On May 13, 2025, the Fullerton City Council reviewed a proposed budget shaped in part by input from a political donor to Mayor Fred Jung. Behind the proposal was the Fiscal Sustainability Ad Hoc Committee, a group created by council vote and populated with individuals tied closely to sitting council members. The arrangement has raised serious questions about transparency, legality, and the influence of special interests in city governance.
A Committee Born in Controversy
On August 6, 2024, the Fullerton City Council voted 3–2 to form what they called an “ad hoc” fiscal sustainability committee. Just two weeks later, Mayor Jung nominated Tony Bushala, a prominent real estate developer and major political donor, to the committee. According to Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) campaign filings, Bushala has donated over $10,000 across multiple election cycles to Jung and his allies.
Despite the clear potential for conflicts of interest, Bushala has not filed a Statement of Economic Interests (Form 700), as required by California law for individuals involved in public decision-making. This was confirmed through a public records request to the City Clerk and an exhaustive search of the FPPC’s database.
Why Form 700s Matter
Under California Government Code § 82019 and § 87300, anyone who participates in governmental decisions or advises on matters involving public funds must disclose their financial interests by filing a Form 700. This rule applies not only to elected officials but also to appointed advisors and committee members who influence public policy, especially when it involves budgets, contracts, or tax measures.
The Fiscal Sustainability Ad Hoc Committee reviewed maintenance funding, capital infrastructure budgets, and possible sales tax measures. Its members were not passive observers; they helped shape recommendations that fed directly into the proposed 2025-2026 city budget.
Brown Act Violations: A Pattern of Secrecy
California’s Brown Act requires that standing committees of local governments post agendas publicly, disclose their members, hold meetings open to the public, and make minutes available. A committee must comply if it:
1. Was created by formal action of the council
2. Has continuing jurisdiction over a subject area
3. Includes non-council members who advise on policy.
The Fiscal Sustainability Committee meets all three criteria. Yet, as of this writing, no minutes have been released for any of its six meetings since October 30, 2024. Although some agendas have appeared on Legistar, the committee was never listed on the City’s Boards and Commissions webpage, and early meetings were held without clear public notice or posted recordings.
Timeline of Key Events
● August 6, 2024: Council votes 3–2 to create the committee
● August 20, 2024: Bushala appointed
● October 30, 2024: First committee meeting
● December 12, 2024 – April 2025: Five additional meetings held
● May 13, 2025: Budget incorporating committee input presented to Council
What the Law Says
The City Clerk’s office claims the committee members were not required to file Form 700s. But under California Government Code § 82019(a)(3), a “designated employee” includes anyone involved in making or advising on decisions that can materially affect financial interests. FPPC guidance explicitly includes appointed advisors and committee members in this definition.
Likewise, Brown Act case law makes clear that labels do not exempt a committee from transparency requirements. If a body meets the criteria of a standing committee, it must comply, regardless of whether it is called “ad hoc.”
Consequences and Next Steps
If this committee was unlawfully formed or operated, any budget shaped by its recommendations could be vulnerable to legal challenge. Under the Brown Act, residents can submit a “cure and correct” demand requiring the city to address the violation, potentially including nullifying or redoing the budget actions taken based on improper participation. Meanwhile, the FPPC can fine non-filers of Form 700s up to $5,000 per violation.
Who Governs Fullerton?
Fullerton residents deserve a budgeting process that is transparent, ethical, and accountable. Yet what we see is a committee created by political allies, filled with their donors, and shielded from public scrutiny.
The City can still fix this by publishing all minutes, requiring financial disclosures, and ensuring future meetings are open to the public. Until then, residents are right to ask: Who really governs our city: the people, or the donors who bankroll its leaders?
Share this:
Discover more from Fullerton Observer
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Community Voices, Local Government, Local News
“Tony Bushala, a prominent real estate developer…” Please specify what properties have been “developed” by Tony Bushala that would make characterizing him as a “prominent real estate developer” an accurate description of his professional activities.
Housing tracts? High rise high density apartments/condo/lofts? Retail commercial centers? Giant business parks? Which of these has he “developed?”
SOCO, Fullerton Train Station restoration among others. According to its own website Bushala Brothers is a property management and construction company that owns 150 properties in Fullerton.
My earlier comment wasn’t published, so I’ll try again. Bushala Bros. did not develop SOCO. They sold the land to a developer. Restoring an historic train station hardly makes one a developer. If the Bushala Bros. website describes their business as a property management and construction company, perhaps the Observer should call them a property management and construction company.
Matt – The Bushala’s spent years buying up the properties south of tracks – entered into a development agreement with the city in Jan 2000 – got the combined properties rezoned and sold to Olson Company that actually did the construction. That is development. Kind of weird you are trying to “prove “ they are not developers.
Sharon, I think it’s weird that the Observer continually refers to the Bushala Bros. as developers based on, by your own estimate, SOCO, which they didn’t build, over twenty years ago, and restoring a train station, which happened way before that. I think it’s an intentional mischaracterization.
Sharon, Olson didn’t just construct SOCO, they also designed it. I really think that makes Olson more of the developer of that project than the Bushalas, but even if you wanted to count that twenty five year old development, where are all of the others? Or just one other?
“Who Governs Fullerton?”
You might as well ask, “Who run Barterton?”(Mad Max at Thunderdome)
It’s this way all over Southern California; 75+ tiny municipalities with their tiny City governments, Police force, utilities department, insider politics, etc etc etc. I’ve been here since 1956, and in this respect very little has changed.
A lot of these fly speck municipalities need to unincorporate, and move to a county level of governance. Is Fullerton one of them?
Yes, the local government should be slammed with a Brown act violation, and perhaps a couple of others besides.
I sometimes wonder when I look at situations like this, if Orange County itself should be disIncorporated, the northern half given to Los Angeles, which it most resembles, and the southern half given to San Diego County, which it most resembles!
No, the same problems would occur. The solution is probably a turn on a very strong light on the doings of our local Representatives and city employees. It sure is beginning to look like it’s needed.
When all is said and done, Jung will be the person to hammer the final nail in Fullerton’s coffin.
I remember when Ahmad Zahra and Jennifer Fitzgerald populated a two person economic development committee several years ago. No agendas, no minutes ever came out of it, as I recall. Don’t know who they met with or what was discussed. Fitzgerald left town years ago, but maybe the Observer could interview Ahmad Zahra about that one.
Hi,
There are several serious material errors in this piece.
First, CA Gov Code Section 82019(a)(3) says nothing about anyone making or influencing financial decisions. What it actually says is: “. . . Is designated in a Conflict of Interest Code because the position entails the making or participation in the making of decisions which may foreseeably have a material effect on any financial interest.”
Meaning the City of Fullerton must designate in *its own* Conflict of Interest Code which individuals must file a 700 Form. That’s it. It says absolutely nothing about anyone making or influencing financial decisions or foreseeably having an effect on anything.
Second, “Under California Government Code § 82019 and § 87300, anyone who participates in governmental decisions or advises on matters involving public funds must disclose their financial interests by filing a Form 700. This rule applies not only to elected officials but also to appointed advisors and committee members who influence public policy, especially when it involves budgets, contracts, or tax measures.”
This is not correct. CA Gov Code 82019 provides definitions. That’s it. It doesn’t say anyone has to do anything. CA Gov Code 87300 specifies that Fullerton must adopt of a conflict of interest code. It doesn’t say anything else.
The entirety of this opinion piece discusses Fullerton’s Conflict of Interest Code exactly zero times while incorrectly interpreting the state’s government code, while inferring both the city and individuals serving on an ad-hoc advisory committee, specifically individual members– not all members of that committee– who are corrupt, broke the law.
Y’all should be ashamed of yourselves.
Fullerton, per state law, must review its conflict of interest code every two years. It was last reviewed in November of 2024. If this paper wants to make a claim the city’s Conflict of Interest Code doesn’t comply with state law because of a newly created ad-hoc committee with no decision making authority, it certainly failed to do so in this analysis. This paper also failed to explain why only one member of the advisory committee is the target of a Conflict of Interest violation and not five . . . which is a significant and rather disgusting example of bias.
The positions examined under this opinion piece are not code filers as defined by Fullerton’s Conflict of Interest Code. Those filers are clearly identified in the code adopted late last year.
The positions examined under this opinion piece are not required to file under the newly created boards rule (18754) as the rule requires decision making authority, which is defined under Regulation 18700(c)(2)(A):
A committee, board, commission, group, or other body possesses decision making authority whenever: (i) It may make a final governmental decision; (ii) It may compel or prevent a governmental decision either by reason of an exclusive power to initiate the decision or by reason of a veto that may not be overridden; or (iii) It makes substantive recommendations and, over an extended period of time, those recommendations have been regularly approved without significant amendment or modification by another public official or governmental agency.
In fact, it specifically falls under Reg 18700(c)(2)(B): A committee, board, commission, group, or other body does not possess decision making authority if it is formed or engaged for the sole purpose of researching a topic and preparing a report or recommendation for submission to another public official or governmental agency that has final decision making authority, and does not meet any of the criteria set forth in subsection (2)(A)(i-iii).
Perhaps if the editors of this paper approached substantive issues with genuine curiosity instead of a bent, and seriously sick, agenda targeting one individual, Fullerton could actually make process in the area of government transparency and accountability instead of chasing nonsensical ghosts of issues created 35 years ago.
I’m the author of this article. In response to the recent critique, I’d like to clarify a few points and reaffirm my central concern: Fullerton residents deserve transparency and accountability in how budget decisions are influenced; especially when political donors are directly advising on city finances. Let’s examine the counterarguments:
1. “CA Gov Code 82019(a)(3) says nothing about anyone making or influencing financial decisions.”
Response: This is misleading and incomplete. Government Code 82019(a)(3) defines a “designated employee” as someone who: “is designated in a conflict of interest code because the position entails the making or participation in the making of decisions which may foreseeably have a material effect on any financial interest.”
It’s incorrect to suggest that decision-making and financial influence are irrelevant. The FPPC and California case law consistently interpret this provision to apply to individuals who influence public decisions, especially those involving budgeting or policy recommendations.
Additionally, FPPC Regulation 18700.3(a) clearly states: “Any individual who makes, or participates in making, a governmental decision shall file a statement of economic interests.”
State law and FPPC guidance make clear that anyone who substantially influences decisions with financial implications, especially in budget discussions, can be required to file.
2. “Gov Code 87300 just requires Fullerton to adopt a code. It doesn’t say anyone has to do anything.”
Response: This is a strawman argument. The article never claims that 87300 alone mandates filing. Rather, my point is that 82019 and 87300 work together, alongside FPPC regulations, to empower cities to designate individuals who must file Form 700s.
3. “The positions are not code filers per Fullerton’s Conflict of Interest Code.”
Response: My argument is that they should be. A political donor advising on budget decisions, without any required disclosure, is the kind of situation Form 700 laws were designed to address. If the city’s code excludes such positions, that may reflect a failure to align with the spirit and intent of state transparency laws.
4. “The committee falls under Reg 18700(c)(2)(B), not (2)(A), so it does not have decision-making authority.”
Response: Regulation 18700(c)(2)(B) exempts committees only if they are temporary, research-based, and do not make substantive recommendations that are regularly adopted. But in this case: the committee operated over several months, was created by formal council vote, reviewed capital budgets and proposed tax changes, and its recommendations were incorporated into the proposed city budget.
That pattern could very well meet the threshold for decision-making authority under 18700(c)(2)(A)(iii), which includes committees that: “make substantive recommendations and, over an extended period of time, those recommendations have been regularly approved without significant amendment or modification.”
Well – while I didn’t write the article and don’t know all the developments that Bushala has been involved in I don’t think it is wrong to note the influence politically (through numerous dirty campaign robocalls , signs, and mailers) and on developments (most recently WoW and UP Trail opposition) that he has been involved in. SOCO Walk is a major development in our city and they were involved in that and the renovations of train station and ICE House through redevelopment fund help. I guess you and I will have to just disagree on whether Bushala is a minor or major developer.
Also Matt – the discussion is about why members of the financial ad hoc committee making recommendations on our city budget didn’t fill out 700 disclosure forms as they should have. Do you have something against committee members doing that? Shouldn’t we know if ad hoc members have conflicts of interest?
BTW both Zahra and Fitzgerald did fill out those forms.
Because Zahra and Fitzgerald were both on the city council they were already required to fill out Forms 700. I believe I had to submit that form for one or another committee or board membership position in the past, but I’m not sure if it’s required for every public committee. Obviously, if it’s required then members of the Fiscal Sustainability Ad Hoc should submit them. We can try asking the City Attorney… (LOL). Meantime, how about asking Zahra for minutes and a list of people with whom his two person ad hoc committee met? None have ever surfaced.