From:Michael Harrington
To:Kristie Ramos, CMC
Subject:Written Public Comment – City Treasurer’s Quarterly Report (Agenda Item 5D, Feb 5, 2026) Date:Tuesday, February 3, 2026 1:54:43 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside The City of Rancho Mirage. DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
External sender
Make sure you trust this sender before taking any actions.
I am submitting this comment regarding expenditures reflected in the City Treasurer’s quarterly report associated with the Rancho Mirage Writers Festival (RMWF).
Based on the quarterly report, check registers, and publicly available information, the city paid a substantial number of expenses related to this event, including numerous line items identified under the “RMWF” notation. These include high-dollar payments — in some cases approximately $10,000 per check — issued to speaker bureaus for individual authors, as well as additional costs such as printing and other event-related expenses.
According to reporting by The Desert Sun (Brian Bluesky, Jan. 13, 2026), the Rancho Mirage Writers Festival is a three-day event held entirely at the Rancho Mirage Library & Observatory. All in-person sessions require festival credentials, seating is restricted to ticket holders, and tickets reportedly cost approximately $500 for a three-day pass. Parking at the public library is valet-only during the event, and general library access is effectively displaced for the duration of the festival.
Additional reporting by Desert Insider (Jan. 2026) states that the event routinely sells out within minutes and that livestreaming was introduced to accommodate those unable to obtain tickets or attend in person. This indicates that livestreaming functions as a response to capacity limits and exclusivity, rather than evidence that the event was designed primarily to provide broad public access.
These facts raise serious questions regarding whether the city’s expenditures meet the legal requirement that public funds be used for a legitimate public purpose. A ticketed, sold-out event with a high price barrier, controlled and branded by a private nonprofit, and held in a taxpayer-funded library facility appears to primarily benefit a private organization and a limited group of paying attendees rather than the public at large. This may also raise concerns under the state’s “gift of public funds or property” law, which generally prohibits city resources or facilities from being used to benefit private entities without a demonstrable public purpose.
While livestreaming may expand the audience globally, content available to “readers everywhere” on YouTube provides a diffuse and non-local benefit that does not clearly justify the use of local tax dollars. Moreover, the city’s expenditures supported the in-person, exclusive components of the festival — including speaker fees and physical use of the public library — not merely the broadcast of content.
The number, size, and nature of the payments listed under abbreviated descriptions such as “RMWF,” along with partial identification of speakers, also raise concerns about transparency, oversight, and the public’s ability to readily understand the scope and purpose of these expenditures.
Additionally, public reporting indicates that the nonprofit’s founder or their life partner has made campaign contributions to some council members.
While such contributions may be lawful, this overlap heightens the importance of disclosure, recusal, and clear safeguards to avoid actual or apparent conflicts of interest when discretionary public funds are involved.
Taken together, these circumstances raise the possibility of:
Misuse of public funds where private benefit predominates Failure to satisfy the public-purpose requirement for municipal
expenditures
Potential breach of fiduciary duty to taxpayers
Inadequate transparency and internal controls
An appearance of favoritism inconsistent with ethical governance standards
I respectfully request clarification on the following points:
1. The specific public purpose justifying the city’s financial support of this ticketed, restricted-access event
2. The total amount of city funds expended in connection with RMWF
3. Whether a written contract, grant agreement, lease, or reimbursement arrangement exists
4. Whether the city received fair value, public access, or measurable local benefit in exchange
5. What conflict-of-interest disclosures or recusals were required or implemented
6. How this use of the public library aligns with library policies and standard city practices
Clear answers to these questions are essential to maintaining public trust and ensuring that taxpayer funds are used in a lawful, transparent, and accountable manner.
Thank you for including this comment in the public record.
Mike Harrington