The Fullerton City Council spent significant time Tuesday, May 5, debating the ethics, transparency and structure of the city’s upcoming 2026 State of the City event, with disagreements emerging over corporate sponsorships, public access and whether the event should continue in its current format.

Councilmember Dr. Ahmad Zahra raised concerns about sponsorship donations from companies and organizations that either hold city contracts or may seek future business with Fullerton. Staff identified sponsors including Boeing (future contract with Fullerton Airport), Republic Services (current waste management for the city), Orange County Power Authority (public utility that pays thousands annually for city events and to which Jung is a board member), Happy Jewelers (who received the keys to the city from Mayor Jung and then donated to his campaign), Fullerton College, Cal State Fullerton, West Coast Arborist (currently contracted with the city), Kimley-Horn (contacted with the city, specifically in planning and urban development. They were recently engaged to analyze survey results for the City of Fullerton’s Open Space Element update and the Environmental Justice Element, with reports presented to the Planning Commission) and Fullerton’s City Attorney Jones & Mayer.

Zahra questioned whether accepting sponsorship money from city vendors or affiliated entities created the appearance of ethical conflicts.

“My point of all of this is that while we are looking at the overall revenue, I think the source of revenue is as important because it tells a story about the ethics of this council,” Zahra said during the discussion.

Deputy City Manager Daisy Perez explained that sponsorship solicitations are widely distributed via mass emails to approximately 200 organizations.

Mayor Fred Jung defended the sponsorship process and disputed suggestions of impropriety, while Councilmember Jamie Valencia and Mayor Pro Tem Nick Dunlap said they supported vendors contributing to city events so long as conflict-of-interest guidelines are established.

Public speakers also criticized the sponsorship structure, arguing that donations from city contractors and campaign contributors could influence council decision-making and give the appearance of pay-to-play. Others questioned whether the annual State of the City event had become overly political or promotional.

The discussion expanded beyond sponsorships to broader questions about the event’s future format. Zahra and Councilmember Dr. Shana Charles advocated for holding future State of the City events at public city-owned venues such as the Community Center, Hunt Library or the Downtown Plaza rather than at the Summit House restaurant.

Charles also expressed frustration that councilmembers had little involvement in planning this year’s presentation and argued the council should have an opportunity to review the mayor’s speech beforehand if it is intended to represent the entire city.

“We are equals here,” Charles said. “I think that it matters that we actually represent what’s actually going on with the city.”

Mayor Pro Tem Nick Dunlap took a more moderate position, saying he supported creating clearer policies for future events while also defending the value of the State of the City program itself.

“Fullerton’s bigger than any of us,” Dunlap said. “It’s important for us, I think, as elected leaders here in the city, to be able to put forward a message that is representative of our city.”

Dunlap noted that previous State of the City events were operated by the Fullerton Chamber of Commerce, which influenced venue selection and fundraising practices. He suggested the city could potentially use the Fullerton Community Foundation as a future fundraising vehicle.

The council also debated whether the event should comply with Brown Act public meeting requirements. City Attorney Dick Jones explained that an Attorney General opinion issued last year suggested that State of the City events involving multiple councilmembers may qualify as Brown Act meetings, though cities have handled the issue differently statewide, as it is an opinion rather than law.

Several motions seeking immediate changes failed on 3-2 votes.

A motion by Zahra and Charles to establish sponsorship standards, require council review of the event presentation, move the event to a public venue and make it a publicly noticed meeting failed, with Zahra and Charles voting yes and Jung, Dunlap and Valencia opposed.

The council ultimately approved moving forward with this year’s State of the City event as currently planned at the Summit House, with tickets at $65 per person and sponsorship ranging from $ 500 to $ 5,000, while directing staff to return within 45 to 60 days with proposed policy guidelines for future events.

The approved motion passed 3-2, with Jung, Dunlap and Valencia voting yes and Zahra and Charles opposed.