Formal Demand for Independent Audit, Public Written Reporting, and Charter Compliance - City Homeless Programs
For public comment FEB 3 2026 px5:26
RECD CIIY CLERKS OFF.
Dear Honorable Mayor, Members of the city Council City Manager, City Attorney and City Treasurer,
This letter constitutes an urgent demand that the City Council of the City of Redondo Beach immediately fulfill its non-delegable fiduciary, statutory, and Cha rter- mandated oversig ht responsi bi lities rega rdi ng a I I City prog ra ms addressing homelessness, including funding, expenditures, staffing, credit card usage, program administration, and legal compliance.
At this time, I am not making a formal allegation of criminal or civil impropriety. However, the conduct described herein clearly rises to the level of serious and objectively questionable concerns requiring immediate scrutiny, written documentation, and independent verification.
Failure to act at this stage exposes the City to avoidable legal, financial, reg ulatory, and reputational liability.
I clraDTEQ- rr^ND-ATED FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT
A. City Treasurer Duties - Charter Article lX, 5 9O5
Pursuant to Redondo Beach City Charter, Article lX, Section 9O5, the City Treasurer is required to:
1. Disburse moneys only upon demands properly audited and approved in the manner provided by Charter or ordinance; and
2. Prepare and submit monthly written reports of all receipts, disbursements, and fund balances to the City Clerk, with copies filed with the City Manager.
For public comment
For public comment
These duties exist to ensure expenditures are documented, auditable, and transparent. Reliance on verbal assurances in place of written documentation is inconsistent with the Charter and undermines lawful fiscal governance.
Under Article lV of the City Charter, the City Council retains ultimate legislative and fiscal authority. This fiduciary duty is non-delegable and cannot be satisfied through silence, inaction, or reliance on undocumented representations by staff.
California courts are explicit:
1. Stanson v. Mott ( 1976) 17 Cal.3d 206 - Public funds may not be expended without clear legal authority and documented justification.
2. City of Long Beach v. Bozek ( 1982) 3l Cal.Sd 527 - Public officials act as trustees of public funds and remain accountable despite delegation.
II. CITY ATTORNEY DUTIES AND LIMITS
Citlr Aftorney Role - Charter Article Vlll, 5 8O2
Under Redondo Beach City Charter, Article Vlll, Section 8O2, the City Attorney serves as legal advisor to the Council and City officers. That role does not include unilateral program control, budgetary discretion, or exemption from Council oversight.
The City Attorney is obligated to provide accurate, complete information and to ensure compliance with financial, labor, and transparency laws. Failure to do so places the City at risk.
III. FAILURE TO PROVIDE WRITTEN, PUBLICLY AVAILABLE REPORTS Despite repeated public statements, the City Attorney' s Office has failed to provide written reports to the Council detailing:
l. Homeless program grants and restrictions;
B. Council Fiduciary Duty - Charter Article lV 5g 4Ol-4O4
2. Expenditure authorization and accounting;
3. Credit card policies and usage;
4. Staffing levels, overtime, and compensation; and
5. Program outcomes and performance metrics.
Such reports must be in writing and available to the public, consistent with the California Public Records Act ( Cov. Code 5 6250 et seq.) and the Brown Act Cov. Code 5 54950 et seq.). The government cannot lawfully function on undocumented verbal assurances.
rv. sPEctFrc FAcTs RArsrNG QUESTTONABLE CONCERNS
The specific acts described below are only a small sampling of the questionable conduct that has come to light. They are provided as illustrative examples- not an exhaustive list.
A. Homeless Court Grant - Lack of Written Accounting
At a publicly noticed meeting, verified via video review, of the former Public Safety Commission, the Assistant City Attorney announced receipt of a grant to "fund" the City's Homeless Court program.
When questioned regarding allowable uses of the funds-salaries, reimbursements, City or County resources-the Assistant City Attorney stated she did not know and committed to returning with that information.
No written or verbal follow- up was ever provided. The City Attorney failed to attend any further meetings or send a representative.
B. Non- Professional Mental Health lntervention
At a community meeting, in an attempt to sing praises of the City's Homeless Coordinator' s dedication, the Assistant City Attorney described a homeless client suffering depression and emotional distress. Rather than referral to I icensed mental- hea lth professiona ls, City staff alleged ly facilitated attendance at a Disneyland event with the Coordinator as a therapeutic response, with the Homeless Coordinator accompanying the individual.
C. Credit Card Usage - Gov. Code 5 8314
Public Records Act disclosures show the Homeless Coordinator uses a City-issued credit card to make purchases for unidentified individuals without a clearly articulated written policy or audit trail, implicating Covernment Code S 83]4 (misuse of public resources).
D. Compensation and FLSA Exposure
The City Attorney has indicated in public forums that the Homeless Coordinator works extensive hours, sometimes without compensation. These admissions place the Council on actual notice of potential Fair Labor Standards Act ( 29 U.S.C. 5 2Ol et seq.) violations.
E. Staffing Expansion Despite Questionable Data
Recent disclosures suggest homeless population counts may have been overstated, yet an additional homeless- related position was created with compensation exceeding that of long-tenured City employees in skilled trades-without verified data or written justification.
V. NOTICE OF COMPLAINTS AND NEED FOR INTERNAL INVESTIGATION ln light of this fact, it would be prudent, responsible, and legally necessary for the City to conduct its own internal investigation and independent audits to:
l. ldentify any improprieties;
2. Locate responsible individuals, if any;
3. Ensure compliance with law, policy, and professional standards; and
4. Correct deficiencies before external scrutiny results in public embarrassment, enforcement action, or litigation.
This raises serious concerns regarding scope of employment, use of City resources, and failure to refer to qualified professionals-conduct that exposes the City to foreseeable liability.
Multiple complaints concerning Redondo Beach's homeless-program operations and City employee conduct have reportedly been submitted to law enforcement agencies and regulatory offices. There have been allegations of violations of laws.
Failure to act after notice risks a finding of deliberate indifference, a standard recognized in California law as a basis for municipal liability.
VI. CITY TREASURER REPRESENTATIONS AND HEIGHTENED FIDUCIARY
EXPECTATIONS
The current City Treasurer publicly represents on the City' s website that he possesses professional experience in finance and risk management.
Those representations reasonably create a heightened expectation of diligence, independent judgment, and proactive compliance oversight in matters involving public funds. ln light of this stated expertise, continued inaction-or failure to advise the City Council of clear fiduciary and audit obligations- may reasonably be questioned and scrutinized.
Public officials who hold themselves out as possessing specialized expertise may be held to correspondingly higher standards of care in the performance of their Cha rte r- m a nd ated duties.
VII. RISK OF COUNCIL AND TREASURER INDIFFERENCE
At this point, continued inaction by the City Council and failure by the City Treasurer to insist on Charter-mandated audits and written reports may reasonably be construed as indifference to known risks.
Once on notice, indifference itself becomes actionable.
VIII. FORMAL DEMAND
Accordingly, I formally demand that the City Council:
1. Order an independent forensic audit of all homeless- related programs and funding;
2. Require comprehensive written reports, made publicly available, detailing:
o All grants and funding sources;
o Expenditures and reimbursements;
o Credit card usage and controls;
o Staffing, overtime, and compensation;
o Cit5r Attorney time allocation, and
o Program outcomes;
3. lnitiate an internal investigation to address complaints and compliance concerns;
4. Ensure that persons assigned to the Homeless project and their supervisors have clear and concise job descriptions with direction on fiscal responsibilities.
5. Ensure that staff are aware that that any person that is in need of mental health services be immediately referred to the proper agency and that the documentation of the referral be maintained;
6. Place this matter on a publicly noticed City Council agenda pursuant to the Brown Act;
7. Direct preservation of all related records pursuant to records- retention and litigation-hold obligations; and
8. Cease reliance on undocumented verbal assurances in matters involving public funds.
IX. NOTICE OF EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION
Due to the documented indifference to prior requests of this nature, copies of this correspondence will be provided to externaloversight and public-information entities, including but not limited to:
l. The United States Attorney' s Office
2. The Los Angeles County District Attorney' s Office
3. Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health
4. The Los Angeles Times
5. The Doily Breeze
6. Eosy Reoder
7. Relevant City-related and civic social media and public-interest platforms
This step is taken not to sensationalize, but to ensure transparency, accountability, and preservation of the public record in light of ongoing inaction.
Transparency, accountability, and prompt corrective action protect taxpayers, protect employees, and protect the City itself.
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk
Cc: Joy Ford; James Light; [email protected]; Scott Behrendt; Zein Obagi; Paige Kaluderovic; Brad Waller; Chadwick B. Castle; Kevin Cody; Marc Wiener; Sean Scully; [email protected] Subject: RBCC 2-3-26 Non-Agenda Blue Folder Item - Zoning Protections Presentation # 1 (BCHD Prospect Ave Site) Date: Tuesday, February 3, 2026 3:30:34 PM
Attachments: Slide1.PNG
Slide2.PNG
Slide3.PNG
Slide4.PNG
Slide5.PNG
Slide6.PNG
Slide7.PNG
RBCC 2-3-26 Blue Folder Item - Non-Agenda. pdf
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
The attached blue folder item is relevant for tonight's non-agenda item discussion. It represents the baseline site features of the buildings on the public owned site underlying BCHD and sets the stage for the negative impacts on the $11.2B in residential property (over 6,000 households and 15,000 residents) within the diminished value one- mile radius of the BCHD parcel.