Written Comments — Finance & Governance Committee, March 24, 2026

1 FORMAL WRITTEN SUBMISSION TO THE FINANCE AND GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE To: Finance & Governance Committee — Mayor Luis McArthur, Councilmember Aaron Starr, Councilmember Gabriela Rodriguez From: Eric Andrist, Oxnard Resident, Public Advocate Re: Agenda Item D.1 — California Public Records Act Update and Proposed Amendment to FTE Position Resolution No. 15,885 Date: March 24, 2026, 4:30 PM Submitted to: Finance & Governance Committee HIGHLIGHTS — KEY FINDINGS The following points are documented in detail in this submission. Page references direct the reader to the full analysis. A. Staff report co-authored by its beneficiary (Problem One, p. 3) B. Carlton's salary increased 108% in one year (Problem One, p. 3) C. City Attorney has a conflict of interest (Problem Two, p. 4) D. City Clerk did this job for $67,738 (Problem One, p. 4) E. Rolling production law misrepresented (Problem Three, p. 5) F. AI framing has no legal basis (Problem Four, p. 6) I. Demeaning language was mine — context matters (p. 8) F. No compliance data provided (Problem Five, p. 9) H. Requests up to 489 days late (Problem Five, p. 10 and Exhibit C) G. Cited requests investigate city misconduct (Problem Six, p. 11) INTRODUCTION This submission responds to the staff report and presentation prepared by Assistant City Manager Eric Sonstegard and Public Records Advocate Wendy Carlton for Agenda Item D.1 — a proposal to add one full-time Administrative Services Specialist position and reclassify the Public Records Advocate position from Administrative Services Analyst (Level 6) to Administrative Services Analyst Senior (Level 7), at a cost of $22,010 for the remainder of FY 2025-26 and $88,049 annually thereafter. •The committee is being asked to approve this expenditure based on a staff report that contains serious procedural, legal, and factual problems. Those problems are documented in detail below. 2 I am a resident of Oxnard investigating to report on corruption in the City Government, and have filed more than 75 California Public Records Act requests with the City since 2025. Because it would be virtually impossible to secure the information and evidence I need otherwise, I have utilized the California Public Record Act heavily in my research. I have tracked every request, every response, every deadline, and every violation in a comprehensive database. That database report is attached as Exhibit C. I have also submitted individual responses from the Public Records Advocate to independent AI analysis tools to evaluate their statutory compliance. Those analyses are attached as Exhibit D. I am writing this as a citizen who has documented, request by request, what this operation actually produces — and who believes the committee deserves that documentation before it votes. The staff report does not name the requesters it characterizes as difficult. It does not need to. The request numbers it cites, the AI-generated request it reproduces at length, and the demeaning language it quotes are all attributable mostly to me, but also to a small number of advocates whose investigations are documented throughout this submission. This is passive-aggressive — targeting specific people by conduct signature while maintaining plausible deniability through anonymity. It’s a slightly more polite Kenneth Rozell tactic. •However, a careful reading clearly reveals that the report's primary function is not solely a neutral analysis — it is justification for a promotion, a raise and the addition of another employee. It’s manipulative. • The workload claims are unverified • The compliance data is absent • The AI framing has no legal basis • The report was co-authored by the person who stands to personally benefit from its acceptance. •Every problem documented in this submission flows from that single structural fact: this is less a staff report about staffing needs, it is a promotion request, co-written by the very person wanting the promotion, dressed as a staff report. On March 17, 2026, I left a message for Mayor McArthur in his capacity as committee chair. I informed him that I had reviewed the presentation materials and identified errors. I offered him two options: grant me extended speaking time at the March 24 meeting, and/or contact David Snyder, President of the First Amendment Coalition1, to independently review the materials and produce a report. The First Amendment Coalition has successfully litigated against numerous California cities for CPRA violations. I made clear I was willing to assist behind the scenes and that this represented an opportunity to get ahead of a transparency issue with significant legal exposure for the city. 1 David Snyder, First Amendment Coalition: https://firstamendmentcoalition.org/about/our-team/#david-snyder 3 •As of this writing, Mayor McArthur has not responded, so I suggest the other committee members reach out to the First Amendment Coalition yourselves which I’m certain will verify the same problems I’m setting forth below. PROBLEM ONE: THE STAFF REPORT WAS CO-AUTHORED BY ITS OWN BENEFICIARY The agenda report for Item D.1 lists two preparers: Eric Sonstegard, Assistant City Manager, and Wendy Carlton, Public Records Advocate. A. The report recommends reclassifying Carlton's own position from Administrative Services Analyst (Level 6) to Administrative Services Analyst Senior (Level 7), and adding a new Administrative Services Specialist position that Carlton would supervise. Carlton has a direct and personal financial interest in the committee's decision. She stands to receive a pay increase and an expanded supervisory role as a direct result of a report she helped write. Under standard conflict of interest principles, public employees are not supposed to participate in governmental decisions that promote, reclassify, or set a unique salary for themselves. This is not a Government Code §1090 contract conflict. But under Political Reform Act principles and basic ethics standards, an employee should not be making or participating in the making of a governmental decision that directly and uniquely benefits their own compensation and job status.2 The FPPC has been clear that disqualification is required when a decision foreseeably affects an official's personal finances in a way that is not shared equally across a class of employees. This reclassification is not an across-the-board adjustment. It is targeted specifically at one position — Carlton's. Sonstegard, as her supervisor, had both the ability and the obligation to keep her out of it. Carlton's compensation history compounds the concern. The City advertised the Public Records Advocate position three times between May 2022 and February 2023, with a maximum posted base salary of $113,878.3 Carlton's 2024 base salary of $118,101 already exceeds that posted maximum.4 B. Between 2023 and 2024, Carlton's base salary increased 108% — from $56,646 to $118,101 — an increase of $61,455.5 That single increase exceeds the $88,049 annual 2 California Fair Political Practices Commission guidance on disqualifying conflicts of interest. Political Reform Act, Government Code §87100 et seq. 3 City of Oxnard job postings for Public Records Advocate / Administrative Services Analyst position, May 2022, June 2022, and February 2023. See Exhibit A. 4 Transparent California public payroll database, Wendy Carlton, City of Oxnard, 2024. See Exhibit B. 5 Transparent California public payroll database, Wendy Carlton, City of Oxnard, 2023 and 2024. See Exhibit B. 4 cost of the entire proposed staffing package now before this committee. The committee should ask what public process, if any, authorized that increase — and whether the same standards being applied to this reclassification were applied then. The City Attorney's job is to protect the city from liability. That is their client. When Oxnard removed public records management from a neutral custodian — the City Clerk's office — and handed it to the city's defense lawyers, operating under the City Manager's budget, it paid a premium for that arrangement and got exactly what it paid for. •C. Before this position existed, public records were handled by Assistant City Clerk Diep Lai. In 2023, Diep Lai earned $67,738. That same year, Wendy Carlton — the newly created Public Records Advocate operating under the City Attorney's supervision — earned $56,646. By 2024, Carlton's base salary had jumped to $118,101. The City Clerk's office handled public records transparently and at a fraction of the cost. The question this committee should ask is not whether the new operation needs more staff. It is whether the restructuring that created it served the public interest — or the city's legal defense strategy. The staff report attributes the need for additional compensation and staffing to increasing CPRA request volume. However, the city's own data shows that between 2023 and 2024 — the same period in which Carlton's base salary doubled — CPRA request volume actually decreased by 62 requests, from 1,022 to 960.6 The committee is being asked to approve additional compensation justified by workload increases that the city's own statistics do not support for the period in which the most dramatic compensation increase already occurred. Much of this is covered in my YouTube video, “The $118,000 Gatekeeper.”7 The committee should ask: who independently verified the workload claims in the staff report, given that the person making them stands to benefit financially from their acceptance? PROBLEM TWO: THE CITY ATTORNEY HAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST 1. The proposed resolution carries the signature line: "Approved as to Form: Stephen M. Fischer, City Attorney." D. Fischer is currently the subject of a formal California State Bar Association complaint documenting an eight-year pattern of misconduct involving the same records operation this resolution proposes to expand and reward. The complaint names Fischer and Chief Assistant City Attorney Kenneth Rozell and includes as one of three victim cases CPRA 6 City of Oxnard CPRA staff report, Agenda Item D.1, March 24, 2026, request volume statistics. 7 “The $118,000 Gatekeeper” by Eric Andrist—https://youtu.be/YegVS43WtG8?si=iMbiXVaST6i3hpYN 5 conduct directly involving requests that appear in this staff report as justification for the staffing increase. Fischer signing off on a resolution that is partly justified by accountability requests directed at his own office's conduct raises serious conflict of interest concerns the committee should not allow to pass without comment. At minimum, outside legal review of the resolution's form should have been obtained. PROBLEM THREE: THE STAFF REPORT MISREPRESENTS THE LAW ON ROLLING PRODUCTION E. The staff report describes rolling production as "a widely accepted reasonable and compliant way for agencies to meet their 'prompt' disclosure obligation." This characterization is misleading. The CPRA's rolling production accommodation applies to voluminous records within a single request — when one request generates a volume of documents that cannot be simultaneously compiled and reviewed. The court held in Getz v. County of El Dorado (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 637, 650-6528 that establishing a request is overly burdensome "requires more than the vague prospect of having to review a large volume of records." The county faced 42,000+ emails from a single request and was still ordered to comply. •It does not authorize an agency to bundle dozens of separate independent requests from the same requester into a single production queue and process them on a “rolling production” schedule of the agency's own choosing. That broader interpretation has no basis in the statute. Government Code §7922.535 governs response timing. Nothing in that provision or any other CPRA provision authorizes the aggregation of multiple separate requests into a rolling production queue when they originate from the same requester. The committee should ask staff to cite the specific statutory provision that authorizes rolling production across multiple separate requests from the same requester — because it does not exist. 8 See Getz v. County of El Dorado (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 637, 650-652, in which the court held that establishing a request is overly burdensome 'requires more than the vague prospect of having to review a large volume of records,' and ordered production of 42,000+ documents from a single request. The rolling production accommodation addressed in that case concerned a SINGLE VOLUMINOUS REQUEST — not the aggregation of MULTIPLE SEPARATE REQUESTS from one requester. 6 PROBLEM FOUR: THE AI FRAMING HAS NO BASIS IN LAW AND IS CONTRADICTED BY RESEARCH F. The staff report characterizes AI-generated requests as a distinct and more burdensome category of submission, and states that staff use "indicators within the NextRequest system" along with "observable characteristics" to identify and flag them. The law does not support this distinction. The California Public Records Act has been technology-neutral since its enactment in 1968. It contains no provision treating AI-assisted requests differently from any other request.9 The legislature has had ample opportunity to create such a distinction and has deliberately chosen not to do so. This is not an oversight. California has been among the most active states in the country on AI legislation throughout 2025-2026, passing or considering numerous bills addressing AI transparency, automated decision-making, and generative AI disclosure. Not one addresses AI's intersection with CPRA requests — either as a tool for requesters or for agencies.⁸ California's entire AI legislative trajectory is toward more transparency, not less — more disclosure of agency AI use, not new tools for agencies to restrict requesters. The legislative detail is provided in Exhibit F. By building an administrative record around AI-generated requests as a distinct and problematic category, the city is laying groundwork for future policies — fee arguments, scope challenges, or processing tiers — that have no statutory foundation and run directly counter to California's demonstrated legislative direction. The research contradicts the city's characterization. AI tools specifically designed for public records requests — including FOIA Friend, developed after surveying more than 100 FOIA officers — are built to help citizens write more focused, specific, and legally compliant requests, not broader or vaguer ones.10 MuckRock, the nation's largest public records platform, has used AI since 2015 to classify and improve requests across more than 300,000 communications. A March 2026 Washington Examiner11 analysis noted that state and local governments have made 'hardly any moves' toward AI-driven records disclosure, even as FOIA success rates continue to decline — and that AI could process records requests 'for 9 See SB 53 (Transparency in Frontier AI Act, signed October 2025); SB 896 (California AI Accountability Act, vetoed 2024); AB 853 (AI Transparency Act amendments, signed October 2025); CPPA Automated Decision-Making Regulations (effective January 1, 2027); AB 2013 (Generative AI Training Data Transparency Act, effective January 1, 2026). None address AI-assisted CPRA requests. 10 OIA Friend, foiafriend.com. MuckRock, muckrock.com (founded 2010, AI-assisted request processing since 2015, 300,000+ communications processed). See also Washington Examiner, March 2026, noting AI's 'smost beneficial use' is helping the public write clearer, more efficiently answerable requests." 11 'Artificial Intelligence and the New Era of Government Transparency,' Washington Examiner, March 8, 2026. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op-eds/4483596/artificial-intelligence-new-era-government-transparency/ 7 pennies' and 'in seconds or minutes' compared to current practice. Nearly one-fifth of federal agencies have already begun using machine learning for records requests. Oxnard has not." The volume claim is not supported by any comparative standard. The Heritage Foundation filed 100,000 federal FOIA requests in two months using AI automation. Some public agencies have documented significant increases in request volume attributable to AI-driven submissions. Oxnard's 1,212 annual requests, cited in this report as evidence of crisis, does not register as a significant volume by any documented national standard.12 The solution the city is ignoring. •The same technology the city is blaming for increased workload is what other agencies are using to eliminate backlogs. MITRE13 developed the FOIA Assistant, an AI tool that automatically classifies documents, identifies responsive records, detects personally identifiable information, and speeds redaction. commercial platforms including Datagrid and Logikcull are purpose-built for government CPRA and FOIA teams, automating intake, deadline tracking, redaction, and routing. The State Department and the Federal Trade Commission are already deploying AI to process requests. The problem is not workload — it is a records operation that has functioned as a delay and obstruction mechanism. Oxnard is not asking for AI tools to process requests faster. It is asking for two more humans to process them slower. That is a policy choice, not a workload inevitability. The real long-term solution. Experts testified before Congress14 in April 2025 that proactive online disclosure of commonly requested records “would cut down in some areas vastly the number of requests that are made." •Oxnard has never pursued proactive disclosure as a strategy. Instead it is asking to be rewarded for the volume that the absence of that strategy produces. **A warning for this committee.** 12 Heritage Foundation 100,000 FOIA requests: Law Street Media / FOIAengine, December 16, 2025. https://lawstreetmedia.com/insights/heritage-foundations-latest-blizzard-of-foia-requests/ Congressional testimony: Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, April 8, 2025. Testimony of Margaret Kwoka, Professor of Law, Ohio State University. Reported by StateScoop, April 10, 2025. https://statescoop.com/ai-foia-public-records-government/s 13 Datagrid, datagrid.com; Logikcull, logikcull.com. Both platforms publish documentation describing government FOIA and CPRA workflow automation capabilities including intake, deadline tracking, redaction, and routing." 14 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, April 8, 2025. Testimony of Margaret Kwoka, Professor of Law, Ohio State University. Reported by StateScoop, April 10, 2025. https://statescoop.com/ai-foia-public-records-government/ 8 If the city begins using AI internally to classify, redact, or route CPRA requests — the logical next step after this staffing increase — the committee should require public disclosure of exactly how that AI is used. A peer-reviewed law journal article published by Pepperdine in 2025 warns that agency AI use in records processing without transparency requirements makes the process less accountable, not more.15 Democracy Forward filed a federal lawsuit16 in 2025 after agencies failed to produce FOIA records about how the administration was deploying AI to carry out government decisions. •The committee should not approve infrastructure that could become an opaque instrument for the city to hide behind without first requiring transparency about how that infrastructure will operate. City's Claim What Research Shows AI requests are harder to process AI tools help agencies process them faster — if cities invest in them Complexity is the problem Better-structured requests are what CPRA was designed for More staff needed AI tools improve deadline compliance Volume is unprecedented Heritage Foundation filed 100,000 federal FOIA requests in two months Requesters using AI send abusive communications Frustration is a documented response to noncompliance — not a characteristic of AI-assisted requests No alternative solution offered Proactive online disclosure would vastly reduce request volume AI requests are a special category California legislature has passed zero laws allowing that distinction The Demeaning Argument G. The staff report quotes a message calling city staff incompetent and asking whether they are "being told by your superiors to be as difficult as possible." This quote is presented without attribution, without context, and without any acknowledgment of what preceded it. I will acknowledge directly: I have sent messages in that tone and may have sent that one. I am not proud of the language. 15 Ronald L. Capaldi, "FOIA and the Use of AI in Government: Freedom of Information or an Empty Promise of Openness?", 45 Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary 25 (2025), published May 27, 2025. https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1727&context=naalj 16 Democracy Forward, Press Release, https://democracyforward.org/news/press-releases/foia-ai-lawsuit/ 9 But the committee should understand the context in which that language emerged — years of documented statutory violations, requests closed without compliance, objections ignored, and a records operation that has treated the law as optional. •When a citizen has exhausted every legitimate avenue and continues to be stonewalled, frustration is not a character flaw. It is a predictable response to a broken system. The CPRA does not require requesters to be polite. It requires agencies to comply. The city cannot simultaneously refuse to meet statutory deadlines, close requests improperly, ignore documented objections, and then present the resulting frustration as justification for additional resources and a promotion for the person responsible for that record. •People do not call city staff incompetent because the process is working smoothly. The committee should also ask why this material appears in a staff report whose stated purpose is to justify a staffing increase and a reclassification. Demeaning language from a requester has no bearing on whether a position should be reclassified or a new employee hired. Its inclusion serves one purpose: to prejudice the committee against the requesters whose investigations are cited elsewhere in the same document as the primary justification for the request. That is not a staffing analysis. •That is a reputational attack embedded in a committee document, to try and manipulate the committee on emotions, not facts. PROBLEM FIVE: NO COMPLIANCE DATA WAS PROVIDED H. The staff report presents volume statistics as evidence that more resources are needed. What it does not present is any data showing how well the city is currently performing against its statutory obligations. The committee has not been given: • Response time compliance rates against the 10-day statutory deadline • Data on how frequently the 14-day extension is invoked, or not invoked • Data on how often requesters must follow up or escalate before receiving records • Any comparison to peer cities of similar size and request volume • Any baseline performance metric against which the proposed staffing increase would be measured This omission is significant. Volume alone does not establish need. A high-performing records operation handling 1,212 requests efficiently presents a different problem than a poorly performing one handling the same volume. The committee cannot make an informed decision about whether additional staffing will improve outcomes without knowing what the current outcomes are. 10 Eric Andrist’s CPRA Request Database I. What the committee has not been given, this submission provides. My CPRA request database attached as Exhibit C documents the following pattern across more than 75 tracked requests. It was analyzed by AI and the report is attached as Exhibit C-1. • Requests left without any response — not even an acknowledgment — for periods ranging from 9 to 489 days beyond the statutory deadline • Requests closed as duplicative when independent AI analysis confirms they seek materially different records (see exhibit C-1) • Requests closed with partial, off-topic, or non-responsive documents without explanation • Extensions invoked beyond the 14-day statutory maximum with no stated justification • Requests effectively closed with a link to a webpage and a directive to search for documents — which is not a lawful CPRA response • Blanket denials of police records contrary to SB 1421 (2019) and SB 16 (2022) • Due dates altered in the NextRequest system in ways that make late responses appear timely The following examples from the database illustrate the severity of the city's noncompliance with statutory response timelines: Rank Request ID Subject Days Late 1 Ex-O005803-100324 Election Flyer Printing Costs 489 2 Ex-W005964-111424 ADA Compliance Documentation 462 3 Ex-O006173-122024 Form 700 Filing Instructions 430 4 25-680 Rolling Production Communications 394 5 Ex-W006662-040125 Tree Inventory / G Street 339 6 Ex-O006827-042825 Film Permit Letter Costs 325 7 25-124 City Council Documentation 239 8 25-257 July 4th Fireworks Reports 189 9 25-244 Christmas Tree Lane Redactions 189 10 25-294 G Street Auto Towing 177 Note: Requests beginning with "Ex-" were filed under the city's legacy portal system. Records appear in the current NextRequest system but attachments are no longer accessible following the city's portal transition. A request for the cost of printing an election flyer took 489 days. A request concerning City Attorney authorizations was closed 14 days late with a single document that did not address the request. 11 •A request claiming no records existed for the Carnegie Art Museum's human remains was reopened after I challenged it — and records appeared.17 To put the city's volume claims in further context, peer city and national agency comparisons demonstrate that Oxnard's request volume — and the volume attributable to any single requester — is unremarkable by documented standards. That research is provided in Exhibit E. The problem is clearly not just workload. It is a records operation that has functioned as a delay and obstruction mechanism. Whether that dysfunction stems from incompetence, from directives issued by the City Manager's or City Attorney's offices to withhold and protect the city from disclosure, or from both, adding staff under the same leadership will not fix it. •More employees producing the same results is not organizational effectiveness — it is organizational self-protection at public expense. PROBLEM SIX: THE COMMITTEE IS NOT BEING TOLD WHAT THE CITED REQUESTS INVESTIGATE J. The staff report identifies specific request numbers as examples of burdensome, broad, and iterative submissions — including requests 25-416, 25-570, 26-43, 26-51, 26-57, 26-138, 26-139, and 26-191. What the report does not disclose is what those requests are investigating. Those requests concern MY ongoing investigation into the city's alleged misappropriation of restricted PEG and HERO funds for the council chambers renovation project — funds restricted under California Public Utilities Code §5870(n) that may have been improperly reclassified and expended on ineligible costs. A second request cited in the report — concerning Landscape Maintenance District 12 — was filed by public advocate Douglas Partello, who has a pending lawsuit18 against the city for CPRA violations and who is a named victim in the State Bar complaint against Fischer and Rozell. The committee is being presented with accountability investigations as administrative burden problems. It is being asked to fund a records operation that has been actively resisting disclosure of its own potential financial misconduct — in a report co-authored by the person whose performance those investigations have documented, approved as to form by the attorney those investigations have targeted. Furthermore, a number of the cited requests were closed by Carlton as duplicative. Independent AI analysis confirms that while they share a common investigative theme, each request seeks 17 Eric Andrist CPRA Request Database Report, Request 25-319. See Exhibit C. 18 See Exhibit J, Partello v. City of Oxnard, [Case No. 2025CUMC047374]. Partello is also identified as a victim in the State Bar complaint against Fischer and Rozell, which is available upon request. 12 materially different records.19 The duplicative closure was not a legitimate exemption — it was a disposal mechanism. The staff report now cites the volume of these same requests as justification for additional staffing, without disclosing that the city's own improper closures drove the follow-up submissions. •The city created the volume it is now complaining about. Additional staffing will not correct this pattern. The structural defects documented in Exhibit D — consolidation without statutory authority, boilerplate closures without individualized review, privilege assertions without logs, exemptions applied without identification — are not the product of insufficient staff. They are the product of a deliberate approach to records management that more employees will simply replicate at greater public expense. Unlike most California cities, Oxnard does not make its NextRequest portal publicly accessible20. The committee members have no independent means of reviewing the requests being cited as justification for this staffing increase. They are being asked to take the word of the report's co-author — who stands to personally benefit from the committee's approval — about the nature and burden of requests she herself processed and in several cases improperly closed. PROBLEM SEVEN: CARLTON'S PERFORMANCE RECORD HAS NOT BEEN DISCLOSED •The staff report asks the committee to reward Carlton's performance without presenting any performance data. The documented record tells a different story. Carlton has systematically closed requests as duplicative when they are not — confirmed by independent AI analysis. She has closed requests over documented requester objections without responding to those objections. Individual responses she has authored have been submitted to AI analytical tools and found to contain specific statutory deficiencies — not by the requester's subjective assessment, but by independent analysis against the statutory standard. (See Exhibit D.) Carlton's current base salary of $118,101 already exceeds the maximum posted range for her position. It increased 108% in a single year — during a period when request volume decreased. •The staff report provides no performance metrics to justify either the prior increase or the proposed reclassification. The committee is being asked to approve a promotion and a raise for a position with a documented record of improper closures, statutory deadline violations, and responses identified 19 See Exhibit D — Analysis of Wendy Carlton's Duplicative Closure Responses, CPRA Requests 25-416, 25-570, 26-43, 26-51, 26-57, 26-138, 26-139, 26-191 (March 2026). 20 Los Angeles NextRequest Public Record Portal Search engine: https://recordsrequest.lacity.org/requests 13 as legally deficient by independent analysis — with no performance data presented to counter that record. On what basis is the committee being asked to approve it? My CPRA request database, which is the source document for Exhibit C, contains notations for each request documenting improper closures, the specific basis cited by Carlton, my rebuttal, and the city's non-response. Upon request, I can produce a case-by-case chart documenting Carlton's improper closures, the statutory basis for each objection, and the instances in which she was required to correct or reopen requests. That underlying data exists in my tracking database and has not yet been compiled into a separate exhibit for this submission due to time constraints. ADDITIONAL NOTE: THE VASQUEZ PATTERN At the March 17, 2026 City Council meeting, Mayor McArthur raised the topic of Vasquez & Company — the firm contracted to operate the city's whistleblower program—and what became of the City of Los Angeles’ lawsuit. When asked, Assistant City Manager Sonstegard stated he did not know what Los Angeles County had done regarding fraud allegations against Vasquez. I informed (from the back of the room) the council that Los Angeles County had terminated Vasquez. Neither Sonstegard nor McArthur followed up at the meeting. •This exchange illustrates the same pattern documented throughout this submission: staff claiming ignorance of accountability-related facts, and the presiding officer accepting non-answers without follow-up. 14 BROADER LEGAL CONTEXT The structural conflict between city attorney control of CPRA functions and genuine transparency is well documented statewide and nationally. •The First Amendment Coalition (FAC) flagged this exact setup in a published question-and-answer post: when the city manager's office is coordinating responses to records requests and the city attorney is deciding what is privileged, the result is not a CPRA program — it is a shield. The FAC characterized that coordination as potentially "evidence of a larger scheme to coordinate the unjustified denial of requests or to otherwise retaliate" against requesters.21 •In January 2026, the California Supreme Court ruled in City of Gilroy v. Superior Court that courts can review an agency's entire process for handling CPRA requests — including adequacy of searches and improper blanket exemptions — even after records have been destroyed. The First Amendment Coalition, the Los Angeles Times, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the Society of Professional Journalists all filed briefs warning that without this power, agencies could evade compliance by destroying records while requests are pending. This ruling directly applies to Oxnard's documented pattern of inadequate searches, improper closures, and claimed duplicate or no-records determinations.22 •In 2023, Los Angeles City Attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto attempted to push state legislation that would have allowed agencies to refuse records requests on grounds so broad that ACLU lawyers said it would completely gut the Public Records Act. In 2024, the city's office was implicated in the auto-deletion of Google Chat messages, which plaintiffs argued amounted to spoliation of evidence. A motion for sanctions was filed, denied at the trial court level, and appealed to the Second District Court of Appeal.23 •San José paid $500,000 in attorney's fees — borne by taxpayers — after its mayor used personal email to hide city business from CPRA. First Amendment Coalition Executive Director David Snyder stated publicly that San José had failed to disclose records in a timely manner again and again and again.24 21 Published May 30, 2013. First Amendment Coalition, "Asked and Answered: City Finds Many Ways to Deny CPRA Requests for Emails." https://firstamendmentcoalition.org/asked-and-answered/city-finds-many-ways-to-deny-cpra-requests-for-emails/ 22 City of Gilroy v. Superior Court, California Supreme Court, January 15, 2026. First Amendment Coalition led amicus coalition including the Los Angeles Times, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Society of Professional Journalists. https://firstamendmentcoalition.org/case/fac-leads-coalition-urging-california-supreme-court-to-hear-public-records-case/ 23 Daily News, "Lawsuit questions Los Angeles City Hall's disappearing messages via Google Chats," October 24, 2025. h https://www.dailynews.com/2025/10/24/lawsuit-questions-los-angeles-city-halls-disappearing-messages-via-google-chats/ 24 San José City Council approves $500,000 settlement in public records lawsuit," San José Spotlight, November 30, 2023. https://sanjosespotlight.com/san-jose-approves-hefty-pay-out-for-california-public-records-lawsuit/ 15 •In Chicago, the city's legal apparatus cost taxpayers $2.4 million in attorney's fees from more than 100 lawsuits — repeatedly denying access to records even after losing eleven prior cases on the same issue.25 •In Gilbert, Arizona, the state Attorney General opened an investigation in 2025 after a resident alleged that the Town Clerk, Town Attorney, and Town Manager collaborated to destroy and conceal police records. A founding member of the Veterans Advisory Board was removed from his role after publicly criticizing the town for delays in fulfilling his records requests.26 •In Milpitas, when the city received CPRA requests for records about City Manager Tom Williams' alleged misconduct, Williams filed a reverse-CPRA lawsuit to block release. The city failed to oppose the action. The First Amendment Coalition sued to force disclosure. The court wrote that the public has a significant interest in learning how city employees use taxpayer money.27 •California taxpayers have paid millions in attorney's fees because city attorneys' offices that controlled records functions refused to follow the law. This committee is being asked to fund more of that infrastructure — with no compliance metrics, no independent oversight, and a co-author who stands to personally benefit. CONCLUSION The committee is being asked to spend $88,049 annually — and $22,010 for the remainder of this fiscal year — to expand an operation whose performance has never been publicly measured, whose lead staff member co-authored her own promotion after an unexplained 108% salary increase during a period of declining request volume, whose legal sign-off carries a conflict of interest, whose characterization of AI-generated requests has no basis in California law, and whose primary justification rests on characterizing legitimate accountability investigations as administrative problems. The problem is not workload. It is a records operation that has functioned as a delay and obstruction mechanism. Rewarding that operation — without a single metric showing it is 25 City Spends Millions Defending Secrecy Practices," Better Government Association, May 5, 2021. https://www.bettergov.org/2021/05/06/city-spends-millions-defending-secrecy-practices/ 26 Arizona attorney general reviewing claim Gilbert illegally destroyed police records," AZCentral, February 7, 2026. https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/gilbert/2026/02/07/arizona-attorney-general-reviewing-claim-gilbert-illegally-destroyed-police-records/88537865007/?gnt-cfr=1&gca-cat=p&gca-uir=true&gca-epti=z118522p119550c119550e1130xxv118522&gca-ft=157&gca-ds=sophi 27 FAC Victory in 'Reverse CPRA' Case: Court Orders Disclosure of Records Alleging Misconduct by Milpitas City Official," First Amendment Coalition, May 2018. https://firstamendmentcoalition.org/2018/05/fac-victory-reverse-cpra-case-court-orders-disclosure-records-alleging-misconduct-milpitas-city-official/ See also City of Milpitas statement regarding court ruling. https://www.ci.milpitas.ca.gov/milpitas-statement-regarding-court-ruling-first-amendment-coalition-legal-fees/ 16 performing its legal obligations — is not organizational effectiveness. It is organizational self-protection at public expense. The committee should not recommend this resolution to the full council without first requiring: 1. A full compliance audit of the CPRA operation against statutory timelines, conducted by an independent party 2. An explanation of what public process authorized Carlton's original higher than advertised salary and further salary increases 3. Outside legal review of the resolution given Fischer's conflicts of interest 4. A response to the First Amendment Coalition review offered in my March 17 letter to Mayor McArthur, especially before this advances to the full City Council 5. Performance metrics establishing a baseline against which any staffing increase can be measured I am available to provide additional documentation, the full request database, AI analysis of specific Carlton responses, or any other supporting materials the committee requires. Eric Andrist Oxnard Resident The Henry Levy House 155 S. G Street EXHIBITS • Exhibit A — Three City of Oxnard job postings for Public Records Advocate position (May 2022, June 2022, February 2023) • Exhibit B — Transparent California salary data for Wendy Carlton, 2023 and 2024 • Exhibit C — Eric Andrist CPRA Request Database AI Analysis Report (as of 3/18/2026) • Exhibit C-1 — Eric Andrist CPRA Request Tracking Spreadsheet (source data, PDF) • Exhibit D — AI analysis of Carlton CPRA responses and duplicative closure analysis (available upon request) • Exhibit E — AI Analysis of Eric Andrist’s CPRA Request V olume: What the Data Shows and Why 124 Requests in One Year is Not Excessive • Exhibit F — California AI legislation 2025-2026 research (available upon request) • Exhibit G—Doug Partello CPRA Pending Lawsuit

CITY OF OXNARD
invites applications for the position of:

Public Records Advocate

SALARY: $27.11 - $49.94 Hourly
$2,169.07 - $3,995.45 Biweekly
$4,699.66 - $8,656.80 Monthly
$56,395.87 - $103,881.65 Annually
OPENING DATE: 05/02/22
CLOSING DATE: 06/02/22 05:00 PM
DESCRIPTION:

The City of Oxnard's City Manager's Office is seeking a Public Records Advocate with strong organizational, analytical, and interpersonal skills.

Under direction, performs a variety of administrative tasks relating to public records requests; responsible for management analysis and program administration requiring independent evaluation and the exercise of judgment; performs related duties as required.

PAYROLL TITLE:

Management Analyst I/II
DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS:

The Management Analyst I is the professional entry-level class in the Management Analyst series. Incumbents assigned to this class perform routine organization, policies and procedures analysis, related budget functions and program direction as assigned. Management Analyst I assignments are generally more routine in nature and work closely within a framework of established procedures.

The Management Analyst II is the journey class in the management analyst series. Positions assigned to this class are flexibly staffed and are normally filled by advancement from the lower class of Management Analyst I, or if filled from the outside requires prior professional administrative analysis experience. This classification is distinguished from the I level by the performance of independent work and decision-making, and direct and indirect supervision over lower level subordinates.

SUPERVISION RECEIVED/EXERCISED:

Direction is provided by higher-level management or administrative personnel. Functional or technical supervision is exercised by the Management Analyst II level to lower level support and professional staff.

WORK SCHEDULE:

The normal work week is Monday through Thursday, 8:00am to 6:00pm and alternating Fridays, 8:00am to 5:00pm. This position may be required to be available to work additional hours as needed to respond to workload needs. This position is not governed by the overtime provisions of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and is not eligible for overtime pay.

ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS:

Include but are not limited to the following:

Serves as the designated Public Records Advocate for the City.

Acts as the point of contact for public records requests, responds to requests for public records, and ensures that all local and state-mandated deadlines are met.

Maintains current knowledge of the Public Records Act and applicable regulations/case law.

Provides advice and training to department staff regarding compliance with the Public Records Act, including exemptions and protections afforded under the act.

Researches public records policy and proposes statutory and administrative reforms.

Analyzes California public records law and the public records laws of other states.

Interacts professionally with staff, stakeholders, and the public.

Assists the City Attorney’s Office if legal action related to a public records request ensues.

Coordinates responses to public records requests with outside counsel or investigators, as necessary.

Maintains various databases related to public records, including a public records log.

Summarizes and synthesizes information from records and reports as requested.

Ensures the confidentiality and integrity of information obtained while acting as a Public Records Advocate.

Performs related duties as assigned.

MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS:

The following are minimum qualifications necessary for entry into the classification:

Education and/or Experience:

Management Analyst I. Possess a Bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university with major coursework in public administration, legal studies, economics or a closely related field. A Master's degree would be desirable.

Management Analyst II. Possess one (1) year in an administrative capacity involving analytical report writing, research, and program evaluation in municipal government comparable to a Management Analyst I and a Bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university with major course work in public administration, legal studies, economics or a related field to the area of assignment. A Master's degree is desirable.

License, Certification and Other Requirements:

Possession of, or ability to obtain a valid, class C California driver's license.

Must be able to speak and understand English to effectively communicate with fellow employees, customers, and vendors.

GENERAL INFORMATION:

The selected candidate must pass a thorough background investigation.

UNION MEMBERSHIP: Positions in this classification are represented by Oxnard Mid Managers Association (OMMA).

APPLICATION PROCESS:

Submit NEOGOV/Government Jobs on-line application.

Complete and submit responses to the supplemental questions, if required.

Upload resume, cover letter or other requested documents.

Your application may be rejected as incomplete if you do not include the relevant information in the online application and include the information only on the resume. Applications and/or Supplemental Questionnaires that state "see my resume" or "see my personnel file" are considered incomplete and will not be accepted. Cover letters and/or optional resumes are not accepted in lieu of a completed application.

The list of qualified candidates that is established from this recruitment may be used to fill other full-time, part-time and temporary assignments as vacancies arise. There is currently one (1) full-time vacancy in the City Manager's Office.

Note: For most positions, the City of Oxnard relies on office automation (Microsoft Office) and web-based enabled tools, therefore candidates must be proficient and comfortable with computer use to perform functions associated with on-going work.

Regular and reliable attendance, effective communication skills, and development of effective working relationships are requirements of all positions.

City staff may be required to play an active role in the event of an emergency, which may include changes in responsibilities and working hours.

This position requires a twelve (12) month probationary period.

Employees are required to participate in the City's direct deposit plan and are paid on a bi- weekly basis.

Pursuant to California Government Code Section 3100, all public Employees are required to serve as disaster service workers subject to such disaster service activities as may be assigned to them.

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY: The City of Oxnard is an Equal Opportunity Employer and welcomes applications from all qualified applicants. We do not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, marital status, medical condition, disability or sexual orientation.

REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION: The City of Oxnard makes reasonable accommodation for the disabled. If you believe you require special arrangements to participate in the testing process, you must inform the Human Resources Department in writing no later than the filing date. Applicants who request such accommodation must document their request with an explanation of the type and extent of accommodation required.

LEGAL REQUIREMENT: On the first day of employment, new employees must provide proof of citizenship or documentation of legal right to work in the United States in compliance with the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, as amended. The City participates in E-Verify and will provide the federal government with your Form I-9 information to confirm that you are authorized to work in the U.S. If E-Verify cannot confirm that you are authorized to work, this employer is required to give you written instructions and an opportunity to contact Department of Homeland Security (DHS) or Social Security Administration (SSA) so you can begin to resolve the issue before the employer can take any action against you, including terminating your employment. Employers can only use E-Verify once you have accepted a job offer and completed the Form I-9. For more information on E-Verify, please contact DHS. 888-897-7781 dhs.gov/e-verify
If you have any questions regarding this recruitment please contact Megan Kunkel at [email protected] or (805) 385-8357.

NOTE: The provisions of this bulletin do not constitute an expressed or implied contract. Any provision contained in this bulletin may be modified or revoked without notice.

APPLICATIONS MAY BE FILED ONLINE AT:
http://www.oxnard.org
300 West Third St
Oxnard, CA 93030
(805) 385-7451
[email protected]
Position #1544/1547-CM-2205-MK

PUBLIC RECORDS ADVOCATE
MK
Public Records Advocate Supplemental Questionnaire

*1.Are you a current employee with the City of Oxnard?
Yes
No

*2.Do you possess or have the ability to obtain a valid unrestricted class C California Drivers License?
Yes
No

*3.Do you possess a Bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university with major coursework in public administration, legal studies, economics or a closely related field?
Yes
No

* Required Question

CITY OF OXNARD
invites applicaons for the posion of:

Public Records Advocate
SALARY: $27.11 - $49.94 Hourly
$2,169.07 - $3,995.45
Biweekly
$4,699.66 - $8,656.80
Monthly
$56,395.87 -
$103,881.65 Annually
OPENING DATE: 06/20/22
CLOSING DATE: 07/20/22 05:00 PM
DESCRIPTION:

The City of Oxnard's City Manager's Oce is seeking a Public Records Advocate with strong organizaonal, analycal, and interpersonal skills. The ideal candidate will have a passion for working with records holders and requesters to resolve disputes and promote government transparency.

Under direcon, performs a variety of administrave tasks relang to public records requests; provides dispute resoluon services, training, guidance and advice to improve the administraon of public records law; responsible for management analysis and program administraon requiring independent evaluaon and the exercise of judgment; performs related dues as required.

PAYROLL TITLE:

Management Analyst I/II
DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS:

The Management Analyst I is the professional entry-level class in the Management Analyst series.

Incumbents assigned to this class perform roune organizaon, policies and procedures analysis, related budget funcons and program direcon as assigned. Management Analyst I assignments are generally more roune in nature and work closely within a framework of established procedures.

The Management Analyst II is the journey class in the management analyst series. Posions assigned to this class are exibly staed and are normally lled by advancement from the lower class of Management Analyst I, or if lled from the outside requires prior professional administrave analysis experience. This classicaon is disnguished from the I level by the performance of independent work and decision-making, and direct and indirect supervision over lower level subordinates.

SUPERVISION RECEIVED/EXERCISED:

Direcon is provided by higher-level management or administrave personnel. Funconal or technical supervision is exercised by the Management Analyst II level to lower level support and professional sta.

WORK SCHEDULE:

The normal work week is Monday through Thursday, 8:00am to 6:00pm and alternang Fridays, 8:00am to 5:00pm. This posion may be required to be available to work addional hours as needed to respond to workload needs. This posion is not governed by the overme provisions of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and is not eligible for overme pay.

ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS:

Include but are not limited to the following:
 Serves as the designated Public Records Advocate for the City.  Acts as the point of contact for public records requests, responds to requests for public records, and ensures that all local and state-mandated deadlines are met.  Maintains current knowledge of the Public Records Act and applicable regulaons/case law.  Provides advice and training to department sta regarding compliance with the Public Records Act, including exempons and protecons aorded under the act.  Researches public records policy and proposes statutory and administrave reforms.  Analyzes California public records law and the public records laws of other states.  Interacts professionally with sta, stakeholders, and the public.  Assists the City Aorney’s Oce if legal acon related to a public records request ensues.  Coordinates responses to public records requests with outside counsel or invesgators, as necessary.
 Maintains various databases related to public records, including a public records log.  Summarizes and synthesizes informaon from records and reports as requested.  Ensures the condenality and integrity of informaon obtained while acng as a Public Records Advocate.
 Performs related dues as assigned.

MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS:

The following are minimum qualicaons necessary for entry into the classicaon:

Educaon and/or Experience:

Management Analyst I. Possess a Bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university with major coursework in public administraon, legal studies, economics or a closely related eld. A Master's degree would be desirable.

Management Analyst II. Possess one (1) year in an administrave capacity involving analycal report wring, research, and program evaluaon in municipal government comparable to a Management Analyst I and a Bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university with major course work in public administraon, legal studies, economics or a related eld to the area of assignment. A Master's degree is desirable.

License, Cercaon and Other Requirements:

Possession of, or ability to obtain a valid, class C California driver's license.

Must be able to speak and understand English to eecvely communicate with fellow employees, customers, and vendors.

GENERAL INFORMATION:

The selected candidate must pass a thorough background invesgaon.

UNION MEMBERSHIP: Posions in this classicaon are represented by Oxnard Mid Managers Associaon (OMMA).

APPLICATION PROCESS:
 Submit NEOGOV/Government Jobs on-line applicaon.
 Complete and submit responses to the supplemental quesons, if required.  Upload resume, cover leer or other requested documents.

Your applicaon may be rejected as incomplete if you do not include the relevant informaon in the online applicaon and include the informaon only on the resume. Applicaons and/or Supplemental Quesonnaires that state "see my resume" or "see my personnel le" are considered incomplete and will not be accepted. Cover leers and/or oponal resumes are not accepted in lieu of a completed applicaon.

The list of qualied candidates that is established from this recruitment may be used to ll other full- me, part-me and temporary assignments as vacancies arise. There is currently one (1) full-me vacancy in the City Manager's Oce.

Note: For most posions, the City of Oxnard relies on oce automaon (Microso Oce) and web- based enabled tools, therefore candidates must be procient and comfortable with computer use to perform funcons associated with on-going work.

Regular and reliable aendance, eecve communicaon skills, and development of eecve working relaonships are requirements of all posions.

City sta may be required to play an acve role in the event of an emergency, which may include changes in responsibilies and working hours.

This posion requires a twelve (12) month probaonary period.

Employees are required to parcipate in the City's direct deposit plan and are paid on a bi-weekly basis.

Pursuant to California Government Code Secon 3100, all public Employees are required to serve as disaster service workers subject to such disaster service acvies as may be assigned to them.

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY: The City of Oxnard is an Equal Opportunity Employer and welcomes applicaons from all qualied applicants. We do not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, naonal origin, age, marital status, medical condion, disability or sexual orientaon.

REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION: The City of Oxnard makes reasonable accommodaon for the disabled. If you believe you require special arrangements to parcipate in the tesng process, you must inform the Human Resources Department in wring no later than the ling date. Applicants who request such accommodaon must document their request with an explanaon of the type and extent of accommodaon required.

LEGAL REQUIREMENT: On the rst day of employment, new employees must provide proof of cizenship or documentaon of legal right to work in the United States in compliance with the Immigraon Reform and Control Act of 1986, as amended. The City parcipates in E-Verify and will provide the federal government with your Form I-9 informaon to conrm that you are authorized to work in the U.S. If E-Verify cannot conrm that you are authorized to work, this employer is required to give you wrien instrucons and an opportunity to contact Department of Homeland Security (DHS) or Social Security Administraon (SSA) so you can begin to resolve the issue before the employer can take any acon against you, including terminang your employment. Employers can only use E-Verify once you have accepted a job oer and completed the Form I-9. For more informaon on E-Verify, please contact DHS. 888-897-7781 dhs.gov/e-verify
If you have any quesons regarding this recruitment please contact Megan Kunkel at [email protected] or (805) 385-8357.

NOTE: The provisions of this bullen do not constute an expressed or implied contract. Any provision contained in this bullen may be modied or revoked without noce.

APPLICATIONS MAY BE FILED ONLINE AT:
hp://www.oxnard.org
300 West Third St
Oxnard, CA 93030
(805) 385-7451
[email protected]
Posion #1544/1547-CM-2206-MK

PUBLIC RECORDS ADVOCATE
MK
Public Records Advocate Supplemental Quesonnaire
* 1. Are you a current employee with the City of Oxnard? Yes
No
* 2. Do you possess or have the ability to obtain a valid unrestricted class C California Driver’s License? Yes
No
* 3. Do you possess a Bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university with major coursework in public administraon, legal studies, economics or a closely related eld? Yes
No
* Required Queson
City of Oxnard
Public Records Advocate
SALARY $26.92 - $54.75 Hourly
$4,666.22 - $9,489.86 Monthly
$55,994.64 - $113,878.34 Annually
LOCATION Oxnard 93030, CA
JOB TYPE Full Time JOB NUMBER3190-CMO-2302-MF
DEPARTMENTCITY MANAGER OPENING DATE02/13/2023
CLOSING DATE6/16/2023 10:00 AM Pacific
Description
This recruitment is open until filled. Early submissions are encouraged.

The City of Oxnard's City Manager's Office is seeking a Public Records Advocate with strong organizational, analytical, and interpersonal skills. The ideal candidate is a self-starter who is detail-oriented, customer service focused, an excellent communicator who can function with integrity and discretion, and is passionate about working with records custodians and requesters to resolve disputes over public records and promote government transparency.

WHAT YOU’LL DO:

Serve as the designated Public Records Advocate for the City Act as the point of contact for public records requests, respond to requests for public records, and ensure that all local and state-mandated requirements and deadlines are met Maintain current knowledge of the Public Records Act and applicable regulations/case law Provide advice and training to department staff regarding compliance with the Public Records Act, including exemptions and protections afforded under the Act
Research public records policy and propose statutory and administrative reforms Interact professionally with staff, stakeholders, and the public Assist the City Attorney’s Office if legal action related to a public records request ensues Coordinate responses to public records requests with the City Attorney's Office, outside counsel, or investigators, as necessary
Maintain various databases related to public records, including a public records log Summarize and synthesize information from records and reports as requested Ensure the confidentiality and integrity of information obtained while acting as a Public Records Advocate Facilitate and conduct on-going Public Records Act training for assigned points of contact citywide Review and update existing records retention schedules and other policies that govern the management, storage, and release of records and information
In consultation with the Information Technology Department, coordinate data management resources within the City to ensure consistency in operations and efficiency in data sharing where appropriate In conjunction with the City Attorney’s Office and Information Technology, develop procedures for e-discovery Consult with federal, state, county and other governmental agencies on shared records and information management issues
Payroll/Classification Title:

Administrative Services Analyst
SUPERVISION EXERCISED/SUPERVISION RECEIVED:

Incumbents may serve as a lead worker, assigning work and monitoring work completion. Receives general supervision and is expected to prioritize work to meet deadlines and to keep the supervisor informed of issues that would impact achievement of a deadline, organizational policy or procedure or in consideration of risk management.

DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS:

This classification is distinguished from the Administrative Services Coordinator/Support Supervisor in that it performs professional financial, managerial and/or operational analysis work and/or provides professional program analysis, evaluation and administration.

WORK SCHEDULE: The normal work week is Monday through Thursday, 8:00am to 6:00pm and alternating Fridays, 8:00am to 5:00pm. This position may be required to be available to work additional hours as needed to respond to workload needs. This position is not governed by the overtime provisions of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and is not eligible for overtime pay.

Essential Functions
(This class specification represents only the core areas of responsibilities; specific position assignments will vary depending on the needs of the Department.)
Performs professional financial, managerial and/or operational analysis work and/or provides program coordination and administration of assigned area.

Responds to inquiries from internal and external customers; conducts research, audits and/or assessments; provides information, guidance and materials in support of designated programs; troubleshoots issues and resolves problems; and, provides project staff support, liaison services and/or general oversight to designated committees, external stakeholders or project teams. Monitors and ensures compliance with policy, procedures, standards and/or regulations.

Gathers information, analyzes data, identifies requirements and trends, and presents findings; prepares, updates and maintains records, reports, presentations, marketing materials and databases; provides recommendations and implements solutions in support of assigned area.

Provides analytical support and coordination of special projects, as assigned.

Performs other duties of a similar nature and level as assigned.

Minimum Qualifications
The following are the minimum qualifications necessary for entry into the classification:

EDUCATION:

Bachelor's degree in business administration, public administration, legal studies, finance, accounting or a related field
EXPERIENCE:

Two (2) years of journey-level professional experience in area of assignment HIGHLY DESIRABLE:

Knowledge of the California Public Records Act and records retention best practices Previous experience in records retention and training certifications preferred, or paralegal credential OTHER REQUIREMENTS:

Must be able to speak and understand English to effectively communicate with fellow employees, customers, and vendors
General Information
APPLICATION PROCESS:

Submit NEOGOV/Government Jobs on-line application.

Complete and submit responses to the supplemental questions, if required.

Upload resume, cover letter, proof of degree (transcript), or other requested documents.

The list of qualified candidates established from this recruitment may be used to fill other full-time, part-time, and temporary assignments. There is currently one (1) full-time vacancy in the City Manager's Office.

Selected candidate(s) must pass a thorough background investigation.

UNION MEMBERSHIP: Positions in this classification are represented by the Oxnard Mid Manager's Association (OMMA).

NOTE: For most positions, the City of Oxnard relies on office automation (Microsoft Office/Google) and web-based enabled tools, therefore candidates must be proficient and comfortable with computer use to perform functions associated with on-going work.

Regular and reliable attendance, effective communication skills, and development of effective working relationships are requirements of all positions.

Employees are required to participate in the City's direct deposit plan and are paid on a bi-weekly basis.

This position requires a 12 month probationary period.

Pursuant to California Government Code Section 3100, all public employees are required to serve as disaster service workers subject to such disaster service activities as may be assigned to them.

REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION: The City of Oxnard makes reasonable accommodation for individuals/people with disabilities. If you believe you require special arrangements to participate in the testing process, you must inform the Employer
City of Oxnard
Address
300 West Third St
Oxnard, California, 93030
Phone
(805) 385-7590
Website
http://www.oxnard.org
Public Records Advocate Supplemental Questionnaire
*QUESTION 1
Do you possess a Bachelor's degree or higher in business administration, public administration, legal studies, finance, accounting or a related field?
Yes
No
*QUESTION 2
Do you possess two (2) years of related experience?
Yes
No
* Required Question
Human Resources Department in writing no later than the filing date. Applicants who request such accommodation must document their request with an explanation of the type and extent of accommodation required.

LEGAL REQUIREMENT: On the first day of employment, new employees must provide proof of citizenship or documentation of legal right to work in the United States in compliance with the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, as amended. The City participates in E-Verify and will provide the federal government with you. Form I-9 information to confirm that you are authorized to work in the U.S. If E-Verify cannot confirm that you are authorized to work, this employer is required to give you written instructions and an opportunity to contact Department of Homeland Security (DHS) or Social Security Administration (SSA) so you can begin to resolve the issue before the employer can take any action against you, including terminating your employment. Employers can only use E-Verify once you have accepted a job offer and completed the Form I-9. For more information on E-Verify, please contact DHS. 888-897- 7781 dhs.gov/e-verify
If you have any questions regarding this recruitment, please contact Megan Ferguson at [email protected] or (805) 385-8357.

NOTE: The provisions of this bulletin do not constitute an expressed or implied contract. Any provision contained in this bulletin may be modified or revoked without notice.

Wendy Carlton Transparent California Salary Information Wendy M Carlton Administrative Svcs Analyst (2023) Regular pay: $56,646.40 Overtime pay: $0.00 Other pay: $0.00 Total pay: $56,646.40 Beneﬁts: $18,980.59 Pension debt: $7,713.31 Total pay & beneﬁts: $83,340.30 ____________________________________________________________________________________ Wendy M Carlton Administrative Svcs Analyst (2024) Regular pay: $118,101.21 Overtime pay: $0.00 Other pay: $0.00 Total pay: $118,101.21 Beneﬁts: $39,512.27 Pension debt: $13,900.67 Total pay & beneﬁts: $171,514.15 Eric Andrist CPRA Requests – AI Comprehensive Database Report As of March 18, 2026 • Source: Eric’s CPRA Requests.xlsx Executive Summary This report analyzes Eric Andrist’s full database of California Public Records Act (CPRA) requests submitted to the City of Oxnard. The database tracks requests spanning from 2025 through early 2026 and documents a consistent pattern of noncompliance by the City, including late responses, unjustified closures, incomplete document production, and failure to follow statutory timelines under Government Code §7922.535. The majority of closed requests were flagged as LATE, and several open requests continue to accumulate days without lawful response. [1] Request Overview The database contains requests from two tracked time periods — the 2025 series (25-xxx) and the 2026 series (26-xxx) — logged across two tabs: the main tracking sheet and a Council Version (a duplicate for public presentation). Key columns tracked include: Open/Closed status, whether the request was LATE, whether at least some documents were provided, whether the City failed to reply within 10 days, whether a 14-day extension was properly requested, whether the City offered to help, whether descriptions were given, whether Oxnard changed the due date, the number of changes made, and the number of calendar days late. [1] 2026 Requests – Status Summary Currently Open Requests (as of March 18, 2026) Request ID Subject Created 10-Day Due Status Notes 26-273 Gabe Teran communications re Phil Molina 3/17/2026 3/30/2026 OPEN Within window 26-247 Hearing Officer – Dog Barking 3/10/2026 3/20/2026 OPEN Within window 26-240 Vasquez Company / PI Licensing / Whistleblower 3/7/2026 3/19/2026 OPEN Within window 26-227 Sign Sweepstakes – Surplus Property 3/3/2026 3/16/2026 OPEN Due date passed 26-185 Lost CPRA Lawsuits 3/2/2026 3/12/2026 OPEN Flagged LATE 26-182 Dog Barking / Animal Noise Hearings 3/2/2026 3/12/2026 OPEN Within window 26-210 Oxnard Community Survey costs 2/28/2026 3/12/2026 OPEN LATE; revised date came and went 26-204 Treasurer Molina BCC List / Supplemental Retirement 2/25/2026 3/9/2026 CLOSED Flagged “Shouldn’t Be Closed” / LATE — 9 days late; incomplete docs 26-193 City Attorney Authorizations to Speak 2/22/2026 3/5/2026 CLOSED Flagged “Shouldn’t Be Closed” / LATE — 14 days late; one meaningless doc produced 26-192 ARPA Lost Public Sector Revenue Fund / City Hall CIP 2/22/2026 3/5/2026 OPEN Within window per latest data Closed 2026 Requests Request ID Subject Days Late Issue 26-226 Council Chambers Voting System 14 Closed with incomplete docs; no funding source documentation provided 26-215 Transit Center ADA Extension 0 Completed on time 2025 Requests – Status and Compliance Late Closed Requests (Flagged LATE) These requests were closed by the City but flagged as late and/or improperly handled. [1] Request ID Subject Days Late Key Violation 25-364 TUP/RI Zone Event Rules 149 Sent link to search for self; not a proper response; only partially fulfilled 25-326 Police Records Portal Challenge 167 Closed claiming “not a request”; 4-day late initial reply; unjustified closure 25-321 Behrens Code Sections 162 Incomplete docs; no follow-up after 10/8 message 25-319 Carnegie Museum Human Remains 119 Closed saying “no records” — likely false; reopened 11/16; more docs produced 11/20 25-317 OPD Misconduct / Police Records 167 Blanket denial of police records; one doc on day 10; still incomplete 25-294 G Street Auto Towing / Curtis T. Reports 177 Entered late by City; wrong due date set; documents sent unrelated to request 25-286 ADA Porta Potty Certification – Christmas Tree Lane 176 Closed saying no more docs than TUP; non-responsive; 3 follow-ups unanswered 25-257 July 4th Fireworks Reports 189 Partial documents sent 3 days after deadline; follow-up on 10/20 unanswered 25-303 Cable/PEG Franchise Fee Fund Use 157 Extension to 10/13 exceeded 14-day window; told to search webpage themselves 25-348 Phil Molina Lawsuit Court Orders 0* No reply within 10 days; records eventually released online 25-346 AALRR Work for City / All Engagements 0* Documents only addressed Molina; broader scope ignored * Days late show 0 in database but narrative notes confirm violations. Requests with Major Compliance Violations Request ID Subject Violations Noted 25-344 AALRR / 83-Page Molina Investigation Records No 10-day reply (violation 1); no 14-day extension request (violation 2); 17+ days past initial deadline with no further response 25-317 OPD Misconduct Records Blanket denial contrary to SB 1421 / SB 16 / Penal Code 832.7 25-326 Police Records Portal Challenge Claimed request “was not a request”; told requester to use separate OPD portal without legal basis 26-193 City Attorney Authorizations Closed with one document that did not address request; note sent to reopen 26-204 Molina BCC List Sent 2 unrequested documents; omitted requested records; AI analysis sent 3/17/2026 Pattern of Noncompliance 1. Failure to Respond Within 10 Days Multiple requests received no reply — not even an acknowledgment or extension request — within the statutory 10-day window required by Government Code §7922.535. Examples include 25-344, 25-348, and 25-326. [1] 2. Improper or Unlawful Closures Several requests were marked “Shouldn’t Be Closed,” meaning the City closed them without fully complying: • 26-226 – Closed without funding source documentation for the Council Chambers voting system • 26-204 – Closed with partial and off-topic documents; 9 days late • 26-193 – Closed with a single non-responsive document; 14 days late • 25-321 – Closed with incomplete documents after gaps were identified • 25-317 – Closed with blanket denial of police records [1] 3. Improper Extensions In several cases, the City either requested extensions beyond the 14-day statutory maximum, or requested extensions with no stated reason. Request 25-303 is a notable example where an extension was granted to 10/13 — outside the 14-day window — with no justification. [1] 4. “Search for Yourself” Non-Responses At least two requests (25-364, 25-303) were effectively closed with a link to a webpage and a directive to search for documents themselves. The City is required to provide the specific document, not redirect requesters to a search portal. [1] 5. Changed Due Dates Multiple requests show the City altering the stated due date, in some cases making it appear the request was handled on time when it was not. Request 25-294 is a documented example where the City’s late entry resulted in an incorrectly shortened response window. [1] 6. Police Records Blanket Denials The City’s practice of blanket-denying police records requests is legally questionable under SB 1421 (2019) and SB 16 (2022), which amended Penal Code §832.7 to require disclosure of sustained findings of excessive force, dishonesty, sexual assault, and related misconduct. Requests 25-317, 25-326, and 25-344 all encountered this pattern. [1] Most Significantly Late Requests Ranked by calendar days late as tracked in the database. [1] Rank Request ID Subject Days Late 1 Ex-O005803-100324 Election Flyer Printing Costs 489 2 Ex-W005964-111424 ADA Compliance Documentation 462 3 Ex-O006173-122024 Form 700 Filing Instructions 430 4 25-680 Rolling Production Communications 394 5 Ex-W006662-040125 Tree Inventory / G Street 339 6 Ex-O006827-042825 Film Permit Letter Costs 325 7 25-124 City Council Documentation 239 8 25-257 July 4th Fireworks Reports 189 9 25-244 Christmas Tree Lane Redactions 189 10 25-294 G Street Auto Towing 177 Note: Requests beginning with “Ex-” were filed under the City’s legacy portal system. Records appear in the current NextRequest system but attachments are no longer accessible following the City’s portal transition. Special Notes on Specific Requests 25-319 – Carnegie Museum Human Remains This request was reopened on 11/16/2025 after the City claimed “no records exist,” characterized as “likely impossible.” Additional documents were produced on 11/20/2025. The underlying issue — the presence of human remains inside the Carnegie Art Museum and efforts to stall or expedite their removal — remains unresolved. [1] 26-204 – Molina BCC List / Supplemental Retirement After the City sent incomplete and off-topic documents, the response was submitted through an AI analysis tool and a recommendation letter was sent via portal and email on 3/17/2026. This request also covers the City’s supplemental retiree program (Charles Schwab Trust Bank), a closed benefit available only to employees hired before 2013. [1] 26-226 – Council Chambers Voting System The City responded but did not provide documentation showing which accounts funded the new voting system that debuted at the 3/3/2026 council meeting. City staff claimed the invoice had not been paid yet — legally irrelevant, as a purchase order identifying the funding source must exist at time of order. A follow-up was sent to both the records coordinator and City Treasurer Phil Molina. [1] 25-344 – AALRR Molina Investigation One of the most complex requests in the database, seeking the full paper trail behind the 83-page workplace investigation of City Treasurer Phil Molina conducted by Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo (AALRR). The City failed to reply within 10 days, failed to request a 14-day extension, and its last message stated further response was forthcoming “upon receipt of clarification” — a condition never fulfilled. [1] 26-192 – ARPA Lost Public Sector Revenue Fund / City Hall CIP This request targets a critical compliance question: whether the City properly obligated ARPA/CSLFRF Lost Public Sector Revenue (Fund 320) dollars to the City Hall and Annex Improvements CIP project (PW 2522) before the December 31, 2024 federal deadline. No response has yet been received. [1] Requests Filed Under Second Account Request 25-344 is flagged as being filed under a second account. Two portal accounts existed, which caused confusion when the City reported the requester was not signed in. Request 25-319 is also cross-referenced to a second account issue. [1] Conclusion The database documents a systematic pattern of CPRA noncompliance by the City of Oxnard across more than 30 tracked requests. The most frequent violations are: failure to respond within the 10-day statutory window, improper closure of requests without complete production, extensions taken without legal justification or beyond the 14-day maximum, and unlawful blanket denials of police records contrary to SB 1421 and SB 16. Several requests remain open and accumulating late days as of March 18, 2026. The data in this database constitutes a strong evidentiary record of ongoing, systematic noncompliance that would support formal complaints to the California Attorney General, the City Council, or as the basis for CPRA litigation. [1] [1] Source: Eric’s CPRA Requests.xlsx — main tracking sheet and Council Version tab, as of March 18, 2026.

ID (*2nd acct)Request Text Created On10 Days14 DaysShouldn't Be Closed No 10 Day Reply?
Oxnard Closed Date
25-394*
POLICE OFFICER RECORDS: ALL. This is a request under the California Public Records Act (Gov. Code §§ 7920.000 et seq.) and Penal Code § 832.7, as amended by SB 1421 and SB 16. Please search Oxnard Police Department, City Attorney, and Human Resources repositories for the period January 1, 2015 through the present and produce the following:

A) Mandatory-disclosure peace-officer records (Penal Code § 832.7(b)) For any sustained finding in the categories below, produce all “records relating to” the incident/investigation (as defined in § 832.7(b)(2)), including complaints, IA files, interviews, photos/video/audio (BWC/CCTV/dispatch), reports, findings, discipline notices, Skelly/Loudermill materials, and closing letters:

Discharge of a firearm at a person.Use of force resulting in death or great bodily injury.Sexual assault by an officer (including any on-duty sexual act or proposition under POST/department definitions).Dishonesty (including false statements, perjury, or falsified reports/records).Unlawful arrest, search or entry.Biased or racial conduct.Failure to intervene regarding excessive force.B) Discipline and separations (last 10 years) For any officer who was disciplined and then terminated, resigned, or retired (including “resigned in lieu of discipline,” “last-chance agreements,” or separation following a sustained IA finding), produce:

Notices of intent, Skelly/Loudermill letters, final discipline letters, settlement/severance or separation agreements, resignation letters, last-chance agreements, and any “do not rehire” designations.Final IA summaries/findings and closing reports.Any related City HR file documents reflecting the basis for separation.High-resolution staff headshots/duty portraits of those officers (non- thumbnail; original or ≥1000 px on the long edge if available).For each such matter, the officer’s name, rank, badge/ID, relevant assignment, and the date discipline became final.C) On-duty impairment / DUI and related credibility issues Please also produce records from the past ten (10) years involving on-duty alcohol/drug impairment, including:

Any sustained finding that an officer reported to duty impaired, was intoxicated while on duty, or operated a City vehicle under the influence where the investigation also sustained one of the mandatory-release categories above (dishonesty; unreasonable/excessive force; unlawful arrest/search; biased conduct; or failure to intervene).Any Brady/Giglio notifications, DA letters, or credibility disclosures referencing on-duty impairment or related dishonesty.Any POST notices, referrals, or correspondence concerning on-duty impairment tied to decertification, suspension, or “serious misconduct” review.For any on-duty DUI or impairment incident, the non-personnel incident/arrest records disclosable under Gov. Code § 7923.600 (formerly § 6254(f))—including date/time/location, narrative of circumstances, and names of involved personnel (subject to lawful redaction).D) Complaint and IA indexes / logs Annual or running IA/Professional Standards logs (complaint registers) and use-of-force logs showing case number, incident date, allegation type, involved officer(s), disposition, and discipline, with fields in native format (CSV/XLSX) if maintained.Any index maintained under Penal Code § 832.7(b)(1)(C) or equivalent IA tracking spreadsheets.E) Brady/Giglio and DA communications All Brady/Giglio disclosure letters/notices to the Ventura County DA and responses received (2015–present) relating to Oxnard PD officers.Any DA-issued Brady lists naming Oxnard officers provided to the City/OPD during the timeframe.F) POST decertification / certification-action correspondence Communications with California POST regarding potential or actual certification action for OPD officers (referrals, notices of investigation, Statements of Facts/Findings, determinations, and final actions), including any submissions by OPD/City.G) Policies (final versions in effect during the period) Current and historical Body-Worn Camera policy, internal affairs/complaint investigation policy, discipline matrix/guide, on-duty conduct/sexual misconduct policy, and substance use/fitness for duty policy (including any revisions since 2015).Production format & fees Please produce records electronically via email or downloadable link. Where feasible, provide searchable PDFsand native files (CSV/XLSX/MP4, etc.) for data and media.Segregate and release non-exempt material; cite specific statutory exemptions for any redactions/withholdings and provide a withholding log describing the legal basis and the nature of the withheld material.I do not agree to pay any fees. CPRA permits only the direct cost of duplication; agencies may not charge for search, review, or redaction time.If the request is deemed voluminous, begin rolling production and continue on a reasonable schedule.Scope & assistance If any item is unclear or potentially burdensome, please confer with me to narrow or prioritize. If records are held by another City department (HR/City Attorney) or contractor, please forward this request accordingly. See Gov. Code §§ 7922.535 (response time) and 7922.505 (duty to assist).

Please confirm receipt and provide your 10-day determination along with an estimated production schedule. If you claim that responsive records do not exist, please say whether they never existed, were never kept, or have been destroyed, and identify any applicable retention schedule.

Clarification re disclosability of peace-officer records:

Any City/OPD web statement suggesting “police personnel records are not public” is outdated and conflicts with Penal Code § 832.7(b) as amended by SB 1421 (2019) and SB 16 (2022). California law now requires disclosure (with lawful redactions) of “records relating to” the following:

Officer-involved shootings at a person and uses of force causing death or great bodily injury (§ 832.7(b)(1)(A)–(B)).Sustained findings of sexual assault or dishonesty by an officer (§ 832.7(b)(1)(C)–(D)).Sustained findings of unreasonable/excessive force, failure to intervene, unlawful arrest or search, and discrimination/bias (§ 832.7(b)(1)(E)–(H), added by SB 16).See attached document for more info. 10/7/2202510/17/2202510/31/22025 11/13/2025
25-690
Documentation of the HR Department's search in 2022 for comparable salary information in other cities for the creation of the Public Record Advocate position, and just overall ALL the information about the creation of that position (ie who requested it, what changes were to be made, etc).

At the council meeting of 3/1/2022, Steve Howlett specifically says that if a new position is created, they do go out and do research into what other cities are paying for such a position. You can see the discussion at this link: https://www.youtube.com/live/4HemyJbXAy0?si=J3hzIvalRfdqLMhe&t=9526 Message from requesterI'd like to add an addition to this request instead of opening a second request.

Please provide the current FTE position allocation table showing which department budgets for the Public Records Advocate (Wendy Carlton), along with any memorandum of understanding or assignment agreement detailing her work in the City Attorney's Office while budgeted under the City Manager. 12/21/2025512/31/202551/14/20256 1/9/2026
25-672
I would like documentation showing
where the funds came from for the Dallas Cowboy Shirts that the Mayor and some city council members wore in July 2025 at the Training Camp Ceremony (I think on 7/26/25). Photos attached of them in the shirts.

I don't know if the entire city council was in attendance in shirts, but if they were I want documentation for all of them, but pictured are Luis McArthur, Gabe Teran, Gabriela Rodriguez, Michaela Perez, and Bert Perelo. 12/16/2025512/27/202551/10/20256 12/29/2026
26-273
Gabe Teran communications re: Phil Molina
Pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Gov. Code § 7920.000 et seq.), I request the following records:

A. All CPRA Requests Filed by Gabe Teran
All records related to any and all California Public Records Act requests filed by Gabe Teran with the City of Oxnard from January 1, 2015 to present, including but not limited to:

1. The complete request as submitted

2. All records produced in response to each request

3. All internal communications between city staff regarding each request

4. All communications between city staff and the requester

5. Any determination letters, extension notices, or closure communications

6. The identity of all staff who accessed, reviewed, or processed each request

7. Whether each request was made publicly visible in the City's CPRA portal, and if not, who made the decision to restrict visibility and why

8. Any and all video footage, images, or other media produced in response to any of Teran's requests, including but not limited to surveillance footage produced to Gabe Teran.

B. All Communications Involving Gabe Teran and Phil Molina All records, including but not limited to emails, text messages, direct messages, Signal messages, WhatsApp messages, voicemails, memoranda, notes, and any other written or electronic communications, sent or received by any City employee, officer, contractor, or official — including but not limited to City Manager Alexander Nguyen, City Attorney Stephen Fischer*, and their respective staffs — that:

1. Reference, discuss, or concern City Treasurer Phil Molina, his office, his duties, his conduct, his work schedule, his attendance, or his physical presence at City Hall

2. Reference, discuss, or concern any surveillance footage of City Treasurer Phil Molina or the parking lot at 300 W Third Street

3. Reference, discuss, or concern any public records requests filed by or related to City Treasurer Phil Molina

4. Were sent to or received from Councilmember Gabe Teran, or reference Councilmember Teran in connection with any of the above topics Date range: January 1, 2023 to present.

C. Communications Regarding the OPD Parking Lot Camera
All records concerning the OPD-operated surveillance camera located in the rear parking lot at 300 W Third Street, including but not limited to:

1. Any requests by any person to access, review, download, or produce footage from that camera

2. Any internal communications about such requests

3. Any records showing who accessed footage from that camera between January 1, 2025 and the present

4. Any records showing whether footage was preserved, copied, or transferred in connection with any CPRA request D. Format
Please provide all records in native electronic format. For text messages, please provide in a format that preserves metadata including sender, recipient, date, and time.

If any portion of this request is denied, please identify the specific exemption claimed and release all reasonably segregable portions as required by law. *Please note that attorney-client privilege is not a blanket exemption that shields all communications involving the City Attorney's office. Communications that are primarily operational, administrative, or political in nature do not become privileged merely because an attorney was copied or involved. For any records withheld on privilege grounds, please provide a detailed privilege log identifying each withheld record, the specific basis for the privilege claim, the parties to the communication, and the date — sufficient to evaluate the claim. 03/17/20263/30/20264/13/2026
26-247
HEARING OFFICER for dog barking hearing. Pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Gov. Code § 7920.000 et seq.), I hereby request all records relating to the designation of Julian Gonzalez as Hearing Officer in this matter, including any written designation, memorandum, email, or other communication from the City Manager's office authorizing Mr. Gonzalez to serve in this capacity.

Please provide copies of all complaints associated with this matter. 03/10/20263/20/20264/3/2026
26-240
Vasquez & Company
I request copies of the following records in their native electronic format where available:

1. VASQUEZ & COMPANY CONTRACT AND SELECTION
a. The complete executed Agreement 9051-20-CM between the City of Oxnard and Vasquez & Company LLP for On-Call Internal Auditing Services, including all exhibits, appendices, amendments, extensions, task orders, and change orders from the date of execution through the present. b. The complete scope of services, as described in the original agreement and any subsequent task orders, specifically identifying whether the scope includes investigation of employee misconduct, workplace complaints, or whistleblower complaints. c. All records related to the selection and procurement process for Agreement 9051-20-CM, including but not limited to: the Request for Proposals (RFP) or Request for Qualifications (RFQ), all proposals received, evaluation criteria and scoring sheets, selection committee membership, staff recommendations, and any City Council or City Manager approval memoranda. d. Any records identifying which City official(s) recommended or directed the hiring of Vasquez & Company LLP for internal audit and/or whistleblower investigation services. e. All invoices submitted by Vasquez & Company LLP to the City of Oxnard from the inception of the contract through the present, and all corresponding payments made by the City.

2. PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR LICENSING
a. Any documentation that Vasquez & Company LLP , or any individual employee or subcontractor of Vasquez & Company LLP performing whistleblower or workplace investigations for the City, holds a valid California Private Investigator license issued by the Bureau of Security and Investigative Services (BSIS). b. Any legal opinion, memorandum, or analysis obtained by the City regarding whether a Private Investigator license is required under California Business & Professions Code sections 7521-7523 for the whistleblower investigation services performed by Vasquez & Company LLP . c. Any records identifying the professional licenses held by Vasquez & Company personnel who have conducted or are conducting whistleblower complaint investigations for the City, including but not limited to Erica Ong and Tomete Santalon.

3. CLEARVIEW CONNECTS / SYNTRIO CONTRACT
a. The complete executed agreement between the City of Oxnard and ClearView Connects, ClearView Strategic Partners, and/or Syntrio for whistleblower hotline or ethics reporting services, including all exhibits, amendments, and data processing or data storage addenda. b. Any records identifying where whistleblower complaint data submitted through the ClearView Connects portal is stored, including server location(s) and whether data is stored outside the United States. c. Any data sovereignty, data privacy, or cybersecurity assessment conducted by or for the City regarding the storage of whistleblower complaint data on servers located outside the United States.

4. WHISTLEBLOWER INVESTIGATION FILES
a. A log or list of all whistleblower complaints received by the City through any channel (ClearView portal, phone, mail, or other) from January 1, 2020 through the present, including for each complaint: the date received, the assigned case/incident number, the date the investigation was opened, the date the investigation was closed, and the disposition or finding (sustained, not sustained, unfounded, etc.). Personal identifying information of complainants and subjects may be redacted as required by law. b. The complete investigation file for the whistleblower complaint referenced during the January 27, 2026 Finance & Governance Committee meeting involving allegations of an employee taking a city vehicle home during work hours, including but not limited to: the original complaint, all investigator notes and work product, witness statements, photographic or documentary evidence reviewed, the final investigation report, and the determination or disposition. Names and identifying information may be redacted as required by law.

5. CITY MANAGER RELATIONSHIP WITH VASQUEZ & COMPANY
a. All communications (emails, letters, text messages, calendar invitations, meeting notes) between City Manager Alexander Nguyen and any representative of Vasquez & Company LLP from January 1, 2018 through the present. b. Any records reflecting whether City Manager Nguyen had a prior professional relationship with Vasquez & Company LLP , including but not limited to any contracts, engagements, or communications during his tenure as Assistant City Manager for the City of Riverside or any prior municipal employer. Please provide all responsive records in their native electronic format.

If any records are withheld pursuant to an exemption, please identify the specific statutory exemption claimed and provide a description of each withheld record sufficient to allow me to assess the applicability of the exemption, as required by Government Code section 7922.000.

I request that you respond within 10 days as required by Government Code section 7922.535. If you determine that you need additional time, please provide an estimated date of production as required by law. 03/07/20263/19/20264/2/2026
26-226
COUNCIL CHAMBERS VOTING SYSTEM: I would like documentation of the costs of the Council Chambers new voting system (that debuted at the 3/3/26 meeting) including what accounts the funds actually came from. 03/03/20263/16/20263/30/2026 3/5/2026
26-227
Sign Sweepstakes.

Pursuant to the California Public Records Act, Government Code section 7920.000 et seq., I am requesting access to and copies of the following records:

All current policies, procedures, administrative regulations, or internal guidelines that govern the classification, declaration, or disposal of surplus or salvage City‑owned personal property, including but not limited to furnishings, fixtures, signage, equipment, vehicles, and other tangible movable items.Any resolutions, ordinances, or formal actions of the City Council, or any City board, commission, or committee, adopted since January 1, 2015, that address the disposition, donation, sale, auction, or other transfer of surplus or salvage City‑owned personal property.All records, from January 1, 2023, to the present, relating to any declaration, determination, or designation that City‑owned signage or gateway signs are surplus, salvage, or otherwise no longer needed for City use. This request includes, but is not limited to:Staff reports, memoranda, or presentations.Internal emails or correspondence among City staff.Correspondence with the City Council or Council offices.Any valuations, appraisals, or assessments of condition.All records, from January 1, 2023, to the present, relating to the donation, transfer, or giveaway of any City‑owned signage or gateway signs to any business, organization, or individual. This request includes:Staff reports, memoranda, or presentations.Draft and final program descriptions, guidelines, or terms and conditions.Internal emails or correspondence among City staff regarding the structure or legality of such donations or transfers.Any agreements, releases, indemnity forms, or other documents provided to or signed by recipients.Any documents, from January 1, 2023, to the present, that describe how the City determines whether donation, sale, destruction, or other disposition of surplus personal property serves a public purpose.For all items above, electronic copies (PDF or native electronic format) are preferred and may be provided by email or via download link. If any portion of this request is denied, please provide the specific legal basis for each withholding and release all reasonably segregable non‑exempt portions.

If there are any questions that would help you identify the requested records more precisely, please contact me by email before denying or narrowing the request. 03/03/20263/16/20263/30/2026
26-215
Transit center extension. Did the City receive an extension from the ADA on the alterations required to be completed on the Transit Center by March of 2024? If so, would you send me a copy of the extension? 03/02/20263/12/20263/26/2026 3/12/2026
ID (*2nd acct)Request Text Created On10 Days14 DaysShouldn't Be Closed No 10 Day Reply?
Oxnard Closed Date
26-185
LOST CPRA LAWSUITS:

This is a request under the California Public Records Act (Government Code §7920 et seq.).

I request all records related to any lawsuit, legal action, settlement, or judgment involving allegations that the City of Oxnard violated the California Public Records Act, including but not limited to:

Case documents: Complaints, answers, motions, briefs, declarations, exhibits, court orders, judgments, and settlement agreementsLegal correspondence: All communications between City Attorney's office and outside counsel (if any) regarding CPRA litigation, including emails, letters, and memorandaInternal communications: Emails, memoranda, and other communications among City staff, City Attorney's office, City Manager's office, and City Council regarding CPRA lawsuits or settlementsFinancial records: Invoices, billing statements, and payment records for attorney's fees, court costs, settlement amounts, and any other expenses related to CPRA litigationPolicy documents: Any memoranda, reports, or recommendations regarding changes to CPRA procedures or training as a result of litigation outcomesTime period: January 1, 2020 to present 03/02/20263/12/20263/26/2026
26-182

DOG BARKING / ANIMAL NOISE NUISANCE HEARINGS
I request records for the past ten (10) years sufficient to show:

All scheduled public nuisance hearings involving alleged barking or animal noise under Oxnard City Code, including hearing notices or scheduling documentsAll hearing officer written findings, decisions, or orders issued in such mattersAny recordings, transcripts, or logs identifying such hearingsAny tracking reports, databases, or summaries listing animal noise nuisance hearings and their outcomesHEARING REQUIREMENTS / PROCESS Records for the past ten (10) years sufficient to show:

Any policies, procedures, manuals, guidance documents, training materials, forms, or internal instructions describing requirements or steps for initiating, scheduling, or conducting animal nuisance hearings, including barking complaints under Oxnard City Code § 5-2(A)(7)Any revisions, updates, or superseded versions of such documentsAny communications, memoranda, or directives discussing requirements for complainants (including log requirements or multiple complainant requirements) for barking nuisance hearingsAll communications (including emails, text messages, etc) after the 2/17/26 city council meeting between any and all employees of the City of Oxnard (including OPD) regarding the dog barking issue Eric Andrist complained about at the meeting. Communications to and from the City Attorney are not automatically exempted under the law.

COMMUNICATIONS — DOG BARKING ISSUE
All communications (including emails, text messages, Teams/Slack messages, memoranda, and other writings) from February 17, 2026 to present between any employees, officials, or agents of the City of Oxnard (including OPD and Animal Safety) regarding the dog barking issue raised by Eric Andrist at the February 17, 2026 City Council meeting.

If any responsive records are withheld, please provide a privilege log or index identifying the record, date, sender, recipient(s), and basis for withholding. To the extent any responsive communications involve legal counsel, this request seeks all non-privileged and segregable portions of such records, including factual, operational, or administrative communications that do not constitute confidential legal advice. Please do not withhold records solely because legal counsel is included as a sender or recipient. 03/02/20263/12/20263/26/2026
26-210
"Oxnard Community Survey"
Please provide records showing the total cost of the “Oxnard Community Survey,” including but not limited to:

Contracts, invoices, purchase orders, and payment records for any consultants, vendors, printing, mailing, and postage related to the survey and its four‑color brochure.Any documents that show staff or employee time charged to this project (timesheets, internal billing, cost allocation records, etc.).Records showing any website, online platform, or digital services costs associated with designing, hosting, or distributing the survey or related materials.If any of the above are not tracked separately, please provide any records that reflect how those costs were calculated or allocated. 02/28/20263/12/20263/26/2026
26-204
Treasurer Molina’s “Good People of Oxnard” / BCC list – use by others

1.1. All records showing any distribution list, mailing list, contact list, or “Good People of Oxnard” list used by City Treasurer Phillip Molina that was provided to, accessed by, or recreated by any City official or employee other than Treasurer Molina, from January 1, 2020 to the present.

1.2. All emails, memoranda, or other communications in which any City official or employee references having, reconstructing, accessing, or using a “version” of Treasurer Molina’s BCC list or “Good People of Oxnard” list, from January 1, 2020 to the present.

1.3. All communications between Councilmember/Mayor Pro Tem Gabriel “Gabe” Teran and any City official or employee referring to Treasurer Molina’s BCC list, “Good People of Oxnard,” or any distribution list associated with Treasurer Molina, from January 1, 2020 to the present.

Staff and Council coordination regarding Treasurer Molina’s public emails and “misinformation”

2.1. All communications (emails, text messages, and messaging‑app communications used for City business) between:
any member of the Oxnard City Council (including Mayor Pro Tem Teran), and any City employee in the City Manager’s Office, Human Resources, Finance, or the City Attorney’s Office, that discuss or reference:
– any public email or mass email sent by Treasurer Phillip Molina to members of the public, – alleged “misinformation” in Treasurer Molina’s public communications, – whether, how, or to whom to “correct,” “counter,” or “respond to” Treasurer Molina’s public emails, or – the phrases “Good People of Oxnard,” “BCC list,” or “blind copy list,” for the period January 1, 2024 to the present.

Supplemental retiree program (“augmented retirement”) participants and rationale

3.1. All records identifying every City of Oxnard employee or former employee who participates, or has participated, in the City’s supplemental retiree program paid through Charles Schwab Trust Bank or any predecessor custodian, including but not limited to any rosters, plan documents, enrollment records, or benefit summaries.

3.2. All records describing the criteria, policies, resolutions, MOUs, side letters, or agreements used to determine eligibility for that supplemental retiree program, and any records explaining why the program was closed to employees hired after 2013 while continuing for existing participants.

3.3. Any staff reports, memoranda, emails, analyses, or presentations created on or after January 1, 2013 that discuss the cost, equity, legality, or policy rationale for continuing this closed supplemental retiree program, including any references to PEPRA, “grandfathered” supplemental benefits, or similar terms.

For all items above:
“Communications” should include emails, letters, memos, text messages, and messages on any electronic platform used for City business.

If any records are withheld in whole or in part, please provide the specific legal basis for each withholding and reasonably segregate and release all non‑exempt portions.

Electronic copies (PDF, MSG, or similar) are preferred and may be provided via email or download link. 02/25/20263/9/20263/23/2026 3/10/2026
26-193
CITY ATTORNEY AUTHORIZATIONS TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF CITY/COUNCIL.

1. Authorization Records (January 1, 2021 - Present):

All records showing City Council authorization for the City Attorney's office (including City Attorney Stephen Fischer, Chief Assistant City Attorney Kenneth Rozell, Jason Zaragoza, or any Assistant City Attorney) to:

Speak "on behalf of the City of Oxnard"Speak "on behalf of the City Council"Represent the City's position on any matterRespond to public comments, complaints, or correspondence in the name of "the City"This includes but is not limited to:

City Council meeting minutes, resolutions, or motionsDelegation of authority resolutionsWritten authorizations from the Mayor or City CouncilEmails or communications granting such authorityCity policies or procedures governing who may speak on behalf of the City or City Council2. Specific Letter Authorizations (January 1, 2025 - Present):

All records showing City Council authorization for Kenneth Rozell to send the following letters "on behalf of the City of Oxnard":

January 22, 2026 letter to Eric Andrist re: Brown Act complianceOctober 23, 2025 letter to Eric Andrist re: video public commentOctober 13, 2025 letter to Eric Andrist re: CPRA rolling productionOctober 8, 2025 letter to Eric Andrist re: CPRA policyAny other letters to Eric Andrist claiming to be written "on behalf of the City"3. Policy Documents:

All current policies, procedures, or guidelines that:

Define who is authorized to speak "on behalf of the City" or "on behalf of the City Council"Require City Council approval before the City Attorney's office may respond to public complaints or correspondence in the City's nameGovern the City Attorney's authority to make statements to the press or public as "the City"Timeframe: January 1, 2021 to present 02/22/20263/5/20263/19/2026 3/5/2026
26-192
ARPA / Lost Public Sector Revenue Fund Use for City Hall and Annex Improvements (2025–2029 CIP) Pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Gov. Code § 7920.000 et seq.), I request inspection and/or copies of the records described below related to the City Hall and Annex Improvements (2025–2029 CIP) project, identified on the City’s website as funded by the Lost Public Sector Revenue Fund.

Please produce the following:

Records identifying ARPA/CSLFRF allocations to the Lost Public Sector Revenue Fund (Fund 320)1.1. All documents that show the total amount of federal Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) received under the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) and allocated to the City’s “Lost Public Sector Revenue Fund” (Fund 320), including any Council resolutions, budget documents, or internal allocations.1.2. Any documentation or calculations prepared by or for the City identifying revenue loss under ARPA and supporting the designation of these amounts as “revenue replacement,” including references to Fund 320.Obligation and use of Lost Public Sector Revenue Fund for City Hall & Annex (PW 25‑22)2.1. All records that identify the specific dollar amount of Lost Public Sector Revenue Fund / ARPA revenue‑replacement dollars allocated to the City Hall and Annex Improvements (2025–2029 CIP) project (often referenced as PW 25‑22), including CIP sheets, internal funding tables, and budget schedules.2.2. All contracts, purchase orders, task orders, or other binding agreements obligating Lost Public Sector Revenue Fund / ARPA revenue‑replacement dollars for this project, including:Design contracts,Construction contracts,Professional service agreements,Any amendments or change orders.For each, please include the contract date, execution date, and identified funding source(s).Evidence of obligation timing (ARPA deadline compliance)Approved the City Hall and Annex Improvements (2025–2029) project;Identified Lost Public Sector Revenue Fund / ARPA revenue‑replacement dollars as the funding source; andAuthorized any contract awards or obligations for this project.3.2. Any internal memoranda, emails, or spreadsheets that track the obligation date of ARPA / Lost Public Sector Revenue Fund dollars for this project, prepared for ARPA reporting, audit, or compliance purposes.3.3. Any documents that explicitly address the requirement to obligate ARPA/CSLFRF funds by December 31, 2024 and that discuss how this requirement is being met for the City Hall and Annex Improvements project.ARPA guidance and internal policy used for this projectHow the Lost Public Sector Revenue Fund (Fund 320) may be used;How ARPA “revenue replacement” dollars may be applied to capital projects;How obligation and expenditure deadlines are defined and tracked.4.2. Any project‑specific analysis or email where staff or consultants discuss whether the City Hall and Annex Improvements (2025–2029 CIP) qualify as an eligible use of ARPA revenue‑replacement funds and how obligation timing requirements are satisfied.If any of these records exist in electronic form, I request them in electronic format. If searching across all time would be burdensome, please prioritize records from January 1, 2021 through the present, and let me know if a narrower date range would materially speed processing.

If you contend that any portion of any record is exempt, please provide all reasonably segregable non‑exempt portions and identify the specific exemption(s) you rely on, as required by Gov. Code § 7922.000 et seq.

If any part of this request is unclear or you believe it can be reasonably narrowed, please contact me so we can clarify and refine it.

Please respond within the timelines required by the Public Records Act. 02/21/20263/5/20263/19/2026
26-191
City Council Chambers Remodel, HERO Funds and PEG Fee Use Pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Gov. Code § 7920.000 et seq.), I request inspection and/or copies of the records described below related to the City Council Chambers remodel project for which HERO (Historical Enhancement and Revitalization of Oxnard) redevelopment funds and PEG (Public, Educational, and Governmental access) fee funds were used.

If helpful, this request is directed specifically at the Council Chambers remodel project in which the chambers were upgraded (including installation of new televisions/monitors, audio‑visual equipment, and an electronic voting system) and which involved asbestos abatement and roof work.

Please produce the following categories of records:

1. Documentation of pre‑remodel condition of the Council Chambers (HERO and PEG justification) All documents that describe, evaluate, or otherwise discuss the physical, functional, or technological condition of the City Council Chambers before the remodel, including but not limited to:

1.1. Building condition assessments, structural reports, facility evaluations, or “needs assessments” for the Council Chambers or City Hall that were used, in whole or in part, to justify use of HERO funds or PEG fees.

1.2. Any reports, memoranda, emails, or staff analyses identifying “blight,” “physical blight,” “unsafe or unhealthy” building conditions, “obsolescence,” “code deficiencies,” or similar conditions in the Council Chambers or the City Hall property for purposes of qualifying the project for HERO funding.

1.3. Environmental, hazardous‑materials, or asbestos‑related documents, including:

Asbestos surveys, testing reports, and abatement plans or specifications related to the Council Chambers and/or roof;Any correspondence with consultants, contractors, or regulators regarding asbestos or other hazardous materials in the Council Chambers;Any documents that explicitly connect asbestos or hazardous‑materials conditions to the decision to use HERO funds.1.4. Any internal or external legal opinions, staff reports, memoranda, or analyses addressing whether and why the Council Chambers remodel qualified as a permissible use of HERO funds and/or PEG fees (including references to “blight,” PEG eligibility, or any statutory criteria).

2. Cost breakdowns and funding allocation (HERO vs. PEG vs other funds) All records showing the detailed cost breakdown for the Council Chambers remodel project, including but not limited to:

2.1. Project budgets, cost estimates, line‑item spreadsheets, bid documents, contracts, change orders, and final payment records that identify:

Total project cost;Individual components such as: asbestos abatement, roof repair/replacement, structural work, interior finishes, furniture, audio‑visual systems, cameras, monitors/TVs, wiring, control systems, the electronic voting system, and any other equipment or construction work.2.2. Any documents (including internal spreadsheets, staff notes, and emails) showing how costs were allocated by funding source, specifically:

Which line items or portions of the project were charged to HERO funds;Which line items or portions of the project were charged to PEG fee funds;Any portions funded from other sources (e.g., general fund, capital improvement funds, other grants), if applicable.2.3. Any guidance or internal criteria the City used to determine that particular elements of the project were eligible for HERO funds versus PEG fee funds (for example, matrices, eligibility checklists, or funding allocation justifications).

3. Communications about the Council Chambers remodel and funding decisions All communications discussing the Council Chambers remodel project and the decision to use HERO and PEG funds, including but not limited to:

3.1. Emails, letters, text messages, and memoranda between or among:

City Manager’s OfficeCity Attorney’s OfficeFinance Department / Budget staffInformation Technology or Media Services staffCommunity Development / former Redevelopment or Successor Agency staffPublic Works / Facilities staffAny external consultants or contractors (architects, engineers, AV vendors, asbestos/abatement firms, financing or bond consultants) that reference or discuss:The scope of the Council Chambers remodel;The condition of the chambers or City Hall;The use, eligibility, or appropriateness of HERO funds for the project;The use, eligibility, or appropriateness of PEG fee funds for the project;How particular components (e.g., asbestos abatement, AV upgrades, electronic voting system, new monitors/TVs) would be funded.3.2. Any emails or memoranda in which staff or outside counsel discuss the legal basis, risk, or defensibility of using HERO funds and/or PEG fees for the remodel.

4. Approvals, sign‑offs, and responsibility for the project All records identifying who approved, authorized, or signed off on the Council Chambers remodel project and the use of HERO and PEG funds, including:

4.1. Resolutions, staff reports, agenda reports, and minutes for Council, Community Development Commission/Successor Agency, or other governing‑body meetings at which:

The Council Chambers remodel was approved;The use of HERO funds was authorized;The use of PEG fee funds was authorized;Budgets, amendments, or transfers related to this project were approved.4.2. Any formal “findings” or determinations made by the Council, Redevelopment Agency/Successor Agency, or staff that the project:

Addressed “blight” or qualified as a redevelopment project for HERO‑fund purposes; and/orMet statutory or regulatory criteria for PEG fee expenditures.4.3. Internal approval documents, including:

Project initiation forms, capital project authorization forms, or similar;Signature pages, routing sheets, or approval sign‑offs showing which City officials approved the project scope and funding sources (City Manager, Assistant City Manager, Department Directors, Finance Director, City Attorney, etc.);Delegation of authority or any written documentation identifying who was ultimately responsible for authorizing the funding mix (HERO vs PEG vs other funds).4.4. Any post‑project reviews, audits, or internal evaluations and communications that discuss whether the use of HERO or PEG funds for the Council Chambers remodel was appropriate, compliant, or raised concerns.

If you contend that any portion of any record is exempt, please produce all reasonably segregable non‑exempt portions and identify the specific exemption(s) you rely on for any withheld material, as required by Gov. Code § 7922.000 et seq.

If any part of this request is unclear or you believe it can be reasonably narrowed, please contact me so we can clarify and refine it. I am willing to discuss ways to make your search easier while still obtaining the key records described above.

I request that you respond within the timelines required by the Public Records Act. 02/21/20263/5/20263/19/2026 3/9/2026
26-139
I request copies of the following records:

All bond indentures, trust agreements, and related financing documents for the 2006 Tax Allocation Bonds issued for the Historical Enhancement and Revitalization of Oxnard (HERO), Ormond Beach, and Southwinds project areas, including any Official Statements, tax certificates, and arbitrage or tax compliance agreements.Any written memoranda, legal opinions, staff reports, or internal guidance prepared for the City, the former Community Development Commission, or the Successor Agency from 2014 to present that describe or interpret the permitted uses of proceeds of those 2006 HERO, Ormond Beach, and Southwinds TABs, including any documents used in preparing the March 26, 2019 and April 2, 2019 “Five Year Capital Improvement Program and Use of Bond Proceeds” items, and the March 16, 2021 and January 3, 2023 “Appropriation of Bond Proceeds” items. 02/07/20262/19/20263/5/2026 2/26/2026
26-138
This is a Supplemental Public
Records Request for HERO Implementation Plans, Bond Documents, Successor Agency Transfer, and Cable Franchise Agreement. It is not duplicative of prior requests so don't try and pull that. I request copies of the following records:

1. HERO FIVE-YEAR IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
All five-year implementation plans adopted for the Historical Enhancement and Revitalization of Oxnard (HERO) Redevelopment Project Area pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33490, including but not limited to plans covering the approximate periods:
2004–20092009–2014Any amendments thereto2. HERO TAX ALLOCATION BOND DOCUMENTS (November 2006) The bond documents for the HERO Tax Allocation Bonds issued in November 2006, including:
a. The Official Statement or Offering Memorandum;
b. The Bond Indenture or Fiscal Agent Agreement;
c. Any covenants, restrictions, or use-of-proceeds provisions specifying eligible expenditures for HERO bond proceeds.

3. SUCCESSOR AGENCY TRANSFER DOCUMENTS (November 2014)
Records relating to the November 2014 transfer of HERO bond proceeds from the Successor Agency to the City of Oxnard, as referenced in the April 2, 2019 staff report titled "Five Year Capital Improvement Program and Use of Bond Proceeds," including:
a. The agreement effectuating the transfer;
b. Any Oversight Board approvals;
c. Any Department of Finance approvals or correspondence.

4. CABLE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT
The current cable franchise agreement(s) between the City of Oxnard and any cable operator(s) (including Spectrum/Charter), including any provisions governing PEG fee collection, use restrictions, and capital cost requirements.

FORMAT: Please provide responsive records in electronic format (PDF preferred) via email to the extent feasible.

RESPONSE DEADLINE: Government Code Section 6253(c) requires a determination within 10 calendar days. If you determine that any requested records are exempt from disclosure, please identify the specific exemption(s) and provide a written explanation of how it applies. Please produce all reasonably segregable non-exempt portions as required by Government Code Section 6253(a). 02/06/20262/16/20263/2/2026
ID (*2nd acct)Request Text Created On10 Days14 DaysShouldn't Be Closed No 10 Day Reply?
Oxnard Closed Date
26-130
RE: Ordinances 2462 and 2653. Pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Gov. Code § 6250 et seq.), I request copies of the following records relating to the Historic Enhancement and Revitalization of Oxnard (“HERO”) Redevelopment Project and the Community Development Commission (CDC) of the City of Oxnard:

All City Council and/or Community Development Commission agendas, minutes, resolutions, and ordinances from January 1, 1997 through December 31, 2004 concerning:Adoption of the HERO Redevelopment Plan (including Ordinance No. 2462);Adoption of HERO Project Amendment No. 1 (including Ordinance No. 2653);Any amendments, boundary determinations, or approvals related to Exhibit “A,” including project area maps and legal descriptions.Records identifying the membership of the Community Development Commission during the same period (1997–2004), including:Names and titles of CDC board members;Whether CDC membership consisted of the sitting City Council acting in a separate capacity;Any resolutions or ordinances establishing or confirming CDC composition.Records identifying CDC executive or administrative leadership during this period, including:Executive Director(s);Staff reports or transmittal memoranda prepared for the City Council and/or CDC related to HERO.Any staff reports, legislative reports, memoranda, or correspondence that explain or discuss:The inclusion of City-owned parcels (including City Hall or civic center property) within the HERO Project Area;The rationale or justification for including such parcels, if any.This request includes records regardless of format (paper, PDF, scanned images, email, or other electronic form). If responsive records are available electronically, please provide them electronically.

If any portion of this request is denied or records are withheld, please identify the specific exemption(s) relied upon and provide all reasonably segregable portions of the records, as required by Government Code § 6253(a).

Please confirm receipt of this request and provide an estimated date of completion as required by law. 02/03/20262/16/20263/2/2026 2/17/2026
26-129
Please provide any resolutions, staff reports, or formal findings identifying how improvements to City Hall or the Council Chambers were determined to be of benefit to the HERO Redevelopment Project Area, as contemplated under Section 323 of the HERO Redevelopment Plan, including the date such determination was made and the ordinance, amendment, or approval under which it occurred. I am specifically looking for the document(s) that tie City Hall expenditures to the redevelopment objectives of HERO, as opposed to general citywide benefit.

Please also include a readable copy of Ordinance no 2653, Exhibit "A" Page 67 Attachment No 3 "Redevelopment Land Use Map" as the one you provided is unreadable. 02/03/20262/16/20263/2/2026 2/25/2026
26-117
Request for documentation
regarding Failed Motions being recorded in City Council meeting minutes:

Any and all Special Rules of Order adopted by the Oxnard City Council that pertain to the recording of motions in official meeting minutes, including but not limited to any rules that exempt motions failing to receive a second from being recorded.Any and all internal policies, procedures, or directives issued by the City Clerk's Office governing the documentation of motions that fail to receive a second in official City Council meeting minutes.The City Clerk's standard minutes-taking procedures manual or guidelines that specify which motions are and are not to be recorded, with particular attention to motions that do not receive a second.Any correspondence, memoranda, or communications between the City Council and the City Clerk's Office, City Manager's Office or the City Attorney's office regarding the documentation of failed motions (motions without seconds) since January 1, 2025.I would like to amend my request to add these items:

Clerk’s working notes and tally sheets“All handwritten or electronic notes, worksheets, tally sheets, or other contemporaneous records created by the City Clerk or Clerk’s staff during Oxnard City Council meetings from January 1, 2025 through whatever the most current meeting is available at the time that the City gets off their duffs to provide the information, including but not limited to notes used to prepare the official minutes and to record motions, seconds, and vote tallies.”Any internal “action logs” or “motion logs”“Any internal ‘action logs,’ ‘motion logs,’ tracking sheets or equivalent documents maintained by the City Clerk’s Office that list motions made, whether or not they received a second, and their disposition, for City Council meetings in calendar year 2025 and any meetings that exist in 2026 at the time records are provided.”Any vote-tally records separate from the minutes“All documents used to record individual councilmember votes during 2025/2026 City Council meetings (including but not limited to roll-call tally sheets), whether or not every recorded motion appears in the final minutes.”Draft minutes“All draft versions of City Council meeting minutes for each 2025/2026 meeting, including redlined or edited versions that show additions, deletions, or changes to motions, seconds, or vote outcomes.” Note that not all correspondence and conversations with the City Attorney's office automatically falls under privilege exclusions.

I would like to amend my request to add these items:

Clerk’s working notes and tally sheets“All handwritten or electronic notes, worksheets, tally sheets, or other contemporaneous records created by the City Clerk or Clerk’s staff during Oxnard City Council meetings from January 1, 2025 through whatever the most current meeting is available at the time that the City gets off their duffs to provide the information, including but not limited to notes used to prepare the official minutes and to record motions, seconds, and vote tallies.”Any internal “action logs” or “motion logs”“Any internal ‘action logs,’ ‘motion logs,’ tracking sheets or equivalent documents maintained by the City Clerk’s Office that list motions made, whether or not they received a second, and their disposition, for City Council meetings in calendar year 2025 and any meetings that exist in 2026 at the time records are provided.”Any vote-tally records separate from the minutes“All documents used to record individual councilmember votes during 2025/2026 City Council meetings (including but not limited to roll-call tally sheets), whether or not every recorded motion appears in the final minutes.”Draft minutes“All draft versions of City Council meeting minutes for each 2025/2026 meeting, including redlined or edited versions that show additions, deletions, or changes to motions, seconds, or vote outcomes.” 01/29/20262/9/20262/23/2026 2/9/2026
26-93
Please consider this a public record request for all your communications (Michael Wolfe) regarding the City Council Chambers remodeling project in regard to financing that wasn’t included in any other requests, including emails, text messages, inner-office memos, etc.

BTW, what was your hire date and what were the dates and titles of all subsequent job description changes? 01/26/20262/5/20262/19/2026 2/6/2026
26-84
I’d like to get the documentation
that added the City hall parcels to the Hero Fund and what exactly it included. I think that was probably done in the addendum, but I’ll take all the HERO Fund documentation. If you can do that faster than a public record request (which they seem to purposely be delaying) that would be great. Otherwise just consider this a Public Record Request. 01/21/20262/2/20262/16/2026 1/29/2026
26-75
Consider this a public record request. I would like ALL documentation and correspondence that has taken place on dog barking issues since July of 2011 at this address: 155 S. G Street in Oxnard. Make sure I get all inner-office emails and text messages between OPD employees, and Oxnard employees and the City Council and mayor. I’d also like copies of all other complaints filed against the barking dog at 154 S. H Street and all document and correspondences with the people that live at that address. 01/21/20262/2/20262/16/2026 2/3/2026
26-58
I request records sufficient to
identify all California Public Records Act (CPRA) requests received by the City from January 1, 2015 to present, including but not limited to requests submitted through the City’s CPRA portal (e.g., NextRequest) and by email, mail, or in person.Specifically, I request:

A. Master CPRA Request LogAll logs, databases, exports, or tracking records showing, for each CPRA request:Request ID or tracking numberDate receivedRequest subject or categoryRequester classification (e.g., individual, media, anonymous)Current status and final dispositionDate of final responseWhether the request was made publicly visible in the City’s CPRA portalWhether the request was hidden or suppressed from public viewRequester names may be redacted only if required by law with the code sections named.

B. Portal Visibility Rules and ConfigurationAll records governing public visibility of CPRA requests, including:Written policies, procedures, or guidancePortal configuration settingsAdmin rules or flags determining whether a request is public or hiddenAny criteria used to suppress requests from public view D. Aggregate MetricsAny reports or exports showing:Total number of CPRA requests received per yearNumber made publicly visibleNumber hidden or suppressedBreakdown by department or subject (if maintained) Police Department CPRA RequestsThis request expressly includes all California Public Records Act (CPRA) requests received, processed, or tracked by the Police Department, whether handled through a separate records unit, internal database, records management system (RMS), email inbox, spreadsheet, or any system not integrated with the City’s primary CPRA portal.For all such Police Department CPRA requests, I request records sufficient to identify:Request ID or tracking numberDate receivedGeneral subject or category of requestStatus and final dispositionDate of response or closureWhether the request is publicly visible in any City CPRA portalIf not publicly visible, the policy or rule governing its exclusionRequester names may be redacted if required by law.If Police Department CPRA requests are tracked separately from other City CPRA requests, please also provide:The name and description of each tracking system usedThe data fields maintainedAny written policies or procedures governing public visibility or suppression of such requestsThis request seeks administrative tracking records only, not the underlying police records responsive to any individual CPRA request.

FormatPlease provide records in native electronic format where available (CSV, Excel, database export, PDF). This request seeks existing records only; no narrative explanation or new compilation is requested.Legal NoteIf any portion of this request is denied, please identify the specific exemption claimed and release all reasonably segregable portions as required by law.

Note that this request could be avoided if Oxnard wasn't HIDING public record requests from the public. The purpose of the CPRA is to enforce transparency, and hiding the very route to transparency spits in the eye of the law...but leave it to Oxnard to do that! Note, too, that the City of Los Angeles's entire CPRA portal is totally public as well as Oakland, Berkeley, Santa Monica and San Jose.

What are you all trying to hide? I'm gonna find it!
01/19/20261/29/20262/12/2026
26-57
I request the following records
relating to TAB 2006 bond proceeds, including but not limited to HERO, Ormond, and Southwind bond areas and the subsequent amendment:

1. Beginning / Transfer BalancesAll documents showing the beginning transfer balance (sometimes referred to internally as “beginning balance” or “transfer balance”) for each TAB 2006 bond area, including:HEROOrmondSouthwind for each fiscal year in which appropriations were made.This includes:General ledger reportsJournal entriesTrial balancesReconciliation worksheetsAny source documents used to establish starting balances

2. TAB 2006 Recon SpreadsheetThe complete file referenced internally as “TAB 2006 Recon”, including:All versionsAll worksheetsEmbedded formulasMetadata (author, creation date, last modified date)

3. Prior AppropriationsRecords identifying all prior appropriations against TAB 2006 bond proceeds, by:ProjectBond areaAmountDate of approvalBudget Adjustment (BA) or Council action number

4. Proposed and Final BA DocumentsAll drafts and final versions of:The BA-2006 TAB Allocation referenced internally as totaling approximately $6.56MAny staff reports, backup, or Council agenda items associated with that BAAny revisions made due to balance concerns

5. Internal CommunicationsAll emails, memoranda, or internal communications referencing:“TAB 2006” and/or "TAB 2006 Recon"“beginning balance,” “transfer balance,” or similar termsConcerns about over-appropriationRequests for review or reconciliation of TAB 2006 balances This includes communications involving (but not limited to) staff referenced in the attached email.

6. Ledger ImpactRecords showing whether any TAB 2006 bond area ever reflected:A zero balanceA negative balanceTemporary inter-fund transfers used to cover shortfalls FormatPlease provide records in native electronic format where available (Excel, CSV, PDF), with formulas intact.

ClarificationThis request seeks existing records only. I am not asking for explanations, summaries, or newly created documents.

If you have questions, ask, do not close this request because you are incapable of understanding the law or the contents of this request. 01/19/20261/29/20262/12/2026 2/17/2026
26-52
All information regarding the request from approximately 4/1/2019 for funds from the HERO Fund for asbestos removal for the Council Chamber Remodel, and the outcome of the request (not eligible).

Please send me all of the CIPs between 2019 and the present. 01/18/20261/29/20262/12/2026 2/2/2026
ID (*2nd acct)Request Text Created On10 Days14 DaysShouldn't Be Closed No 10 Day Reply?
Oxnard Closed Date
26-51
Project Budget Report 211401 – creation, approvals, and all communicationsI request all documentation involving Project Budget Report 211401 (Manager: Shiri Klima), including:All documentation that led to the creation of the budget report, and all requests for information about funding for this project, including but not limited to Fund 311 – PEG Fees Capital Improve and Fund 315 – 2006 TAB HERO/SW/ORMOND, showing who made each request and who approved them.All communications regarding this project from all employee sources, including but not limited to the City Manager and all departments, in any format (emails, text messages, messaging platforms, letters, memoranda, etc.).Budget balances and use of funds for Project 211401I request budget documentation showing the balances of each account and sub‑account used in Project 211401:At the beginning of the project.As of January 18, 2026.The final amounts used for this project for each separate sub‑account.Progress and completion reports for Project 211401I request all reports or communications previously generated regarding the progress and completion of Project 211401 and records showing where the project stands as of the date of your response.Fund 315 – 2006 TAB HERO/SW/ORMOND: structure, amendments, parcels, usageI request:All documentation describing Fund 315 – 2006 TAB HERO/SW/ORMOND, including its creation, purpose, any and all subsequent amendments, and all parcels of land that may be used in, or are subject to, this fund.All communications from January 1, 2020, to the present regarding inquiries into the usage of this fund and all follow‑up communications.Documentation showing which projects have used money from this fund during that period.Segregation and exemptions (applies to all items)This request is directed to factual and administrative records and does not seek disclosure of the substance of confidential attorney‑client communications or attorney work product. I understand that specific legal advice may be redacted where a valid exemption applies. However, under Gov. Code § 7922.525(b), please disclose all reasonably segregable non‑exempt portions of any responsive record rather than withholding entire documents, and for each withheld or redacted record identify the specific CPRA exemption(s) relied upon.Use of PEG fees for Project 211401 and PEG usage generallyI request:All documentation and communications regarding the use of PEG fees for Project 211401.All communications, from January 1, 2020, to the present, by any staff member regarding the use of PEG fees in general, including inquiries into the usage of PEG fees, all follow‑up communications, and documentation showing which projects used money from PEG‑fee funds.This includes, but is not limited to, any and all communications by, to, or from the City Manager’s Office and all of the City Manager’s subordinates.Contacts with City Manager and City Attorney regarding PEG‑fee legality. All records reflecting PEG‑legality communications and participation. All records reflecting communications between any City employee and (a) the City Manager and/or (b) the City Attorney’s Office concerning the legality of using PEG fees for Project 211401 or any other PEG‑funded project, from January 1, 2020, to the present. This request is limited to the fact of communication and participation (dates, senders, recipients, subject lines, and transmission of documents) and does not seek the substance of legal advice itself. For any such record withheld in whole or in part under attorney‑client privilege or attorney work product, please provide a log that identifies for each record the date, author, all recipients (including whether the City Manager and City Attorney’s Office were included), and a brief general subject description.Without seeking the substance of confidential legal advice, I request:All records reflecting communications between any City employee and (a) the City Manager and/or (b) the City Attorney’s Office concerning the legality of using PEG fees for Project 211401 and for any other PEG‑funded projects, from January 1, 2020, to the present.For any records withheld in whole or in part under attorney‑client privilege or attorney work product, a log or index identifying for each record: the date, sender, all recipients (including whether the City Manager and/or City Attorney’s Office were included), and a brief general subject line or description sufficient to show the nature of the record without revealing privileged content.City Manager communications and meetings involving PEG feesI request:All emails, memoranda, directives, or other communications sent by or to the City Manager referencing PEG fees, from January 1, 2020, to the present, with any attorney‑client privileged content redacted rather than withheld in full.All calendar entries, meeting notices, agendas, or minutes for meetings attended by both the City Manager and the City Attorney (or City Attorney’s Office staff) where PEG fees or PEG‑funded projects were discussed, from January 1, 2020, to the present.Segregation and handling of exemptionsThis request is directed to factual and administrative records and does not seek disclosure of the substance of confidential attorney‑client communications or attorney work product; any such content may be redacted so long as reasonably segregable non‑exempt material is produced. Please:Segregate or redact any exempt information contained within a record so that the public information in the remainder of the record may be released, as required by Gov. Code § 7922.525(b). If you contend any portion of a requested record is exempt, please:Identify the specific exemption(s) relied upon for each withheld or redacted record; andDescribe the nature of the withheld material in a manner sufficient to allow me to evaluate the claim of exemption, without revealing the privileged content itself. Internal PEG and Fund 315 policies and constraintsI request:All written policies, procedures, guidelines, criteria, or internal manuals used by the City (including the City Manager’s Office, Finance, Information Technology, and any media/communications department) to determine allowable uses of (a) PEG fees and (b) Fund 315 – 2006 TAB HERO/SW/ORMOND.All staff reports, council agenda materials, and resolutions that established, implemented, or interpreted the City’s PEG fee and Fund 315, including any discussion of legal limitations or restrictions on the use of these funds.Approval workflow and authorizations for PEG and Fund 315I request:Any written standard operating procedures, flowcharts, or other documents describing the approval process for PEG‑funded projects and for expenditures from Fund 315, including the roles of project managers, Finance, the City Manager’s Office, and the City Attorney’s Office.All authorization forms, approval memoranda, or electronic approvals reflecting the City Manager’s or department heads’ approval of the funding sources for Project 211401, including approvals specifically referencing PEG fees and/or Fund 315.External legal, consultant, and audit inputI request:Any legal memoranda, written legal opinions, or consultant reports (with any privileged legal analysis subject to redaction) concerning permissible or intended uses of PEG fees or Fund 315 that were provided to or circulated within the City Manager’s Office, Finance, Information Technology, or project managers, from 2010 to the present.Any internal audits, external audits, management reviews, or inspection reports evaluating the collection, accounting, or use of PEG fees or Fund 315, including any written findings, recommendations, and management responses.Duty to assist; narrowing if necessaryIf you believe any portion of this request is unclear or overly broad, please comply with your statutory duty to assist by: (a) identifying which portions you consider unclear or burdensome; and (b) proposing specific, narrower formulations or reasonable time, subject‑matter, or record‑type limitations, rather than denying the request in whole or in part. Addendum: This is a clarification and narrowing of my prior request regarding PEG fees and Project 211401.

In addition to the records already requested, please be sure to include, for the period January 1, 2019 to present:

All invoices, purchase orders, quotes, and change orders charged to Fund 311 (PEG Fees Fund) in connection with Project 211401, including but not limited to invoices from AVIDEX INDUSTRIES, LLC, ARUP NORTH AMERICA LTD, CASAMAR GROUP , LLC, INSIGHT ENVIRONMENTAL, INC., COMPUWAVE, and FORESPAR PRODUCTS CORP .

For each such invoice, any attached itemized equipment lists or line‑item breakdowns identifying individual devices, components, and labor related to the council chambers audio‑visual / production system and PEG facilities.

This clarification is intended to fall within, and not expand beyond, my existing request for records relating to the use of PEG fees for Project 211401 and PEG usage generally. 01/18/20261/29/20262/12/2026
26-43
PROJECT / SCOPE IDENTIFICATIONThis request concerns the City project commonly described as the “Council Chambers Remodel” at/for 305 W. Third Street, Oxnard, including any closely related or predecessor/successor projects (e.g., “Council Chambers A/V Upgrade,” audio/visual upgrades, ADA access improvements, abatement, seating, flooring, ceiling replacement, restroom door modifications, speaker/voting system, broadcasting/encoding equipment, etc.), regardless of the internal project number(s) or fund number(s) used.

REQUESTED RECORDS (EXISTING RECORDS ONLY)Please produce all existing records sufficient to show, for the Council Chambers Remodel project(s):A) Budgets / Appropriations / Funding AuthorizationsAll CIP pages, staff reports, agenda items, resolutions, ordinances, budget appropriations, and budget amendments authorizing, increasing, decreasing, or reallocating funds for the project(s), including attachments and exhibits.All records showing the planned (budgeted) amounts by funding source, including but not limited to:PEG Fees / PEG Fees Capital Improvement Fund (including Fund 311 or any PEG-related fund)HERO funds (and any fund or grant account associated with HERO)Any other fund(s) used (General Fund, capital funds, special revenue funds, grants, reimbursements, in-kind contributions, internal service funds, etc.)Any funding source restrictions, conditions, or guidance documents relied upon for the budgeting and use of PEG funds and HERO funds on this project (e.g., eligibility determinations, internal policy memos, counsel guidance, grant terms, compliance checklists).B) Line-Item Expenditure Details (Actual Spending)4) For the project(s), a copy of all existing “project cost” reports, job cost ledgers, transaction detail reports, subledger reports, or equivalent reports generated from the City’s financial/accounting system showing each charge to the project(s).5) For each expenditure/transaction charged to the project(s), please produce the existing records showing:Date incurred / posting dateVendor / payeeAmountFund and account numbers (fund, department, object, account, program, project/grant, etc.)Check/EFT number or payment identifierPurchase order number (if any)Invoice number (if any)A description of what was purchased / what service was performed (as recorded in the system and/or on the invoice/PO)C) Supporting Source Documents (Invoices, Contracts, POs, etc.)6) All contracts, agreements, scopes of work, RFP/RFQ documents, bid documents, award documents, and change orders for the project(s), including any amendments.7) All purchase orders, invoices, receiving documents, warrants/check registers, payment approvals, and supporting documentation for each payment/charge to the project(s), including:Construction / abatement / remediationArchitectural/engineering/designA/V hardware and softwareBroadcast/encoding equipmentVoting/speaker management systemsFurniture/seatingFlooring/ceiling/restroom/ADA-related workAll internal transfers, journal entries, reallocations, corrections, and adjusting entries affecting the project(s), including any documentation explaining why the entry was made.D) Revenue / Deposits / Receipts Into Project Funding Sources9) Records sufficient to show how PEG fee revenues were received and accounted for during the period relevant to this project (e.g., deposit records, revenue ledgers, franchise/PEG remittance reports, and any allocation or posting of PEG receipts to funds/accounts used for the project).10) Records sufficient to show how HERO funds were received, booked, and made available for this project (grant award documents, drawdown requests, reimbursement requests, deposit records, revenue ledgers, and any allocation/posting records to the project(s)).11) Any documentation showing reimbursements to any fund (including the General Fund) arising from the project(s), including interfund reimbursements.E) Communications and Determinations (Limited and Targeted)12) All communications (emails, memos, letters) between City staff, the City Manager’s office, the City Attorney, Finance, and/or Public Works/Facilities regarding:Use of PEG funds for the Council Chambers Remodel project(s)Use of HERO funds for the project(s)Any determinations of eligibility/compliance for PEG or HERO funds on this project FORMAT / PRODUCTION REQUESTSPlease produce records in their native electronic format where available (e.g., Excel/CSV exports for transaction detail reports; PDFs for agenda packets; native files for contracts if maintained that way). For exports from enterprise systems, I am requesting existing reports or existing export functionality outputs (CPRA does not require creation of new records, but does contemplate providing electronic information in the formats the agency holds/uses). See Gov. Code § 7922.535 (response timing) and the CPRA enterprise systems provisions (Gov. Code § 7922.700 et seq.). ()If any portion is withheld, please provide the specific exemption(s) and a brief description sufficient to evaluate the claim, and produce all reasonably segregable, non-exempt portions.

TIMING / ROLLING PRODUCTIONPlease provide the statutory determination within 10 days (or a properly noticed extension for unusual circumstances). Gov. Code § 7922.535. ()Given the volume, please produce records on a rolling basis as they are gathered, but within the narrow time constraints allowed for in the law, not made up by Kenneth Rozell.

DATE RANGEUnless the City uses a different internal range for the project(s), please treat the date range as January 1, 2018 through present to capture planning, budgeting, contracting, and construction/closeout.

Please treat this as a request for existing records only. I am not asking the City to create new records, summaries, or analyses.

If you have questions, please ask, but do not close this complaint just because you don't want to do it. 01/15/20261/26/20262/9/2026 1/26/2026
26-42
I would like a copy of the entire file
regarding the dog barking issues reported from the addresses surrounding 154 S H Street beginning in January 2021 through the present. These would be all contacts made to Oxnard Police and/or Animal Control, and their communications back and forth with residents, City Council and other city employees. I'd like the current status to be shown and the reasons why the City has NOT acted upon the dog barking problems at that address.

If you have questions about this request, please ask before closing it. 01/15/20261/26/20262/9/2026 2/3/20226
26-41
Documentation showing Oxnard City
policy, if any, on the use of PDF documents. Included would be any policy that says that documents are not to be disseminated in a searchable or OCR (Optical Character Recognition) format, which would prevent the documents from being searched easily, without conversion first. This would include emails and text messages from any City heads or policymakers.

If you are unclear about what I'm asking for, please inquire before closing this request. 01/15/20261/26/20262/9/2026 1/20/2026
26-1
I would like either pdf files, or links
to pdf files for all of the agenda packets, and for each document within the agenda packets, for each City Council Meeting for the last 10 years.

For each document, please include:
– The document title or file name as displayed in the agenda packet list; – The document type;
– A direct web URL or other identifier sufficient to retrieve or download the document from the City’s CivicClerk system.

I am requesting this index because the CivicClerk public portal presents the agenda packet documents through time‑limited, non‑copyable URLs in the browser’s developer tools, which is not accessible to me due to low vision. I also cannot type/click and search in order to download each document separately due to my arthritis...it's a lot of documents. A consolidated list is necessary to make these public records reasonably accessible in practice. 01/05/20261/15/20261/29/2026 1/13/2026
25-685
Pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Gov. Code § 7920.000 et seq.), I hereby request the following records concerning Wendy Carlton and her role in administering the City of Oxnard’s CPRA program:

A complete copy of all public records reflecting the qualifications, experience, and background of Wendy Carlton as it relates to her duties administering or supervising CPRA compliance for the City of Oxnard. This includes, but is not limited to:a. Resumes, curriculum vitae, or professional profiles provided to the City.b. Job applications, cover letters, or statements of interest submitted for the position she currently holds or that give her oversight of CPRA functions.Copies of any documents that describe the official job description, minimum qualifications, and desired experience for the position to which Wendy Carlton was appointed or assigned responsibility for CPRA compliance.Any evaluation criteria, scoring sheets, interview questions, or ranking results used in the process of selecting Wendy Carlton for this role, to the extent such documents are public records and not exempt.Records of any official correspondence or communication between City officials or staff relating to Wendy Carlton's selection, appointment, or qualification assessment for this CPRA oversight role.If any portion of this request is unclear, please contact me at the email address above before processing. If certain responsive records are withheld, please provide a log of exemptions claimed and a written explanation for each withheld item.

Because this request seeks identifiable records regarding qualifications and official duties, and not unrelated sensitive personal information, I request that non disclosable portions be redacted rather than withholding entire documents. 12/18/202512/29/20251/12/2026
25-681
Attorney swapping: CPRA REQUEST: I am requesting any written policy, directive, memorandum, or guideline that prevents the City Attorney's office from assigning different attorneys to handle matters when there is a documented adversarial relationship with a member of the public. If such a policy exists, please produce it. This request includes any communications discussing such policies between November 1, 2020 and December 18, 2025.== 12/18/202512/29/20251/12/2026 12/18/2025
25-680
Rolling production: CPRA REQUEST: I am requesting all internal communications, policies, directives, or guidance provided to Wendy Carlton or other CPRA coordinators regarding "rolling production," "sequential production," document release timing, or strategies for managing my CPRA requests specifically. Time frame: October 1, 2024 to December 18, 2025.== 12/18/202512/29/20251/12/2026 2/18/2025
25-678
Certified Mailings to Andrist: Pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Government Code §§ 6250 et seq.), I am requesting copies of the following records:

1. All communications, including emails, memos, text messages, and other correspondence, between November 1, 2025 and December 18, 2025, regarding the decision to send public records responses or status updates to Eric Andrist via certified mail, plus a duplicate regular mail, rather than by email.

2. All communications during the same time period between Wendy Carlton and any supervisor, manager, or attorney in the City Attorney's office regarding communication methods or protocols for correspondence with Eric Andrist.

3. Any written policies, directives, instructions, or guidelines issued during the same time period concerning communication methods to be used when corresponding with Eric Andrist.

4. Any communications during the same time period discussing the costs, rationale, or justification for sending duplicate copies (one certified, one regular mail) of the same correspondence to Eric Andrist.

5. Any communications during the same time period regarding Eric Andrist's request that correspondence be sent via email rather than certified mail.

Please note that I am requesting records of communications and policy decisions, not legal advice or attorney work product. To the extent any responsive records contain both factual communications and legal advice, please produce the factual portions with any privileged content redacted, as required by Government Code § 6253(a).

If any records are withheld based on a claimed exemption, please provide a written explanation identifying the specific exemption(s) relied upon and explaining how each exemption applies to the particular record(s) withheld, as required by Government Code § 6255.

I request that responsive records be provided in electronic format via email.

Please acknowledge receipt of this request within 10 days and provide an estimated date for when the records will be available, as required by Government Code § 6253(c).

Thank you for your attention to this matter.
12/18/202512/29/20251/12/2026 12/8/2025
ID (*2nd acct)Request Text Created On10 Days14 DaysShouldn't Be Closed No 10 Day Reply?
Oxnard Closed Date
25-682
Wendy Carlton Corresondence=CPRA REQUEST: I am requesting all communications, directives, emails, memos, or other records discussing the decision to switch from email to certified mail for correspondence with Eric Andrist. Time frame: November 1, 2025 to December 18, 2025. This includes, but is not limited to, communications between Wendy Carlton and her supervisors, communications among City Attorney's office staff, and any policies or directives regarding communication methods with specific members of the public. Per Government Code § 7927.705, attorney-client privilege does not extend to purely administrative or operational communications that do not involve legal advice or strategy, and I expect production of non-privileged communications with appropriate redactions rather than blanket withholding.== 12/18/202512/29/20251/12/2026 12/18/2025
25-673
Christmas Tree Lane TUP's prior to 2023. You didn't fulfill my last request about this properly, so I'm doing a new one. I asked for all TUP's for Christmas Tree lane since the beginning, which was in 1994). You've only sent me the last 3 years. 12/16/202512/26/20251/9/2026 12/18/2025
25-665
I would like all the documentation available on ex-Oxnard police officer Michael Warren Williamson, birthdate 8/11/956. Most notably I would like information on his reprimand by Oxnard PD in 1991 for engaging in sexual activity with a stripper while on duty, the cause and results of his retirement.

If you are going to withhold any documents for any reason, an explanation of each document withheld is required per the law including the specific descriptions for any retention schedules.

Also, just because something was scheduled to be destroyed per a retention schedule, doesn't mean it was. You still have to look and see if it's still available. Many documents are kept for other reasons.

I'm also still waiting for his mugshot, if you're going to refuse to turn over as sex offender's employee ID photo. Do you really want to cover up for such a convict??? 12/15/202512/25/20251/8/2026 12/18/2025
25-624*
I would like to see the last 2 contracts (2024 and 2025) for the Dallas Cowboys Training camp.
12/04/202512/15/202512/29/2025 12/15/2025
25-622

1. I continue to assert that a TUP is not necessary for Christmas Tree Lane. Given that no similar event in other cities, including Santa Clarita and Altadena (which hosts the state’s largest Christmas event), requires such a permit, I ask that the City clarify why it is making an exception in this case. Please provide detailed reasons, supported by policy or precedent, for why this event is subject to a TUP when others of similar scale and nature are not.

2. I would like a copy of all applications submitted under the Special Event Support Program (SESP) for Christmas Tree Lane since its inception, along with documentation of the City Council’s approval for each of these events.

3. sssdaIf residents are not directly paying for the funds allocated to the SESP , I request documentation specifying where the funds are sourced from. Please clarify if these funds are derived from general taxpayer revenue or other sources.

4. I would like copies of all the TUPs for Christmas Tree Lane going back to the beginning….whenever that was.

5. No other city that I contacted requires or puts out porta potties for Christmas Tree Lane, so why are they insisting that we do here? Because it’s required in a TUP! No TUP , no porta potties are required. As I said, most visitors don’t even know there are porta potties, there’s no signage for them and if you’re far away from them (corner of Fifth and G or corner of F and Palm), you’re not going to rush all the way over to those two locations to use them. NO GUEST COMING HERE WOULD EXPECT THERE TO BE PORTA POTTIES.

6. Altadena, the largest Christmas light event in the state and further, has no TUP , and pays for beefed up police service without having a TUP .

7. I’d like documentation showing the costs to the City for the last 20 Christmas Tree Lane events.

8. Documentation as to why the "event dates" need to be "solidified," if it’s not an official Oxnard event in need of a TUP . Trash doesn’t need to be "scheduled." People come to the event the entire month of December. They’re already coming even though it doesn’t start until the 7th, and it goes longer than the dates on the TUP . So just put the trash cans out the month of December and service them. Simple. No TUP needed. 12/02/202512/12/202512/26/2025 12/10/2025
25-608
Regarding the requester's building permit:

I’d like all the notes made on my application from the onset. computer notes, handwritten notes, notes from the 3rd party service, everything. 12/01/202512/11/202512/25/2025
25-601
Official full-sized photograph of ex-Oxnard Police Officer Michael Williamson, who retired in 2001. 11/23/202512/4/202512/18/2025
25-600
I would like documentation of any
and all professional organizations the City of Oxnard pays for city manager Alex Nguyen.

I would also like documentation of all expenses paid by the city to CCMF on behalf of Alex Nguyen since he started working here.

I'd also like a listing of all CCMF programs, classes, training programs, etc., that he's participated in since he started working here,and the certification he might have received.

I'd also like a listing of programs, classes, training programs from any other entity that Alex Nguyen has participated in since working here, outside of CCMF, and the certification he might have received.

I'd also like documentation of any travel paid for by Oxnard on behalf of Alex Nguyen since working here, for official travel, meetings, courses, institutes and seminars. 11/22/202512/4/202512/18/2025 12/8/20255
25-599
Oxnard Employee rules re responding to resident's correspondence. Please send me all documentation outlining the rules for Oxnard employees and appointed figures regarding their duty to respond to all communications from residents of Oxnard, et al., and/or any situation where it is allowable for them to not respond. 11/21/202512/4/202512/18/2025
ID (*2nd acct)Request Text Created On10 Days14 DaysShouldn't Be Closed No 10 Day Reply?
Oxnard Closed Date
25-590
Documentation showing that
someone requested that Bert Perello's email be blocked from Eric Andrist and/or particularly the email address [email protected] Emails were sent to the entire City Council but only emails from Bert Perello bounced back, all of a sudden. See attached email error notice.

I'd like to see all documentation regarding any blockages to his email address (including other blocks to other people), who requested it, and who put the block into the system with all associated dates. 11/20/202512/1/202512/15/2025 11/25/2025
25-570
PEG Fund 311 – Transfers, Ledger, Activity Codes, Expenditures, and Communications (FY20–FY25)** Pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Government Code §6250 et seq.), I request records related to the transfer, expenditure, handling, and internal communication regarding PEG Fund 311 for fiscal years FY2019–20 through FY2024–25.

Please produce the following:

1. Transfer Authorizations (Initiation & Approval)
All documents authorizing, initiating, or approving any transfer out of PEG Fund 311, including but not limited to:

Internal transfer request formsBudget adjustment (BA) formsJournal entry requestsFund-to-fund or activity-to-activity transfer authorizationsApprovals by department heads, Finance, CFO, or City ManagerEmails, memos, Teams/Slack messages requesting or approving transfersAll attachments, signatures, staff identifiers, and timestampsThis includes all transfers coded to C2101, C2301, or any other code used to move money out of Fund 311.

2. Interfund Transfer Log (Complete List of Transfers)
A complete list of all interfund transfers involving Fund 311 (PEG Fees) as either originating or receiving fund for FY20–FY25, showing:

Date of transferTransfer amountOriginating fund and accountReceiving fund and accountActivity code(s)Project code(s)Journal entry numbersDescriptions3. General Ledger – Full Detail for Fund 311 The complete general ledger detail for Fund 311 (PEG Fees) for FY20–FY25, including:

All revenuesAll expendituresAll transfers in and outAll journal entriesAll activity codesAll project codesAll object codesAll transaction descriptionsPosting datesUser IDs of staff who posted transactionsNo exclusions based solely on coding conventions.

4. Codes Used to Transfer PEG Money (All Codes, Not Just Known Ones) For FY20–FY25, provide all activity codes, project codes, object codes, internal service allocations, or journal entry classifications used to transfer, allocate, move, or reclassify money out of Fund 311, regardless of naming convention or department of origin. (This includes but is not limited to C2101 and C2301.)

5. Expenditure Detail for Receiving Funds (Downstream Spending) For every fund and department that received PEG Fund 311 dollars (via any code), provide full expenditure detail for FY20–FY25, including:

Vendor namesInvoice copiesPurchase ordersContractsPayment vouchersProcurement recordsObject codesDescriptions of items/services purchasedDepartments that incurred the expendituresThis must include all expenditures charged to C2101, C2301, or any other code connected to transfers from Fund 311.

6. Internal Communications (Intent & Decision-Making)
All communications between:

FinanceCity Manager’s OfficeCity Clerk’s OfficeITPIOAny department that initiated PEG-related purchasing …regarding:

PEG Fund 311PEG eligibilityTransfers out of Fund 311Activity codes C2101, C2301, or any other code used to move PEG fundsCouncil Chambers A/V equipmentElectronic voting or speaker queue systemsIn-chambers monitors/displaysAny discussion of fund shortages, reallocations, or budget balancing involving PEGInclude emails, memos, attachments, Teams/Slack/Google Chat messages, spreadsheets, and internal correspondence.

7. Project Justifications (If the City Claims PEG Funded Projects) For any project claimed to be funded (in whole or part) by PEG transfers, provide:

CIP project sheetsCost breakdownsFunding sourcesPEG-eligibility justificationsAny internal analyses or memos used to justify the allocation of PEG funds8. PEG Fund Reconciliations Any reconciliation, audit, or financial summary for PEG Fund 311 for FY20–FY25, including:

Beginning balancesRevenuesExpendituresTransfersEnding balancesFormat & Withholding Electronic copies preferred.

If any record is withheld, please cite the specific exemption under Government Code §6255 or other applicable statute and provide all reasonably segregable portions. 11/14/202511/24/202512/8/2025
25-564
ALEX NGUYEN CONTRACT INFO: Pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Government Code §6250 et seq.), I am requesting copies of the following records relating to the employment, compensation, and contractual terms of City Manager Alexander Nguyen:

1. City Manager Employment Contract
The original fully executed employment agreement for the City Manager.

All subsequent amendments, extensions, or modifications.

All salary resolutions or Council actions that set or adjust the City Manager’s compensation.

2. Compensation and Benefits
Current salary schedule applicable to the City Manager.

Any memos, reports, or justification documents provided to the City Council regarding the most recent salary increase.

Any benefit summaries, including car allowances, deferred compensation, executive benefits, or special provisions.

3. Severance and Termination Provisions
All documents outlining severance, termination for cause, termination without cause, and related provisions.

Any memos explaining changes to severance terms, if applicable.

4. Performance Evaluations
Dates of all annual or periodic performance evaluations for the City Manager since start of employment.

Any written summaries, ratings, or evaluation forms (personal commentary may be redacted as permitted by law).

5. Administrative Policies or Guidelines
Any internal HR or administrative policies that specifically govern the City Manager’s employment terms, compensation, raises, or evaluation process.

Format
Electronic copies are preferred.If any records are withheld, please provide the legal basis for each withholding under §6255 or other applicable exemptions, and produce all reasonably segregable portions. 11/14/202511/24/202512/8/2025 11/20/2025
25-558
Phillip Molina HR Documents: Under the California Public Records Act (CPRA) (Government Code Section 6250 et seq.), I am requesting access to any documents, records, or communications related to complaints filed with Human Resources against Phillip Molina, who serves as the City Treasurer of Oxnard. Specifically, I am requesting:

Any formal or informal complaints filed against Phillip Molina in relation to workplace conduct, harassment, misconduct, or any other HR-related issues.All investigation records related to any complaints made against Molina, including any findings, disciplinary actions, or recommendations resulting from these complaints.If no complaints have been filed or recorded against Phillip Molina, I am requesting a statement from the Human Resources Department confirming that no such records exist, and providing any available details about the department's search for records of complaints.Please note that I do not require the disclosure of any personal identifying information about the individuals who may have filed complaints, so any documents with such information may be appropriately redacted as per the CPRA. 11/12/202511/24/202512/8/2025 11/18/2025
25-535
I'd like a copy of the current
(pending) TUP for Christmas Tree Lane for 2025 with all associated documents for porta potties, insurance, etc. 11/6/202511/17/202512/1/2025 11/14/2025
25-529
Without giving me actual addresses (they can be redacted), I'd like a list of ALL employees, their positions, and whether their home address is in the City of Oxnard. If it's too labor intensive to create a checkbox as to whether they live in Oxnard, perhaps just a list of their home zip codes will do as long as a zip code doesn't overlap outside of the city. And please don't include PO Box addresses references, I want to know who actually lives in the City limits, unless they actually live in a post office box, and then let me know that. 11/5/202511/17/202512/1/2025 11/17/2025
25-525
More Brandon Mascorro. The purpose of this message is to inform you about a public records request that requires a response from your office. The California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) received the following records request on October 7, 2025:
“Under the CPRA, please provide electronic copies of all certification action records for Brandon M. Mascorro (aka “Brandon Mascorro”), formerly employed by Oxnard Police Department, including:
• Any decertification or voluntary surrender records; • Statement(s) of Facts, notices of intent, accusations, findings, orders, and final actions; • Agency referral packets and correspondence with OPD; • Any entries transmitted to the National Decertification Index (NDI) regarding this officer.

Timeframe: Jan 1, 2010 – present.

Please produce on a rolling basis and identify any claimed exemptions by statute. Thank you.” Government Code section 7923.601 provides, in part, that POST is exempt from disclosing the following categories of records: “…peace officer personnel files and background investigation files gathered by law enforcement agencies pursuant to Section 1031 that are in the custody of [POST] in connection with the commission’s authority to verify eligibility for the issuance of certification and investigate grounds for decertification of a peace officer pursuant to Section 13510.8 of the Penal Code, including any and all investigative files and records relating to complaints of, and investigations of, police misconduct, and all other investigative files and materials.” Section 7923.601, subdivisions (b) and (c) provide, further, that a law enforcement agency which transmits to POST a record from the categories quoted above shall bear responsibility for complying with the public request for records, subject to applicable disclosure laws.

Please be advised that we notified this requestor that we forwarded this request to your agency. In an effort to help you directly assist this requestor, we are also providing you with the requestor’s contact information directly below:

Eric Andrist
[email protected]
Lastly, when you have an opportunity, POST would appreciate confirmation that you have received this message.

Thank you for your assistance with this matter.

See the attached document for more information.
11/5/202511/17/202512/1/2025 11/7/2025
25-506
Oxnard Vehicles: I would like an itemized report on the purchase of vehicles for the City of Oxnard in the last 10 years. Vehicles would include cars, SUVs, and trucks, but would not include larger vehicles like trash trucks, fire engines, etc It would be for all departments including police and fire.

I'd like the year purchased, the year and model/make of the vehicle, the department and the purpose of the vehicle, whether it was purchased new or used, and the price paid. I'd also like to know if the vehicle is for a new purpose or if it's replacing a vehicle that had a prior purpose.

I'd like the results tallied by department with subtotals for each department, and then a grand total paid over the 10 years. 11/3/202511/13/202511/27/2025
25-504
I would like the requester information for Public Record Act ID Request 25-457. Unless they specifically asked for their contact information to be private, please include it. Because Oxnard allows for requests to be anonymous, providing contact information negates the need for anonymity.

Further, if you send a person's name, and it's say Juan Garcia, there are literally hundreds of "Juan Garcia's" in Oxnard alone. Without an identifier, just providing the name would not be transparent enough to show who's asking.

And lastly, this request above that I'm asking about, gave out information about me, so, I want to know EXACTLY who was asking. Without the contact information, I wouldn't necessarily be able to find that out. If someone were to be coming after me, I'd want to know who it is. I'm not saying they are, I'm using it as an example.

So when you use the balance test, all of that has to be taken into consideration. You can't just have a blanket policy to redact contact information.

The test is balancing, not a grocery list of fields. CPRA’s catch-all says withhold only if, on the facts, the public interest in nondisclosure clearly outweighs disclosure. Agencies carry the burden. If identity detail is needed to evaluate government conduct, the scale can tip to disclose it. leginfo.legislature.ca.govThere is no "chilling effect" to listing contact information for people when the City clearly provides for them to be able to request information anonymously. It's just to the right of where I'm typing this now. And email addresses are disposable, unlike home addresses. 11/1/202511/13/202511/27/2025 11/5/2025
ID (*2nd acct)Request Text Created On10 Days14 DaysShouldn't Be Closed No 10 Day Reply?
Oxnard Closed Date
25-499Please send me the City's official
redaction policy. Consider this a public record request if need b 10/30/202511/10/202511/24/2025 10/31/2025
25-463
I would like documentation showing all income and expenses for the fund "PEG Fees Capital Improvements" (311). I've seen the list on opengov.com which only lists items dated June 2017 through September 2022 and know there has to be more related to "PEG fees" than what is showing, I just don't know how to find it. So include all accounts related to PEG fees going back 10 years. I'd also like similar documents related to the Cable Franchise Fees, income and expenses going back 10 years. 10/23/202511/3/202511/17/2025 1/13/2026
25-471
MY VIDEO PUBLIC COMMENT. This is a request under the California Public Records Act, Gov. Code § 7920.000 et seq. I request the following records, created, sent, received, or held October 18–25, 2025 (inclusive), regarding the City’s refusal to play my prerecorded public comment video at the October 21, 2025 City Council meeting:

Custodians to search (non-exclusive): Mayor and each Councilmember (and any aides), City Manager Alexander Nguyen, City Attorney Stephen Fischer, Chief Assistant City Attorney Kenneth Rozell, Assistant City Attorney Jason Zaragoza, City Clerk’s Office staff, IT/A-V staff supporting Council meetings.

Record categories:

Emails, texts (including iMessage/SMS), chat messages (Teams, Slack, Zoom), DMs, and attachments concerning whether prerecorded videos may/should be played during public comment, including logistics, policies, and instructions.Drafts and final versions of the October 23, 2025 response letter signed by Chief Assistant City Attorney Rozell, plus redlines/comments and transmittal emails, including communications with the Mayor/Council/Clerk about that response.Any communications with, to, from, or cc’ing Senior Deputy District Attorney Tony Wold about my public comment video or the City’s response.Any written policies, SOPs, desk guides, meeting-room runbooks, or training materials on public-comment videos and “reasonable accommodations” for video/PowerPoint during public comment.Calendar entries/invites, call logs, Zoom/Teams meeting logs/chats, and notes reflecting discussions about handling prerecorded public-comment videos.Any internal legal memoranda or emails asserting that in-person or Zoom presence is required to “directly address” the Council, and any citations relied upon.Any instructions given to A/V or Clerk staff about refusing or delaying prerecorded videos on Oct. 21, 2025.Search guidance: Please search City email servers, mobile devices used for City business (including text/iMessage), collaboration platforms (Teams/SharePoint/OneDrive/Zoom), and any meeting-operations/A-V shared drives.

Format/fees: Please produce electronically (original format when feasible: PST/MSG for emails, MP4 for video, PDF/DOCX for docs, CSV/XLSX for logs). For emails, include full metadata and headers. If you can’t produce in native, export to reasonably usable formats. (§ 7922.570–.575.) Rolling production: If some records are ready sooner, produce them on a rolling basis.

Segregability & denial content: If you withhold anything, you must:
• Identify the specific statutory exemption(s) for each record/portion; • State the name and title of each person responsible for the denial; and • Release all reasonably segregable non-exempt portions. (§ 7922.525(b), § 7922.540(b), § 7922.000.) • You CANNOT just do a blanket exemption refusal without doing everything required within the law.

Privilege claims (anticipated): If you assert attorney-client or work-product exemptions (§ 7927.705; Evid. Code § 954; CCP § 2018.030), please provide a withholding index/privilege log sufficient to evaluate the claim (e.g., date, author/recipients—including any non-City third parties—general subject, and basis for privilege). Note: inclusion of third parties (e.g., non-City actors or prosecutors) can waive privilege absent a valid, documented common-interest arrangement. Please identify any such agreements and the dates they became effective.

Serial communications caution: To the extent there were communications among a majority of the Council—directly or through intermediaries—about this issue outside a noticed meeting, those are squarely within the Brown Act’s serial-meeting prohibition and are public records; please ensure those are searched and produced. (Gov. Code § 54952.2(b)(1).) Timing: Please provide your 10-day determination and an estimated production schedule. If claiming “unusual circumstances,” specify the subsection and the scope of any up-to-14-day extension. (§ 7922.535.) Preservation: Please preserve all potentially responsive records, including texts and chats on personal devices used for City business. 10/23/202511/3/202511/17/2025 11/20/2025
25-464
I would like an audit trail for CPRA request 25-425 in the NextRequest system showing how this request was manipulated by staff from the start to the present. 10/23/202511/3/202511/17/2025 11/3/2025
25-461
More Pink. This is what happens when Wendy Carlton breaks the Public Record Act Law. It makes me want to dig even deeper. So NOW, Wendy, consider THIS an additional public record request. I’d like all documentation for the "pink" items including order forms, emails, text messages, etc. and invoices (even if they were donated). One day you’ll learn to stop breaking the law. 10/20/202510/30/202511/13/2025
25-440
Documentation showing the
procedure to send the Mayor (or any other City staff or council) on out of town trips both domestically and internationally if paid for by the City of Oxnard or given as a gift by someone else. I'd also like all documentation (including memos and emails and texts) for the Mayor's recent trip to Japan including all costs paid for by the City of Oxnard, and all costs paid for by the Mayor himself and all gifts provided during the trip. 10/20/202510/30/202511/13/2025
25-534
Do you have documentation
showing that the "director" has determined for CTL to be "compatible with the zone and surrounding land uses?" Consider this a public record request for that information. CTL= Christmas Tree Lane 10/20/202510/30/202511/13/2025 11/20/2025
25-442*
Consider this a public record request. I’d like documentation on this policy of charging a customer $5 to remove a trash container from service and its purpose.

I’d also like to know what security could be breached if you just fulfill the request as it stands without knowing my date of birth or last 4 digits of my social security number.

Please see the attached document for more information.
10/20/202510/30/202511/13/2025 11/6/2025
25-433I'd like a photo of Officer Martin Polo who "retired" from OPD in 2008. Please don't send a thumbnail size. 10/16/202510/27/202511/10/2025 10/27/2025
ID (*2nd acct)Request Text Created On10 Days14 DaysShouldn't Be Closed No 10 Day Reply?
Oxnard Closed Date
25-425
I would like to see the results of the
1993 (around November) survey conducted by Oxnard, polling residents about what they think about City Hall being closed every other Friday. I would also like to see any and all City Council documents with discussions about the survey before and after. 10/14/202510/27/202511/10/2025 10/14/2025
25-424
I would like an audit trail for Public Record Request ExO006974-052825, showing who made updates in the computer software for the request and on what dates and time. Note that I see changes to older entries so going by the dates in the portal clearly doesn't indicate when an update or change was made to an entry and I want to see that. 10/13/202510/23/202511/6/2025 10/29/2025
25-419
Street Sweeper Study. My name is not Mr Andria. You can’t even get that right? Do you just make names up?? Consider this a public record request. I’d like all documentation thus far on this issue including emails, memos to and from all departments. I’d also like city procedure documentation on how this process is supposed to take place and how long it’s supposed to last and any time limits that should be enforced. I’ve still not received the documentation from the prior public record request asking to see why my street is different than others for street sweeping. If others have it, why doesn’t ours? Where’s the documentation? And why are we paying for street cleaning on our street when the truck can’t clean the entire street???? Please see the attached file for more information. 10/13/202510/23/202511/6/2025 12/17/2025
25-416
Council Chambers A/V gear. Timeframe January 1, 2017 to today. Records requested Please produce the following, each itemized by line-item and funding source (fund and account/object): All purchasing and payment records for Council Chambers A/V gear charged (in whole or part) to PEG Fund 311 or CIP Project 151401 (Council Chambers A/V Upgrade), including but not limited to the “speak & vote” / speaker-recognition / roll-call voting system (e.g., ElectroVote or similar) and the Matrox Monarch HD Simultaneous Live Streaming & Recording encoder. Include requisitions, purchase orders, contracts/quotes, bids or sole-source memos, invoices, packing slips, receiving/acceptance docs, asset tags/inventory entries, and AP vouchers/journal entries showing the fund, department, project, object, and amounts. Appropriation/approval records that authorized these purchases with PEG funds: staff reports, agenda reports, council/committee agendas and minutes, budget appropriation forms, and approval emails/notes, including any references to Ordinance No. 2782 (state video franchise fees + PEG fee) and to the PEG Fees Fund (311). oxnard.gov+1 Funding-source analyses and PEG eligibility justifications, including internal/external emails, legal memos, spreadsheets, and checklists discussing whether the above items qualify as PEG capital (versus operations/meeting-management). Include any reliance on 47 U.S.C. § 542(g)(2)(C) (PEG capital costs), the FCC’s 2019 Third Report & Order in MB Docket 05-311, and California PUC § 5870. FindLaw Codes+3Legal Information Institute+3FCC Docs+3 Technical integration records showing how the speak-&-vote system and the Matrox encoder are used on-air for the PEG channel/stream: block/flow diagrams, wiring/as-built drawings, device configs, encoder presets, graphics/CG integration, screenshots, commissioning/acceptance test reports, and any vendor statements of work. (This is to confirm whether the speak-&-vote device is functionally part of the broadcast chain.) Policies, procedures, and practice documents governing PEG Fund 311 use (eligibility criteria; “capital only” rules; itemization rules for bundles), including any PEG-use policy, finance manuals, and training slide decks. (Note: federal law treats PEG capital differently from operating or other in-kind obligations; please include any local guidance adopting that distinction.) FCC Docs+1 PEG Fund 311 financials: adopted and amended budgets, trial balances, revenue/expense detail, and year-end fund balance statements for FY2017–present that show franchise fee revenues and PEG fee (1%) revenues and all PEG-funded A/V capital purchases for Council Chambers. oxnard.gov Communications (email + attachments, chats, memos) discussing these purchases, funding source, PEG eligibility, or bundling items together, between or among: City Manager/Assistant City Manager, City Attorney’s Office, Finance Director/Controller, Purchasing, IT/AV/Media Services/Cable/PEG staff, City Clerk, and any vendors/consultants for the items above. (For email ESI, please include To/From/CC/BCC/Subject/Date and attachments.) Any reimbursements or fund corrections: journal entries or memos moving charges into or out of PEG Fund 311 for the speak-&-vote system or related accessories; include explanations. Ordinance No. 2782 (PDF) and any later amendments or staff interpretations applied to PEG purchases; if already online, provide the link. oxnard.gov Format & delivery Please produce records electronically: PDFs for documents, native formats for spreadsheets (.xlsx), slides (.pptx), and emails (.eml or .pst/.mbox) with attachments and metadata intact. Agencies must provide records in any electronic format in which they are held and in a format the agency uses to create copies. Justia Law+1 Fees I request electronic copies via the portal or email. CPRA limits fees to the direct cost of duplication for electronic records; staff time for searching/redaction is not chargeable. Segregation & exemptions If you contend any portion is exempt, produce all reasonably segregable portions and state the specific legal authority for each redaction/withholding. The written denial must include the name and title of each person responsible. Justia Law+1 Rolling production & timelines Please begin a rolling production. Within 10 days of receipt, please provide the CPRA determination; if invoking an extension for “unusual circumstances,” identify the reason and provide a date certain (no more than 14 additional days). Nothing in CPRA permits delay or obstruction. Justia Law+1 Preservation Please preserve potentially responsive ESI and paper records during processing (including personal devices/accounts used for city business). Justia Law Suggested search terms (non-exclusive) “PEG Fund 311”; “Project 151401”; “Council Chambers A/V”; “Matrox Monarch HD”; “Monarch HD”; “speak & vote”; “ElectroVote”; “roll call voting”; “speaker recognition”; “program encoder”; “PEG eligibility”; “Ordinance 2782”; “PUC 5870”; “47 USC 542”; “MB Docket 05-311”. Custodians (non-exclusive) City Manager; Assistant City Manager(s); City Attorney’s Office; Finance Director/Controller/Accounting; Purchasing/Procurement; IT Director; Media Services/PEG/Cable TV staff; City Clerk; Council Services; and any vendors/consultants tied to these purchases. If records are publicly posted, provide direct URLs. Justia Law If you determine no responsive records exist for any category, please certify the search and identify the repositories/custodians searched. 10/10/202510/23/202511/6/2025 11/13/2025
25-406
I would like a cost breakdown for
the Community Development Depts flyer titled "Community Priorities Workshop" with the date 10/16/25 on it. If any of these were mailed out, I'd like the mailing costs as well including envelopes, postage and employee time. 10/8/202510/20/202511/3/2025 11/13/2025
25-392
Please produce electronic copies (PDF preferred) of the following records regarding Brandon M. Mascorro (aka “Brandon Mascorro”; middle initial “M.”), a former Oxnard Police Department officer reportedly employed beginning 2011 and separated by/after 2021: Employment/assignment history Hire/appointment date(s), ranks, serial/badge numbers, unit/assignment history, commendations/awards, transfers, promotions/demotions, and separation/termination dates and reasons (resignation, retirement, discharge, etc.). Any separation agreements, settlement or “last-chance” agreements, “resignation in lieu of termination,” exit interview forms, and property return receipts. Discipline / Internal Affairs (SB 16 / SB 1421 categories; Penal Code § 832.7(b)) All sustained findings and associated records (investigative files, reports, audio/video, transcripts, notices, Skelly materials, dispositions) for any of the categories subject to disclosure, including but not limited to: • discharge of a firearm; • use of force causing death or great bodily injury; • unreasonable or excessive force; • failure to intervene; • sexual assault (incl. on-duty sexual contact with a member of the public); • dishonesty (incl. false statements, falsified reports, or untruthfulness during investigations); • unlawful arrests or searches; • discrimination or bias-related misconduct. Please include indices/logs showing IA case numbers, open/close dates, and dispositions—even if portions require redaction. Body-worn camera (BWC) policy compliance Any sustained findings, memos, or training notices regarding BWC activation/non-activation for Mascorro; notices of intent to discipline; counseling memos related to BWC. Brady/Giglio Any Brady/Giglio notifications, credibility alerts, or disclosures to prosecutors referencing Mascorro; any DA requests for records referencing him and OPD’s responses. POST interactions All communications, referrals, notices, and attachments exchanged with California POST regarding Mascorro (including any decertification, “voluntary surrender,” “statement of facts,” complaint packets, or status reports). Public roster/payroll basics Annual position title and pay classification for Mascorro from 2011 through separation (to confirm non-confidential roster data). Timeframe: January 1, 2010 – present. Redactions: If you assert exemptions, please cite the specific statute for each redaction and produce all reasonably segregable portions. If any records have been destroyed or never existed, please state that in a declaration and provide the records-retention schedule showing the retention period. Search details: Please include a brief description of the locations searched and the search terms used. Pursuant to Gov. Code § 7922.535, please provide a determination within 10 days. 10/7/202510/17/202510/31/2025 11/7/2025
25-391
I would like the largest photo file available for ex-police officer Brandon Mascorro.

I'm still waiting for a larger photo of Guy Hartson...the one you sent is unacceptable. 10/7/202510/17/202510/31/2025 10/28/2025
25-399
I would like documentation on how
much all of the "pink" items cost the city to commemorate "Breast Cancer awareness" including the police badges, flyers, and decals for their cars. 10/7/202510/17/202510/31/2025 10/20/2025
25-388
CPRA requests. Pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Government Code §§ 7920.000 et
seq.) and Article I, Section 3(b) of the California Constitution, I hereby request access to, and copies of, all records in your possession, control, or custody related to public records requests (commonly called “CPRA requests” or “public records requests”) submitted during the calendar year 2025. To be precise, I request: All request logs / tracking records / databases maintained in the ordinary course regarding public records requests made during 2025, by the City of Oxnard and all its departments, offices, divisions, commissions, or affiliated agencies. For each individual public records request recorded in those logs, provide the following fields (to the extent recorded): Request tracking number or unique identifier Date the request was submitted to the City (or department) Name of requester (person or entity) Requester’s contact information (if recorded) Description or subject matter of the request (i.e., what records were requested) Department / division where the request was handled or routed Status / disposition (granted, partially granted, denied, pending) If granted (full or partial): date of release, method of disclosure (e.g. electronic copy, paper, inspection), and description of what was produced If denied or partially denied: the statutory exemption(s) claimed (cite the Government Code section(s)), the portion(s) withheld, and the name and title of the official(s) responsible for the refusal or redaction If still pending or not fulfilled: an explanation of the status, anticipated date of completion, or reason for delay Any metadata or internal processing notes directly associated with each request (such as internal comments, review notes, logs of appeals or internal correspondence) Whether the requester's request was hidden from public view in the portal, who made that decision to hide it and why. (Please include any memos or text messages outlining if anyone's requests have specifically been instructed to be hidden.) If any portion of the requested information is withheld or redacted, I request that the remainder be furnished, and that you provide a written justification for each withholding/redaction, citing the precise statutory basis (Government Code section) and identifying the official(s) who made the determination, consistent with CPRA. I request that responsive records be provided in electronic (native) format, e.g. Excel, CSV, or the original database export, to preserve metadata and structure. If some portions exist only in non‑electronic form, please produce scanned or digitized versions. I expect your initial determination to be made within 10 calendar days of your receipt of this request. If you require an extension under the statute, please notify me in writing prior to the deadline, providing justification and stating a firm date when you expect to complete the response. This request is made to promote government transparency and inform the public about how the City responds to public records requests. 10/6/202510/16/202510/30/2025 10/29/2025
ID (*2nd acct)Request Text Created On10 Days14 DaysShouldn't Be Closed No 10 Day Reply?
Oxnard Closed Date
25-387
I would like a list of public record
requests made by Alex Nguyen since he has been employed by the City of Oxnard. I'd also like a log of all the times he's accessed the public record system to check for himself and find public record requests. Since the system has the ability to hide the requester's status, I want to see if he's accessed it personally and internally for searches and what he looked for. If you're confused by this, ask, don't close the request because you want to protect him. 10/6/202510/16/202510/30/2025 10/28/2025
25-386
I would like documentation showing
all of the asks for an agenda item either during a council meeting or otherwise, either by the City Council, the Mayor, or otherwise, including by members of the public, since January 1, 2025, and documentation showing how many of those requests have actually made it onto an agenda. Don't tell me that the minutes and agendas are available online, not everything like that is documented in the minutes, which can't always be trusted. 10/6/202510/16/202510/30/2025
25-385
NextRequest Portal Info. Dear Public Records Coordinator: This is a request under the California Public Records Act (Gov. Code § 7920.000 et seq.). Please produce the following records related to the City’s public-records portal and any CivicPlus/NextRequest “Solutions” used by the City: 1) Contracts and data terms a. All current and prior contracts, orders, statements of work, data-processing agreements, security exhibits, and amendments between the City of Oxnard and CivicPlus/NextRequest, including any provisions describing “Usage Data,” logs, analytics, telemetry, or reporting available to the City. b. Any City–vendor correspondence or internal memoranda describing what requester information is visible to City staff in the administrative interface. 2) Administrative configuration and privileges a. The current role/permission matrix and administrative manuals for the portal, describing what roles (Administrator, Department Admin, Publisher, Staff, Guest, etc.) can view, export, or report on requester data. b. Screenshots or configuration exports that show whether IP address, user-agent, device identifiers, or cookie IDs are displayed anywhere in the City’s admin UI. 3) Audit and access logs a. The audit-log schema/field dictionary for the portal (event types, fields captured, retention). b. Samples of application/access logs for any two-week period (dates of your choosing) with personal identifiers redacted, sufficient to show what fields are collected about requesters and City users (e.g., timestamps, request IDs, user IDs, IP , user-agent, page paths). c. Any City policy/SOP governing when staff may request raw logs/telemetry from the vendor and who must approve such requests. 4) Analytics and cookies a. The City’s privacy/cookie notices for oxnard.gov and for the records portal, plus internal documentation identifying which analytics tools are enabled, whether IP masking/anonymization is used, what data elements are collected, and retention periods. b. Any data-sharing agreements or settings that disclose analytics/telemetry to third parties other than CivicPlus/NextRequest. 5) Retention schedules a. The City’s retention/destruction schedule for requester accounts, submissions, attachments, internal notes, application logs, access logs, and security/event logs related to the portal. b. Any retention settings chosen in the vendor admin console. 6) Incident and disclosure history a. Records reflecting any occasions since January 1, 2020 when the City requested or received requester telemetry (e.g., IP address, device identifiers, access logs) from CivicPlus/NextRequest, including purpose and legal basis. b. Any legal holds or investigations involving portal requester data. 7) Public posting policy Written policies or guidance describing when the City publishes requester text/attachments publicly on the portal and whether staff can override a requester’s “anonymous” status in public or internal views. 8) Copy of requester-specific telemetry and logs (me) All records reflecting technical or administrative data associated with my use of the City’s public-records portal and related CivicPlus/NextRequest “Solutions,” including but not limited to: request IDs, internal requester IDs, account identifiers, login history, session IDs, IP addresses, source ports if stored, user-agent strings, cookie identifiers, referrer and page-view paths, timestamps, error/event logs, audit entries showing staff access to my requests, and any analytics data tied or linkable to my sessions. If you contend any fields are exempt, please release all reasonably segregable portions and cite specific code sections for each withholding. 9) Vendor-held logs the City can obtain All records in the City’s possession, custody, or control that reflect raw or summarized telemetry about my requests that CivicPlus/NextRequest maintains but makes available to the City upon request, including support tickets, exported application logs, “user access” audit extracts, monitoring reports, or other Usage Data related to my requests or sessions. 10/4/202510/16/202510/30/2025
25-383I would like a copy of the 1972 Grand Jury Report on Oxnard Police misconduct. 10/4/202510/16/202510/30/2025
25-382
Pursuant to the California Public Records Act (California Government Code §§ 6250–6270), I am requesting access to any and all public records, including but not limited to: Complaints filed against Gabriela Basua (including formal complaints, internal reports, or grievances) from any individual, organization, or governmental entity, dating back to the beginning of his employment with the City. Correspondence and communication related to complaints against Gabriela Basua, including emails, memos, meeting minutes, or any written communications from the same time period. Any investigative reports, findings, or actions resulting from the complaints mentioned above, including any follow-up actions or resolutions taken by the City of Oxnard or its representatives. Should you need any clarification or if certain records are exempt from disclosure, I would appreciate it if you could specify which portions are being withheld and under which exemptions, as required by law. Thank you for your time and attention to this request. I look forward to your response within the statutory timeframe. 10/4/202510/16/202510/30/2025 10/29/2025
25-381
Pursuant to the California Public Records Act (California Government Code §§ 6250–6270), I am requesting access to any and all public records, including but not limited to: Complaints filed against Bert Perello (including formal complaints, internal reports, or grievances) from any individual, organization, or governmental entity, dating back to the beginning of his employment with the City. Correspondence and communication related to complaints against Bert Perello, including emails, memos, meeting minutes, or any written communications from the same time period. Any investigative reports, findings, or actions resulting from the complaints mentioned above, including any follow-up actions or resolutions taken by the City of Oxnard or its representatives. Should you need any clarification or if certain records are exempt from disclosure, I would appreciate it if you could specify which portions are being withheld and under which exemptions, as required by law. Thank you for your time and attention to this request. I look forward to your response within the statutory timeframe. 10/4/202510/16/202510/30/2025
25-380
COMPLAINTS AGAINST TERAN. Pursuant to the California Public Records Act (California Government Code §§ 6250–6270), I am requesting access to any and all public records, including but not limited to: Complaints filed against Gabe Teran (including formal complaints, internal reports, or grievances) from any individual, organization, or governmental entity, dating back to the beginning of his employment with the City. Correspondence and communication related to complaints against Gabe Teran, including emails, memos, meeting minutes, or any written communications from the same time period. Any investigative reports, findings, or actions resulting from the complaints mentioned above, including any follow-up actions or resolutions taken by the City of Oxnard or its representatives. Should you need any clarification or if certain records are exempt from disclosure, I would appreciate it if you could specify which portions are being withheld and under which exemptions, as required by law. Thank you for your time and attention to this request. I look forward to your response within the statutory timeframe. 10/4/202510/16/202510/30/2025 10/29/2025
25-379
COMPLAINTS AGAINST NGUYEN. Pursuant to the California Public Records Act (California Government Code §§ 6250–6270), I am requesting access to any and all public records, including but not limited to: Complaints filed against City Manager Alex Nguyen (including formal complaints, internal reports, or grievances) from any individual, organization, or governmental entity, dating back to his start of employment. Correspondence and communication related to complaints against City Manager Alex Nguyen, including emails, memos, meeting minutes, or any written communications from the same time period. (Remember that all information to and from the City Attorney's office are NOT automatically exempted.) Any investigative reports, findings, or actions resulting from the complaints mentioned above, including any follow-up actions or resolutions taken by the City of Oxnard or its representatives. Should you need any clarification or if certain records are exempt from disclosure, I would appreciate it if you could specify which portions are being withheld and under which exemptions, as required by law and present a log of redactions and the legal reason for them. 10/4/202510/16/202510/30/2025 11/18/2025
25-378
HISTORIC DISTRICT. Subject: CPRA Request — All records re: efforts to improve the Henry T. Oxnard Historic District (1999–present) Pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Cal. Gov’t Code § 7920.000 et seq.), I hereby request the following public records. I prefer electronic delivery (PDF/email) where feasible. If portions of records are withheld or redacted, I request a written justification citing the legal basis under the Act. By ‘improvement’ I mean not only capital or structural work, but aesthetic, streetscape, landscaping, lighting, facade rehabilitation, accessibility improvements, signage, interpretive elements, neighborhood identity investments, and any other enhancements conceived for the district. Please remember the 10 day plus 21 day extension means that your time is limited to that and not longer. So, I'd shake a leg! Requested Records All documents, memoranda, reports, correspondence, meeting agendas, minutes, proposals, feasibility studies, and financial records regarding any and all efforts (financial, administrative, planning, grants, programs, incentives, or otherwise) to improve, maintain, support, or rehabilitate the Henry T. Oxnard Historic District or its constituent properties, dating from February 5, 1999 (the date the district was registered) to present. This includes, but is not limited to, proposed, implemented, modified, or canceled projects or programs. All records of funding, revenue, grants, subsidies, or cash flows (i.e. money in, money out) allocated by the City of Oxnard, City-affiliated programs, or in partnership with other agencies, intended for the Henry T. Oxnard Historic District (or its properties). If a formal “campaign” or fundraising effort was undertaken, all related financial statements, donor lists (redacted as needed), invoices, and spending reports. Records of City Council proposals, resolutions, motions, ordinances, staff reports, or budget items considered (or passed) to (a) improve or invest in the Henry T. Oxnard Historic District specifically, and/or (b) assist low-income homeowners or senior citizens in maintaining historic homes within the district. Contracts, invoices, or payment records between the City of Oxnard (or any city department) and the Ventura County Cultural Heritage Board (or Ventura County Planning Division) for performing historic district oversight, review, or heritage services under contract. (I understand that the City contracts with Ventura County for cultural heritage review services. Ventura Resource Management) Records of revenue derived from Mills Act contracts within the City of Oxnard, broken down by year (since inception) — i.e., how much the City has foregone in property tax revenue (or otherwise taken in, if any), and how those funds (or savings) have been used or accounted for. Records showing any subsidies, grants, or assistance (financial or otherwise) from City, state, or federal sources targeted specifically for historic preservation or maintenance of properties in the Henry T. Oxnard Historic District, including those benefiting owners who might otherwise lack means. Any audits, reviews, evaluations, reports, or performance metrics assessing the effectiveness or impact of any of the above programs or investments (if they exist). All records concerning grant applications, proposals, solicitations, fundraising campaigns, matching‑fund requests, philanthropic contributions, or other efforts to raise external funds (public, private, foundation, nonprofit, state or federal) for improvements, maintenance, rehabilitation, or enhancement projects in the Henry T. Oxnard Historic District. This includes grant proposals (successful or unsuccessful), grant award letters, disbursement schedules, supporting budgets, matching fund documentation, correspondence with grantors/donors, and reports to funders." Additional Clarifications & Preferences If the volume is large, I request prioritization of records from the years 1999–2010, 2010–2020, and 2020–present in separate bundles. If records exist in electronic databases or spreadsheets (e.g. Excel, financial systems), I prefer native formats. If some responsive records are exempt or withheld, please provide a privilege log with the legal basis for withholding. If portions of the request are burdensome, I request a meet-and-confer to narrow scope rather than full denial. 10/4/202510/16/202510/30/2025 10/17/2025
ID (*2nd acct)Request Text Created On10 Days14 DaysShouldn't Be Closed No 10 Day Reply?
Oxnard Closed Date
25-384
Portal visibility status. This is a request under the California Public Records Act (Gov. Code § 7920.000 et seq.). Please produce the records below related to the City’s public-records portal operated on CivicPlus/NextRequest. A. Counts and listings of visibility status Counts by visibility: For the period January 1, 2024 through the present, the total number of requests in each visibility state (e.g., Public/Published, Unpublished/Requester-only, Staff-only), broken out by month and by department. Full listing: For the same period, an export listing each request with at least the following fields: Request number/ID Request title/subject Submission date Department/assignee Request Visibility status at intake and current Date/time each visibility change occurred Username/ID and role of the City staffer who set or changed visibility Whether documents on the request were published, and if so, the date/time and publishing user Please provide this in a standard machine-readable format (CSV or XLSX). B. Policy, configuration, and instructions governing visibility Written policy and guidance: All written policies, SOPs, training slides, desk guides, emails, or memoranda that instruct City staff how to set Request Visibility and document visibility in NextRequest, including any criteria for keeping requests “Unpublished” and any topic- or department-based defaults. Configuration records: Current and historical configuration pages or screenshots from the NextRequest admin console showing the Request Publishing/Visibility settings and defaults (as referenced in vendor admin documentation), including any rules that auto-publish or auto-hide requests. Role/permission matrix: Records describing staff roles and permissions related to publishing requests and documents (Administrator, Department Admin, Staff, Publisher, etc.). C. Authorization and accountability Who told staff to mark them that way: All records identifying the City official(s) who directed that requests be set to “Unpublished” (globally, by department, by topic, or on specific requests), including emails, directives, tickets with the vendor, or meeting notes memorializing that direction. Visibility change audit trail: For the same period, an audit log or report showing each change to Request Visibility with the request ID, timestamp, and City user who made the change. D. My own requests (if applicable) My requester-specific entries: For any of my requests during the same period, please include the visibility change history and the staff user and timestamp associated with each visibility decision, and who directed for it to be changed and why. Production and format Please produce records electronically. If you claim any exemption, release all reasonably segregable portions and cite the specific Government Code section for each withholding. See Gov. Code § 7922.525(b). If responsive materials are already posted, provide direct links and include any non-public administrative/audit views responsive to this request. Provide any existing export/report from the NextRequest admin console that lists [fields]. If multiple standard exports exist, provide the one with the most fields. If no standard export exists, produce the underlying request log in whatever existing electronic format you maintain. 10/4/202510/16/202510/30/2025 11/20/2025
25-377
Cash flow statement showing all
financial figures for the "swim park" project proposed for south Oxnard. 10/3/202510/13/202510/27/2025 10/28/2025
25-376
Documentation showing how the $2
million "Downtown Revitalization Plan" from 1996 was spent including an accounting of any monies left remaining. 10/3/202510/13/202510/27/2025
25-373I would like the video footage mentioned in the Incident Report from 5/27/22 #2022-00038521. 10/3/202510/13/202510/27/2025 10/22/2025
25-368
ALCOHOL PERMIT. Per TUP 25-120-51 applied for by Bryan
MacDonald for the Holden Funeral Reception on June 6, 2025, It states that alcohol will be served at the event, and the application then requires a license from the ABC be provided before the TUP is issued. So, I'd like a copy of the ABC License they provided, and documentation of who processed this TUP and made sure that was received. I'd also like to know who at the Police Department checked and approved the TUP and approved it for alcohol and verified the ABC license. I'd also like copies of the verifications for RBSS/Alcohol Certifications that were provided to the city for this TUP , proof that the areas of alcohol service were fenced in with security guards, not just the "entire back yard." I'd also like a copy of the insurance documents that were purchased for the event. 10/3/202510/13/202510/27/2025 10/22/2025
25-367
I would like City policy documentation showing the
procedures for handling Temporary Use Permits. In particular, the City's website states that 30 days are REQUIRED to process a TUP . Yet a recent TUP I received via a public record request, was applied for and granted in a week. So, I'd like documentation showing how that is allowed when the City's own documents say 30 days are REQUIRED. I'd also like documentation showing who handled the TUP for Tom Holden's funeral reception and who approved it as there are no signatures on what you provided. There are multiple violations in the TUP and I'd like documentation and communications showing how it was determined to let the permit go through with the violations and who was responsible for it. 10/3/202510/13/202510/27/2025 10/22/2025
25-352
FRIDAY HOURS. Documentation showing how the City of Oxnard decided that the people wanted longer hours at public counters during the week which led to every other Friday with the City being closed. That would include any surveys done that led to such a decision. Basically, how did the City come up with the need to be closed every other Friday and why it needs to remain that way. 10/1/202510/13/202510/27/2025 10/13/2025
25-365
31 & 37. Also, consider this a public record request. I’d like documentation: 1. That shows where anyone at the City of Oxnard has the power to require such ridiculous requirements as I’ve listed in prior emails (ie Conditions 31 and 37 of the Behrens staff report) 2. That shows the genesis and reasoning behind Conditions 31 and 37 and why it was ultimately included in the Behren’s Requirements, including any research that went into other Bed And Breakfast facilities in other cities. 3. That shows where other businesses in Oxnard have similar requirements of the owner of a business needing to be on the premises as much as, or similar to, what was listed in the Behren’s staff report. 10/1/202510/13/202510/27/2025 10/22/2025
25-364
But now that you’ve brought that up, I’d like to add on to my Public Record Request, so thank you for being defiant. 1. I’d like documentation showing why events are precluded in RI zones and any research that was done showing it to be common practice among other area cities. 2. I’d like documentation showing why the need for a TUP on private propoerty is necessary and any research that was done showing it to be common practice among other area cities. I know in Los Angeles it’s not necessary unless it involves the closing of public streets and sidewalks. Having an event on private property is not problematic. And here, I see neighbors having very large parties all the time without a TUP . 10/1/202510/13/202510/27/2025 10/21/2025
ID (*2nd acct)Request Text Created On10 Days14 DaysShouldn't Be Closed No 10 Day Reply?
Oxnard Closed Date
25-348
PHIL MOLINA LAWSUIT. Subject: CPRA — Court orders/minute orders in 202000541689 (Molina v. Nguyen) Under the California Public Records Act (Gov. Code §§ 7922.505, 7922.530, 7922.575), please email me electronic copies (PDF) of all minute orders, written orders, notices of ruling, remittiturs, and clerk notices the City received in or after 2024 in Ventura Superior Court Case No. 202000541689 (Phillip Molina, as City Treasurer v. Alexander Nguyen, et al.), including any orders entered on or after 06/01/2025. If any portion is withheld, please release all reasonably segregable parts and provide a record-by-record exemption log. I prefer electronic delivery by email; please do not impose search/review fees (the CPRA allows only direct duplication costs, which should be $0 for emailed PDFs). 9/30/202510/13/202510/27/2025 10/13/2025
25-346
Please provide electronic copies of records showing all work performed by Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo (AALRR) for the City of Oxnard from Jan 1, 2016 to present, including but not limited to workplace investigations (any department/elected office), employee relations/discipline matters, and related “investigative legal services” funded by City appropriations. A. Master agreements, authority & budget Master/standing professional services agreements, retainer letters, panels, rate sheets, and all amendments with AALRR (2016–present). Council agenda items, staff reports, resolutions, and minutes authorizing or increasing funds/appropriations for AALRR or for “investigative legal services,” including any as-needed contracts. Purchase orders/encumbrances, change orders, and funding source details (fund/org/object codes) tied to AALRR. B. Matter list (all engagements, not just Molina) A matter inventory/list exported from the City’s financial/procurement system and/or provided by AALRR that includes, for each AALRR engagement: Matter name/number (or a redacted/unique ID if necessary), Department/office served, City point of contact, Type of matter (e.g., workplace investigation, HR counseling, training, litigation support), Open/close dates, PO/contract number, Total billed and payments to date. If personnel privacy is asserted, please release a version with names redacted but retain matter type, department, dates, and spend. C. Work scopes & conflicts Engagement letters, statements of work/scopes, task orders, and any conflict-check/independence disclosures AALRR provided for each engagement. Any sole-source justifications, RFP/RFQ documents, evaluation/selection memos, or panel-assignment records used to route work to AALRR. D. Deliverables & communications (reasonably segregated) For workplace investigations (other than the Molina matter requested separately): Final report cover pages, executive summaries, and findings letters (produce reasonably redacted versions if needed); Transmittal memos/cover emails summarizing scope or conclusions. Emails/memos between AALRR and City Manager/City Attorney/HR/Purchasing/Finance that commission, define scope, or close each engagement (headers + body; redact names/PHI as needed). E. Invoices & payments Invoices, detailed time entries, expense receipts, and payment records (check/ACH stubs, voucher approvals) for all AALRR matters (2016–present). Please produce in native spreadsheet where available. Format & handling Produce text-searchable PDFs; native files for spreadsheets (.xlsx/.csv) and emails (.eml) with headers/metadata. If any portion is withheld, segregate non-exempt portions and provide an exemption/privilege log describing each record withheld and the statutory basis. If records are held by AALRR on the City’s behalf, please obtain and produce them (constructive possession). If scope is considered broad, please first produce items A-C and E and the matter inventory on a rolling basis; I will confer to refine. Date range: Jan 1, 2016 – present. If responsive records fall outside this range (legacy agreements or late invoices), please include them as well. Note, too, for any exemptions you might want to try and pull regarding privact issues, attorney client privilege, drafts, etc., you are still required to produce the documents with justified redactions. The law REQUIRES you to do everything possible to understand this request and provide the documents, not look for ways to keep them from the public. Please also make sure as you provide the responsive documents to list them as to how they pertain to each section of the request. 9/30/202510/13/202510/27/2025 10/13/2025
25-344
I request electronic copies of the following records related to the workplace investigation of City Treasurer Phil(Phillip) Molina completed in early 2020 (the “83-page report”): The engagement letter/retainer, professional services agreement, purchase orders, task orders, or any written authorization hiring Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo (AALRR) and/or Jorge J. Luna to conduct the investigation. All amendments, scopes of work, statements of work, and change orders. Invoices, billing statements, time entries, and payment records (check/ACH stubs, voucher numbers, GL accounts) for this matter. Any sole-source justification, RFP/RFQ, selection memos, or evaluation/score sheets used to retain the investigator or firm. Any conflict-check confirmations, disclosures, or independence certifications provided by AALRR/Jorge Luna. The final report and any executive summaries (provide a reasonably redacted version if you assert exemptions). Emails or memos between Alex Nguyen (City Manager), the City Attorney’s Office, HR, Purchasing, Finance, the City Clerk/PIO, and AALRR/Jorge Luna that (a) authorize or define the scope, (b) transmit drafts/final, or (c) discuss public communications about the report (e.g., “News Release: Court Rules Against and Sanctions City Treasurer Phillip Molina”). Date Range: January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2021 (and any master/standing AALRR “investigative services” agreements/exhibits from 2017–2021 that were used for this engagement). Please produce records rolling as they are located. Provide text-searchable PDFs and preserve native formats for spreadsheets (.xlsx/.csv) and emails (.eml/.pst) with metadata where reasonably feasible. If you contend any portion is exempt, please segregate and release non-exempt portions and supply a written exemption log for each withheld item (record description, legal basis, and how the exemption applies). If there will be charges for data extraction or duplication, notify me in advance. I’m happy to clarify or reasonably narrow if that speeds production. Thank you, [Your name] [Contact info] 2) Comprehensive CPRA (full audit trail) Subject: CPRA — Records re: 2019–2021 retention of AALRR/Jorge J. Luna for “83-page” Molina investigation Dear Records Coordinator, Pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Gov. Code § 7920.000 et seq.), please provide electronic copies of the records below. This request seeks records in the City’s actual or constructive possession, including those held by contractors/consultants on the City’s behalf (e.g., AALRR), consistent with CPRA and California case law. Rolling production is welcomed. A. Commissioning & Authority Engagement/retainer/professional services agreements, purchase orders, and any task orders authorizing AALRR and/or Jorge J. Luna to conduct a workplace investigation concerning Treasurer Phil(Phillip) Molina. Amendments, scopes/Statements of Work, change orders, and funding approvals (including council/manager approvals and signature pages). Any master/standing agreements for “employee investigative legal services” or similar with AALRR that were in effect 2017–2021, including exhibits and rate sheets. B. Procurement & Conflicts RFP/RFQ/solicitation documents, if any; bidder responses; evaluation/score sheets; selection memos; or sole-source/exigency justifications. Conflict-check results, independence certifications, disclosures of prior/pending work for the City of Oxnard by AALRR/Jorge Luna, and any Form 700 or equivalent disclosures provided (if applicable). Any correspondence addressing investigator independence/impartiality or addressing concerns about partiality. C. Work Product & Deliverables (with reasonable redactions if necessary) The final investigation report (the “83-page report”), all appendices/exhibits, and any executive summaries shared with City leadership or Council. Drafts transmitted outside AALRR (if any), transmittal emails, and cover memos summarizing findings or recommendations. Any presentations or briefings prepared by AALRR/Jorge Luna to City leadership/Council/HR. If you assert exemptions (e.g., personnel privacy, attorney-client privilege, work product), please segregate non-exempt portions and provide a detailed exemption log identifying each record withheld, the specific exemption(s), and an explanation sufficient to evaluate the claim. If the investigation was commissioned for administrative (non-litigation) purposes, please clarify the asserted basis for privilege, if any. D. Communications (custodians & keywords) Emails/memos between or among the following custodians: Alex Nguyen (City Manager) and CM’s Office staff City Attorney’s Office (e.g., City Attorney, deputies) Human Resources Director/Investigations/Employee Relations Finance Director/Accounts Payable Purchasing/Procurement City Clerk / PIO AALRR and Jorge J. Luna Keywords (use logical variations): “Molina,” “Treasurer,” “investigation,” “AALRR,” “Luna,” “83-page,” “report,” “scope,” “deliverable,” “invoice,” “press release,” “news release,” “Nextdoor,” “Facebook,” “media,” “communications plan.” Date Range: Oct 1, 2019 – Dec 31, 2021. E. Invoices & Payments Invoices, billing statements, detailed time entries, expense receipts, and payment records (check/ACH stubs, voucher approvals, purchase card logs, GL account strings) related to this engagement. Any budget memos/change orders tied to the investigation costs. F. Public Messaging Drafts/finals of any press releases, talking points, FAQs, or social posts about the investigation or actions taken regarding the Treasurer, including review/approval chains. Production Format & Process Please produce text-searchable PDFs; native files for spreadsheets/databases (.xlsx/.csv) and emails (.eml/.pst) with headers/metadata intact. If any records require fee-based extraction, please notify me first with an estimate. If you contend the request is overbroad, please begin with the A-items (commissioning) and E-items (invoices) and proceed on a rolling basis while we refine. Determinations are due within 10 calendar days; extensions should cite the statutory basis. Rolling releases are appreciated. NOTE: If responsive records fall outside any of these ranges listed, please produce them as well; the dates above are minimums, not cutoffs. 9/30/202510/13/202510/27/2025
25-326
Consider this an additional public record request. Show me where in the California Public Record Act it allow you to force me to request police records through a separate portal at the police station other than the City’s own Public Record Portal. Show me where in The City Of Oxnard’s procedural manuals, it calls for you to make this insistence. 9/24/202510/6/202510/20/2025 10/3/2025
25-322
Please send me a copy of the TUP for the funeral reception for ex- Mayor Tom Holden on G Street between Third and Fifth Streets, some time around June 6th 2025. 9/22/202510/2/202510/16/2025 10/2/2025
25-321
BEHRENS CODE SECTIONS. Please now also consider this a public record request. I’d like documentation (City policies and procedures) showing where conditions not specifically in the code come from for proposed projects like the Behrens B&B, and what codes allow them to be formulated and enforced. I’d also like all communications that were made from all city entities involved in the formulation of the responses in the staff report to the Behrens family for their B&B that also shows exactly who was involved in the requirements, who came up with them and who approved them. 9/22/202510/2/202510/16/2025 10/8/2025
25-319
I would like all documentation and communications regarding any and all human remains and/or skeletons inside the Carnegie Art Museum and efforts to either stall the removal of them or expedite the removal of them. I'd also like documentation and communications regarding any other problems within the museum, especially communications initiated by or to Alex Nguyen. 9/21/202510/2/202510/16/2025 11/20/2025
25-317
Request #1: I would like the police report from 2022 for the multiple stabbing of Miguel Plascencia (not sure of the spelling) on Wooley Rd somewhere between Saviers and Ventura Rd. Request #2: I would like to have documentation of all Oxnard police misconduct for the last 10 years per SB1421, and for all the categories it allows including officer involved shootings, sexual assault involving members of the public and dishonesty related to the reporting, investigation or prosecution of a crime or an investigation of misconduct by another officer, and PC 832.7 including Discharge of a firearm, great bodily injury or death, unreasonable or excessive force, and failure to intervene. I'd also like any findings of prejudice or discrimination based on protected status and unlawful arrests or searches. This would include officers no longer working for OPD. I disagree with your documentation that police records are not available through the Public Records Act. Only certain exemptions are allowed for police records including: ONGOING investigations, Confidential Sources and investigative techniques, Personnel Records and the negative outcome of the balancing test. Your blanket statement that they're not available in general is not lawful. Under the California Public Records Act (CPRA), police departments (like any public agency in California) are legally required to disclose records upon request unless a specific exemption applies. General Rule Gov. Code § 7922.000 (formerly § 6250): CPRA is intended to promote transparency; all public records are presumed open to inspection unless an exemption is stated in law. Agencies must respond within 10 calendar days (extendable by 14 days in “unusual circumstances”) saying whether they will release records. Law Enforcement Exemptions Police departments often cite exemptions under Gov. Code §§ 7923.600–7923.625 (formerly §§ 6254–6255), including: Ongoing Investigations (§ 7923.600 / § 6254(f)): Records of complaints, investigations, or security procedures can be withheld while active. Confidential Sources / Investigative Techniques: To protect informants or methods. Personnel Records (§ 832.7 of the Penal Code): Most police officer personnel records are confidential, except certain categories (use of force causing great bodily injury/death, sustained findings of dishonesty, sexual assault, etc., made public under SB 1421 and SB 16). Balancing Test (“Catch-All”) (§ 7922.000 / § 6255): Records may be withheld if the agency shows that the public interest in nondisclosure clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure. What Police Cannot Do They cannot withhold records simply because they are embarrassing or politically inconvenient. They must cite the specific exemption(s) justifying nondisclosure. Blanket denials without explanation are not allowed. 9/20/202510/2/202510/16/2025 10/3/2025
25-304
I would like Press release 2620 regarding officer Roger Garcia from 2015. I searched the website and it appears to have disappeared. I'd also like any press releases, if any, dealing with the case of Rosa Guillen. 9/16/20259/29/202510/13/2025 9/23/2025
ID (*2nd acct)Request Text Created On10 Days14 DaysShouldn't Be Closed No 10 Day Reply?
Oxnard Closed Date
25-303
I would like documentation of how much money has come into the City of Oxnard from any and all cable/wifi (etc) providers that is intended to go toward a public access TV channel since 1999, and if and how it was spent and any documentation showing any and all directions from the City Manager on those funds. I'd also like the same information for the prior 5 years (1994-1998). 9/16/20259/29/202510/13/2025 10/13/2025
25-292
FYI: I’m writing an expose on the
Guy Hartson OPD sexual assault scandal which has apparently been hushed up and linking a scary amount of other OPD scandals over the years. I’ll send it to you all before I get it published to see if you really want to keep up all this retaliation against me. Please consider this a public record request. I’d like an OPD photo of him to include in the article ASAP . 9/15/20259/25/202510/9/2025 9/25/2025
25-286
I would like a copy of the
certification made for the Porta Potties used for Christmas Tree Lane 2024 that they were ADA compliant, not just wheelchair accessible, per TUP 24-120-91 as approved by Samantha Shapiro and applied for by Jessy Tapia per the requirement in the Conditions of Approval, General Conditions item #8 which reads: "Permittee shall provide adequate portable restroom and handwashing stations at the event location, including appropriate ADA compliant restrooms." It is my understanding that the porta potties were provided by Affordable Portables and that there were two of them. 9/13/20259/25/202510/9/2025 9/24/2025
25-294
Request #1 a. I would like a copy of the complaint that came in regarding autos on G Street or in the historic district that have expired registrations. I don’t know the date of the complaint, but the officers that towed the car of Curtis Thompson at 155 S. G Street on 9/5/25 at about 3:15 PM said there was a complaint they were acting on, so you can inquire from them. 2. I would like a log of how many different autos they inquired on their registrations on G Street between fifth street and the culdesac north of Second Street on 9/5/25, and any other streets listed in the so-called complaint. 3. I would like a log of how many autos were actually cited or towed in the same area on the same day and time as above for expired registrations, and/or any cars that were allowed to slide without any citation or towing. 4. I would like a listing of how many cars have been towed due to expired registrations since 1/1/25, and whether they were towed due to a complaint from a member of the public. Request #2 a. I would like a copy of the police report from 9/14/23 at 155 S. G Street made by Curtis Thompson, my roommate, and the outcome of that call. b. I would like a copy of any report regarding a phone call that came in from me, Eric Andrist, on January 8, 2024, regarding Curtis Thompson possibly being suicidal and the outcome of the call. c. I would like a copy of any report that came in on a call from the Veteran’s Administration Suicide Hotline (or other similar name) the evening of January 8, 2024 or early morning January 9, 2024 regarding Curtis Thompson possibly being suicidal and the outcome of that call. 9/5/20259/15/20259/29/2025 9/23/2025
25-257
I would like documentation showing the reports I made on July 4th 2025 as I drove around spotting illegal fireworks, showing the time and location of each report. (I think I made one or two anonymously so I guess those can’t be included?) There should be between 12 and 20 of them…I lost track of how many I did. I’d also like documentation showing which, if any, of those reports were actually acted upon, the time, and the outcome of the call and if any fines were imposed or arrests made. See attached document for more information. 8/29/20259/8/20259/22/2025 9/11/2025
25-244
CTL REDACTIONS. Just got the document for Record Request #25-206, thank you. I see there were 2 redactions. One, Matt Whitecomb’s phone number, I can understand. Why was the "Applicant Phone Number" redacted if the "applicant" was the City of Oxnard Recreation Department? I think I need to extend this request as it’s not making sense. It lists the Applicant as "City of Oxnard Recreation Department/Henry T Oxnard Historic District/Christmas Tree Lane." I can understand the City part, but the "Henry T Oxnard Historic District," and "Christmas Tree Lane" are not entities that exist with any single person that can APPLY for a permit. So, please send me documentation, emails, whatever, showing who instructed for that to be inserted as the "applicant Name," and how that applicant was supposed to be responsible for the permit. For instance, it says that the "permitee" (which I will assume is the applicant) is to pick up all trash in the area of the event, among other things. No one does that, so I’d like to know who was expected to do that as the "permitee." I’d also like documentation showing how and why a TUP is required for Christmas Tree Lane when it is made up of individual homeowners decorating on their own properties, and the public attending on public streets and sidewalks that are not closed down or blocked in any way. This would include any inner office correspondence regarding the permitting of this event in prior years. I’d also like documentation showing how the "applicant" is a "non-profit organization" as listed in the Applicant information section, and why no corporation number was listed. I’d also like to see the certification that was received that the porta potties from Affordable Portables were ADA compliant. Lastly, I’d like to see where the "director" has allowed for Christmas Tree Lane as a "similar use per 16-476. 8/29/20259/8/20259/22/2025 9/11/2025
25-206Please send the approved TUPs for
Christmas Tree Lane 2024 in the historic district.
8/20/20259/1/20259/15/2025 8/28/2025
25-170
Please consider this a public record request. Please show me documentation that allows The City Of Oxnard to take as long as it wants (or at least a minimum of 83 days) to fulfill a public record request. 8/4/20258/14/20258/28/2025 8/5/2025
25-148
Please send me any and all
applications and permits issued to the Buddhist Temple of Oxnard at H and Second Streets for their Obon Festival they had on July 12, 2025. 7/29/20258/8/20258/22/2025 8/4/2025
ID (*2nd acct)Request Text Created On10 Days14 DaysShouldn't Be Closed No 10 Day Reply?
Oxnard Closed Date
25-124
BACKUP INFO ON PRIOR TEXT MESSAGE/EMAIL INQUIRY . So consider this a new public record request. I’d like all documentation that was provided to the City Council and City staff members regarding that request outlining what was being requested and what they were required to do, and their responses. 7/15/20257/25/20258/8/2025 7/23/2025
25-28
I would like documentation
showing a list of all open and/or pending residential building permit applications, showing the address, scope of work and the number of days the applications have been open. 6/23/20257/3/20257/17/2025 7/7/2025
25-16
I would like documentation showing
the history of the prior Public Record Act system/software, including when it was purchased and installed and the cost to the city for that installation, and the genesis showing how the need for a new system came about, who requested it and why, who approved it and why, and how much it's costing the City of Oxnard. I'd also like documentation showing any conversations, verbal or written, between staff members and/or the software provider, on the current documents attached to previous public record act requests, and them not being able to be attached in the new system. I'd like documentation from the new software provider stating that it is impossible for all those prior documents to be attached in the new system. If they didn't say that, I'd like documentation showing why the City is choosing to not implement an option to attach all the old documents. 6/19/20256/30/20257/14/2025 6/27/2025
25-14
This part 2 of my prior request. In
addition to the city council's emails and text messages from the last meeting on June 17th, I would also like to have the text messages and emails sent during the meeting by all City Staff members that were in attendance, including the City Attorney Stephen Fischer, noting that not everything would fall under the the privilege exemptions. This would include personal and any city issued phones, computers, laptops, tablets, etc. 6/19/20256/30/20257/14/2025 7/21/2025
25-9
I would like a copy of each of the
council member's text messages and emails made DURING the meeting of June 17, 2025. This would include any city owned and personal devices used during the meeting. 6/17/20256/27/20257/11/2025 7/8/2025
Ex-W007025-061025
So consider this a public record request, and send me all documentation that would preclude these streets (G & F Street in the historic district) from being considered the same as all others when it comes to street sweeping. 6/10/20256/23/20257/7/2025 6/23/2025
Ex-O006974-052825
I would like documentation showing
all the lawsuits filed against the City of Oxnard or by the City of Oxnard in the last 10 years with case numbers and the dates and current status of the case, and if ended, whether the City won or lost, and the legal costs of the City for each case. 5/27/20256/9/20256/23/2025 9/11/2025
Ex-O006918-051525
I would like a copy of the same
information that was sent to Jose Guzman that he mentions in the attached message he wrote on the Nextdoor.com website. He might have used this email address for the request: [email protected] His request is dated January 2024, so it would have been from before that date. 5/15/20255/26/20256/9/2025 6/17/2025
Ex-O006827-042825
I received a generic letter from your
office today talking about filming in Oxnard for commercial purposes needing a film permit...Consider this a public record request. I’d like to know the total cost of printing and envelopes, the number of these letters that were printed, how many were actually mailed out and the cost for the postage. I’d also like all the recipients to receive corrected information with an apology from the City Manager’s office (this should come out of his paycheck). 4/17/20254/28/20255/12/2025 4/28/2025
ID (*2nd acct)Request Text Created On10 Days14 DaysShouldn't Be Closed No 10 Day Reply?
Oxnard Closed Date
Ex-W006662-040125
CONSIDER THIS PUBLIC RECORD REQUEST #1. I would like an audit of all entries and deletions to the trees for my property address in your "inventory." If such a document doesn’t exist for the public record request, I’d like you to provide the information to me and the City Council anyway.

CONSIDER THIS PUBLIC RECORD REQUEST #2I would like documentation showing ALL City maintenance information of said palm tree located in the parkway in front of my residence at 155 S. G Street, at the property line next to the driveway at 135 N. G Street.

CONSIDER THIS PUBLIC RECORD REQUEST #3; I would like documentation of any and all City of Oxnard employee manuals or policy documents instructing your department to act as you’re describing it should act in regard to this tree, namely, your "process" of seeing if the tree is part of your "tree inventory" and if it’s not, shirking the responsibility off onto the homeowner.

I can find NOWHERE in the City Code that says anything close to what you’re inferring it says, and you likely didn’t include it in your last email because it doesn’t say what you want it to say! CONSIDER THIS PUBLIC RECORD REQUEST #4: I would like documentation showing the location, type of tree and year of the first City planted tree in Oxnard that appears in the "tree inventory." If such a document doesn’t exist, please just tell me/us what it is and send a screenshot of where you got the information.

So, once again, SHAME ON YOU. I’m requesting that the tree just be removed and considering the LIES of Michael Wolfe, that he be fired from his job. That’s TWO employees I’ve now caught and have proven, lied. In fact, I’d like all the parkway trees removed from in front of my house since I have the most beautiful and "historic" house in the historic district and it blocks the view of the house from the street, especially during Christmas Tree Lane. The camphor trees are NOT historic and don’t belong there in the first place. They’re just a messy tree and all the leaves are constantly being swept into the storm drain by the street sweeper. 4/1/20254/14/20254/28/2025 4/14/2025
Ex-W006623-032525
#1: Please consider this a PUBLIC RECORD REQUEST and send me documentation of who made the decision and when the decision was made to only do paint-overs, and documentation that the City Council approved it…or didn't. I’m also requesting that the City Council take this up at a near-future meeting because this graffiti abatement program is NOT making the City look better. Take a look around. #2: I would like documentation showing, if any, special procedures the City is to use on the streets, sidewalks and in the neighborhood of the Historic District when it comes to repairs and maintenance. Is the City not governed by the same National Landmark procedures as the property owners??? 3/25/20254/4/20254/18/2025 4/2/2025
Ex-C000469-031225
"Hey Pengilley, consider this a public record request. I want a copy of the fee schedule the Building Department uses for everything they charge the public for. I’m going to be getting all of our neighboring City fee schedules and compare them all, because I hear that Oxnard is charging way more than neighboring cities for this abysmal job their pretending to do for us." 3/12/20253/24/20254/7/2025 3/12/2025
Ex-U006563-031025Unrecognized Email 3/10/20253/20/20254/3/2025 3/10/2025 Ex-C000465-030425

PUBLIC RECORD REQUESTS
Mr. Pengilley, 1 of 4:

Please send me the instruction manual for your software that runs your permitting system. Specifically, I want to see detailed explanations for the field "Application Status" and the terms available to populate that field and when each is to be used and all possible terms that are available to be used, with specific focus on a permit application that is "expired" (and its definition) and "In Plan Check" (and its definition).

I’d also like documentation showing IF there is another field that is used, or could be used to show that a permit application is expired and whether that information is only available to staff or whether it is or should be made available to the public.

I’d also like a copy of the departments procedural manual detailing the processing of permit applications, and the policies to be followed in each circumstance, ie, if they’re approved, if they’re denied, if they’re sent for corrections, etc., and how that is all to be detailed in the computer software and what each employee is mandated to actually do in each circumstance. For instance, if a permit application becomes expired, what is the department and or employee supposed to do with that application, if anything, and how long is it meant to sit in an expired state without the City employees making some action on it.

If these records are not available in an electronic format, please provide a private room where I can view the manuals and take photos of them. 2 of 4:

I’d like all memorandums, emails, or documents noting any City procedures, etc regarding the Ventura Grand Jury’s Report on "Suggestions for Smoother Permitting Processes" showing what the City’s position is on the matter and what they’d done or not done to accomplish the recommendations within the report, and any ongoing lists of what’s been accomplished and what hasn’t. 3 of 4 :

I’d like all memorandums, emails, or documents noting any City procedures, etc regarding the implementation or lack thereof of AB-2221 "Accessory Dwelling Units" approved by the Governor 9/28/2022. 4 of 4:

If the above requests don't I’d like all memorandums, emails, or documents noting any City procedures, etc regarding the implementation or lack thereof of The State of California’s Permit Streamlining Act enacted in 1977 per Government Code § 65921, and any local code sections reflecting the implementation of this Act in Oxnard. I’d like copies of the employee manuals stating how employees are to implement the "streamlining" dictated in this Act and the repercussions of not doing so. I’d specifically like employee directions regarding Government Code § 65943 regarding the 30 calendar days the City has to respond to each submission of an application, directions on the "exhaustive list of items" the law requires the City to submit if the application is incomplete, and, what the City is to do if a determination is not made within 30 days, and making the application deemed complete. I’d also like a report showing how many applications are deemed complete due to the City surpassing the 30 days to supply a written determination and documentation showing the City’s policy.

Aren’t you glad you decided to make my life miserable?
Eric AndristThe Henry Levy House
3/4/20253/17/20253/31/2025 4/2/2025
Ex-O006253-012025
I would like a list of all the
projects filmed in Oxnard that are on file through the years and their locations. 1/20/20251/30/20252/13/2025 2/3/2025
Ex-O006173-122024
Please send me the instructions for members of the City Council's requirements for what they have to report on a Form 700 for the City of Oxnard. 12/20/202412/30/20241/13/2025 1/13/2025
Ex-O006082-120224

1. I specifically asked for
"documentation on the last time that Wendy Carlton received public records act training and what it consisted of as well as each member of the City Council."

2. It is my understanding that this training needs to be accomplished every 2 years, isn’t that correct? (GC 53235 (b) "Each local agency official shall receive at least two hours of training in general ethics principles and ethics laws relevant to the official’s public service every two years." The documents you sent me for Gabriela Basua and Oscar Madrigal expired February 1, 2021 and June 29, 2024 respectively. Have they not had the required attendance? Please send me the updated forms if they have, if not, an explanation as to why not.

3. The forms you included for the City Council, do not specify what I asked for in my request. Did you even read it? The forms you included don’t even include the term "Public Record Act," and merely and very vaguely only mention "Open Government laws." I specifically asked for what the public record act training consisted of. If you’re relying on the page and a half provided in the booklet "Public Service Ethics Laws" by the Intitute for Local Government, that wouldn’t be a comprehensive lesson on all aspects of the CPRA. Wendy Carlton could in no way know how to respond to all these requests by only reading that booklet. The California Attorney General’s Office puts out two comprehensive documents on the CPRA, one being a very helpful powerpoint presentation. I suggest you all watch it as no one in the City of Oxnard seems to truly understand the CPRA. 12/2/202412/12/202412/26/2024 12/2/2024
Ex-O005975-111524
So let me get this straight. The
"Vendor" decides where to send City of Oxnard flyers????? Then consider this a new public record request. I’d like documentation showing how that’s allowed, and/or who made the decision to allow a private vendor to decide where City publications are mailed. 11/15/202411/25/202412/9/2024 11/25/2024
ID (*2nd acct)Request Text Created On10 Days14 DaysShouldn't Be Closed No 10 Day Reply?
Oxnard Closed Date
Ex-W005964-111424
I’d like all documentation and written correspondences, to and from, (emails, text messages, etc) regarding you checking "for ADA compliance(s) at Palm and C Street," and any documentation showing plans to make corrections, or not make corrections. 11/14/202411/25/202412/9/2024 12/12/2024
Ex-O005803-100324
I would like documentation on the
City of Oxnard flyer I received in the mail titled "November 5th General Presidential Election: Voter Information & Updates." I would like to know the cost of printing and mailing (separately), who ordered this and where which addresses it was directed to be sent to. I'd also like to know if the City is required to use a union print shop and if any estimates were received to find the best price for printing. 10/3/202410/14/202410/28/2024 11/15/2024
Ex-W005780-093024
I'd like documentation on who and how many asked for the signs to not be put in. (regarding lack of street sweeping signs in the historic district) 9/30/202410/10/202410/24/2024 10/10/2024
Ex-O005399-072924*
If possible, I would like to get a list of names and dates of all deaths recorded in the Oxnard Historic District as far back as they might exist. That would be either on the property or in the houses. The boundaries would be Palm to the north, 5th Street to the south, on F & G Streets. 7/29/20248/8/20248/22/2024 8/13/2024
Ex-C000281-040324
The question is, does City Code
require a new slab be poured over the top of an existing slab with those specifications? If you’re not allowed to by law not answer, please consider this a public record request for that code section. Otherwise, I’d like to know where in the code it would be required that a new slab is poured over the top of the old one. 4/3/20244/15/20244/29/2024 4/3/2024
Ex-C000225-122023
Would you please send me the
official documentation of the complaint showing that those were the code sections listed as part of the violation for both last year and this year. NONE of those were what was told to me verbally by the employees that came out to my house.

Also, why was nothing ever given to me in writing? Is it not City procedure to give someone written documentation if their violating a code section??? 12/20/20231/1/20241/15/2024 12/28/2023
Ex-C000223-121923
Consider this a public record request. I’d like all documentation related to the the complaint for 155 S G Street’s Christmas arches, (as well as any other addresses in the historic district that were complained about) from beginning to end, including all relevant code sections, and all associated emails within the City including the City Council members. I realize that emails to and from council will not be included.

I’d also like all documentation related to requiring a TUP for the entirety of "Christmas Tree Lane." (Not the TUP’s themselves). 12/19/202312/29/20231/12/2024 12/28/2023
Ex-C000220-121423
Are any TUP’s issued for any purpose every year, including this year, for Christmas Tree Lane? 12/14/202312/25/20231/8/2024 12/18/2023
Ex-C000219-121123
Public record request for a copy of
the complaint filed THIS year in regard to my Christmas decorations. 12/11/202312/21/20231/4/2024 12/14/2023
ID (*2nd acct)Request Text Created On10 Days14 DaysShouldn't Be Closed No 10 Day Reply?
Oxnard Closed Date
Ex-C000208-110623
Copies of any and all requests for
the allowance of American flags to be placed in the parkways in the historic district.

I’d like all email correspondence relating to the issue of either the Christmas light arches or the American Flags in the historic district parkway, during the period between December 1, 2022 and the present, and I’d like copies of any documentation granting anyone the ability to put the American flags in the parkway for patriotic holidays. 11/6/202311/16/202311/30/2023 11/30/2023
51 Note that I didn't realize I had 2 accounts, one under [email protected] and one under [email protected]* Please see the attached document for more information.

AI, Public Records Requests, and Workload: What the Research Actually Shows The City has suggested that “AI-generated” requests are a new, uniquely burdensome problem that justifies more staff and tighter limits on requesters. The national research record tells a very different story. Across federal, state, and local agencies, AI is being used to help the public write better, more focused requests and to help agencies process those requests faster. Where real risks exist, scholars and watchdog groups stress the need for transparency and auditability of agency AI systems—not restrictions on requesters. 1. AI Helps People Write Better Requests, Not Worse Ones Several tools now exist whose entire purpose is to improve the clarity and focus of public records requests: • FOIA Friend, developed by frequent FOIA filers, uses a specialized model trained specifically to evaluate request quality on three dimensions: specificity, scope, and legal compliance. It flags vague, overbroad phrasing and suggests more targeted, time-bounded, and record-type-specific language—precisely the qualities FOIA and CPRA officers consistently say they want. • MuckRock, the largest public records platform in the country, has used machine-learning models since 2015 to classify and improve more than 300,000 incoming agency communications. Their own account is that AI has been “essential” in reducing tedious classification work and allowing staff to focus on understanding and context rather than mechanics. • Federal FOIA.gov’s own tools incorporate machine learning to route requests to the right agencies based on past logs and frequently requested records, again with the goal of making requests easier to answer, not harder. Commentary in the national press now explicitly frames AI’s “most beneficial use” as helping the public draft clearer, more efficiently answerable FOIA requests. In other words, the emerging consensus is that well-designed AI tools tend to tighten scope, improve specificity, and align requests with legal standards. Key point for Oxnard: The research record does not support the claim that AI inherently produces vague, unmanageable requests. It shows the opposite: AI is being deliberately deployed to make requests more focused and more processable. If Oxnard is seeing “AI-generated” requests that are more detailed and tightly scoped than before, that is a feature of modern oversight, not a defect. Framing line: The research shows AI helps people write better requests, not worse ones. If the City is struggling with “AI-generated” requests, the most likely explanation is that the requests are better-targeted than they used to be—and that is precisely what public records laws were designed to encourage.

2. Rising Volume Is a National Trend, Not an Oxnard-Specific Crisis Agencies nationwide report substantial increases in public records and FOIA volumes over the last several years, driven by political polarization, media scrutiny, and digital-first filing systems. School districts that once received fewer than 100 requests per year have documented surges to 500 or more, in some cases a five-fold increase in a single year. At the federal level: • Government-wide FOIA volume exceeded 1.5 million requests in FY 2024, a 25% increase from the prior year. • A single political organization, the Heritage Foundation, reportedly filed over 100,000 FOIA requests in about two months, sometimes arriving at “one a second,” overwhelming specific federal components. Those figures put Oxnard’s roughly 1,200 annual requests in perspective. Even if the City has experienced some recent growth, that growth is modest relative to what similarly situated entities are managing. The national conversation in Congress has focused not on restricting requesters but on urging agencies to modernize systems, adopt technology, and expand proactive online disclosure so that fewer individual requests are necessary. 3. Other Agencies Use AI to Process Requests Faster. Oxnard Is Choosing Not To. Where agencies are facing genuine volume pressure, the documented trend is to deploy AI and automation on the agency side of the equation: • MITRE’s FOIA Assistant is an AI-based prototype used by multiple federal agencies to speed FOIA redaction. It automatically identifies likely exempt material (including deliberative language and personal privacy information) and suggests redactions that human analysts can accept or reject, with the explicit goal of increasing speed, accuracy, and consistency while reducing burnout. • Vendor-reported case studies for platforms including Logikcull and Datagrid cite reductions in response time of up to 40% and deadline compliance rates approaching 98% for agencies that have fully adopted these tools." • The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) has a dedicated “FOIA Discovery AI Pilot” aimed at automating record discovery and PII redaction to address FOIA backlogs and manual review bottlenecks. • Chief FOIA Officer reports show multiple federal agencies already using or piloting AI tools for search, technology-assisted review, and auto-redaction in FOIA workflows.

The common theme is that agencies with serious backlog problems are turning to AI to automate mechanical tasks—classification, search, and first-pass redaction—so that human staff can spend their limited time on judgment calls and edge cases, not on repetitive scanning. Framing line: The same technology the City is blaming for “increased workload” is the technology other agencies are using to eliminate backlogs. Oxnard is not asking for AI tools to process requests faster; it is asking for more people to process them slower. That is a policy choice, not an inevitable consequence of AI. 4. Real Risks Run the Other Direction: Agencies Using AI Against Requesters The most serious cautions in the literature are not about citizens using AI to draft requests. They are about agencies quietly using AI in ways that make oversight harder: • A 2025 article in the Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary (Pepperdine) on “FOIA and the Use of AI in Government” warns that AI-driven decision systems introduce a “black box” problem that current FOIA doctrine is not well-equipped to address, and that AI-driven record processing could make agency actions less transparent if not accompanied by new disclosure duties and audit rights. • The Brechner Center’s summary of that work emphasizes the need for algorithmic audits of government AI systems used in FOIA processing and urges that agencies be required to explain publicly how AI is deployed when managing records requests. • Advocacy groups such as Democracy Forward have already filed lawsuits after agencies refused to disclose how AI is being used to identify, redact, or even repeal regulations, arguing that the public’s right to know how AI is shaping government decisions is itself a core transparency issue. The clear message from this body of work is that if agencies are going to use AI internally for classification, routing, or redaction, they must be required to disclose that use, document how systems operate, and submit to independent review or audits. Oversight angle for the committee: If the Council or a budget committee approves new staffing and the City later adopts AI tools to classify, redact, or route CPRA responses, there should be an explicit, public requirement that Oxnard disclose what tools are in use, what they do, and how their outputs can be challenged. Otherwise, AI risks becoming an opaque shield that makes existing noncompliance harder—not easier—to detect. 5. The Only Truly “Overwhelming” AI Use Cases Are Nothing Like Oxnard Media coverage and expert testimony do identify use cases where AI-driven request automation genuinely overwhelmed agencies—but they look nothing like one local watchdog filing 1,000 structured requests:
• Pennsylvania school districts cited in Government Technology reported “hundreds” of anonymous, highly templated AI-generated requests coming from non-local actors using tools like “FOIA Buddy,” not from local parents or journalists. • At the federal level, the Heritage Foundation’s roughly 100,000 FOIA requests in two months were deliberately designed to stress-test agencies and drive a particular political agenda. Even in those extreme cases, subject-matter experts told Congress that the appropriate response is to modernize systems and expand proactive disclosure of commonly requested records, because that “would vastly cut down the number of requests” and allow staff to focus on genuinely complex matters. Restricting the right to request or treating AI-assisted drafting as suspect was not recommended as a solution. Bottom Line for Oxnard Taken together, the current research record supports four conclusions that directly undercut the City’s framing: 1. AI-assisted requests are generally clearer and more targeted, not vaguer; tools like FOIA Friend are explicitly trained to optimize specificity, scope, and legal compliance. 2. Rising request volume is a national phenomenon, driven by politics and digital access, not a unique “Oxnard problem.” Oxnard’s annual volume is modest compared to federal agencies and large school districts facing five-fold increases. 3. Agencies that are serious about transparency are already using AI on their side of the ledger—MITRE’s FOIA Assistant, NARA’s AI pilots, and commercial tools like Logikcull and Datagrid—to cut response times and improve compliance. 4. The real risk is opaque agency use of AI, not citizens using AI to write better requests. Scholars and watchdogs are calling for algorithmic audits, mandatory disclosure of agency AI tools, and litigation when agencies refuse to reveal how AI shapes public records decisions. For a budget or policy committee, the logical reform path is clear: (1) require proactive online disclosure of commonly requested records; (2) insist that any CPRA-related AI tools the City adopts be publicly disclosed and auditable; and (3) view AI-assisted, well-structured requests from residents as exactly what CPRA and FOIA were meant to produce—a more informed public, not an excuse to weaken access. 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COMPLAINT
-1-
Law Office of Charles A. Hamm
Charles A. Hamm (SBN 359861)
300 Montgomery Ave #Q
Oxnard, California 93036
Tel: (805) 308-4266
Email: [email protected]

Attorneys for:

Petitioner and Plaintiff, Douglas Partello

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF VENTURA

Douglas Partello,

Plaintiff and Petitioner,

vs.

The City of Oxnard; Stephen Fischer, in his
capacity as City Attorney; Alex Nguyen, in his
capacity as City Manager of the City of Oxnard;
and DOES 1-10,

Defendants and Respondents,

CASE NO:

VERIFIED TAXPAYER COMPLAINT FOR

DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF

and,

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

(C.C.P. §§ 526a, 1085)

VERIFIED TAXPAYER COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
(C.C.P. §§ 526a, 1085)

I. INTRODUCTION

1. This action arises from the City of Oxnard’s misuse of public resources to suppress government transparency and obstruct lawful public records access in violation of the California Public Records Act (Gov. Code § 7920.000 et seq.) and Government Code §§ 3204 and 8314. Plaintiff 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COMPLAINT
-2-
Douglas Partello, an Oxnard taxpayer, alleges that City Attorney Stephen Fischer and City Manager Alex Nguyen have systematically invoked attorney-client privilege and expended taxpayer funds to conceal documents—including those tied to political messaging about alleged $4 million litigation costs publicized during the 2024 election—in order to avoid accountability and frustrate public oversight.

2. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief under Code of Civil Procedure § 526a and a writ of mandate under C.C.P. § 1085 to compel disclosure of public records, remove conflicted officials from public records administration, and impose neutral oversight to restore lawful governance and protect the public’s fundamental right of access to information.

II. PARTIES

3. Plaintiff DOUGLAS PARTELLO is a resident, voter, and taxpayer within the City of Oxnard, County of Ventura. He has paid taxes to the City of Oxnard through utility user taxes and sales taxes, within the past year, and thus has standing under Code of Civil Procedure § 526a. Plaintiff also acts as Petitioner herein under Code of Civil Procedure § 1085, for a Writ of Mandate for enforcement under the California Public Records Act (Gov. Code § 7920.000 et. seq.). Plaintiff and Petitioner Partello will be referred to as Plaintiff throughout this Complaint for simplicity.

4. Defendant and Respondent CITY OF OXNARD (hereinafter “Defendant” or “Defendant City”) is a general law city and political subdivision of the State of California.

5. Defendant ALEX NGUYEN is the City Manager of Oxnard. He is sued in his official capacity for purposes of injunctive and declaratory relief related to actions taken in the course of his public duties.

Plaintiff does not seek damages or personal monetary relief against Mr. Nguyen.

6. Defendant STEPHEN FISCHER is the City Attorney of Oxnard. He is sued in his official capacity for purposes of injunctive and declaratory relief. Plaintiff does not seek damages or personal monetary relief against Mr. Fischer.

7. Plaintiff is unaware of the true names and capacities of Defendants/Respondents sued as DOES 1 through 10, and therefore sue them by such fictitious names. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges, that each DOE Respondent/Defendant is responsible for the acts, violations and injuries alleged herein. Plaintiff will amend this petition and complaint to allege the true names and capacities of 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COMPLAINT
-3-
the DOE Respondents/Defendants when their identities are ascertained.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

8. Jurisdiction is proper under C.C.P. § 526a and Government Code § 7920.000 et seq. Plaintiff also brings this action as a verified petition for traditional writ relief under C.C.P. § 1085.

9. Venue is proper in Ventura County pursuant to C.C.P. § 395(a) because all relevant conduct occurred in this jurisdiction.

III. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

10. The City of Oxnard has expended public resources to issue public statements, initiate litigation, and pursue investigations timed to interfere with elections, suppress dissent, and/or mislead the public.

11. Public resources have been spent in violation of Government Code §§ 3204 and 8314.

12. Plaintiff, and the public, have a right to know about the unlawful use of public resources, and the California Public Records Act guarantees access to documents, as described in said law.

Defendants have sought to unlawfully obstruct the public access to said documents.

13. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, including City Attorney Fischer and City Manager Nguyen, or employees or agents under their direction, have engaged in misconduct related to the administration and expenditure of public funds, violating legal standards established to ensure the transparent and lawful use of taxpayer monies, and for the suppression and nondisclosure of documents that elucidate the City’s conduct as to important public issues.

14. Plaintiff submitted public records requests as described in this Complaint and in the below Petition to Enforce Public Records Act regarding the City’s October 18, 2024, public dissemination of political messaging from the Defendant City Manager Office, of an alleged "$4 million" litigation cost figure caused by then city council candidate Aaron Starr, released during campaigning for the November 2024 election. Please see below Petition.

15. Defendants have a documented history of engaging in political campaigns targeting Mr. Starr and at least one other political candidate or public official. This history is demonstrated by Defendants’ public statements, their expenditures of public resources for political messaging, and their extensive litigation record against Mr. Starr. These actions reflect Defendants' ongoing intent to 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COMPLAINT
-4-
influence public opinion and electoral outcomes using taxpayer-funded resources.

16. Plaintiff alleges the herein described public political messaging against a candidate running for election in Oxnard violated Government Code § 8314 because Defendants “[used] or permitted others to use public resources for a campaign activity” (Gov. Code § 8314), and therefore constitutes an unlawful expenditure of public resources. Specifically, defendants utilized City staff and resources to produce and disseminate public communications explicitly designed to undermine political candidate Aaron Starr’s campaign, in direct violation of Gov. Code §§ 3204 (prohibiting political activities by local agency officers and employees) and 8314 (prohibiting use of public resources for campaign activities).

17. Public resources were allocated and expended for said political messaging through the use of staff time and resources, and for responding to the herein described public records request submitted by Plaintiff.

18. Defendants unlawfully have expended public resources in their failure to provide all responsive documents and information in said documents (e.g. without redactions) that is required under the California Public Records Act (referred to herein as “CPRA” or “PRA”, Gov. Code § 7920.000 et seq).

19. Plaintiff alleges Defendants seek to hide documents, or information in said documents, related to Defendants’ own misconduct, as it relates to the herein described political messaging, as well as Defendants’ ongoing expenditure of public resources against Mr. Aaron Starr.

20. Plaintiff alleges Defendants have improperly invoked attorney client privilege in response to Plaintiff’s public records requests as described below; on that basis, Defendants expended public resources, to conceal the herein described politically motivated actions. Defendants’ invocation of the attorney-client privilege is invalid as applied to the PRA requests at issue under the crime-fraud exception set forth in Evidence Code § 956 inasmuch the privilege is asserted for an improper purpose, or for legal services to enable or aid in an improper purpose. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants campaigned against political candidate Mr. Starr through the October 18, 2024 statement, making public allegations that obscure the truth; that Defendants have spent substantial public resources in their litigation as part of the same unlawful campaign against the same political candidate; and that 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COMPLAINT
-5-
Defendants themselves caused much of the litigation expenses at the expense of public resources.

21. Plaintiff alleges Defendants Fischer and/or Nguyen, in their official capacities, have access to, and thereby are able to, and do influence or oversee substantially all or a material amount of public records responses in the City of Oxnard.

22. Plaintiff alleges Defendants thereby have the opportunity to, and do, hide documents related to the City’s unlawfully expended public resources.

23. Plaintiff alleges the City Attorney and/or City Manager inappropriately and systematically use their positions to withhold or redact documents, cause unjustified claims of attorney client privilege to be made, and otherwise obstruct legitimate Public Records Act requests to serve their interests rather than the public interest in transparency.

24. Plaintiff alleges Defendants City Attorney Stephen Fischer and City Manager Alex Nguyen do not possess the neutrality that is required to perform duties related to the administration of public records requests.

25. Employees or agents or any individual by Defendants Fischer and Nguyen are also not neutral because of the employer-employee or similar relationship that exists, causing biased responses to public records requests instead of the neutrality required under California law.

26. Defendants' dual roles—overseeing public records administration and defending claims arising from public records requests—result in systemic bias.

27. The above-described conflicts systematically frustrate Plaintiff’s and the public’s right to transparent access to public records, violating the California Public Records Act.

28. Plaintiff alleges Defendants have used public resources through the use of staff time, and through public resources to hire outside counsel who bills the City for its services for legal services related to the above described improper purposes.

29. Plaintiff alleges Defendants have and do obstruct public records access as described herein systematically, adversely affecting the public at large. For example, claims of attorney client privilege were used by Defendants to conceal public records at issue in this complaint, and portions thereof, in the City’s possession such as invoices and documents responsive to Plaintiff’s PRA request described in the below Petition.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COMPLAINT
-6-

30. PRA requests made by Plaintiff and others have been met with unjustified delays, excessive redactions, and boilerplate refusals.

31. The unlawful administration of public records requests described herein is caused in substantial part to the non-neutral oversight of public records requests by the City Attorney's Office, or the City Manager’s Office, or both.

32. The allegations herein result in unlawful suppression of political opposition and transparency.

33. Because of Defendants’ systemic maladministration of public records requests, the public is deprived of information that is relevant to the administration of the City of Oxnard.

34. Such conduct necessitates judicial oversight to restore transparency and compliance with statutory and case law mandates.

35. Plaintiff alleges that through the City’s public dissemination of political messaging on October 18, 2024 (e.g. regarding an alleged "$4 million" litigation cost figure, released during campaigning for the November 2024 election in which Aaron Starr was a candidate), the City made this an important public issue. It also constitutes a waiver of attorney-client privilege under Evidence Code § 912 and related law. The attorney-client privilege does not protect communications that are no longer confidential. This public disclosure also triggers heightened public interest under the California Public Records Act.

36. The documents requested by Plaintiff, for which privilege is claimed, were in part created, assembled and used by City staff and/or officials as the basis for the October 18, 2024 press release.

Defendants cannot selectively disclose for political gain and then rely on attorney client privilege to withhold the documents that contain the information supporting Defendants’ public claims aimed at influencing the 2024 election. Public entities may not selectively disclose information for political advantage while withholding the source material on grounds of privilege. Once the City relied on these documents to support public claims about its expenditures, it waived any privilege and assumed the burden to justify nondisclosure with specificity.

37. Plaintiff does not seek to restrain speech but to enjoin the unlawful use of public resources to suppress access to records.

38. Plaintiff alleges that the City department currently in charge of administering and responding 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COMPLAINT
-7-
to Public Records Requests is subject to oversight, and influence of the office of the City Attorney and/or the office of the City Manager.

39. Plaintiff has incurred costs associated with investigating and pursuing this action and has been deprived of access to public information necessary to ensure governmental transparency and accountability.

40. The public interest has been frustrated by Defendants’ actions, including the concealment of documents related to Plaintiff’s herein described PRA request. The public has a right to understand how public resources are being spent in political messaging, and how public resources are spent in the hiding of information that is not convenient to Defendants’ political messaging, and Defendants’ targeted political message during the 2024 election campaign season.

41. The violations described herein are not isolated but constitute a repeated and systemic misuse of governmental authority. As such, ordinary declaratory or injunctive relief would be insufficient.

Court-appointed supervision is necessary to ensure ongoing compliance with legal obligations under the CPRA, which mandates neutral administration and proper review of assertions of attorney client privilege and other asserted bases for nondisclosure of public records.

42. Plaintiff is informed and believes that the City’s department or individual designated for responding to public records requests is the “public records advocate”, Wendy Carlton, but that decision regarding such requests is either wholly, or in material part, reviewed systematically by the offices of Defendants City Manager Alex Nguyen and/or City Attorney Stephen Fischer.

43. Plaintiff alleges that neither the above described Defendants, in their official capacities, nor the staff in their offices can be trusted to continue to oversee or have any influence as to responses and productions in response to public records requests because of the above described bias, personal interests and their involvement in the records they are supposed to be disclosing in a neutral and unbiased manner.

44. Plaintiff alleges that there is no feasible way to obtain neutral and unbiased administration of public records without removal of the above-named Defendants and their staff from administration of public records requests, and without court supervision.

45. The City has a documented history of its failures and similar violations of the public records 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COMPLAINT
-8-
act, including cases in this Court. Past litigation has not prevented Defendants from continuing their same herein described conduct as to public records administration.

46. It would be futile to engage in a negotiation with the Defendants about the removal of Defendants from the administration of public records requests because Defendants have already demonstrated their anti-transparency decision making patterns.

47. There is no other adequate remedy available besides the injunctive relief requested below, to remove administration of public records from Defendants Nguyen, Fischer and their offices.

48. The public interest will be significantly and materially furthered by preventing Defendants’ involvement in public records administration.

49. For these reasons, a judicial order is necessary for the:

A. Removal of the Public Records department or administration of public records from the City Attorney’s Office, from the City Manager’s Office, removal of Defendants Fischer and Nguyen from any involvement with the administration of public records requests.

B. Imposition of independent court-appointed supervision over PRA request administration.

C. Imposition of independent court-appointed supervision over future assertions of attorney-client privilege by the City Attorney’s office and the City Manager’s Office in their responses to public records department or individual requests it oversees.

IV. PETITION TO ENFORCE PUBLIC RECORDS ACT

50. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

51. Plaintiff brings this petition for writ of mandate under Code of Civil Procedure § 1085, seeking to compel compliance with statutory duties under the California Public Records Act, Government Code §§ 7920.000 et seq. Defendant City has a ministerial duty to disclose non-exempt public records in a prompt and transparent manner.

52. Plaintiff has exhausted all administrative remedies available under the CPRA, and no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy exists other than this petition. 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COMPLAINT
-9-

53. On October 25, 2024, Plaintiff completed and filed with defendant agency a written request to inspect or receive copies of the following public records: "I am asking for any and all documents which support the $4M calculation in the October 18, 2024 press release about Aaron Starr, with sufficient detail to identify the nature of the costs they included in the calculation, and the court cases to which the costs relate. Thank you in advance”.

54. Plaintiff’s request reasonably described these records and was made in accordance with defendant agency’s rules stating the time, place and procedures for obtaining “Electronic via Records Center (No Charge. Excluding CUPA Requests)” by using the City’s PRA portal system.

55. A true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s request via the Portal and relevant details from said request are herein attached as Exhibit 1 and made a part thereof.

56. The City maintained these records at the City offices in Oxnard, California.

57. On November 7, 2024, the City responded that the request was still being processed, and anticipated responding to the request on Tuesday, November 12, 2024.

58. On Wednesday, November 13, 2024, the City responded with a letter from public records advocate Wendy Carlton but failed to produce responsive records, but instead produced a list of cases between the City and Mr. Aaron Starr, and invoked attorney client privilege as to the actual requested documents. The file name for said document was “Starr_litigation_list__cpra_request.pdf”, which suggests the document was created only for the purpose of Plaintiff’s PRA request. A true and correct copy of the above described letter and document is attached as Exhibit 2.

59. On November 17, 2024, through the portal, Plaintiff messaged the City “The response to my PRA is incomplete, as it does not include dollar amounts.”

60. On November 19, 2024, the City responded,
Good morning, Mr. Partello,
Allow me to clarify the response previously provided to you: The records provided to you In the Public Record Center include aggregate totals of the legal matters referenced in the press release along with the court cases to which the costs relate.

After review I note use of the words "aggregate totals" implies there would be multiple dollar amounts provided. However, that was not the intention. The record provided reflects the underlying legal matters which relate to the legal costs referenced in the press release, the aggregate total of which is "$4M".

Some of the records that you have requested are exempt from disclosure under Government Code section 7927.705, and Evidence Code section 954. This section exempts records from disclosure that are protected by the attorney-client privilege. 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COMPLAINT
-10-
Sincerely,
Wendy Carlton
Public Records Advocate
City of Oxnard
300 West Third Street
Oxnard, CA 93030

61. On November 22, 2024, Plaintiff responded, “…I did not ask for an aggregate of the total costs. I already have the $4M figure. I would like each case, with the cost to the City for each case.

This request remains unfulfilled. Thank you in advance, Douglas Partello.

62. The City then delayed until December 10, 2024, when it acknowledged Plaintiff’s request, and said it would provide a response by the end of the week.

63. Since no response was received by the end of the week, Plaintiff wrote again to the City on January 2, 2025 the following:
“I just wanted to follow up on your last email, for PRA request O005891-102524, as you stated on December 10, 2024 I should expect a response "by the end of the week".

I just want to reiterate that it is NOT additional information that is being requested, but the information I initially had requested in the PRA request. I look forward to hearing from you soon.”

64. The City acknowledged the above message that same day, and stated that an update would be provided on Monday (January 6, 2025). No response was received until January 9, 2025.

65. On January 9, 2025, the City responded with a letter from the City’s public records advocate, Wendy Carlton, “in consultation with” its attorney Jason Zaragoza from the City Attorney’s Office, with a document similar to Exhibit 2. The document lists various cases, and provides some alleged total dollar amounts, though what constitutes the total is not clear. Redactions were made as to aggregate sums on 3 cases, with the label “Evidence Code 954” and at the bottom of the document, “attorney client privilege” is listed as the City’s grounds for the redactions. This was the only document produced with this January 9, 2025 production. Plaintiff has attached a true and correct copy of said letter response and document production as Exhibit 3.

66. Notably, the January 9, 2025 production indicates on its face a total of $3,861,630 .91, which appears to resemble the allegation the City made publicly, though we don’t know what this total represents. By adding up the unredacted portions provided, there is a “total” of less than 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COMPLAINT
-11-
$2,875,000.00 of presumed litigation fees and costs, without any further detail – a figure far less than “nearly $4 million” the City alleged publicly on October 8, 2024.

67. On March 24, 2025, Plaintiff’s attorney Charles Hamm sent a Demand to the City on the topic of Plaintiff’s PRA request described herein, demanding “immediate disclosure of all responsive records withheld by the City of Oxnard, as detailed in previous correspondence concerning PRA Request # O005891-102524”, as a good faith effort to resolve the matter informally.

68. On the same day, Attorney Jason Zaragoza of the City Attorney’s Office responded that he would be in touch with Plaintiff’s attorney.

69. The City responded 2 days later on March 26, 2025 with a production of records, but they were heavily redacted.

70. Said production consisted of redacted invoices to the City, from the City’s retained law firm Colantuano, Highsmith, & Whatley, PC. Redactions appear to block out the services that were provided, the hours spent, and amount billed for said legal services. The total due under the invoice was not redacted.

71. Plaintiff is entitled to the entire document that is in the possession of the City, in this case invoices. Since the City asserts attorney client privilege, the City must justify the assertion.

72. They can do so through a disclosure such as a privilege log with sufficient detail to know whether the attorney client privilege applies.

73. Defendants provide something at the end of most of its productions in response resembling a privilege log for said redactions but fail to provide any justification for its assertion of the privilege beyond a column entitled “reason” which the City describes as Evidence Code 954, and under its Description column, basically repeating the first column, “Attorney Client Privilege”.

74. Plaintiff has attached a true and correct copy of one of the described redacted invoices provided on March 26, 2025 as Exhibit 4. This exhibit resembles virtually all of the documents produced to date in that the description of the legal services provided is redacted.

75. On 4-9-2025, 4-18-2025, 5-5-2025, 5-20-2025, 6-4-2025, 6-18-2025 and 6-30-2025 the City produced redacted invoices similar to those shown in the above referenced.

76. On June 11, 2025, Plaintiff’s attorney Charles A. Hamm sent another Demand via email 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COMPLAINT
-12-
demanding compliance with the Public Records act, explaining that the above described redactions are not justified, that neither the attorney client privilege, nor any other exemption or exception removes the City’s obligation to disclose these records in their entirety, with no redactions, and that Plaintiff is entitled to disclosure of these records under the Public Records Act [Gov. Code § 7922.525].

77. The City responded to Plaintiff by stating that it is not obligated to disclose invoice details from its attorneys related to matters that are "long concluded," but provided no justification or definition for what constitutes a "long concluded" matter. Plaintiff’s attorney responded by clarifying that redactions are permissible only for invoices related to active or pending matters.

78. The City, “in consultation with” deputy City Attorney Jason Zaragoza, reaffirmed its position on June 30, 2025, again vaguely asserting attorney-client privilege as justification for redacting descriptions of services on all invoices produced to date, that it may selectively disclose invoice totals while withholding the nature of the services performed. The City maintained this position and has not provided any additional justification or clarity. The redactions on documents produced to date are not legally justified. A true and correct copy of the above described response is attached as Exhibit 5.

79. Defendants have a duty to disclose the requested documents without redactions, including invoices.

80. Defendants, to date, have redacted virtually all invoices as described above.

81. Defendants have failed to articulate the required specific facts justifying a claim of attorney client privilege.

82. Plaintiff is entitled to documents containing descriptions of legal services and related information to determine what public services were provided at taxpayer expense.

83. Well over 6 months from the date of Plaintiff’s public records request, Defendants to date have only produced invoices billing under $1,000,000.00.

84. On 6-30-2025, Defendants indicated that Plaintiff’s PRA request was closed through its PRA portals, indicating that no further records would be provided, but confusingly also wrote a letter stating that a “next installment from this request will come from the City's new NextRequest portal”.

85. The City has unreasonably and without justification delayed production of the requested 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COMPLAINT
-13-
documents, far beyond any statutorily required deadline.

86. Plaintiff was at all times herein mentioned ready to tender any funds necessary to cover the City’s costs in providing access to the aforementioned records, though the records are electronic and provided free of charge through the City’s portal.

87. The City has refused to provide Plaintiff with the above-described copies of these records, except as described herein.

88. Plaintiff alleges that many additional documents exist that have not yet been produced, including invoices and possibly other documents.

89. Plaintiff through correspondence sent by his attorney, has attempted to resolve this dispute informally and outside of court.

90. Plaintiff has no adequate remedies at law in that monetary damages will not compensate petitioner for deprivation of access to the information which Plaintiff is seeking. No further administrative procedure is available.

91. Plaintiff has incurred reasonable attorney’s fees in an amount to be proven at trial and seeks recovery of such fees pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5.

V. CAUSES OF ACTION
First Cause of Action: Taxpayer Action for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (Code of Civil Procedure § 526a)
(As to all Defendants)

92. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

93. Defendants have unlawfully spent or will imminently spend public resources on the above alleged wrongful conduct, including but not limited to use of staff time for preparing and disseminating press releases and statements targeting Mr. Starr (and likely others) specifically to influence election outcomes, rather than for neutral public informational purposes, violations of Government Code §§ 3204, 8314, retaliation, and concealment of wrongdoing, and use of staff and staff time for the mismanagement of public records administration (Gov. Code § 7920.000 et seq).

94. Defendants’ use and reliance on the attorney-client privilege to shield from the disclosure of the public resources spent, when Defendants themselves made the disclosure and created a public 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COMPLAINT
-14-
issue is itself a misuse of public resources. Staff time and likely outside counsel billings for the purpose of the herein described assertions of attorney-client privilege constitute further unlawful expenditures.

95. The City’s assertion of attorney-client privilege is waived, and subject to the Evidence Code 912. Defendants have unlawfully spent public resources and funds in a political and litigation campaign against then candidate for City Council, and now City Councilman Aaron Starr, and now seek to hide that activity through the redaction of invoices that are public record. Defendants have their allegations of their October 18, 2024 public release regarding Mr. Starr a public issue, and therefore made the documents supporting also a public issue.

96. Defendants’ assertion of privilege is invalid under Evidence Code § 956 because such privilege was asserted with deliberate intent to conceal fraudulent misuse of taxpayer funds, by intentionally obscuring expenditures unlawfully directed at political opponents, including but not limited to the political campaigning against candidate and councilman Starr (Gov. Code § 8314).

Defendants Nguyen and/or Fischer are materially responsible in their official capacities for the decisions that have been made to as the use of public resources directed against Mr. Starr. Their conflict of interest arises from their decision making as to those expenditures, and subsequent ongoing involvement in expenditures directed at Mr. Starr not only against Mr. Starr, but also to protect their own interests due to the unlawful decisions Defendants have made. Attorney client privilege does not protect against communications that are made for an unlawful purpose.

97. The misuse of public resources is compounded by egregious misconduct and systemic violations of transparency mandates, constituting an ongoing denial of fundamental rights guaranteed by statute and the California Constitution.

98. Plaintiff seeks to enjoin future expenditures described above through any of the following or any combination thereof that is proper: an order for court appointed supervision of public records administration; order the removal of Defendants City Attorney Stephen Fischer and City Manager Alex Nguyen from involvement with public records requests except for those strictly required due to access to their own devices or accounts but with court appointed supervision; and/or orders to enjoin Defendants from further misuse of public funds, systemic violations, from failing to comply with the 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COMPLAINT
-15-
Public Records Act, and denial of fundamental rights.

99. An actual, present, and substantial controversy exists between Plaintiffs and Defendants as to what records or portions of records must be disclosed under the Public Records Act. Plaintiff desires a judicial determination of his rights, as an interested citizen, and defendants’ duties, under the Public Records Act, respecting full disclosure of the public records requested by Plaintiff and through his attorney at issue in this Complaint and Petition.
100. Plaintiff desires a permanent injunction, for defendants to provide plaintiff with copies of the aforementioned records.

Second Cause of Action: California Public Records Act Violations and Petition for Writ of Mandate
(Gov. Code § 7920.000 et seq. and Code of Civil Procedure § 1085) (As to all Defendants)

101. Plaintiff and Petitioner realleges and incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
102. Defendant City has a ministerial duty to disclose the requested public records under the Public Records Act under Gov. Code § 7920.000 et. Seq.
103. Defendant City has violated the PRA by denying, withholding, redacting, or delaying the requested records unlawfully.
104. Defendant City’s conduct constitutes not merely technical noncompliance, but a willful and egregious pattern of obstruction that has resulted in the denial of fundamental rights of access to public records.
105. Oversight and advisory functions related to the PRA program must be ordered and assigned away from the oversight and influence of the City Attorney’s and City Manager’s Office. 106. The PRA program must be administered and overseen by a neutral department of the City of Oxnard, if one exists, or by a competent person to be appointed by the court. 107. Plaintiff seeks a writ of mandate compelling: a) the disclosure of all nonexempt responsive records; (b) privilege log such as a “Vaughn Index” or similarly detailed privilege log identifying withheld documents or redactions; (c) Reassignment of PRA program oversight to a neutral body; (d) Future CPRA compliance under Gov. Code § 7920.000 et. seq. 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COMPLAINT
-16-
VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows:
a. Declaratory Relief – A judgment declaring that: i) Defendants have violated the California Public Records Act; ii) The public records described herein are not exempt, that the attorney client privilege does not apply and must be disclosed under the Public Records Act; and iii) Defendants Alex Nguyen as City Manager and Stephen Fischer as City Attorney are disqualified from performing neutral, transparent oversight or administration of the City’s Public Records Act program.
b. Injunctive Relief – 1) For a permanent injunction, enjoining defendants, and each of them and their agents, servants, and employees, and all persons acting under, in concert with, or for defendants to provide plaintiff with access to or copies of the aforementioned records; Or, In the alternative, if portions of the aforementioned records are found to be confidential, exempt, or subject to privilege, for a permanent injunction, enjoining defendants, and each of them and their agents, servants, and employees, and all persons acting under, in concert with, or for defendants to provide plaintiff with copies of all non-confidential, non-exempt, or those not-subject-to-privilege portions of the above records, after any those portions thereof have been redacted or deleted; 2) A permanent injunction, as follows: i) Appointing a special master or court-approved monitor to oversee the City of Oxnard’s compliance with the following legal obligations:

1. Oversight of attorney-client privilege assertions, including preparation of privilege logs and facilitation of judicial review for any disputed claims of privilege;

2. Oversight of the City’s administration of the California Public Records Act (CPRA) based on repeated and egregious violations of statutory transparency obligations, retaliatory misuse of authority, and ongoing denial of fundamental rights under the CPRA, including:
a. Timely processing of public records requests;
b. Compliance with lawful redaction requirements; and
c. Disclosure of non-exempt materials in accordance with the CPRA; or in the alternative: ii) Permanently enjoining the City Attorney’s Office and City Manager’s Office—including Defendants Stephen Fischer and Alex Nguyen, in their official capacities—from 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COMPLAINT
-17-
participating in, overseeing, or influencing the administration or processing of public records requests, except to the limited extent necessary to respond to requests directed specifically to them in their official capacities and only for ministerial acts. c. For a peremptory writ of mandate to issue directing the City respondents to disclose the public records requested by Petitioner and Plaintiff Douglas Partello as follows:
i. Produce all non-exempt records responsive to Plaintiff’s public records requests; ii. Provide a privilege log justifying any withheld or redacted documents; iii. Assign oversight of the PRA program to an office or official not subject to conflict of interest, or in the alternative to direct all public records administration in accordance with the Court’s injunction (e.g. under a special master); and iv. Comply with all future requests in conformity with the timelines and disclosure requirements under the CPRA.
d. Attorney’s Fees - An award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5, Government Code § 7923.115, and any other applicable authority. e. Prevailing party status – awarded based on Plaintiff’s successful enforcement of rights under the California Public Records Act, which confers a significant benefit upon the public, regardless of whether structural or broader injunctive relief related to oversight of public records administration is granted.
f. Additional Relief - Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper to ensure compliance with the law and the enforcement of lawful public spending and transparency obligations.
g. Court to retain jurisdiction - Plaintiff further requests the Court retain continuing jurisdiction over this matter to ensure ongoing compliance and implementation of the relief ordered herein.

DATED:_____________ Law Office of Charles A. Hamm
By: ___________________________
Charles A. Hamm

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

COMPLAINT
-18-

VERIFICATION
I, Douglas Partello , am the Plaintiff in the above-entitled action. I have read the foregoing Complaint and Petition and know the contents thereof. The same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on ___________________, at Oxnard, California.

_____________________________
Douglas Partello
07/10/2025

Finance & Governance CommitteeMarch 24, 2026

Finance & Governance Committee
March 24, 2026