avenue.

They also do not, by themselves, establish an FPPC violation.

A legal conflict-of-interest determination would require additional analysis, including the precise location of 8417 Lemon Avenue in relation to the Glen Street-to-Jackson Drive corridor, the status of the listing at the time of the vote, Lothian’s financial interest in the transaction, and whether the governmental decision could have had a reasonably foreseeable and material financial effect on that interest.

The public record confirms her participation

Lothian voted yes on the consent calendar that included the Lemon Avenue from Glen Street to Jackson Drive safety-corridor designation.

At that time:

• Her disclosed real-estate business operated from 8560 Lemon Avenue.

• Her economic-interest filings identified a property interest on Lemon Avenue.

• She had been identified as the listing agent for 8417 Lemon Avenue since October 8, 2025.

• The Council approved a new Lemon Avenue safety corridor on November 12, 2025, with Lothian voting yes.

Those facts establish a clear overlap between Lothian’s public decisions affecting Lemon Avenue and her private real-estate activity on Lemon Avenue. Whether that overlap created a legally disqualifying financial conflict is a separate question requiring further factual and legal analysis.

“It is required of stewards that they be found faithful.” — 1 Corinthians 4:2

Public records, advocacy work, regional climate funding and a social-media dispute have raised questions about transparency involving Vista City Councilmember Corinna Contreras and Deputy Mayor Katie Melendez.

Questions surrounding Vista City Councilmember Corinna Contreras extend beyond ordinary disagreements over public policy and involve her outside employment, her organization’s climate and transportation advocacy, regional government funding decisions and allegations concerning her relationship with fellow Vista elected official and SANDAG representative Katie Melendez.

Contreras has worked as a transportation and climate-policy advocate for Climate Action Campaign, an organization that advocates for public policies involving transportation, climate planning, land use and energy.

At the same time, Contreras serves as an elected member of the Vista City Council.

That combination does not, by itself, establish wrongdoing or an unlawful conflict of interest. However, it raises legitimate questions when the policies promoted by an elected official’s employer intersect with government decisions involving regional transportation funding, Climate Action Plans and public agencies.

Those questions intensified following public allegations concerning a romantic relationship between Melendez and Contreras and a social-media dispute between Melendez and Vista resident and public commentator Adina Flores.

The Question of a Romantic Relationship

A social-media post publicly circulated an allegation that Melendez and Contreras are in a romantic relationship.

That allegation subsequently became part of a broader public controversy involving questions about the relationship between the two officials and potential conflicts of interest.

The existence of a romantic relationship should not be presented as an established fact without reliable, independently verifiable evidence or confirmation from the individuals involved.

However, the public-policy relevance of a relationship, if confirmed, is distinct from speculation about either official’s private life.

If two public officials with overlapping governmental responsibilities are in a romantic relationship, that relationship could be relevant to questions involving transparency, recusals, voting relationships and the public’s ability to evaluate potential conflicts of interest.

The issue is not sexual orientation or private relationships for their own sake. The relevant question is whether a personal relationship intersects with official decision-making, professional employment or public funding.

The Climate Action Campaign Connection

Contreras’ professional role with Climate Action Campaign is relevant because the organization participates in public-policy debates involving transportation and climate action.

Climate Action Campaign advocates for policies concerning transportation infrastructure, land use, emissions reduction and implementation of Climate Action Plans.

Those policy areas overlap with decisions made by local governments and regional agencies, including SANDAG.

This raises a straightforward transparency question: when an elected official works professionally for an organization seeking to influence public policy, what safeguards ensure that the official’s outside employment does not create an actual conflict—or the appearance of one—when related matters arise in government?

Employment by an advocacy organization is not inherently improper. The significance of any potential conflict depends upon the particular governmental action, the official’s authority, the financial relationship involved and applicable state and local laws.

But disclosure and transparency become especially important when public decisions involve policies also promoted by an official’s employer.

SANDAG and Climate Action Funding

These questions are particularly significant because SANDAG administers substantial regional transportation and planning funding.

On December 12, 2025, the SANDAG Board approved Smart Growth Incentive Program funding recommendations that included planning and Climate Action Planning projects.

The program directs regional resources toward local government projects connected to transportation, smart growth and climate planning.

Katie Melendez participated in the December 12 SANDAG meeting as a voting member.

The funding package included climate-planning projects, including funding connected to the City of San Diego’s Climate Action Plan Update.

That sequence raises questions that can be examined through public records:

• Which specific projects received SANDAG funding?

• Which elected officials voted to approve the funding?

• Did any recipient, project or policy initiative have a connection to an advocacy organization employing a participating public official?

• Were all required financial interests and outside employment relationships disclosed?

• Were any recusals considered or required?

Asking these questions does not establish that any official acted improperly. They are questions that arise when public office, outside employment, advocacy and government funding operate within the same policy environment.

Flores’ Question at the Vista City Council Meeting

The social-media controversy followed comments made by Adina Flores during last night’s Vista City Council meeting.

During her public comments, Flores questioned how Melendez was able to support herself on approximately $40,000 per year.

The comment was part of Flores’ broader public questioning concerning Melendez’s finances, public service, outside relationships and potential conflicts of interest.

Following the meeting, Melendez posted Instagram stories responding to the controversy.

In one story, Melendez said that someone had accused her of “corruption and crime (laundering money)” because of the question concerning how she survives on approximately $40,000 per year.

Flores’ comment at the City Council meeting should be distinguished from Melendez’s characterization of the controversy.

A question about how a public official supports herself on a stated amount of annual income is not necessarily an accusation that the official committed a crime. Whether Flores accused Melendez of criminal conduct should be determined by the actual statements Flores made during the public meeting and the complete context of those remarks.

The Direct-Message Exchange

Following the public controversy, Flores contacted Melendez through Instagram and asked whether she would participate in a live conversation.

Flores wrote that she wanted to discuss the connection between Melendez and Contreras, Climate Action Campaign and potential conflicts of interest.

In the exchange, Flores wrote that she wanted an opportunity to discuss:

“the connection between you & Contreras, the Climate Action Campaign, and why you see zero conflicts of interest in advocating for policy that increases your personal wealth.”

Melendez responded:

“Hi Adina, are you accusing me of committing a crime?”

Flores responded that she was asking for a live conversation to explain the connections and potential conflicts.

Melendez subsequently replied:

“You saw the public record disclosure, 700 form 👍”

The exchange is relevant because Melendez herself directed attention to her public financial disclosure filings in response to Flores’ questions about her finances and potential conflicts.

A California Form 700, or Statement of Economic Interests, can disclose certain sources of income, investments, business interests and other financial relationships required by law.

However, the filing of a Form 700 does not automatically resolve every possible conflict-of-interest question. Whether a conflict exists depends on the particular governmental decision, the official’s financial interests and the applicable legal standards.

Melendez’s Public Response

Melendez subsequently posted several Instagram stories publicly responding to the controversy.

In one post, she explained how she lived on a relatively modest income. She wrote that she had no car payment, no children and inexpensive rent because she helped her landlord with repairs.

She also said that she shopped at thrift stores, made some of her own clothing, rarely traveled and cooked her own food.

Melendez wrote that she had “nothing to hide” and welcomed investigations.

In another story, she wrote:

“And unlike some politicians, I do have to work, but I am happy to.”

She said that her work supported her community and that she was proud of the work ethic instilled in her from a young age.

In another post, Melendez said she supported freedom of speech and freedom of association and would not apologize for using her voice.

Her Instagram stories represent her own public response to Flores’ questions and the broader criticism surrounding her finances and relationships.

They do not, by themselves, answer the separate factual questions concerning public office, outside employment, advocacy and regional government funding.

Public Scrutiny Is Not Necessarily a Criminal Accusation

The distinction between asking questions and making criminal accusations is important.

Questioning an elected official about public records, outside employment, financial disclosures and government votes is not automatically an accusation that the official committed a crime.

Members of the public have the right to examine public records and ask whether financial, professional or personal relationships create actual or potential conflicts of interest.

At the same time, allegations of corruption, money laundering or other criminal conduct should not be reported as established fact without substantial evidence.

The relevant inquiry is therefore narrower and evidence-based:

What financial relationships exist?

What outside employment exists?

What policies does the employer advocate?

What governmental bodies make decisions involving those policies?

How did public officials vote?

What was disclosed in legally required filings?

Did any particular government action create a direct or foreseeable financial benefit?

Those questions can be investigated through public records.

The Larger Conflict-of-Interest Question

The most significant issue is the overlap between Contreras’ elected position and her professional work in climate and transportation policy advocacy.

Climate Action Campaign participates in policy debates involving local governments, the City of San Diego and regional transportation planning.

SANDAG, meanwhile, directs substantial public resources toward transportation, smart-growth and climate-planning initiatives.

Melendez’s participation in the December 12 SANDAG vote approving Smart Growth Incentive Program funding—including Climate Action Planning projects—provides a specific government action that can be examined in the context of the broader network of advocacy, employment and relationships.

The critical question is not whether climate advocacy is improper.

It is not.

The question is whether elected officials whose professional employment and personal relationships overlap with organizations and individuals involved in public policy have provided the public with sufficient disclosure to evaluate actual or potential conflicts.

What Should Be Examined Next

A complete examination should include:

• Corinna Contreras’ Statements of Economic Interests and outside employment disclosures.

• Katie Melendez’s Statements of Economic Interests.

• The precise scope of Contreras’ employment and responsibilities at Climate Action Campaign.

• Climate Action Campaign’s advocacy and lobbying activity involving the City of San Diego, SANDAG and other regional governments.

• The organization’s publicly available financial and tax records.

• SANDAG’s December 12, 2025 agenda, staff report, attachments and voting record.

• The complete list of Smart Growth Incentive Program and Climate Action Planning recipients.

• Any connections between government funding recipients and Climate Action Campaign.

• Any applicable recusals or conflict-of-interest determinations.

• Publicly verifiable evidence concerning the alleged relationship between Melendez and Contreras.

The evidence—not speculation—should determine the conclusions.

The public deserves clear answers about outside employment, financial disclosures, advocacy relationships and government votes.

The strongest reporting will focus on what can be documented: who was employed by whom, who advocated for particular policies, where public money went, who voted, what was disclosed and whether any financial, professional or personal relationship created an actual or apparent conflict requiring further review.

“For nothing is hidden that will not be disclosed, nor is anything secret that will not become known and come to light.” — Luke 8:17

Vista City Councilmembers Corinna Contreras and Catherine “Katie” Melendez are not only elected officials — they are also business partners. Both disclose ownership in North County Post, a small publishing partnership, in their 2025 Form 700 filings.

From Contreras’s filing:

“North County Post LLC … NATURE OF INVESTMENT: Partnership”

From Melendez’s filing:

“North County Post … NATURE OF INVESTMENT: Partnership”

This shared business relationship raises legitimate questions about conflicts of interest, bias, and Brown Act compliance — especially when both sit on the same five‑member City Council.

This article examines the legal landscape, the risks, and the concrete steps they must take to remain impartial and compliant.

What the Form 700 Filings Reveal

Both Councilmembers Report Partnership Ownership in North County Post

Contreras:

“GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THIS BUSINESS: Publishing … FAIR MARKET VALUE: $0–$1,999 … NATURE OF INVESTMENT: Partnership”

Melendez:

“GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THIS BUSINESS: Publishing … FAIR MARKET VALUE: $0–$1,999 … NATURE OF INVESTMENT: Partnership”

This means:

• They jointly own a media outlet.

• They jointly make editorial, financial, or operational decisions.

• They share income (even if small).

Both Also Hold Other Public Roles

Contreras reports income from:

• City of Vista (“$10,001–$100,000” salary)

• Climate Action Campaign (“$10,001–$100,000” salary)

• North County Transit District (“$1,001–$10,000” nonemployee compensation)

Melendez reports income from:

• City of Vista (“$10,001–$100,000” salary)

These overlapping roles heighten the need for strict compliance with conflict‑of‑interest laws.

Personal Relationship and Public Responsibility

The partnership between Councilmembers Corinna Contreras and Katie Melendez extends beyond their shared business interests. According to The Coast News (June 17, 2022), the two began dating in 2021, after meeting through the Democratic Club of Vista and discovering shared values and interests in community service, music, and the outdoors.

“We met through a mutual friend in 2018 and we were both part of the Democratic Club of Vista… over time we became close,” Melendez told The Coast News.

Their relationship became public around the time Vista renewed its LGBTQ Pride Month proclamation, a measure Contreras first introduced in 2019. Both councilmembers have been visible advocates for inclusivity and representation in local government.

Melendez emphasized that her personal relationship does not affect her official duties, stating:

“Regardless of their relation to each other outside of a public meeting, all council members must comply with the Brown Act… I will continue to uphold the Brown Act because I believe the work I do on Vista City Council is the people’s work and all discussions and decisions should happen within the public view.” 

Why Shared Ownership Creates Legal and Ethical Risk

FPPC Conflict‑of‑Interest Rules

Under the Political Reform Act, a public official must not:

• Make,

• Participate in, or

• Influence

a governmental decision that would have a reasonably foreseeable material financial effect on a business they own.

Because Contreras and Melendez co‑own the same business, any City Council decision that affects:

• local media outlets,

• publishing regulations,

• city advertising contracts,

• city communications policies,

• grant programs for small businesses,

• economic development incentives,

could trigger a conflict.

Even if North County Post earns under $500 (as both report), the ownership interest itself is what matters.

The Appearance of Bias

Even when no legal conflict exists, the perception of bias can erode public trust.

A shared business relationship between two councilmembers can create public concern that:

• They vote as a bloc.

• They coordinate political messaging through their publication.

• They use their media platform to influence city matters.

• They discuss city business privately through the lens of their partnership.

Brown Act Risks

The Brown Act prohibits a majority of a legislative body from discussing city business outside public meetings.

A two‑member partnership is not a “majority” of the Vista City Council — but it can still violate the Brown Act if:

• They discuss upcoming agenda items privately in the context of their business,

• They coordinate editorial content about city issues,

• They use their business meetings to strategize on council votes,

• They share information that should only be discussed publicly.

The Brown Act does not care why the conversation happens — only that it happens.

How Contreras and Melendez Can Remain Unbiased and Compliant

Strict Separation Between Business and Government Roles

They must maintain a bright line between:

• North County Post operations

• Vista City Council duties

This means:

• No discussing city agenda items during business meetings.

• No editorial planning that involves upcoming council votes.

• No using the publication to promote or defend their own policy positions.

Mandatory Recusal When North County Post Could Be Affected

If any agenda item could materially affect:

• local media businesses,

• publishing regulations,

• city advertising contracts,

• small business incentives,

• economic development programs,

they must:

1. Publicly disclose their ownership interest.

2. Recuse themselves from discussion and voting.

3. Leave the dais during deliberation.

This is required even if the financial impact is small.

Avoiding Serial Meetings

The Brown Act prohibits “serial meetings,” where:

• Member A talks to Member B,

• Member B talks to Member C,

• and so on,

creating a de facto majority consensus outside public view.

Because Contreras and Melendez already meet privately as business partners, they must avoid:

• discussing city matters that could later be relayed to other councilmembers,

• coordinating messaging that influences council outcomes,

• using their publication to indirectly communicate with other councilmembers about city business.

Editorial Firewall for North County Post

To avoid bias and Brown Act concerns, they should implement:

• A written editorial policy stating they do not cover Vista City Council matters they vote on.

• A third‑party editor for political content.

• A disclosure statement on any article touching city issues.

• A prohibition on using the publication to advocate for or against city policies.

Transparency With the Public

They should:

• Announce their business partnership during council meetings when relevant.

• Publish a transparency statement on North County Post’s website.

• File timely Form 700 updates if ownership changes.

Transparency reduces suspicion and protects both councilmembers.

What Vista Residents Should Expect From Their Councilmembers

Residents deserve:

• Unbiased decision‑making

• Full compliance with FPPC rules

• Strict adherence to the Brown Act

• Transparency about financial interests

• Clear separation between public office and private business

Shared business ownership is not illegal — but it requires heightened vigilance.

“But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever‑flowing stream.” — Amos 5:24

San Diego County Supervisor Monica Montgomery Steppe lists rental income from Max Ellorin—her own staff member—on her 2023 Assuming Office Statement of Economic Interests (Form 700) for the County of San Diego. Background check results indicated only one individual named ‘Max Ellorin’ exists in the State of California.
This rental income does not appear on her 2023 Leaving Office Form 700 filed with the City of San Diego.

This discrepancy raises a natural question:
Is it ethically problematic for a public official to receive rental income from a subordinate employee?

The answer requires examining:

• California’s conflict‑of‑interest laws

• FPPC disclosure requirements

• The timeline of Steppe’s and Ellorin’s employment

• Whether any decisions Steppe made could have financially affected Ellorin

• Whether the omission on the City form is significant

What the Disclosure Documents Show

County Form 700 (Assuming Office – Dec. 2023)

In the County filing, Steppe explicitly discloses rental income from Max Ellorin:

“LIST OF SOURCES OF RENTAL INCOME OF $10,000 OR MORE — Max Ellorin.”

This appears in the Schedule B Attachment of her Assuming Office statement dated 12/05/2023.

City Form 700 (Leaving Office – Dec. 2023)

In contrast, her City of San Diego Leaving Office Form 700 does not list Ellorin as a rental‑income source.
Instead, it states:

“Name(s) redacted for privacy reasons.”

This means the City Clerk redacted tenant names, which is permitted under City policy.
It does not necessarily mean Ellorin was omitted—only that the names were not publicly displayed.

Employment Timeline: Why This Matters

Monica Montgomery Steppe

• City Councilmember (District 4): through Dec. 4, 2023

• County Supervisor (District 4): sworn in Dec. 5, 2023

Max Ellorin

• Deputy Chief of Staff, City of San Diego: through Dec. 2023

• Director of Community Engagement, County of San Diego (Supervisor Steppe): beginning 2024

This means:

• Ellorin was Steppe’s subordinate at the City until December 2023.

• Ellorin became Steppe’s subordinate at the County immediately afterward.

• During both periods, Steppe owned property from which Ellorin generated rental income.

This creates a direct financial relationship between an elected official and her employee.

What California Law Says About This Kind of Relationship

A. FPPC Conflict‑of‑Interest Rules

California’s Political Reform Act prohibits officials from participating in decisions that would materially financially benefit a source of income.

A “source of income” includes anyone who pays an official $500 or more in a year.

Ellorin clearly meets that threshold, as Steppe disclosed:

“GROSS INCOME RECEIVED: $10,001–$100,000”

Thus, Ellorin is a reportable financial interest.

B. Does this automatically create a conflict?

Not necessarily.

A conflict exists only if Steppe made governmental decisions that could financially benefit Ellorin—for example:

• Salary decisions

• Promotion decisions

• Budget allocations directly affecting his position

• Personnel actions

If Steppe had authority over Ellorin’s employment terms, then any decision affecting him could be considered a conflict under FPPC rules.

C. Is it illegal for an official to rent property to an employee?

No.
But it does create a situation requiring:

• Full disclosure

• Recusal from decisions affecting the tenant‑employee

• Avoidance of undue influence

The FPPC has repeatedly warned that financial relationships with staff can create “inherent risks of coercion or favoritism.”

The Ethical Question: Is This Appropriate?

A. Power Dynamics

A supervisor receiving rent from an employee creates a dual‑power relationship:

1. Employment power (ability to hire, fire, promote)

2. Landlord power (ability to raise rent, terminate tenancy)

This can create pressure—real or perceived—on the employee.

B. Public Perception

Even if legal, the arrangement may appear:

• Coercive (“My boss is also my landlord”)

• Preferential (“Her tenant gets a job or promotion”)

• Opaque (especially if disclosures differ between agencies)

C. The Omission Issue

The City form did not publicly list Ellorin’s name, but instead stated:

“Name(s) redacted for privacy reasons.”

This is allowed under City policy.
However, the County form did list Ellorin by name.

This discrepancy may raise questions about transparency, but does not necessarily indicate wrongdoing.

Did Steppe Make Decisions That Could Affect Ellorin?

At the City (through Dec. 4, 2023)

As a Councilmember, Steppe had influence over:

• Staff assignments

• Personnel decisions within her office

• Budget allocations affecting staff roles

If Ellorin was her Deputy Chief of Staff while also her tenant, then Steppe had dual authority over him.

At the County (starting Dec. 5, 2023)

As a Supervisor, Steppe again had authority over:

• Hiring

• Salary

• Job duties

• Promotions

Ellorin became her Director of Community Engagement, again creating a dual relationship.

This is the core ethical concern.

Expert Interpretation: Is This an Ethical Violation?

Likely FPPC View

The FPPC generally considers this type of relationship high‑risk but not automatically unlawful.

Key factors:

• Disclosure: Steppe disclosed Ellorin as a rental‑income source on her County form.

• Recusal: If Steppe participated in decisions directly affecting Ellorin’s compensation or job status, that could be a conflict of interest.

• Coercion: If Ellorin felt pressured due to the landlord‑tenant relationship, that could violate workplace ethics rules.

Likely County Counsel View

County ethics rules emphasize avoiding dual relationships that could impair judgment or create perceived favoritism.

A supervisor renting to a subordinate is typically discouraged.

Public Perception

Even if legal, the arrangement may appear:

• Unprofessional

• A conflict of interest

• A breach of ethical norms

Conclusion: Is It Ethical?

Legally:

The relationship is not automatically illegal, but it is high‑risk under California conflict‑of‑interest law.

Ethically:

Most ethics experts would say this arrangement is problematic because:

• It creates a dual power dynamic

• It risks coercion or favoritism

• It requires constant recusal from decisions affecting the employee

• It undermines public trust

• It raises questions about transparency, especially given differing disclosures

Bottom Line

It is ethically questionable for an elected official to receive rental income from a subordinate employee—especially one who works directly under her in both the City and County roles.
The FPPC would likely advise avoiding such relationships entirely.

“The integrity of the upright guides them, but the unfaithful are destroyed by their duplicity.” — Proverbs 11:3

The civil action SCV‑270527 | Jane Doe #1 et al. v. Dominic Foppoli has evolved into one of Sonoma County’s most procedurally complex cases. The docket provided spans nearly one hundred pages of filings, hearings, demurrers, motions to strike, discovery disputes, and repeated judicial reassignments. Plaintiffs—multiple Jane Does represented by Perry Law attorneys Traci Carrillo, Nicole Jaffee, and Gina Fortino Dickson—allege sexual assault, negligence, and organizational failures involving Foppoli and several entities connected to him.

Among the defendants is Santa Rosa Active 20‑30 #50 Foundation, a social and philanthropic organization historically intertwined with local political and business networks. The docket confirms its role as a named defendant.

The Unaddressed Conflict: Perry Law’s Connection to Active 20‑30 #50

A significant structural conflict emerges when examining the relationship between the plaintiffs’ law firm and one of the defendants.

According to Perry Law’s public attorney biography, Esquire Martin Hirsch, a partner at the firm, previously served as an executive board member of the Active 20‑30 Club of Santa Rosa #50.

From the firm’s website:

“Martin Hirsch… served on the Executive Board of the Active 20‑30 Club of Santa Rosa #50.”
(Perry Law – Attorney Profile)

This creates a direct organizational overlap:
A partner at the plaintiffs’ firm formerly held leadership within a defendant organization.

Even though Hirsch is not listed as counsel of record in the docket, his partnership status means he shares in firm profits, participates in firm governance, and is professionally aligned with the attorneys litigating against his former organization.

Under California ethics principles, a partner’s conflict is typically imputed to the entire firm unless formally screened or waived. The docket contains no indication that any conflict waiver or screening notice was filed.

Perry Law’s Litigation Against Active 20‑30 #50

The docket shows Perry Law attorneys repeatedly litigating against Active 20‑30 #50 and its national counterpart, Active 20‑30 US & Canada. Examples include:

“Motion to Compel… Active 20‑30 US & Canada to provide further responses…”
(Details.pdf, p. 24)

“Santa Rosa Active 20‑30 #50 Foundation’s Motion for Nonsuit…”
(Details.pdf, p. 94)

“Motion to Compel Santa Rosa Active 20‑30 #50 Foundation’s Responses…”
(Details.pdf, p. 23–26)

These filings demonstrate that Active 20‑30 #50 is not a peripheral defendant. It is a central litigant, repeatedly engaged in contested motions and discovery battles.

The plaintiffs’ firm—Perry Law—is the firm prosecuting those actions.

Ethical Implications of the Overlap

A. Imputed Conflicts Under California Rules

California’s Rules of Professional Conduct treat a partner’s conflict as the firm’s conflict unless:

• the partner is screened from participation, and

• the client provides informed written consent.

The docket contains no reference to screening procedures or conflict waivers.

B. Fiduciary and Loyalty Considerations

A former executive board member of a nonprofit typically retains:

• fiduciary obligations,

• access to internal organizational information,

• long‑standing relationships with members, and

• reputational interest in the organization’s public standing.

These factors create a structural loyalty conflict when the same lawyer’s firm sues that organization.

C. Appearance of Impropriety

Even absent actual bias, the appearance of conflict can undermine confidence in the fairness of proceedings. Reasonable observers could question:

• whether Perry Law’s litigation strategy is influenced by internal knowledge of Active 20‑30 #50,

• whether Hirsch’s past leadership creates divided loyalties, or

• whether the organization’s members expected confidentiality that could indirectly benefit plaintiffs.

The docket shows no judicial inquiry into this overlap.

Sonoma County’s Tight Social and Legal Networks

The conflict is amplified by the interconnected nature of Sonoma County’s civic landscape. Active 20‑30 #50 has historically included local political figures, business owners, and nonprofit leaders. Perry Law is one of the county’s most prominent firms, frequently appearing in high‑profile civil matters.

In such an environment, overlapping affiliations are common—but when they intersect within active litigation, they raise questions about transparency, disclosure, and the integrity of the process.

Why the Conflict Matters for the Plaintiffs, Defendants, and the Court

A. For Plaintiffs

A conflict could affect strategic decisions, settlement posture, or the perception of independence in representation.

B. For Defendants

Active 20‑30 #50 could argue that the plaintiffs’ firm possesses institutional knowledge or relationships that create an unfair advantage.

C. For the Court

Judicial officers rely on counsel to disclose conflicts. If a structural conflict exists but was never raised, it may affect:

• rulings on motions,

• discovery disputes,

• credibility assessments, and

• the integrity of the trial record.

“But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever‑flowing stream.” — Amos 5:24

On November 5, 2025, a 14‑year‑old student at César Chávez Middle School suffered a traumatic facial injury during a physical‑education activity. What began as a schoolyard incident escalated into emergency medical treatment, dental complications, and ultimately a formal legal claim against Santa Rosa City Schools. The case, now filed as 26SC00587, is scheduled for trial on October 19, 2026 in Sonoma County Superior Court, Department 18.

This article outlines the incident, the government‑claim process, the small‑claims filing, and the procedural posture of the case.

The Incident: A Student Injured During P.E.

A. Date, Time, and Location

• Date: November 5, 2025

• Time: Approximately 11:00 a.m.

• Location: César Chávez Middle School, Santa Rosa, CA

B. What Happened

According to the filed claim:

“Another student pushed her, causing her to fall face‑first onto the ground.”

The fall resulted in:

• Loss of consciousness

• Concussion

• Swollen and bleeding nose

• Facial trauma

• Deep lip lacerations requiring stitches

• A broken permanent tooth

• Subsequent dental infections requiring antibiotics

These injuries required both emergency medical care and ongoing dental treatment.

Medical and Dental Consequences

A. Emergency Treatment

Immediately after the incident, Brenda received:

• Emergency medical evaluation

• Emergency dental treatment

• Treatment for facial lacerations

• Monitoring for concussion symptoms

B. Dental Complications

The broken tooth became infected twice, requiring urgent antibiotics. The long‑term dental plan includes:

• Root canal

• Extraction of the damaged tooth

• Implant placement

• Custom abutment

• Porcelain crown

• Interim implant abutment

The treatment plan totals $4,700, as documented in the dental provider’s estimate.

C. Emotional and Psychological Impact

The claim notes:

• Ongoing pain

• Emotional distress

• Anxiety related to dental treatment

• Fear of dental procedures following the traumatic injury

Filing a Government Claim

Because Santa Rosa City Schools is a public entity, California law requires a government claim before filing suit.

A. Government Claim Submission

• Filed: December 1, 2025

• Submitted to: Santa Rosa City Schools, Business Services

• Claimant: Beatriz Valencia, on behalf of her minor daughter

• Amount: Less than $10,000

B. Claim Rejection

The district rejected the claim on December 29, 2025, triggering the right to file a lawsuit.

C. District Warning

The claim form included a statutory warning:

“The District will seek to recover all costs of defense… if the action was not brought in good faith and with reasonable cause.”

This is standard language under CCP §§128.5 and 1038.

Filing the Small Claims Case

A. Case Filing

• Case Number: 26SC00587

• Filed: August 13, 2026

• Court: Sonoma County Superior Court, Civil Division

• Case Type: Small Claims ($5,001–$12,500)

• Claim Amount: $12,000

B. Guardian Ad Litem Appointment

Because the plaintiff is a minor, the court appointed:

• Guardian Ad Litem: Beatriz Valencia

• Order Filed: August 13, 2026

C. Fee Waiver

The court granted a fee waiver the same day.

The Legal Basis of the Claim

A. Negligence Theory

The plaintiff alleges:

“Santa Rosa City Schools failed to provide proper supervision and maintain a safe environment for students.”

This is a standard negligence claim against a school district, asserting:

• Duty of care

• Breach of duty (lack of supervision)

• Causation

• Damages

B. Damages Sought

The $12,000 claim includes:

• Past medical expenses

• Past dental expenses

• Future dental treatment

• Pain and suffering

• Emotional distress

Small claims court allows individuals to seek up to $12,500, making this claim properly filed.

Upcoming Trial

A. Trial Details

• Date: October 19, 2026

• Time: 9:00 a.m.

• Department: 18

• Judicial Officer: Superior Court Judicial Officer (not yet named in docket)

B. What Each Side Must Bring

The plaintiff must bring:

• Medical records

• Dental treatment plan

• Bills and receipts

• Photos of injuries

• Witness statements

• School incident reports (if available)

The defendant (Santa Rosa City Schools) may bring:

• Staff statements

• Incident reports

• Supervision policies

• Evidence disputing causation or damages

What Happens Next

The case will proceed to trial unless:

• The parties settle

• The district pays voluntarily

• The plaintiff dismisses the claim

• The trial is postponed

Small claims trials are informal, fast, and decided the same day or shortly thereafter.

“The Lord is near to the brokenhearted and saves those who are crushed in spirit.” — Psalm 34:18

On August 12, 2026, I sent a media request email to Esquire Traci Carrillo, Perry Law, asking her to explain why she intentionally filed a false police report against my elder, Michael Hilber. In my email, I wrote:

“Can you kindly confirm why you intentionally filed a false police report against my elder, Michael Hilber? He was threatened with arrest based on completely false accusations and intimidation.”

The police report Carrillo filed became Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office informational case SD260716009. The report itself states:

“This case involves social media posts by an individual which possibly contained confidential information from courtroom testimony.”

The report lists Carrillo as the reporting party and identifies Hilber as “Other Involved.” It does not identify any crime, any statute violated, or any evidence that Hilber posted confidential information. It is explicitly labeled “INFORMATIONAL REPORT” and “NIBRS Non Reportable Local Code,” which confirms that no criminal conduct was found.

MY EXPERIENCE IN THE OPEN COURTROOM

The Dominic Foppoli hearing was open to the public. I was present. Michael Hilber was present. Anyone in that courtroom was legally allowed to observe and discuss what happened. There was no confidentiality order, no sealed proceeding, and no admonishment from the judge or bailiff. Posting updates from an open court session is not illegal in California.

FALSE ACCUSATIONS AND INTIMIDATION

Despite that, Carrillo reported Hilber to law enforcement. The sheriff’s report contains no evidence, no witness statements, and no supporting documentation. It simply records Carrillo’s allegation and lists Hilber as involved.

After that report, a deputy went to Hilber’s home and threatened him with arrest. My elder had done nothing wrong. He attended a public hearing and quietly observed the proceedings. The threat of arrest was based entirely on Carrillo’s unverified statements.

A PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT

Carrillo represents the Jane Does in the Foppoli matter. Her decision to file a false report against a community elder raises serious concerns about misuse of law enforcement, intimidation of the public, and attempts to control public discussion of an open court case.

Filing a knowingly false police report violates California Penal Code 148.5. Using law enforcement to intimidate a taxpayer who attended a public hearing undermines public trust and suggests selective enforcement and abuse of authority.

MY CALL FOR ACCOUNTABILITY

The public has the right to attend court, the right to discuss public proceedings, and the right to be free from retaliatory police action. Hilber’s involvement was lawful, peaceful, and protected. Carrillo’s report, unsupported by evidence, triggered an unnecessary and frightening law enforcement response against an elderly man who simply exercised his civic rights.

The sheriff’s document itself confirms there was no crime. It records only Carrillo’s allegation and marks the case as informational.

I asked Carrillo to explain her actions. As of now, she has provided no justification for filing a false report or for the intimidation directed at my elder.

“No weapon formed against you shall prosper, and every tongue that rises against you in judgment you shall condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord.”

Isaiah 54:17

The Sonoma County Deputy Sheriffs’ Association PAC remains under formal scrutiny by the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC), with the matter publicly listed on the Commission’s August 20, 2026 agenda. The case, filed as FPPC No. 20/1111, centers on a series of campaign‑advertising and disclosure violations tied to the 2020 “Committee for Transparent Justice – No on Measure P” effort.

According to the FPPC’s published agenda, the Sheriffs’ Association, its sponsored PAC, the No on P committee, and two officers—Michael Vail and Cody Ebert—were cited for multiple violations of California’s Political Reform Act. The FPPC states that the committees failed to file required 24‑Hour Reports, filed campaign statements that omitted mandatory sponsor identification, and paid for political advertisements that lacked legally required disclosures. Some ads also failed to include the basic “Paid for by” statement required under state law.

The agenda notes:

“Respondents… failed to file required 24‑Hour Reports… [and] paid for advertisements, which did not include the required reference identifying the DSA and its PAC as the sponsors of the committee (and some of the ads failed to state ‘Paid for by’).”

The FPPC lists the total proposed penalty at **$11,000**, covering violations of Government Code sections 84203, 84204, 84102, 84106, 84504.1, 84504.2, 84504.3, and Title 2 CCR §18419(b)(1). The matter appears on the Consent Calendar, meaning the Commission may adopt the stipulation without discussion unless a commissioner requests removal for separate consideration.

This enforcement action reflects the FPPC’s ongoing focus on transparency in local law‑enforcement political activity, especially in cases where public‑safety unions sponsor ballot‑measure committees. The published agenda signals that the case is in its final stage, with the Commission prepared to vote on the stipulation and penalty.

“For nothing is hidden that will not be made manifest, nor anything secret that will not be known and come to light.” — Luke 8:17

Beginning With the Most Critical Fact: Judge Broderick Was Removed Because of Whitestar

The most defining moment in my lawsuit came on August 6, 2026, when my peremptory challenge against Judge Patrick Broderick was granted. His removal was not procedural—it was necessary. His spouse, Susan Radford (Broderick), was a client of Whitestar Group, the same private investigations firm that:

• Served the summons and complaint in my lawsuit

• Attempted to recruit me, pay me in cash, and influence my legal decisions

• Is under active BSIS/DSLE investigation because of my complaints

• Employed multiple Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office personnel while receiving expanding County contracts

Whitestar’s misconduct is directly tied to my case. Broderick’s spouse’s affiliation with Whitestar created a mandatory conflict of interest, and his removal set the tone for everything that followed.

This case has not been a normal civil lawsuit. It has been a collision between political networks, private security contracting, law‑enforcement entanglements, and judicial ethics.

Whitestar Group: The Firm That Entered My Life and My Lawsuit Simultaneously

Whitestar Served My Summons

On February 5, 2025, I was served by:

“MARK T. ANDREWS FOR WHITESTAR GROUP.”

Whitestar was directly involved in executing service of process for the plaintiffs.

Whitestar Tried to Recruit Me While Serving My Co‑Defendant

The timing was impossible to ignore:

• Feb 27, 2025: Whitestar CEO Mark Adams contacted me offering investigative work.

• Mar 11, 2025: Adams met with me in person and reiterated the offer.

• Mar 12, 2025: Whitestar served my co‑defendant, Laura Ainsworth.

Whitestar was simultaneously:

• Working for the plaintiffs

• Paying me in cash

• Offering me investigative assignments

• Attempting to influence my communications with opposing counsel

Whitestar was both inside the lawsuit and inside my life.

Whitestar Is Under Active BSIS/DSLE Investigation Because of My Complaint

I reported Whitestar for:

• Coercion

• Extortion

• Bribery

• Improper PI employment practices

This investigation later triggered judicial recusals.

Whitestar’s Law‑Enforcement Entanglements: The Sheriff’s Office Conflict

Whitestar employed multiple current or recently retired Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office personnel:

• Lt. Sean Jones

• Sgt. Robert Crabb

• Deputy Rod McMasters

At the same time, the Sheriff’s Office:

• Approved Whitestar’s invoices

• Oversaw Whitestar’s performance

• Expanded Whitestar’s contracts

This overlap triggered a formal FPPC investigation:

FPPC Case No. 2026‑00246 — opened March 25, 2026
Investigating Lt. Sean Jones’ off‑duty employment with Whitestar

The investigation remains active.

Why This Matters in My Case

The City of Sonoma contracts with the Sheriff’s Office for law enforcement services.
The City of Sonoma’s Chief, Brandon Cutting, was deposed by the plaintiffs in my lawsuit.

This means:

• A Sheriff’s Office official is a witness

• Whitestar employed Sheriff’s personnel

• Whitestar served my summons

• Whitestar attempted to influence me

• Whitestar is under investigation

• My judge’s spouse works for the County that oversees the Sheriff’s Office

This is a structural conflict of interest, not a hypothetical one.

Every Judge Removed or Reassigned From My Case

My case has cycled through four judges, each departure tied to conflicts.

1. Judge Patrick Broderick — Removed under CCP §170.6 (Whitestar Conflict)

This is the most important removal.

His spouse was a Whitestar client.
Whitestar is under investigation because of my complaint.
Whitestar served my summons.
Whitestar attempted to influence me.

This was a mandatory disqualification under CCP §170.1(a)(2)(A).

2. Judge Jane Gaskell — Recused under CCP §170.1

On July 21, 2026, Judge Gaskell filed a 170.1 Notice of Recusal.

Her connections to SCWiL and overlapping networks with plaintiffs’ counsel made her continued involvement untenable.

3. Judge Dana Simonds — Removed under CCP §170.6

On July 23–24, 2026, a peremptory challenge was filed and granted.

Simonds also had overlapping professional networks with plaintiffs’ counsel.

4. Judge Christopher Honigsberg — Removed during panel rotation

Honigsberg appeared briefly during a demurrer panel and was administratively reassigned.

I am now on my fifth judge: Judge Oscar A. Pardo.

Why Judge Oscar A. Pardo Cannot Be Impartial in My Case

A. I Reported Pardo to the FPPC

The FPPC’s letter confirms:

• Pardo failed to disclose disclosable income

• He was required to complete the PREP course

• He amended his SEIs only after my complaint

I am the complainant.
He is the subject of the complaint.
He now presides over my case.

B. His Spouse Works for the County of Sonoma

This matters because:

• The County oversees the Sheriff’s Office

• The Sheriff’s Office is entangled with Whitestar

• Whitestar served my summons

• Whitestar is under investigation

• A Sheriff’s Office official was deposed in my case

Under Canon 3E(1) and CCP §170.1(a)(6), this creates an appearance of bias.

C. Pardo Has Ruled in Cases Where the County Was a Plaintiff

In SCV‑273578 (County of Sonoma vs. Cupp):

• Pardo presided

• Pardo issued a monetary judgment in favor of the County

• He did not recuse himself

• His spouse works for the County

This is a pattern of non‑recusal in County‑involved matters.

D. My Case Involves County‑Connected Witnesses and Contractors

The County is not a named party, but it is structurally involved through:

• Sheriff’s Office

• City of Sonoma contract policing

• Whitestar’s County contracts

• Whitestar’s employment of Sheriff’s personnel

• Whitestar’s service of process

• Whitestar’s ongoing investigations

Pardo’s spouse’s employment creates a direct conflict.

Total Judges Removed or Reassigned

My case has had four judges removed or reassigned:

I am now assigned to Judge Oscar A. Pardo.

“For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth.” — 2 Corinthians 13:8

“No weapon formed against you shall prosper, and every tongue that rises against you in judgment you shall condemn.”

Isaiah 54:17

The Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) is currently reviewing multiple complaints involving Fairfax Councilmember Stephanie Hellman. These complaints allege potential violations of California’s conflict‑of‑interest laws, including whether Hellman may have financially benefited from her own votes and whether she participated in governmental decisions that directly involved her private interests or affiliations.

Although the FPPC has not yet issued findings, the existence of multiple active complaint files indicates that the agency considers the allegations sufficiently credible to warrant formal review. As always, readers should confirm details with official FPPC sources.

Complaint Categories Under Review

Based on the documents submitted, the FPPC appears to be examining three core areas:

1. Dual‑Role Participation in Funding Decisions

One complaint focuses on Hellman’s appearance on a Fairfax–San Anselmo Children’s Center (FSACC) funding request — an item she allegedly helped bring forward while simultaneously serving in a role connected to the organization.

The concern:
Whether Hellman’s involvement constitutes participation in a governmental decision in which she had a financial or organizational interest, prohibited under Government Code § 87100.

2. Potential Personal Financial Benefit From Her Own Vote

Another complaint questions whether Hellman may have profited from a rental‑related vote, raising issues under California’s conflict‑of‑interest and financial disclosure laws.

The allegation:
That Hellman voted on a matter that had a direct impact on property or financial arrangements connected to her, which could violate the Political Reform Act’s prohibition on using public office for personal financial gain.

3. Omitted Reportable Finanical Interests

Current FPPC Status

While the FPPC has not yet issued a determination, the following points are clear:

• The investigations remain active.

• No dismissal or closure notices have been issued.

• No enforcement decision has been published.

FPPC investigations typically proceed through:

1. Intake and jurisdiction review

2. Preliminary inquiry

3. Full investigation (if warranted)

4. Findings and potential enforcement actions

Why These Complaints Matter

The allegations against Hellman touch on core principles of California ethics law:

• Public officials must not participate in decisions where they have a financial interest.

• Officials must disclose economic interests that could influence their votes.

• Dual roles — public office and private organizational involvement — must be carefully separated.

If substantiated, violations can result in:

• Administrative fines,

• Required corrective filings,

• Formal reprimands,

• Or referral for prosecution in severe cases.

What Happens Next

The FPPC will continue reviewing evidence submitted by complainants and any response provided by Hellman or the Town of Fairfax. The agency may:

• Request additional documentation,

• Interview witnesses,

• Examine financial disclosures,

• Review council meeting records,

• And evaluate whether Hellman’s actions meet the legal threshold for a conflict‑of‑interest violation.

A final determination will be issued once the investigation concludes.

“For the Lord loves justice; He will not forsake His faithful ones.” — Psalm 37:28

On August 5, 2026, I attended proceedings in the Dominic Foppoli civil trial at the Sonoma County Superior Court. What should have been a routine day of public observation turned into an alarming incident involving inconsistent instructions from bailiffs, a public reprimand by Judge Dana Simonds, and starkly unequal treatment between me—an Asian woman and civil‑rights advocate—and Kate O’Weber, a white activist aligned with the plaintiffs.

I appreciate Ms. O’Weber’s military service, and thank her for serving our country. However, I did not appreciate the way that she confronted me outside of the courthouse while I awaited contact with the Sherriff’s Office to discuss unlawful removal.

This article documents what occurred, the legal questions raised, and the broader implications for racial equity and public access to Sonoma County’s courts.

Conflicting Orders to Leave the Courthouse

The first confrontation occurred in the hallway. One bailiff told me I was “never allowed to return to the courthouse.” A second bailiff contradicted him minutes later, stating I was required to leave “for today, only.”

No one could cite:

• a statute,

• a rule,

• a written order,

• or any legal authority supporting my removal.

As I wrote in my inquiry to court administration:

“The Sheriffs were unable to inform me of the law that I allegedly violated, and could not provide the legal language to support my removal from the premises.”

Removal from a courthouse is a serious action requiring documentation and due process. None were provided.

Judge Simonds’ Public Reprimand

When I entered the Foppoli courtroom, Judge Simonds announced—before the entire jury—that jurors had allegedly overheard me discussing the case in the hallway. She then repeated the statements she claimed I made, despite asserting that such statements were prohibited.

This contradiction raises a fundamental question:
If the statements were impermissible, why were they repeated publicly in front of jurors?

Additionally:

• No juror ever approached me.

• No staff member warned me.

• No written order was issued.

• No legal authority was cited.

Judge Simonds stated this was the first time in her judicial career she had ever issued such an exclusion order. Yet no documentation was produced.

Selective Enforcement of Courthouse Rules

A sheriff’s deputy told me that recording inside the courthouse was prohibited. Yet Kate O’Weber—the Tracking Foppoli representative—has repeatedly recorded videos inside the courthouse without consequence.

From my written account:

“Oddly, the Tracking Foppoli representative has been allowed to record videos & mock those who disagree with her inside the courthouse.”

Kate O’Weber has also disclosed case details in the hallway—precisely the conduct Judge Simonds accused me of—yet she has never been reprimanded.

This discrepancy suggests unequal enforcement of courthouse rules based on affiliation and race.

Harassment and Faith-Based Hostility Outside the Courthouse

Outside the building, Kate O’Weber confronted me, attacked my Christian faith, and told me I was “not allowed in the courthouse.” This statement is not only false—it is discriminatory.

Religious identity and expression are protected under the First Amendment and California civil‑rights law. No courthouse rule prohibits faith or religious conversation.

Racial Disparities in Treatment

The pattern is clear:

• I, an Asian woman and independent civil‑rights advocate, was removed from the courthouse without legal justification.

• Kate O’Weber, a white woman aligned with the plaintiffs, was permitted to record videos, disclose case details, and engage in harassment without reprimand.

• Judge Simonds publicly repeated alleged statements she claimed were prohibited, then excluded me from the building.

This prompted my direct question to the court:

“As an Asian woman, can the court please explain why white women who are advocates for the plaintiffs are receiving preferential treatment by Judge Simonds?”

In a high‑profile civil‑rights case, equal treatment of all members of the public is essential. What occurred on August 5th suggests a troubling departure from that standard.

Request for Transparency and Accountability

I formally requested:

• the written order authorizing my removal,

• the legal authority Judge Simonds relied upon,

• clarification of courthouse recording policies,

• and an explanation for the disparate treatment between racial groups and advocacy affiliations.

These questions remain unanswered.

“No weapon formed against you shall prosper, and every tongue that rises against you in judgment you shall condemn.” — Isaiah 54:17