Fullerton Transparency Reports

City Council Meeting - 5/20/25

We have comments on agenda items 5 and 19 for the City Council meeting on 5/20/25.

Agenda Item 5 – 2025 Legislative Platform

Introduction

Fullerton Transparency opposes the 2025 Legislative Platform, not only for its content, but also because of how it’s being used, and by whom.

Contradictory Statements

This legislative platform lacks a coherent guiding philosophy. It contains numerous contradictory statements, such as:

• Claim: “Support measures that promote fiscal stability, predictability, financial independence…”
  Contradiction: “Support policies that would increase the voter threshold for local revenue measures or would increase the potential for litigation over local taxes and fees”

  • If the city wants fiscal independence, it shouldn’t support making it harder to raise local revenue

• Claim: “Support housing measures that promote the development and enhancement of safe and affordable housing…”
  Contradiction: “Oppose efforts that would require local jurisdictions to adhere to additional surplus land act requirements”

  • The Surplus Land Act helps convert underused public land into affordable housing. Opposing it while claiming to support affordable housing signals opposition to housing in practice, not just process.

• Claim: “Support sustainability objectives including energy and water efficiencies, active transportation enhancements, and carbon sequestration…”
  Contradiction: “Oppose aggressive compliance schedule for the CARB Advanced Clean Fleet (ACF) regulation.”

  • The ACF is one of California’s strongest tools to cut diesel emissions and greenhouse gases. Supporting climate goals while undermining key implementation tools shows selective environmentalism.

This platform claims to support local control, fiscal independence, affordable housing, and transparency, but its actual policies often do the opposite. These contradictory positions provide a political shield for the priorities of whoever’s in power, regardless of consistency or public input.

Delegating Legislative Power to Unelected Staff

The legislative platform empowers city staff, unelected and often unaccountable, to speak on behalf of Fullerton at the state level. In practice, this means the city manager, not the council or the public, decides what we support or oppose. As shown in the recent Charter City report, staff are not always neutral actors; their work increasingly reflects internal political alignment.

Documented Misuse: SB 79 Letter

On March 27^th, 2025, Mayor Jung signed a letter opposing SB 79, crafted by city staff and lobbyist Townsend Public Affairs. There was no council vote. No public debate. And the justification? A vague appeal to “local control”, a phrase that conveniently exists in every city’s legislative platform. Whether you support SB 79 or not is beside the point, the process was undemocratic. Neither the mayor nor city manager has acknowledged any wrongdoing.

Outsourcing Fullerton’s Voice to Lobbyists

There are concerns about the role of outside influence, specifically, the League of California Cities. The letter opposing SB 79 copied an entire paragraph directly from the League’s own opposition letter

.

In fact, last year, then-mayor Dunlap submitted an opposition letter that lifted the League’s language word-for-word. Who exactly is setting Fullerton’s legislative positions: the people of this city, or a statewide lobbying group with its own agenda?

We Oppose the 2025 Legislative Platform

If this platform is approved as written, we risk outsourcing our voice to lobbyists and staff who don’t answer to voters. That’s not local control, it’s controlled messaging. For that reason, we urge the City Council to pull this item from the consent calendar, amend it to limit staff authority and lobbying influence, and ensure that it reflects clear, coherent priorities rooted in public oversight.

Agenda item 19 – waste and recycling contract

Introduction

This agenda item asserts that unresolved negotiations with Republic Services justify initiating a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a waste and recycling contract that does not expire until 2027. We oppose this measure due to its lack of transparency, specificity, and the appearance of outside influence.

Unclear Justification

The report cites contract discussions from 2021 as a rationale for launching a new RFP in 2025. Yet it provides no explanation of what those discussions entailed, what specific challenges were encountered, or why they now require bypassing standard renegotiation practices. Most notably, there is no input from Republic Services itself included in the staff report. This absence of detail and context raises serious questions about the true impetus behind this action.

Outside Influence and Political Timing

On April 30, 2025, Friends for Fullerton’s Future, a political blog founded by major donor Tony Bushala, published a piece calling for Republic Services’ contract to be put out to bid. This commentary was not prompted by any new development; it appeared unsolicited and closely aligned with this subsequent council action. Bushala has donated significantly to Mayor Jung and Councilmembers Dunlap and Valencia. If this motion was influenced by donor pressure, it raises profound ethical and governance concerns.

We Oppose Reevaluating Republic Services’ Contract

Given the vague justification, lack of transparency, and the timing relative to donor-aligned advocacy, this motion does not meet the standards of open and accountable government. Until the City provides a full record of prior negotiations, a public response from Republic Services, and a clear rationale for immediate action, this process should be paused. We urge the Council to table this motion until these questions are answered publicly and thoroughly.