I attended and spoke at the Fullerton City Council meeting on December 16, 2025. On the agenda was the question of whether to adhere to the custom of a fair rotation of mayoral selection, or to continue allowing council members to nominate and elect someone by simple majority vote.
About 75 citizens showed up to speak, all but one pushing for a fair rotation of the mayor and advocating for Ahmad Zahra or the current Mayor Pro Tem, Dr. Shana Charles, both for their continued presence in community events and caring, responsive attitudes.
Fred Jung was personally ostracized and insulted every which way to Friday, and accused of not even making eye contact with his detractors when they addressed him. It was pointed out that he wanted to retain the position of Fullerton Mayor on his resume simply for his objective of running in 2026 for Orange County Supervisor. If we have anything to do with it, and can overcome a well-bankrolled political machine, that won’t happen.
Councilman Nick Dunlap spoke at the end and said the same thing: 40 people who show up to every City Council meeting to protest do not represent the voters of Fullerton. He did not support rotating representation of all districts in Fullerton. It was one town, with one set of interests.
Councilwoman Jamie Valencia nominated Fred Jung, and Valencia, Nick Dunlap, and Fred Jung re-voted for Jung as Mayor, shutting out Mayor Pro Temp Shana Charles completely in favor of Dunlap as Mayor Pro Tem.
This will be the 4th time he’s been mayor in 6 years. It is not a level playing field in any way!
Fullerton City Council has become Fred Jung’s well-oiled political machine that does not care about constituent concerns or views – only about their own cronyism and career ambitions. It was pointed out that neighboring Buena Park adheres to a mayoral rotation policy, and mayoral elections in the City Council are done in minutes. Fullerton is attracting attention all across the county for its contentious decision-making, totally steamrolling the will of its constituents.
Share this:
Discover more from Fullerton Observer
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Community Voices, Election, Elections, Local Government, Local News
The author neglects to inform readers that Council member Ahmad Zahra did not attend this important meeting. Although it seems unlikely that other council members would have supported him for mayor, he had the opportunity to support Shana Charles for the position, but was not present to do so.
Ed Response: Councilmember Zahra had a work trip out of town so did not attend the meeting.
I see you seem to know a lot about council member Zahra, just what does he do for a living?
Zahra is a filmmaker. Currently the only Councilmember who doesn’t work is Jung. You can discover this kind of thing through the form 700 financial filings of each Councilmember. – though I notice Valencia has failed to file. Not sure why.
Wow, that is fascinating. Can you point me in the direction of some of his work?
The same issue’s article “Public Boos As Council Bloc Selects Same Mayor” states that “Dr. Ahmad Zahra, the most senior member, was absent from the meeting because his work extended the timeline of a film set.” Councilman is not a full-time job, and many of us in Southern California have to work multiple jobs to afford to live here.
Dunlap and Jung continue to gaslight the public and delude themselves by saying that public commenters are not representative.
Every meeting brings new attendees infuriated by the actions of the majority, but Jung, Dunlap, and Valencia keep telling themselves the public’s voices don’t count. It seems they can’t bring themselves to accept that anyone could possibly disagree with their blatant corruption and repeated defiance of the wishes of the public.
I’d imagine if you took two seconds to step outside your bubble, you may realize that in a town of 140,000+, 30 or 40 people don’t even represent a decimal of a percentage. And just because you comment, it doesn’t make your comments true. Much like this publication and the liberties it takes with the truth all the time.
Brian – sounds like you are talking to yourself on that critique.
Most people are busy with their lives and don’t pay that much attention. And of course over half of our town’s 140,000 or so residents are children. Others have jobs that interfere with council meeting hours, etc. Some don’t think it is possible to fight city hall. Some are just not interested. Having 40 people show up at a council meeting and speak on an issue is huge.
If people didn’t come out we wouldn’t have any trails in town; there would be a polluting flour mill across from Amerige Heights; the toxic park and McColl dump site would not be cleaned up; our museum center would be high rise office building; we wouldn’t have saved FOX or Coyote Hills and much much more.
Some politicians – just out for themselves and narrow special interests – can fool people for awhile but eventually the truth of their actions come out.
Those who disagree are welcome to attend a city council meeting, but for some reason they have not.
Jung received unanimous opposition to his taking of the mayorship at the last meeting. Dozens of public comments unanimously supported creating a fund for immigrant support against ICE raids and kidnappings. Dozens still attended to beg city council not to kill the Walk on Wilshire – twice; the paltry number of voices in opposition were those financially aligned with Jung and Bushala. If opposition exists, it has yet to show up to city council meetings.
Like I said, just because you comment, doesn’t make your comments true. With this statement you proved my point again.
Full of inaccuracies. Do better.
I don’t see how, but okay. I’m sure you know best.
Amy, I opposed Walk on Wilshire for several reasons, not because I was “aligned” with anyone. Please be careful not to be dismissive of the concerns of those with opinions contrary to your own.
I fully respect your right to your opinion, but I do disagree that the bollards – comparable to those used on nearly every trail in OC – were an actual impediment to cyclists traversing the Walk on Wilshire and merited removal of the whole thing. I definitely wouldn’t go so far as to say any opinion I disagree with is invalid. That would be absurd. But the argument seemed so ridiculous as to be disingenuous to me. Perhaps I’m reading too much into it.
That said, as one of the fewer than 10 detractors, you’re certaintly entitled to your opinion. I hope the dismantling of the Walk on Wilshire that so many enjoyed brought you great happiness and satisfaction.
Step out of your bubble pal.
I’m commenting here, pal
Pretty outside of my “bubble”
Brian – if you are talking to me – you are right — I guessed that there are way more children than there are at least according to the stats I just looked up that say there are only 32,000 children under 18 in Fullerton.
But when you are figuring out percentages of people think about the fact that – according to the OC Registrar of Voters – only 7,432 voted for Jung; 9,546 for Dunlap and 3,489 for Valencia in the last election. That certainly does not make a majority. Some of those who voted for Jung, Dunlap are among those who have come to council and said they were unhappy with their votes on various things and felt fooled when the vote to keep Walk on Wilshire open – turned into an expansion suggested by the two – and then that vote was postponed until after the election and both Jung and Dunlap proceeded to vote no.
Really the point is that we residents of town want a fun place to live that we are proud of where people want to visit and small businesses can thrive. Dulling it down by reducing unique features, curtailing music, outdoor patios, walking paths, safe bike paths, etc does not make our town attractive to anyone. And everything turns into a big fight with residents begging for good decisions. And I am not alone in really hating their recent decision to not help residents targeted by ICE and other weird unfair decisions like not following fair rotation so every district gets chance to have their representative as mayor.
And, by the way, if you want to talk about steamrolling over public opinion go watch the videos of Ahmad Zahra’s first council meetings in 2018. Dr. Zahra first voiced support for a special election to fill a vacant council seat, a position in line with nearly all public speakers on the issue during meetings. But he quickly changed his position entirely, aligning himself with a council majority who disregarded expressed public opinion in favor of an election and instead voted to appoint a someone to the vacant seat.
Zahra’s swing vote to appoint a council member instead of holding an election disenfranchised an entire district of the city, instead foisting upon them an unelected representative for the two full years remaining in the council term. This decision was of much greater significance, in my opinion, than choosing a mayor from among sitting council members (something the appointed council member got to do). Where was the concern for “the public” then?
Glad you’re finally agreeing D5 is being disenfranchised. Just somehow “less significantly” than some other incident? Ok.
Progress. Now you just have to get over your hatred for Zahra or whatever is make you “whatever” members of D5.
I can’t make sense of your response and I never acknowledged that any district was being disenfranchised by not having their council member selected as mayor. I don’t hate Ahmad Zahra, but I do think that readers should remember his record of disregarding public opinion in the very important example I cited.
I think you should remember the majority you run interference for is denying the mayorship to D5
Not running interference for anyone, “john,” but I don’t dispute that D5, where I reside, has not had its council member selected as mayor (obviously). Does it matter? I don’t know. I’m tired of the whole ugly mayoral selection spectacle, and favor a directly elected mayor, along with the addition of a sixth district that would encompass the historic downtown area (and ranked choice voting for all). These changes could be made with the addition of a city charter.
Ed Response: Those changes could also be made without going to a charter system.
” These changes could be made with the addition of a city charter.”
No thank you. That sounds like a big power grab with an emphasis on attempting to evade state housing policy. No need for a wholesale change like becoming a charter city.
There is an existing statutory form of general law city with the mayor elected at large.
Hey Matt Leslie, This is Saskia. If it was so significant that you still remember then I wonder why you did not write about it at the time. I mean you were on the staff of the Fullerton Observer at the time. Also, it was not 2018 that Zahra changed his mind. Here is the quote from January 2019 issue, the City Council Notes by Jesse La Tour: “At the January 15th meeting, Council member Zahra switched his vote to favor appointment, citing the expense and the fact that the city did not have the option to do an all mail-in election.”
Saskia, I didn’t write about it because Jesse was covering the council meetings. Here is a quote from Ahmad Zahra from the Observer’s coverage of the January 15 meeting, “Is there a fairer and more transparent process than voting itself? Can we come up with something better than what the constitution came up with?”
At the very next meeting Zahra cited the cost of a special election as justification for switching his position in favor of an appointment. In this case, it would seem, he decided that we couldn’t afford democracy. Later, he would vote to spend many times the cost of a special election to sue two bloggers.
The Observer stories included quoted comments form many familiar Observer supporters in favor of a special election. Perhaps you will provide links to the stories.
Ed Response: The vote to sue the bloggers was made in closed session on advice – according to the city – that without suing the city would be libel for any damages resulting from the health and social security and other confidential material that was downloaded by the bloggers. The lawsuit was covered by insurance that would not have kicked in without that action on the city’s part. That was the explanation given to the paper at the time.
Matt – As a District 2 resident I did not feel disinfranchised with the appointment of former mayor Jan Flory to the vacant council seat. I thought that was a good choice. And I like that people can change their minds when new information is presented such as in that case with a choice between appointment or costly special election.
But in the case of Walk on Wilshire – money had already been spent by both the city and Mulberry Street to make the area pleasant. It was enjoyable as it was and could have been improved with little effort.
BTW – after the street was reopened- I talked with a bike group from out of town with about 15 members who had come to WoW as a destination – they were disappointed to find it dismantled. In that case you, and Bushala, and his tenants and the council majority he supports (Jung, Dunlap, and Valencia) were the only ones speaking against keeping WoW alive. A petition of 2000 residents and local businesses and numerous public speakers wanted WoW. They were ignored.
In the case of the UP trail – the public was on board, the $1.7 million grant funding was in place, and at least five years of work by residents backed it. But despite all this Jung and Dunlap remained opposed and gave no reason (except that of course Bushala didn’t want it).
This happens over and over again.
Sharon, I didn’t comment to dredge up arguments about the Wilshire street closure and reopening. I only responded to a comment suggesting that those opposed to closing the street were somehow automatically aligned with Tony Bushala and Mayor Jung.
Matt – you and Jane (who also served as Jung’s campaign treasurer) were among the handful of those supporting the end of Walk on Wilshire – the other part of that handful were Bushala tenants and partners in his political action committee. Seems like a connection to me.
Sharon, Jane and I were also members of the Bicycle Users Subcommittee when the the Bicycle Blvd was approved and we are downtown area residents who wanted our street opened back up to traffic. There are some “connections” for you. Tony Bushala, it happens, also wanted the street open for his own reasons. If you can show some “connection” between our positions and those of Fred and Tony then go ahead and print them instead of resorting to sleazy unsubstantiated insinuations about the motives of local residents like ourselves.
Hey Matt, This is Saskia. What a coincidence that your wants align so perfectly with that of Bushala. It must also be a coincidence that you are pushing for charter and elected mayor just like Jung.
Align so perfectly? How so? And why would they? But why would the Observer bother to ask when facile assumptions can so easily stand in for investigative reporting when a resident has the temerity to express an opinion?
Hey Matt, This is Saskia. I go by the fact that you and Bushala both wanted WOW shut down for different reasons of course, but the outcome is the same. And the fact that Bushala and Jung both want the charter city and mayor at large election. Maybe you could tell me how you do not align with Bushala and Jung. What are your views on ICE, taxes, or the Union Pacific Trail?
Not sure who cares what I think about these issues, but I’d favor a reasonable local tax to fund infrastructure (not a blank check, like Measure S),
I’m open to a charter if we can get Ranked Choice Voting out of it. I’m open to a directly elected mayor so we can have some measure of accountability and avoid the rotational mess.(I was surprised to see the charter agenda item when it appeared). Don’t know if we need a charter for it, but I’d like to see Fullerton institute lower campaign contribution limits.
I had reservations about the UP trail for several reasons, including the dangerous street crossing and potentially dangerous location, and the toxic materials in the area. We’ll see how it works out. When I get the chance I’ll ride it.
I think ICE is a lawless federal police force. I don’t support it. Americans should recognize authoritarianism when they see it.
I don’t know everything Fred Jung and Tony Bushala are for or against. I suppose I probably share some of their positions, but might oppose others.
Matt – Yes I remember that you are both bike advocates. You forget that I have been to your house which is
nowhere near downtown or the Walk on Wilshire part of the bike blvd. and many other bike activists did not agree with you that the short little WoW posed any problem. Not trying to be sleazy but that Jane was Jung’s campaign treasurer is a connection worth noting and Bushala was also a donor to her council campaign.
We live on the street, Sharon. I can walk to the former site os WoW in ten minutes. Jane can speak for herself, but being a candidate’s campaign treasurer doesn’t imply automatic agreement with all of that candidate’s positions. As for myself, you need only reference my reporting on the Wilshire street closure for this publication to see that my interest in the issue has nothing to do with anyone’s council campaign.
When did Tony Bushala contribute to Jane’s council campaign(s), the last of which was, what, a decade ago? Give it up. Your simplistic assumptions do not reflect well on this publication.
Matt- That is some fast walking. I do remember your opposition to WoW but at the time thought it was related to Covid. Ask Jane – I am sure she remembers. Both you and Jane have had great ideas in the past – I have been surprised by some of your more recent statements on issues that do happen to agree with the Jung/Bushala agenda. But you are right of course – everyone has a right to their opinion.
BTW – your idea for ranked choice voting – to me – is a winner. Wish we could make that happen.
I recall Jane sending a moderately large contribution back to Tony because she didn’t want the appearance of influence.