As the Fullerton City Council prepares to initiate the process of becoming a Charter City on May 13, 2025, residents must seriously consider the implications of this shift in governance. Though proponents argue that charter city status would provide more local autonomy and flexibility, the potential downsides far outweigh these perceived benefits.
California operates as a home-rule state, granting municipalities significant latitude in managing local affairs. However, the distinction between general law cities, like Fullerton, and charter cities is critical. General law cities adhere to state-defined regulations, providing a safety net against arbitrary governance. In contrast, charter cities operate under a self-created charter that can empower local officials at the expense of citizen oversight and accountability. This can potentially lead to abuses of power and decision-making that prioritize corporate interests over those of the community.
Supporters of charter cities, including Mayor Fred Jung, often tout the concept as a way to streamline regulations and attract investment. However, this argument glosses over the risk of concentrating power within a small group of elected officials. By consolidating authority between the City Council and the Mayor, charter cities can severely limit public discourse, thereby silencing community voices that should play a role in local governance.
Moreover, charter cities are inherently more vulnerable to legal challenges, leading to increased legal costs for taxpayers. The promise of financial returns that advocates for charter cities often extends requires scrutiny. Are we willing to gamble our city’s future on an investment opportunity that sounds too good to be true? The political risks inherent in this model might have devastating effects on the very fabric of our community.
Furthermore, proponents argue that charter cities could better address burdensome immigration flows, but this position oversimplifies a complex issue. It risks diverting attention away from more effective, humane, and just solutions that respect human rights and community values.
What does this mean for residents?
– Charter cities can impose local taxes with significantly fewer restrictions, placing the financial burden squarely on the community.
– The consolidation of power often leads to diminished public participation in governmental processes and decisions that affect everyday lives.
– Increased legal costs could result in higher taxes and reduced public services, undermining any financial advantages touted by proponents.
– There’s a real risk of isolation from state and county support and resources, leaving the city vulnerable and less connected.
As the date for the Special Council Meeting approaches, Fullerton residents must voice their concerns about pursuing charter city status. Mayor Jung may expect a low turnout, but our community must come together to ensure our voices are heard. Join your neighbors on May 13, 2025, at 5:00 pm at the Special Fullerton City Council Meeting. The future of our city is at stake, and it is our responsibility to fight for a governance structure that prioritizes transparency, accountability, and community engagement over corporate interests.
Share this:
Discover more from Fullerton Observer
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Community Voices, Education, Election, Elections, Health, Local Business, Local Events, Local Government, Local News
The opposition to Fullerton becoming a charter city isn’t rooted in facts or public interest—it’s rooted in political bias and a reflexive rejection of anything introduced by Mayor Fred Jung. The arguments raised against charter status collapse under scrutiny, and publications like the Fullerton Observer, which should be advocating for local empowerment, have instead chosen to stoke fear and misinformation.
Sacramento is not slowing down. From housing mandates to labor laws, the state continues to erode the power of cities to govern themselves. Charter status is the most effective legal tool we have to protect our autonomy. It doesn’t mean we ignore state law—it means we have the power to decide when and how to apply it in local matters.
Fullerton deserves better than to be handcuffed by outdated state mandates. We are a city of educators, entrepreneurs, artists, and families who care deeply about where we live. We have the intelligence, the creativity, and the civic pride to shape our own future—and the charter is the legal framework that lets us do just that.
Claim: Charter cities reduce accountability and invite corruption.
Reality: Charter cities still operate under California’s transparency laws, including the Brown Act, the Public Records Act, and the Political Reform Act. Nothing about becoming a charter city removes oversight or ethics requirements. In fact, a city charter gives residents the power to implement even stricter ethics rules, term limits, or transparency standards than state law requires. Suggesting otherwise ignores both the law and reality.
Claim: Charter cities concentrate power in the hands of a few elected officials.
Reality: This is a talking point, not a truth. Charter cities are governed by documents written with public input and approved by the voters themselves. That’s democracy—not consolidation. It’s ironic that the people making this argument seem far more concerned with who proposed the idea (Mayor Jung) than with the content of the proposal itself. The fear of power concentration is a distraction from the real issue: whether Fullerton should control its own local affairs or remain bound to Sacramento’s one-size-fits-all mandates.
Claim: Charter cities face more lawsuits and cost taxpayers more money.
Reality: Any city—charter or general law—can face legal challenges. The legal risks are not higher simply because a city adopts a charter; they only rise if a city writes a sloppy or reckless charter, which Fullerton has every opportunity to avoid through proper public process and expert input. More importantly, charter cities have more flexibility to reduce costs in public contracting, land use, and local services, often saving taxpayers money long term.
Claim: It will silence public voices.
Reality: This argument couldn’t be more backwards. Charter adoption requires public engagement, input, hearings, and a vote. If residents don’t support a specific provision, they can vote it down or demand it be changed. The process invites deeper civic participation—far more than passively following distant state mandates.
Claim: Charter cities can raise taxes more easily.
Reality: False. Charter cities are still bound by Prop 13, Prop 218, and Prop 26—meaning no new local taxes can be imposed without voter approval. The only thing charter status allows is greater efficiency in how cities spend public money—not how they raise it.
Claim: It isolates Fullerton from state or county support.
Reality: There is no evidence whatsoever to support this. Charter cities still receive state funding, participate in county programs, and are eligible for grants. Nearly 125 cities in California are charter cities—including Anaheim, Santa Ana, Irvine, and Huntington Beach. None of them have been “cut off” from support. This is fear-based rhetoric, not grounded in fact.
Let’s be honest—the real reason groups like the Fullerton Observer are opposing charter status has nothing to do with policy and everything to do with politics. If this proposal had come from anyone other than Mayor Fred Jung, many of these same critics would likely be praising it as a progressive step toward local empowerment. Instead, they’ve allowed pettiness to dictate their stance, opposing a good idea simply because of who introduced it.
Fullerton deserves better than performative outrage and knee-jerk contrarianism. This isn’t a small town that needs to be told what to do by Sacramento. This is a proud, capable community that can write its own rules, shape its own future, and trust its own residents. Becoming a charter city is a powerful step in that direction—and it’s time to stop letting political grudges get in the way of progress.
ED Response: Wow Fran J – you seem to know a lot about this subject though not everyone agrees. We do have a lot of problems to pay attention to and spend our limited funding on. This seems – to many – to be something that will not be helpful. I agree with you that a study session presenting all sides would be useful. In the past Fred Jung and the council majority have terminated the contract of an excellent City Manager for no reason at great expense and hired an unemployed friend who was not up to the job, tried to privatize the public library, end the UP Trail, and did end Walk on Wilshire – and more – so are not trusted by many who live here and want those things.
“Sacramento is not slowing down. From housing mandates to labor laws, the state continues to erode the power of cities to govern themselves.”
And? We have state-wide problems, so the state makes policy. There is no charter Fullerton could write that would take away the state government’s supremacy.
Cities aren’t a (federal) constitutionally recognized entity. The state government has every right to set policy and it’s fantasy to think that being a “charter city” somehow balances that out.
Clearly the charter concept is for something. You seem to be saying what you feel it is not about. It seems most likely that what it will be about is who gets to write the charter and what it says. Which everyone should assume will be dominated by the current council majority, so the behavior of the current council majority should be evaluated in deciding whether to become a charter city.
This is well said and I share your concerns exactly. We can’t extricate ourselves from state oversight. Even “Fran J” agrees with this. A charter city would be a futile – and extremely expensive – process to try to do this. Huntington Beach has already tried and failed, and has saddled its taxpayers with huge bills in the process.
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I will admit that I am biased because I do not think Jung has everybody’s best interests in mind, but he will not be on the council forever. We have seen overreach from Sacramento time and time again, and your response gives us even more to chew on. Thank you again.
Many of these points COULD be right, but you are missing the nuance. This is very much a “this COULD happen” situation.
That said, my main issue with this council’s decision to explore charter city status is the way the topic arose, the lack of transparency surrounding that decision, and the questionable motives of those pushing it forward.
I attend council meetings. Charter city status had never been discussed at a city council meeting. The reasoning given in staff reports for such a monumental shift in governance was minimal. It is absolutely unclear why this is being pushed forward now, at this time. What problem do we need to solve in Fullerton?
I agree with state-level housing mandates. Fullerton can’t weasel its way out of them via charter city status (see: HB and the hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayer funds it’s wasted on lawsuits fighting state housing mandates – which it continues to lose), but even if it could, I wouldn’t want that. However, housing mandates were one of the reasons cited by Jung and Dunlap at the meeting where this was announced.
I disagree that this doesn’t consolidate power in the hands of the few. It absolutely does. Who gets to write the charter? The council. Meaning Jung, with the backing of Dunlap and Valencia. Jung has made it clear he has no interest in transparency or decorum, and a charter will allow him to do things like uproot the way the mayor is elected and the powers bestowed on that seat. I don’t trust Jung and I don’t trust him not to abuse this power.
You’re absolutely right that much of this is rooted in politics. Why? Because Jung has completely lost the trust of those who go to city councils and watch his actions and attitude in person. He has pushed through unpopular policies, he has steamrolled right over public sentiment, he has dismantled public programs at the behest of his campaign donors even despite overwhelming public wishes to the contrary. He demeans his fellow city council members, he has denied an entire district mayoral representation for years, he looks down on public commenters simply for disagreeing with him, he does not explain his decision-making at the dais, he tries to limit public involvement in the political process. These are absolutely not the qualities befitting a good leader.
What if someone you didn’t love were to do the same things Jung is doing? What if Jung were on the Council minority and Zahra kept him out of the mayoral rotation, and Zahra randomly announced looking into a charter city one day? Would you still defend that proposition?
So then he suddenly, without warning, announces he wants Fullerton to be a charter city. Why? What problem is he trying to solve? He won’t say.
This isn’t “knee-jerk contrarianism” (which is the empty argument Jung often tries to use to dismiss genuine public sentiment). This is true concern for the city and for our ability to see our city progress, headed by compassion, empathy, and concern for public welfare, not the cronyism, arrogance, and opacity championed by Jung, Dunlap, and Valencia.
I think your arguments are more like excuses to allow Jung to continue to get his way at the expense of everyone else. Jung leads with a disdain toward transparency and decorum and I absolutely do not trust any of his motivations when springing this topic on the public without warning or explanation.
Fran J isn’t by chance a pseudonym for Fred Jung, is it?
Hi Amy: First, I want to address an underlying assumption in your comment — that I somehow hold a grudge or negative view toward Councilmember Zahra. I don’t believe I’ve ever mentioned him in any of my comments, let alone expressed any opinion about him. My perspective has nothing to do with personalities and everything to do with the structure and merits of the issues at hand.
As a former municipal attorney, my views stem from experience with local governance and a concern for how public discourse is often shaped by assumptions, frustration, or political rivalry rather than facts. I’ve commented on the process, the legal framework, and the policy rationale for exploring charter city status — not on individual councilmembers or their personal dynamics.
You raise valid questions about transparency and timing. But suggesting that the act of placing an exploratory item on a public agenda, voting on it in an open meeting, and allowing public comment is somehow underhanded doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. That’s exactly how local government functions — publicly, under the rules set by the Brown Act.
It’s also worth noting that exploring charter status does not mean adopting one. The process requires public input and, ultimately, voter approval. To suggest that this is a hidden power grab bypassing the public is to misrepresent the actual process governed by state law.
I understand there is deep distrust of Mayor Jung among some, and that distrust seems to color every action taken — regardless of its merits. But leadership sometimes involves making difficult or unpopular decisions in pursuit of long-term benefit. That’s not a dismissal of public sentiment — it’s part of the job. And while tone and style may be fair game for critique, reducing this entire effort to personal motivations misses the bigger picture of what Fullerton needs and how cities across the state are seeking more local control.
Pointing out facts, legal context, or structural benefits of policy isn’t “making excuses.” It’s part of the dialogue. You may disagree with the conclusions, and that’s completely fair — but let’s avoid assigning motives or alliances that haven’t even been stated. That kind of speculation shuts down meaningful discussion, when what we need most right now is exactly that.
Suggesting I’m a pseudonym for the mayor—while I assume is meant as a joke—only detracts from the substance of the conversation.
I appreciate your reasoned response. It is not often that we see objective, rational discussions on city politics.
I disagree on your interpretation of Jung’s motives for prior city actions, and your characterization of his votes as simply “unpopular.” I agree with the large number of people in the city that believe his actions put the desires of campaign donors over the wishes of the public and are thus mired in corruptions. He has voted against clear public sentiment, in alignment with campaign donors – who showed up to meetings in person – countless times. His communications to the public indicate a clear disdain for anyone who disagree with him. For example, he claims that a small number of regulars keep showing up to council meetings and paints them as reactionary contrarians – seemingly to justify his dismissal of what is actually a huge variety of people, including many newcomers, with legitimate concerns and opposition to his decisions.
Why did he vote down the Walk on Wilshire, when it was clear the public very much wanted it to stay? Why did he continue the item and demand a plan to extend it to Malden in one meeting, and insist on a motion to shut it down if the extension did not please him, and then at the followup meeting, claim it was too expensive without further discussion? The public wanted to keep the existing space if nothing else, and made that clear. He would have known that an extension would incur costs. I believe he was motivated to avoid making an unpopular decision right before the election, instead using a motion that would give him an easy way to get rid of the entire project, which he’d wanted to do all along. Again, his campaign donors showed up each time to oppose the Walk on Wilshire, and he voted in their favor.
Why did he continue to oppose the Union Pacific Trail? There has been absolutely no downside to this project, and its support attracted a wide variety of public commenters from all over the city. But Jung’s campaign donors again showed up to oppose it, and so he voted against it until he finally relented, only after reserving space on the nature trail for future commercial endeavors that supposedly did not exist.
I disagree that a “power grab” is a mischaracterization. I believe it is spot on. There is no need to consider a charter. The Brown Act does not preclude discussions on and off the dais in general. Neither public comments nor council discussion had mentioned it previously. Even at the initial city council meeting when this item was brought, he and Dunlap were argumentative and failed to explain their reasons for supporting it, other than to accuse the public of hypocrisy based on “who was in charge” in Sacramento. Their opposition to “Trump-proofing” the state would not be remedied by a charter, and in fact an attempt to push back against such policies would likely mire the city in a financial sinkhole, but somehow they clung to ideology instead of concrete facts on why they thought a charter would be a good idea. The reasons for their decision-making are still elusive.
Given Jung’s track record of voting against public wishes, in alignment with his campaign donors, without explanation; his record of charging ahead with unpopular policies despite public comments to the contrary; his record of repeatedly demeaning public commenters instead of welcoming rational, good-faith discussion; and his record of pushing back against civic engagement and public involvement in the decision-making process, I think it is absolutely valid to pre-judge Jung’s motivations and be extremely wary of this move toward a charter.
Amy, I respectfully have to disagree with your interpretation of Mayor Jung’s motives and the idea that his votes consistently reflect corruption or deference to donors over the public interest. I must push back on several of your points — not out of blind defense, but because some of the assumptions you’re drawing from don’t align with the full picture.
On Walk on Wilshire, the issue wasn’t donors versus residents — it was the lack of a funded, scalable plan. Council asked staff to return with viable options, including an extension. When those came back cost-prohibitive, and no clear next steps emerged, continuing an unfunded pilot was simply not responsible governance. On the Union Pacific Trail, concerns weren’t about whether people liked the idea — they were about long-term land use, liability, and cost. The eventual vote preserved both the trail and flexibility for future transit. That’s not obstruction; it’s compromise.
As for the charter city exploration, calling it a “power grab” suggests intent without evidence. Moving to explore charter status — a form of governance used by many California cities — doesn’t equate to authoritarianism. Irvine, Santa Ana, and even Buena Park — all charter cities. Exploring a charter is not about insulating power, but gaining flexibility over local issues like contracting, revenue tools, and resisting state mandates that come with no funding. Yes, more proactive education and engagement should have preceded the announcement. Not because anything inappropriate occurred, but because the level of misunderstanding we’re seeing — even from active civic participants — proves just how critical it is to communicate the structural differences between general law and charter cities in plain terms. That’s a fair critique, and one I share. But that doesn’t invalidate the value or necessity of Fullerton taking the steps in the right direction.
You reference public sentiment often, and I absolutely value civic engagement. But public comment at council meetings — while meaningful — doesn’t always reflect the broader will of the city. That’s why we have elections. The Mayor was elected and re-elected by his constituents — not as a blank check, but as a clear mandate. Likewise, disagreeing with recurring public commenters or calling out performative opposition isn’t the same as disdain. The Mayor can be direct, yes — but firmness in leadership shouldn’t be mistaken for hostility, especially when much of the criticism directed at him is personal and, at times, deeply unfair.
As someone who has worked in municipal law, I watch this process closely — not with blind loyalty, but with an eye toward what’s effective, lawful, and rooted in real public service. From where I sit, Mayor Jung may not perfect ( but who is?), what matters is that he’s made a serious effort to move Fullerton beyond the dysfunction that has long held it back. That may feel unfamiliar — even uncomfortable — but meaningful progress often does. We should absolutely hold our leaders accountable, but we should do so with nuance, with facts, and without defaulting to assumptions about intent. It’s completely fair to disagree with policy choices or leadership style, but when every difficult vote is reflexively labeled corruption or cronyism, we risk undermining the democratic process we’re all trying to preserve. Thank you.
“The Mayor was elected and re-elected by his constituents — not as a blank check, but as a clear mandate.”
And only his constituents. Which isn’t all of Fullerton or even the majority of it.
So what “mandate?” I didn’t get any say in him being mayor yet I live in Fullerton. Didn’t even get to vote on it.
Yes, I am very familiar with this subject. As a former municipal attorney, I have experience with local governance and legal frameworks. You’re welcome to disagree, but there is a difference between opinion and fact—I’ve provided the latter for readers to consider.
That said, you’re actually reinforcing my point. Your response appears heavily influenced by personal grievances with the Mayor—many of which are either inaccurate or irrelevant to the issue at hand. It’s important for your readers to understand that, as the editor of this publication, you’re approaching this topic with a strong and evident bias.
Readers deserve transparency, not personal vendettas disguised as civic concern.
ED Response: I have no personal grievance with anyone on our council. I was merely listing some of the reasons many in our town do not trust the current majority to make good decisions on our city’s behalf. For instance at the most recent council meeting the majority allowed a memorial plaque for a historic building in honor of a KKK member and at the same meeting banned our university newspaper Daily Titan and the 46-year-old all local volunteer community newspaper Fullerton Observer from continuing to have a rack in the lobby of city hall. You may have read about that in the OC Register, LA Times, Voice of OC, the LAist, or heard about it on NPR or other news agencies or from various Free Speech agencies. These, and other decisions have made residents suspicious of our council majority.
Thank you Fran for articulating what a lot of people are thinking when they read this.
Dear ED, I still find it concerning that an editorial comment was embedded in my comment rather than posted independently in response. If your goal is to clarify the Observer’s stance, that should be applied consistently—not selectively when someone offers a different perspective.
As for the decisions you mentioned, I think it’s important to provide full context rather than suggest malicious intent. The plaque was for a historic building—not to honor a KKK member, but to acknowledge a site with complex historical significance, something the LA Times article itself noted. Preserving history doesn’t mean endorsing every part of it. And regarding the newspaper racks, there are long-standing logistical and policy questions that deserve discussion, not a rush to frame the move as a direct attack on free speech.
Disagreement over policy decisions is fair game—but implying bad faith motives without fully exploring the facts only deepens public mistrust. If the Observer is committed to transparency and balanced dialogue, then let’s hold all sides to the same standard. Thank you.
Due to recent decisions by the city council (banning non-government materials displayed at City Hall, limiting council members’ comments to 5 minutes, termination of WOW, Union Pacific Trail & more), I am very suspicious of the current proposal to change the city to a Charter form of government. I’m leery about the motives of the Council majority. Why is this proposed change being brought up at a special council meeting? This is a huge issue and should be brought up at regular council meetings with which community members are more familiar so that they can review and follow every step of the process. A well-respected academian mentioned that “Trump Proofing” the state has nothing to do with the City or its legal status. For me, it comes down to questioning the intentions of the Council majority.