It is important to note that Fullerton’s budget deficit, which Jung, Valencia, and Dunlap use to justify their perplexing votes, has ballooned under their very leadership, yet they have taken no responsibility for the city’s plight. Jung has served as mayor for three years, with Dunlap serving as mayor for one. In his 2022 Mayoral State of the City address, Jung showed a slide with the title: “Fullerton’s Future – We’re Back!”

Also on the slide was a meaningless bar graph depicting growing revenues without any corroborating data on actual projections. The slide reads: “City’s financial forecast projects continued revenue growth for the next 5 years.”

If Fullerton was “back” under Jung’s leadership, why did the budget deficit grow exponentially? In 2023, the city’s deficit was projected to be $3 million by 2027. In 2025, that number has tripled to over $9 million. The Bushala Bloc’s voting record is not one of fiscal discipline or small business and economic development—in fact, it’s been the opposite. Their record is one of unfathomable votes that sideline the community in chronic deference to donors, votes that have actually diminished revenues, worsened our infrastructure, and deterred small business growth and consumer spending.

“What Did I Just Vote For?”: Valencia’s Texts Reveal Confusion at City Hall

Back to the latest community-driven initiative, the Bloc denied. Private text messages between Valencia and Fullerton’s City Manager, Eddie Manfro, obtained via a California Public Records Act Request, show that Valencia did not understand her initial positive vote to explore a city-supported immigrant family fund at the council meeting two weeks prior.

At that meeting, on October 21, the council voted to direct the city to explore creating city-funded supports for immigrant families, who are a significant segment of Fullerton. For example, a recent USC study finds that 1/6 Fullertonians live in mixed-status families comprised of undocumented immigrants and U.S. citizens. Jung and Dunlap voted no, as was expected, but Valencia surprisingly voted yes, providing the crucial third vote to direct staff to explore the fund.

Dozens of community members who showed up at the meeting to express support for the fund were shocked and filled with hope by Valencia’s vote. Applause and calls of joy broke out in the chamber. Some residents broke down in tears, and others thought that Valencia was finally listening to D4 residents after consistently turning her back on the community she represents. In contrast, Valencia appeared visibly shocked and confused by the crowd’s jubilation. Indeed, Valencia and Manfro’s text messages later that same evening demonstrate that Valencia did not understand what she voted for.

Confused, Valencia sought guidance from City Manager Eric Manfro to understand what she had just voted on, trying to confirm that, “I didn’t vote on handing out money, I voted on gathering resources” (note that a Fullerton city resources page for immigrant families already exists). As the text conversation continued, Valencia blamed the city clerk for not being clear, rather than herself. In a breach of his capacity as city manager, in which staff are not supposed to advise council on how to vote, Manfro advised her, “Probably best if you vote against the funding when it comes back than to try to do it now.”

Once Valencia realized she had voted in favor of directing staff to explore the fund, her text messages to Manfro suggest that she began devising a plan to frame the issue as a zero-sum choice between community well-being and infrastructure maintenance. Per Valencia’s text messages to Manfro later that evening, Valencia requested that staff meet with “every Fullerton non-profit” to discuss their “Christmas wish lists” for the requested $200,000, so that she could contrast non-profits’ wish lists against the “Christmas wish lists” of city departments. As she wrote:

“I want staff to go through what $200,000 looks like, pulling that money away from parks and rec, and what parks and rec could utilize that money for currently. I want staff to go through Public Works projects and see what $200,000 gives them. What is their Christmas wish list for $200,000, and what could they do with that money?”

Inherent in Valencia’s directives is an attempt to create a misleading narrative that non-profits, not the city, should bear responsibility for supporting community needs, a narrative that she honed via meetings she convened with non-profit leaders after the October 21st council meeting, according to people who attended the meeting, and prior to the final council vote on the funds on November 4. Curiously, Tony Bushala, her and Jung’s benefactor, who consistently benefits from the Bushala Bloc’s votes, accompanied her to at least one of those meetings, the only private resident to be a part of the discussion.

When the issue came back to council for the final vote to use city funds to support immigrant families on November 4, Valencia demanded that city staff provide an accounting of the total monies that would be required to fully fund the city’s critical infrastructure needs, like roads, which staff relayed is in the hundreds of millions of dollars. At one point during the exchange, Valencia foreshadowed an assertion that her benefactor, Tony Bushala, would make later during public comments: “We have such a huge deficit for infrastructure, because that’s what cities focus on.”

Valencia’s comments backfired–she confirmed that she does not understand that city governments balance between critical infrastructure and the needs and well-being of the people, the latter of which are deeply tied to the city’s long-term health and social and economic stability. Cities that neglect these areas often see worsening inequality, crime, lower tax revenue, and civic disengagement. In fact, all her questioning did was shed light on the deplorable conditions of our city infrastructure—like roads— that the Bushula Bloc has been unable to fix since they’ve held power, emphasizing the Bloc’s inability to effectively govern.

Tony Bushala was one of only two people to speak against the fund during public comments, and he purposely spoke last via Zoom. He echoed Valencia’s reasoning: “As much as I am compassionate that people made their argument, I don’t believe it is the role of the government to do this. This is not what government is set out to do…Let’s get these churches together. I’m willing to help them. Everybody who was here tonight, if they all pitched in, we’d probably have two hundred thousand dollars. We don’t need the government to help community members. This is not the role of the government. It’s the role of the people, the families, the friends and neighbors, and so I actually challenge everyone to get together, let’s do a fundraiser, we can raise $200k in one week.”

Bushala’s comments demonstrate how out of touch the multi-millionaire is with people’s current economic realities, as well as the fact that churches and “the people” he thrusts responsibility onto are already organized, giving money, and working daily to support immigrant families, work that benefits the very city government that persistently ignores these communities. He also espouses a dangerous rationale: that “We don’t need the government to help community members. This is not the role of the government.”

In reality, the very reason we have government is to organize collective resources for the public good. Cities exist precisely to do collectively what individuals and small groups cannot do effectively on their own—whether that’s maintaining infrastructure, ensuring safety, maintaining and investing in amenities that draw people to a city, or protecting the vulnerable. The idea that helping people is the role of individuals and churches in the city, rather than a city expenditure, and that residents can “raise $200k in one week,” is incredibly naive. This argument echoes a dangerous worldview that shrinks the public sphere by shifting responsibility from institutions to individuals. It romanticizes “neighbors helping neighbors” while dismantling the very systems that enable communities to thrive collectively. In effect, it asks individuals—often already struggling—to shoulder the burdens that should be publicly shared, while letting those in power off the hook for their policy failures, like Fullerton’s inconceivable budget deficit.

When it came time for the council to vote, the Bushala Bloc fell in line. Jung motioned to table the item, Dunlap seconded it, and Valencia provided the third vote to ensure the motion can never come back before the council, ever.

The way that these events unfolded raises serious questions: Why did Valencia try to pit non-profits and the community against the city, presenting the funding as a zero-sum game? Why was a controversial major political donor to Jung and Valencia, the only resident, invited to city policy discussions with city staff and non-profits about how the city might spend its money before a vote occurred? And why did an elected councilmember repeat this donor’s arguments on the dais?

That Same Night, The Bushala Bloc Gives Away Public Land to Grace Ministries

Moments after defeating the immigrant family support funds, and after the majority of Fullertonians in the chamber walked out in disgust, the council turned to an item labeled “Abandonment of City Property”—the vacating of roughly one acre of city-owned land along West Commonwealth Avenue, adjacent to other property owned by Grace Ministries International, a Korean mega church worth millions.
In planning terms, “vacating” means giving up public ownership. Once vacated, the property is no longer public—it becomes private land. And in this case, it goes straight into the hands of a wealthy religious institution in District 4.

The deal itself is astonishingly bad for taxpayers and one that several residents have argued raises ethical red flags. In October 2024, the city signed a purchase agreement with GMI for roughly an acre of public land. The church funded its own appraisal without a comparable from an independent entity, which conveniently pegged the property’s value at just $43,000—a fraction of its likely market worth given the value added to GMI’s multi-million-dollar real estate portfolio. Even worse and inconceivable, given the constant budget deficit pronouncements, the city agreed to cover half of the transaction’s legal and planning fees, effectively subsidizing the buyer. After those costs are deducted, the city’s actual return will be less than half of the already paltry amount of $43,000—a shockingly poor negotiation for a council majority that never stops reminding residents that the city has a growing budget deficit.

During the public hearing for this item, Fullertonian Karen Lloreda called the transaction “the most confusing staff report I’ve ever read.” She noted that Fullerton would be paying half the appraisal, escrow, engineering, and survey costs—“effectively paying the buyer to take the land.”

Z, another Fullerton Resident, put it bluntly: “I’m astounded by these business deals we make. Churches and businessmen get sweetheart deals at these low costs, and when the people ask for something, it’s a big zero NO. We are in a budget deficit and hardly getting any money for this transaction.”

They are right. When a city gives away public property for pennies—a documented pattern by the Bushala Bloc (see here), to politically connected interests like Tony Bushala and wealthy institutions like GMI while claiming it can’t afford to help residents, that’s not good fiscal management of a city budget.
Jung, whose personal ties to GMI are well known, voted to approve this sweetheart deal that enriches the church while infusing nothing into the city’s empty coffers. Dunlap and Valencia, as usual, followed suit. It is inconceivable that the Bushala Bloc—partly comprised of two self-purported successful businessmen, one of whom benefits significantly from a real estate empire in Fullerton built by his father—claims fiscal austerity, then once again makes a bad real estate business decision for the city. Fullerton’s leaders cry poor when communities implore the city to invest in its people and public spaces, yet open their hands wide when the beneficiaries are powerful institutions or political donors.

They may claim to be fiscal conservatives—which is especially odd for Valencia given that she is a registered Democrat– but their actions betray something far more cynical: a government that treats their duty to human services and community well-being as a liability and giveaways as business as usual. This is more than mismanagement–it’s a system of organized self-interest that erodes democracy and trust in elected officials, with significant effects on the long-term health of the city.

Restoring the Public Good

The public cannot be held responsible for solving the deep inequalities that the Bushala Bloc has worsened through its baffling economic decisions. It is not the job of residents or charities to patch the holes left by failed leadership. Cities, non-profits, and communities must work together—not in opposition—to invest in residents and rebuild the public infrastructure that makes collective life, mobility, and growth possible.

Fullerton faces severe gaps in affordable housing, health, and social support that neither philanthropy nor volunteerism can fill. Yet our leaders, who further strain public coffers for donors’ benefit, now expect ordinary people to fundraise for their own safety, economic security, and dignity while declaring a “budget crisis.”

Fullerton doesn’t lack money—it lacks integrity and accountability. A council that can find favors for allies in hard times should also find resources to support the one in six residents facing violence and due process violations. Until our leaders value the people who fill the council chambers more than those who fill their campaign accounts, every claim of a “budget deficit” will ring hollow.

Links:

November 4, 2025 City Council Meeting video https://fullerton.granicus.com/player/clip/2175?view_id=2&redirect=true

Article, “Fullerton’s Council Majority Hides Behind “Fiscal Responsibility” to Deny Immigrant Support” https://fullertonobserver.com/2025/11/10/fullertons-council-majority-hides-behind-fiscal-responsibility-to-deny-immigrant-support-2/

Article, “Grace Ministries Constructs 25 Million Vision Center” https://www.ocregister.com/2008/07/22/grace-ministries-constructs-25-million-vision-center/

Article, “Fullerton’s Immigrant Families are Racially Diverse and Long-Settled, Not New Arrivals, New USC Data Shows” https://fullertonobserver.com/2025/11/03/fullertons-immigrant-families-are-racially-diverse-and-long-settled-not-new-arrivals-new-usc-data-show/

City of Fullerton website: Immigration Enforcement in Fullerton: Information and Resources https://www.cityoffullerton.com/Home/Components/News/News/499/308

Article, “Fullerton City Council Extends Train Station Lease Amid $400 Million Family Lawsuit” https://fullertonobserver.com/2025/07/21/fullerton-city-council-extends-train-station-lease-amid-400-million-family-lawsuit/