Fullerton’s Mayor Fred Jung proposed amendments to the city council rules on May 6, 2025, allowing the mayor to limit how long council members can speak and prohibit “negative commentary” about other members. While these changes were presented as procedural, they follow a clear pattern: Mayor Jung incrementally expanded his control over council processes, aided consistently by Councilmembers Nicholas Dunlap and Jamie Valencia.
Fullerton is a general law city, meaning the mayor holds no additional authority beyond ceremonial duties. Councilmembers are elected by district and select a mayor from among themselves. Under Fullerton’s informal rotation policy, Councilmember Ahmad Zahra was next in line to serve, yet Jung nominated himself and secured the votes of Dunlap and Valencia. At the time, this move seemed disproportionate for a ceremonial post. Subsequent actions suggest it was strategic.
A proposal was brought forward on March 4, 2025, to explore converting Fullerton into a charter city. Of 23 public speakers, only seven supported the idea, yet the measure passed with support from Jung, Dunlap, and Valencia. Unlike general law cities, charter cities can grant broader powers to their officials, including the mayor, through customized governance rules. The proposal raised questions about motive and transparency, particularly as no clear justification was provided.
Just weeks later, on March 27, Jung signed a letter opposing SB 79, a state housing bill. The letter used boilerplate language provided by the League of California Cities and was submitted on official city letterhead, despite no council discussion or vote. While the city’s legislative platform permits staff to act on legislation consistent with adopted priorities, Fullerton rarely weighs in on state bills, making this sudden intervention conspicuous. The mayor acting unilaterally, on a League-aligned position, raises concerns about whether city residents are being represented or bypassed.
Jung’s role within the League is central to this pattern. As Chair of the Transportation, Communications, and Public Works Committee, he helps shape state policy positions that the League then disseminates to cities across California. He is, in effect, using his seat on the council to amplify his League influence and using his League position to justify council-level decisions without local input. The feedback loop allows him to speak for the city without a vote and then claim city consensus where none existed.
The May 6 rule changes now come into focus. The amendments would give Jung procedural levers to mute dissent and shield himself from criticism during council meetings. As the most publicly scrutinized councilmember, Jung stands to benefit most from restrictions on critical speech. That Dunlap and Valencia supported these restrictions further illustrates how power is being consolidated in the mayor’s chair, despite its supposed limitations.
This is not an isolated incident but a structural shift. Jung’s rise to the mayoralty broke with democratic norms. His push for charter city status could expand his formal powers. His unilateral opposition to SB 79 bypassed public input. Now, his proposed rule changes seek to control speech and suppress dissent. Each step builds on the last, enabled by a narrow council majority.
If this continues unchallenged, Fullerton risks becoming a city where one council member, under the title of mayor, makes decisions with minimal transparency or accountability. Residents of District 1, who elected Fred Jung, must decide whether they’re comfortable with this trajectory or whether it’s time to restore balance through public pressure, council engagement, or a recall.
Share this:
Discover more from Fullerton Observer
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Community Voices, Local Government, Local News
With Democrats like Jung, who needs Republicans?
As a Democrat myself, I find this comment really unproductive. I don’t see how disagreement over leadership style suddenly makes someone “less of a Democrat.” From what I can tell, there are four Democrats on the council, each with different perspectives. That’s the reality of a big-tent party—we don’t all have to think exactly alike. Dismissing someone’s values because they don’t fit a narrow mold isn’t productive, and it certainly doesn’t help move the conversation forward.
ED Comment: In Fullerton the position of councilmember is non-partisan. The Observer is also non-partisan with Fullerton residents of all backgrounds welcome to participate.
Dear ED – I appreciate the reminder that the position of councilmember is non-partisan. However, I’m not sure why that clarification was embedded in response to my comment rather than directed at P.D., whose original comment—“With Democrats like Jung, who needs Republicans?”—was explicitly partisan. If non-partisanship is important to uphold, that would have been the more appropriate place to make that point.
It’s concerning that criticism of Mayor Jung often goes unchecked, but when someone defends him, the comment is met with editorial framing. If this publication is truly non-partisan and open to all voices, that standard should apply consistently. Thank you.
Yes, this! 👆
This article paints a deeply misleading and politically charged picture of Mayor Fred Jung’s leadership. What’s described here as a “consolidation of power” is, in reality, a much-needed return to effective governance and accountability in Fullerton. The criticism seems less about the actual policies and more about *who* is proposing them.
Let’s look at what’s really happening: Fullerton has faced years of dysfunction, stagnant growth, and reactive leadership. Mayor Jung is actively working to change that—whether by challenging harmful state mandates like SB 79, proposing charter city status to give Fullerton more local control, or making council meetings more efficient and respectful. These aren’t abuses of power; they’re examples of leadership. The kind Fullerton desperately needs.
The complaint that he was “not supposed” to become mayor because of an informal rotation policy says more about entitlement than governance. The council voted. He earned it. And since stepping into that role, he’s made Fullerton more visible and relevant on the regional and state stage than any mayor in recent memory.
This piece also glosses over the fact that Fullerton’s legislative platform allows the city to weigh in on state bills. The Mayor followed that policy. And his leadership role with the League of California Cities is an asset—not a liability. Instead of twisting his regional influence into a negative, we should be celebrating the fact that Fullerton finally has someone with a seat at the table where real decisions are made.
The truth is, this article isn’t about concern for process—it’s a political hit job on someone who’s finally getting things done. Would this same criticism be written if someone else proposed these ideas? Would *The Observer* even allow an op-ed that praised the Mayor’s accomplishments?
Mayor Jung is not “consolidating power.” He’s leading. And some people just don’t like that.
“The truth is, this article isn’t about concern for process—it’s a political hit job on someone who’s finally getting things done.”
In your opinion which I don’t share.
“Would this same criticism be written if someone else proposed these ideas? Would *The Observer* even allow an op-ed that praised the Mayor’s accomplishments?””
They’re allowing your Jung fan-person comments.
“Mayor Jung is not “consolidating power.” He’s leading. And some people just don’t like that.”
Seems like it’s both. And no, given a lot of votes and behavior toward other councilmembers and other districts I don’t want him and the current majority having more power or getting to write their own ticket with a new charter.
Getting things done, if you can show that’s actually happening, is good but only if the things being done are in the best interest of the city.
I don’t agree in any way with this concept of “overreach” by the state. We’re a city in California. The state is trying to make policy to address the housing crisis. Local NIMBYism is widely considered a big factor in where we are today with the housing market. The charter idea seems designed to supercharge local NIMBYism.
Which would be the opposite of “getting things done” or as I’d prefer, “making things better” on housing policy.
Fran J – you sound like a fan – but It is not easy to feel sorry for Mayor Jung for anyone actually watching or attending Council meetings where he consistently disrespects certain fellow council members and the public. It is unfortunate that the Fair Mayor/Mayor Protem policy based on seniority of years on council without serving as Mayor – (put in place years ago so every elected would have a chance to be Mayor) – has not been followed. That disenfranchises the voters of an entire district. Aside from that – the list of terrible decisions made by the current council majority is long. Currently – despite all the real problems Fullerton has – the council majority of Jung, Valencia & Dunlap is wasting staff time and tax dollars to explore changing the city into a charter city. And recent decisions to kill WoW and – it looks like UP Trail – and toss out newspapers – and designate KKK house – all not smart. Lost a lot of good will there.
You say I “sound like a fan”—and I’ll take that as someone who recognizes when a local leader is actually getting things done. Supporting effective leadership isn’t blind loyalty; it’s acknowledging results. You don’t have to agree with every decision Mayor Jung makes, but dismissing support for him as fandom oversimplifies what many of us see: a mayor who’s actively working to modernize and elevate Fullerton after years of stagnation.
First, it’s one thing to criticize someone’s tone or style, but to reduce Mayor Jung’s leadership to “disrespect” overlooks the larger body of work he’s done to move Fullerton forward. Council meetings can be tense—especially when political grandstanding gets in the way of progress—but that tension shouldn’t be mistaken for a lack of integrity. Leadership often means making tough calls and holding firm, especially when others would rather stall than act. He’s doing the work, even when it’s not politically convenient, and that’s exactly what this city has been lacking for far too long.
Regarding the mayoral rotation: while the informal “Fair Mayor” policy was created with good intentions, it has never been legally binding. The council is free to choose who they believe is best suited to lead. The idea that voters were “disenfranchised” is misleading—every council member, including Mayor Jung, was duly elected by their district. Choosing a mayor is an internal council decision, not a ballot box issue. Let’s not pretend a procedural tradition is more democratic than the actual vote of a majority of the elected body.
On the charter city discussion: exploring ways to give Fullerton greater autonomy is not a waste of time or resources—it’s responsible governance. Cities like Irvine, Anaheim, and Santa Ana have thrived as charter cities because they’ve reclaimed control from Sacramento. Given the growing number of unfunded mandates and one-size-fits-all policies coming from the state, asking whether Fullerton should have more control over its finances and priorities is a fair and necessary question. It would be irresponsible not to explore it.
As for decisions like the WoW program or the Plummer home designation, these are nuanced matters being flattened into soundbites. The Plummer home, what you refer to as KKK house is historic building that tells a story—good, bad, and ugly. Pretending that preserving it is an endorsement of racism ignores the value of reckoning with our history rather than erasing it. The city isn’t honoring the man; it’s preserving a piece of our past so we can learn from it. The LA Times also reported about the Louis Plummer house that actually better reflects the complexity of that issue which I encourage residents to read if they really cared.
It’s fine to disagree on policy, but let’s do so with the full picture in mind. Mayor Jung isn’t perfect—no leader is—but he’s showing up, making hard decisions, and putting Fullerton on the map in ways we haven’t seen in years. That deserves a fair evaluation, not a list of half-contextualized talking points.