Schneider’s FPPC Complaint

The following Fair Political Practices Commission complaint by Christian Schneider has been lightly edited for clarity. When he mentions the County Counsel, he is referring to the Monterey County Counsel’s Office, which performs much of the county’s legal affairs. He makes repeated references to the defamation case filed by himself, former sheriff’s Sgt. Dan Mitchell and sheriff’s Sgt. Scott Davis against three sheriff’s commanders (one rank higher than sergeant) Joe Moses, Matt Caldwell and Archie Warren, who denied wrongdoing. The litigation was settled out of court with damages paid to Mitchell and Davis. Schneider declined to settle.
— Royal Calkins

RELATED STORY: Monterey County officials owe Christian Schneider a hearing

Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) Complaint 
Complainant: Christian Schneider christian@pivotalcampaignservices.com 
Subject: Systematic Misuse of Public Resources, Campaign Finance Violations, Form 700 Disclosure Failures, and Government Code § 1090 Violations 

I. Introduction 
This complaint details widespread violations involving the misuse of public resources, unlawful campaign coordination, undisclosed contributions, and breaches of Government Code § 1090. These actions, committed between 2018 and 2023, implicate high-ranking public officials, legal counsel, campaign consultants, and political action committees (PACs). Key issues include: 

  1. Misuse of public funds for partisan political purposes, prohibited under Stanson v. Mott and Government Code § 8314. 
  2. Campaign finance violations, including failure to disclose contributions and improper coordination, as outlined in FPPC §§ 84211 and 84305. 
  3. Form 700 disclosure failures, such as omitting financial benefits and campaign contributions. 
  4. Violations of Government Code § 1090 related to conflicts of interest and self-dealing. 

Incidents like the May 3, 2022, county readout and the March 16, 2022, settlement offer highlight repeated efforts to misuse public resources to harm political opponents, protect unethical behavior, and improperly influence election outcomes. 

II. Support for Sheriff Bernal’s 2018 Campaign and Resulting Lawsuits 
Key Facts: Joe Moses and county employees actively participated in Sheriff Bernal’s 2018 re-election campaign using defamatory tactics, workplace harassment, staged press conferences, and anonymous email campaigns targeting political opponents. 

Resulting Legal Actions: 

  1. A lawsuit filed by the Deputy Sheriff’s Association (DSA) seeking to halt workplace harassment tied to Bernal’s campaign. (2018) 
  2. A defamation and retaliation lawsuit brought by Mitchell, Davis, and Schneider. (2019) 

Notable Violations: 

  • Coordinated Partisan Campaigning: Public employees cooperatively engaged in campaign activities, workplace harassment, and defamatory communications. 
  • Improper Indemnification: The Board of Supervisors indemnified defendants, the three commanders, in closed sessions, bypassing public transparency. This was revealed years later in County Counsel Les Girard’s communication with the FPPC. 
  • Undisclosed Public Funding: Public funds improperly financed anti-SLAPP motions to intimidate opposition, cause financial pain, delay relief, and gain partisan advantages. 

Legal Issues: 

  • Violations of Government Code §§ 3201-3209, Penal Code § 424, and FPPC § 8314. 
  • Breaches of ethical standards designed to prevent government entities from influencing elections. 
  • Lack of transparency in indemnification processes, undermining public trust. 

III. Joe Moses’s 2021 Campaign Launch 
Key Facts: 

  • On October 18, 2021, then-Sheriff Bernal announced his retirement on the Monterey County Sheriff Office Facebook page in full uniform, signaling a succession plan involving Moses. 
  • Within an hour, Joe Moses issued a mass email inviting recipients to a press conference scheduled for October 20, 2021 announcing his candidacy for sheriff. 
  • Moses’s Form 501 Candidate Intention was signed September 1, 2021, by Moses and submitted on October 19, 2021. 
  • Moses’s Form 410 (Statement of Organization) was signed on October 20, 2021, indicating his campaign’s qualification on October 19.
  • On October 20, Moses met with County Counsel directly before holding a press conference on county property during work hours, with multiple MCSO employees present.
  • Moses’s campaign materials were pre-prepared. In attendance were political consultant Michael Terris (Clean Sweep) and PAC representatives (e.g., Salinas Valley Leadership Group SV LG). Clean Sweep also worked on Kimbley Craig’s 2022 campaign for the Board of Supervisors.
  • On October 21, 2021, Moses attended an SVLG meeting alongside Supervisor Chris Lopez.

Legal and Ethical Issues:

➔ Government Code § 8314 (Misuse of Public Resources): ◆ Sheriff Bernal’s use of the MCSO Facebook page and uniform for campaign purposes violated rules prohibiting public resource use for partisan activities. 

◆ Moses’s press conference on county property during work hours, attended by public employees, compounded this violation. 

➔ FPPC § 84305 (Campaign Coordination): ◆ The presence of PAC representatives, consultants, and public officials at Moses’s campaign launch raises concerns of improper coordination. 

➔ Political Reform Act Violations: ◆ Public resources were improperly utilized to facilitate campaign activities, undermining the integrity of governmental operations. 

➔ Systemic Favoritism: ◆ The involvement of County Counsel and public resources in Moses’s campaign damaged public trust by demonstrating systemic bias within the county’s election administration.

IV. Coordination 
The systemic coordination of public and private resources for partisan purposes by elected officials and County Counsel undermines fair elections and necessitates a detailed investigation into these violations. 

Examples of Improper Coordination: 

  • SVLG, the largest donor to Supervisor Lopez, former Supervisor Phillips, and Moses, demonstrates a pattern of coordination across campaigns. 
  • SVLG’s campaign consultant, Plasha Fielding Will, works with Congressman Jimmy Panetta, Chris Lopez and John Phillips, adding complexity to the network of partisan coordination. 

Impact on Election Fairness: 

Moses’s Campaign Advantage: The coordination between SVLG, PACs, and consultants provided Moses with substantial resources and support without transparent disclosures, violating FPPC rules.

  • Improper Resource Usage: Evidence of public property and staff being used for campaign purposes highlights direct violations of FPPC regulations and Government Code § 8314. 

Don Chapin’s Involvement in SVLG and Potential Pre-Campaign Coordination 

The FPPC determined that the Salinas Valley Leadership Group (SVLG) operated as a candidate-controlled committee under Government Code § 82016, prompting founder Don Chapin’s resignation in 2022. However, no Amendment to Statement of Organization (Form 410) or reorganization was filed despite being required by Government Code § 84103 and 2 CCR § 18404.1—appears to have been submitted to reflect changes during or after his leadership. Additionally, it remains unclear how donations made by SVLG prior to Chapin’s resignation should be classified for reporting purposes, raising concerns about whether elected officials who benefited from these contributions are fully compliant with any required recusals under Government Code §§ 87100–87505 (conflict-of-interest provisions) and related regulations. 

Chapin’s relationship with political consultant Plasha Fielding Will (PFW) also raises questions about potential pre-campaign coordination. Under Government Code § 82031, an expenditure is considered independent only if it is made without coordination or control by a candidate or campaign. If campaign activities for candidates were coordinated before they filed official paperwork, that coordination could trigger early disclosure obligations, potentially redefining such expenditures as “contributions” subject to limits and conflict-of-interest rules. Further clarification is therefore essential to ensure that all Political Reform Act (Gov. Code §§ 81000–91014) requirements have been met. 

Broader Implications: 

The blending of campaign and public resources compromises election fairness. This pattern of systemic coordination violates FPPC regulations on independent expenditures and campaign coordination, demanding thorough examination. 

V. Court Rulings 
Superior Court Ruling (June 29, 2018): The Superior Court in the case of Mitchell et al v. Moses et al rejected the Respondents’ Special Motion to Strike, determining that: 

  • Respondents failed to meet the requisite threshold demonstrating that the contested causes of action derived from protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute. 
  • Petitioners sufficiently established a probability of prevailing on their claims. 

Judge Marla O. Anderson emphasized that the respondents’ actions did not merit the protections extended under California’s anti-SLAPP provisions. This ruling underscored the judicial recognition of the misuse of public resources and lent credibility to the Petitioners’ allegations against county officials and their associates.

Appellate Court Ruling (April 12, 2022): The Appellate Court upheld the Superior Court’s findings and further elaborated: 

  • “The evidence they (Mitchell et al) presented, if credited, establishes a prima facie case that respondents acted, at the very least, with reckless indifference as to the truth or falsity of the allegedly defamatory statements.” 
  • “Having gone to the trouble of obtaining DSA’s financial records and copies of DSA checks to Schneider and Pivotal Campaign Services, they either knew this was not true or were recklessly indifferent as to the truth or falsity of this claim.” 
  • “But when they started using phrases like ‘political paybacks,’ ‘embezzlement,’ and ‘money laundering,’ they crossed into different territory.” 

This appellate affirmation substantiated allegations of partisan misuse of public funds, defamation, and intentional harm inflicted upon political adversaries of Sheriff Bernal’s campaign. 

Ruling by Judge Thomas Wills (October 21, 2022): Judge Wills delivered a comprehensive opinion addressing the defendants’ actions and the county’s misuse of public resources. The ruling articulated: 

“The protection which the law affords to those who would comment or criticize extends only to comment which is ‘fair,’ not in the sense that it must be reasonable to moderate, but in the sense that it must be published ‘in part least, for the bona fide purpose of giving the public the benefit of comment which it is entitled to have, rather than for any ulterior motive of causing harm to the plaintiff.’ (Maidman v. Jewish Publications, Inc. (1960) 54 Cal.2d 643, 651-652.) The evidence which the court of appeal relied upon to find the prima facie evidence of the element of malice also supports a prima facie finding that ill will or ulterior motive to cause harm to the Davis campaign was behind the conduct.” 

This ruling highlighted the presence of malice and ulterior motives, reinforcing the claims of misuse of resources for politically motivated harm. 

VI. March 16, 2022, Settlement Offer in Mitchell v. Moses defamation suit.
Key Facts: 

      • Despite denying any role in the litigation the county proposed a $240,000 settlement offer to be split among the plaintiffs. 
      • The county had denied having any involvement in the lawsuit yet it paid for the defense. 
      • This offer was made while litigation stemming from the 2018 campaign was ongoing, including accusations of workplace harassment and defamation against Joe Moses and others. 
      • The offer’s timing, just before the certification deadline, suggests a deliberate attempt to resolve litigation that could damage Joe Moses’s 2022 campaign for sheriff. 
      • The offer was made shortly before appellate arguments were heard. 

Legal and Ethical Issues: 

  • Election Interference: The timing of the settlement offer suggests an attempt to resolve litigation damaging to Joe Moses’s candidacy, violating Stanson v. Mott and Government Code § 8314. 
  • FPPC Violations on Campaign Coordination: Offering to settle during a critical election period aligns with behavior suggesting improper coordination to shield Moses from litigation impacts, violating FPPC rules governing the use of public funds. 
  • Misuse of Public Resources: The settlement offer constitutes an unlawful expenditure of public funds to advance partisan objectives, further complicating the county’s impartiality in handling election-related issues. 

VIII. County Readout on May 3, 2022 
Key Facts: 

  • After losing the appellate case in the Mitchell, Davis, and Schneider lawsuit, the county issued the following statement on May 3, 2022: 

“The Board of Supervisors has determined that, in its opinion, the defendants were not acting within the course and scope of employment, and have therefore determined that the county will no longer be providing them a defense in that case. If a jury trial or other fact finder concludes that they were acting within the course and scope of employment, the defendants will be able to seek reimbursement of their defense costs from the County.” 

        • At this point, the defendants had the benefit of the full support of the county government, including County Counsel and unlimited financial resources as noted by the legal expenditures. 
        • Raises concerns about whether the county sought to obscure its involvement in supporting partisan actors by strategically framing its actions to deflect accountability. 
        • Highlights broader failures in transparency and governance, particularly regarding the board’s reliance on incomplete or misleading advice from County Counsel. 
        • By funding anti-SLAPP motions and incurring significant legal fees, the county effectively “gifted” legal expenses to the defendants through discounted rates and absorbed costs. These expenses were not reported as in-kind contributions under FPPC § 84211, particularly during Joe Moses’ campaign. 
        • Additionally, the county failed to file accurate Form 700 disclosures documenting financial benefits provided to the defendants. These omissions demonstrate a broader failure to ensure transparency and compliance with California’s financial disclosure laws. 

Under Government Code § 995.2, the county had the authority to revoke indemnification of the defendants if it determined the defendants acted outside the scope of their employment or with malice. However, the county’s decision to cease funding after losing the anti-SLAPP motion, without proper explanation or consistent application of the law, suggests its actions were politically motivated rather than legally justified. 

  • The county also failed to address its obligations to the plaintiffs, who faced delays and procedural roadblocks caused by the county’s decisions. 

Legal and Ethical Issues: 

  • Under Government Code § 995, the county was obligated to provide a defense for employees if their actions arose within the scope of their employment and were conducted in good faith. The county’s initial vote to indemnify the defendants under this statute carried significant legal and fiduciary responsibilities. Specifically, the county was required to: 
  1. Conduct a thorough and documented review to ensure the defendants’ actions were performed in good faith and within the scope of their official duties before granting indemnification. 
  2. Consistently fund the defense throughout litigation once indemnification was granted, unless new evidence demonstrated the defendants acted outside the scope of employment or with malice, per Government Code § 995.2. 
  3. Avoid using indemnification as a strategic or punitive tool to burden the plaintiffs while benefiting politically aligned defendants. 

Summary: The county’s actions demonstrate a misuse of indemnification to shield politically aligned individuals, avoid accountability, and burden plaintiffs. These failures, combined with the timing of the settlement offer and lack of disclosure, underscore a broader pattern of partisan misuse of public resources in violation of state laws, including Government Code §§ 995, 995.2, 8314, and FPPC §§ 84211 and 84305. 

IX. Recusals and Failure to Recuse
Key Facts: 

  1. Supervisors’ Conflicts of Interest: ○ Supervisors John Phillips and Chris Lopez actively supported Joe Moses’s campaign during the 2021-2022 election cycle through financial contributions and public endorsements. Despite clear conflicts of interest, both participated in votes on lawsuits and financial decisions linked to Moses’s campaign. 

○ Phillips and Lopez’s prior endorsements and coordination with Sheriff Bernal’s 2018 campaign further demonstrate systemic partisan alignment and a pattern of involvement in political controversies. 

  1. Additional Connections and Partisan Coordination: ○ Christian Schneider’s 2019 FPPC complaints documented coordinated financial expenditures among Lopez, Phillips, and Bernal, and their donors. This evidence underscores the need for impartiality and recusals in matters affecting Schneider and other stakeholders. 

○ Paul Fife, legal counsel for Ingraham and Associates, collaborated with Fenton Keller on matters involving Schneider and the DSA. Ingraham served as the DSA’s accountant and employed Patti Worth, who acted as treasurer for both Lopez and Moses. These connections further illustrate systemic conflicts of interest. 

3. Supervisor Luis Alejo: ○ During a Board of Supervisors meeting Alejo publicly attacked Christian Schneider for filing the 2019 FPPC complaints, signaling a lack of impartiality. Despite demonstrated bias, Alejo failed to recuse himself from decisions related to Moses’s campaign and associated legal matters. 

  1. County Counsel’s Role: ○ County Counsel, specifically Susan Blitch and Les Girard, facilitated contracts and approvals that directly benefited Moses and other defendants. This occurred even after the county formally acknowledged in May 2022 that these individuals acted outside their employment scope. 

Legal and Ethical Issues: 

  • Conflict of Interest (Gov. Code § 1090): 
  • Supervisors Lopez, Phillips, and Alejo, as well as County Counsel, failed to recuse themselves from decisions affecting Moses’s campaign, contravening statutory prohibitions against conflicts of interest. 
  • Ethical Violations (FPPC Regulations): 
  • Participation in decisions involving campaign contributors or direct beneficiaries violated FPPC rules regarding impartiality and governance. 
  • Misuse of Public Resources (Penal Code § 424): 
  • Allocating public funds for legal defenses benefiting partisan allies represents a breach of fiduciary duty and abuse of public office. 
  • Systemic Failures in Governance: 
  • The collective failure to recuse highlights broader issues of self-dealing, prioritizing partisan objectives over public trust and equitable governance.

X. County Expenditures and Contracts

  1. Wasser Contract: represented the county 
  • Approved by Susan Blitch, this contract exceeded its financial and temporal limits without proper public amendments or disclosure. 
  • The contract funded activities unrelated to its original scope, including obstructing CPRA requests and concealing IA complaints, further undermining transparency and accountability. 
  1. Fenton Keller Contract: 
  • Drafted by Blitch and retroactively dated to April 12, 2019, despite services commencing in May 2019. 
  • The initial $10,000 contract cap was exceeded by over $200,000, without necessary amendments or disclosure, facilitating partisan legal defenses at public expense. 

Bad Acts and Violations: 

  • Fiscal Mismanagement: 
  • Public funds were diverted for partisan legal defenses, procedural delays, and activities outside the scope of authorized expenditures. 
  • Conflict of Interest: 
  • Contracts benefited partisan actors, violating Government Code § 1090 and undermining public confidence in governance. 

XII. Violations by County Counsel as an agency 
Key Facts: 

  1. Preparation and Approval of Contracts: 

○ County Counsel, including Susan Blitch and Les Girard, prepared and approved contracts with Wasser and Fenton Keller despite evident conflicts of interest and partisan implications. 

○ These contracts exceeded their limits without public disclosure, enabling misuse of public funds for politically motivated purposes. 

  1. Coordination with Defendants: ○ County Counsel continued collaborating with defendants after County funding ceased on May 3, 2022, as evidenced by billing records and substantial rate discounts provided to Moses and others. 
  2. Post-Funding Discounts: ○ Legal rate reductions for Elizabeth Leitzinger’s representation of Moses were facilitated by County Counsel, indirectly benefiting Moses’s campaign activities. 
  3. Obfuscation of Records: ○ Delays in CPRA responses and inadequate record-keeping reflected deliberate efforts to obscure County Counsel’s involvement and shield partisan activities. 
  4. Misrepresentation to the Board of Supervisors: ○ Evidence indicates that board members were misled regarding the implications of their votes on the Fenton Keller contract. Despite decisions to cease funding, coordination and benefits for defendants continued unabated. 

Legal and Ethical Issues: 

  • Conflict of Interest (Gov. Code § 1090): 
  • County Counsel engaged in self-dealing by authorizing contracts that directly benefited themselves and their political allies. 
  • Failure to Maintain Impartiality: 
  • Ongoing collaboration with defendants following the cessation of county funding demonstrated partiality and compromised public trust. 
  • Transparency Violations: 
  • Failure to release invoices, amend contracts publicly, and respond to CPRA requests contravened transparency laws and ethical standards. 
  • Election Interference and Resource Misuse: 
  • Coordination with Moses during an active campaign represents a misuse of public office and resources, violating FPPC regulations and Government Code § 8314. 

XIII. Discounts and Influence of Fenton Keller Attorneys 
Key Facts: 

  1. Elizabeth R. Leitzinger (ERL of Fenton Keller): ○ Billed a total of 345.4 hours for her work. 

○ Standard hourly rate was $405/hour. 

○ Reduced her rate to $300/hour for county-funded defense work and further reduced her rate to $150/hour for Joe Moses after the county ceased funding on April 27, 2022. 

○ Rate Reductions and Discounts: ■ County Work: Estimated 250 hours billed at $300/hour, reflecting a discount of $105/hour from her standard rate. 

Moses Work: Estimated 95.4 hours billed at $150/hour, reflecting a discount of $255/hour from her standard rate. 

○ Total Discounts: ■ County Discount: $26,250 (250 hours × $105/hour). 

Moses Discount: $24,327 (95.4 hours × $255/hour). 

Combined Total Discount: $50,577. 

  1. Christopher Panetta: ○ Signed the Fenton Keller contract and acted as Supervisory Attorney for the matter. 

○ Familial ties with Congressman Jimmy Panetta create potential conflicts of interest, particularly given Jimmy Panetta’s involvement in controversies surrounding a Bernal fundraiser at Don Chapin’s residence. Consultants affiliated with Chapin, SVLG, and the Panetta campaigns also worked for Supervisors Lopez and Phillips. 

○ Despite his supervisory role and court appearances, no billing lines were submitted for Panetta in court filings, raising transparency concerns. 

  1. Sam Beiderwell of Fenton Keller: ○ Provided an 8% discount to the county on legal services prior to being hired by County Counsel on May 5, 2022. 

○ The discount totaled $5,212.50, calculated based on his standard hourly rate of $275 and 208.5 hours worked, reduced to $250/hour. 

Legal and Ethical Implications: 

  1. Undisclosed Campaign Contributions (Gov. Code § 84211): 

○ Discounts provided by Leitzinger, Panetta, and Beiderwell to Moses constitute in-kind contributions requiring disclosure under FPPC regulations. Failure to report these discounts in Moses’s campaign filings violates the Political Reform Act. 

          1. Improper Coordination (Gov. Code § 84305): ○ Alignment of rate reductions and discounts with the county’s decision to cease funding raises concerns about improper coordination between county officials, Fenton Keller attorneys, and Moses’s campaign. 
          2. Misuse of Public Resources (Gov. Code § 8314): ○ Discounts and continued legal defense work indirectly benefited Moses’s campaign after county funding was formally withdrawn, representing a misuse of resources tied to public office. 
          3. Conflict of Interest (Gov. Code § 1090): ○ Panetta’s role in contract preparation and Beiderwell’s discount arrangement reflect broader conflicts of interest, suggesting quid pro quo benefits for political allies and self-dealing. 
          4. Transparency Violations: ○ Lack of billing transparency for Panetta and the alignment of discounted rates with partisan objectives undermine accountability and public trust.

XIV. Parties Named in This Complaint and Additional Considerations 

  1. Parties Named in the Complaint: Monterey County Board of Supervisors: Including individual members who participated in or failed to remedy the alleged misconduct and conflicts of interest. 

County Counsel’s Office (particularly named attorneys such as Susan Blitch, Janet Holmes and Les Girard): For allegedly facilitating or failing to disclose improper expenditures and legal strategies benefiting partisan interests. 

Sheriff Steve Bernal and Joe Moses: For alleged campaign coordination, misuse of public resources, and potential conflicts of interest surrounding campaign activities. 

Political Action Committees (PACs) such as the Salinas Valley Leadership Group (SVLG): To the extent they operated as candidate-controlled committees without proper filings and disclosures. 

Don Chapin: Allegedly influential through SVLG, while holding government contracts that may have created undisclosed conflicts of interest and violations of contribution limits. 

Fenton & Keller and attorneys including Elizabeth R. Leitzinger, Christopher Panetta, and Sam Beiderwell: For providing discounted or otherwise undisclosed legal services potentially constituting in-kind contributions, improperly benefiting partisan campaigns, and creating conflicts of interest. 

  1. Civil Rights and Due Process Concerns (Non-FPPC Jurisdiction) Although the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) enforces California’s campaign finance and conflict-of-interest laws, the allegations raised also include potential violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Fourteenth Amendment rights — such as workplace harassment, retaliation, and denial of fair process. While these claims may lie outside the FPPC’s scope, they underscore the gravity and breadth of the misconduct alleged here. 
  2. Board of Supervisors’ Authority to Remedy Violations Under Government Code § 995.2, the Monterey County Board of Supervisors has authority to revoke or modify indemnification if it finds employees or officials acted with malice or outside the scope of their duties. Additionally, Government Code § 25303 grants the Board supervisory authority over county officers, including the power to address misuse of public resources or conflicts of interest. Should open-meeting or transparency violations be implicated (such as under the Brown Act), Government Code § 54960 empowers both the Board and the public to “cure or correct” such breaches. 
  3. Reservation of Rights Pursuant to applicable FPPC procedures, I reserve the right to amend, supplement, or withdraw any portion of this complaint within the 14-day determination period or as otherwise permitted. Should additional facts or supporting documents emerge, they may be incorporated to ensure a thorough and accurate account of the alleged violations. 

Addendum: Board Authority to Settle Claims and Address Harm 

Although this complaint primarily seeks enforcement action by the Fair Political Practices Commission regarding potential campaign finance and conflict-of-interest violations, it also details actions that may constitute civil rights and due process breaches. To the extent plaintiffs have suffered harm from the alleged misuse of public resources, defamation, retaliation, or denial of fair process, the Monterey County Board of Supervisors retains independent authority under California law to resolve these matters through settlement.

  1. Authority to Settle Lawsuits Under various provisions of the Government Code, including Government Code § 949 (and local ordinances or policies where applicable), the Board may approve settlements or compromise claims against the County if it deems such action in the public interest. 
  2. Continuing Involvement Despite Claims of Non-Involvement Although the County has publicly stated that it is not involved in the lawsuit, it continued taking actions through 2024 that directly benefited the defendants. This discrepancy underscores the need for the Board to reexamine its stance, acknowledge any lingering liabilities, and determine whether settlement or other remedial measures are warranted. 
  3. Opportunity to Remediate By settling with injured plaintiffs, the Board can acknowledge wrongdoing, compensate those harmed, and mitigate ongoing liabilities stemming from the misconduct detailed in this complaint. A properly structured settlement can also serve as a vehicle to enact policy reforms that prevent future abuses of power. 
  4. Importance of Transparency Any settlement should be subjected to public disclosure and scrutiny to restore confidence in County governance and ensure that such wrongdoing does not recur. Full transparency in the negotiation and approval process is critical, especially in light of the County’s contradictory positions regarding its involvement.

Finally, while the FPPC does not have jurisdiction over civil rights or due process claims, these aspects reinforce the gravity of the alleged misconduct and emphasize why the Board should consider all available remedies — including settlement — both to rectify past harm and prevent future abuses of power. 

(As with the rest of this complaint, I reserve the right to amend, supplement, or withdraw any portion of this submission within the FPPC’s determination period, consistent with applicable regulations.)

About Royal Calkins

Royal Calkins is a semi-retired journalist, a former editor of the Monterey Herald, who writes for Voices of Monterey Bay. He lives in Half Moon Bay.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *