<![CDATA[Anonymous Mommy - Blog]]>Sat, 06 Jun 2026 11:15:51 -0700Weebly<![CDATA[Cesar Morales loses election bid after fiscal malfeasance is revealed]]>Fri, 05 Jun 2026 23:05:56 GMThttps://www.anonymousmommy.com/blog/cesar-morales-loses-election-bid-after-fiscal-malfeasance-is-revealedPolitely speaking, I believe for some ... this might be referred to as the (EARMUFFS) fuck around and find out phase.
I had prepared this writeup originally to send as an email to the Fiscal Crisis Management Assistance Team (FCMAT) leadership, given VC Superintendent César Morales is (or was) the chair of the board. However, I was told by a FCMAT board member that the FCMAT board received César's resignation this afternoon (June 5).

That said, I think the way I laid it might be helpful for folks to really clearly understand the full picture in a straightforward way, especially if you haven't been keeping up or are trying to explain to someone why this isn't just a case of "administrative procedural mistakes."

Now, before I dig into that, here's where we currently stand.

As of the latest batch of election results published on June 4, César Morales remains in third place. Current vote counts:

  • Karen Sher: 51,755 (40.06%.)
  • Maggie Marschner: 43,181 (33.42%)
  • César Morales:  34,259 (26.52%)

For this seat, if a candidate doesn't receive 50% + 1 vote majority in the primary, then the top two candidates advance to the general election. For those who have asked, I am supporting Karen Sher for this seat. There are still approx. 86,000 ballots that remain to be counted per the County and the next vote update will be on June 9 at approx.  3 p.m. You can review voting results via VC Elections.

Since election night, César Morales has unpublished his campaign website, turned off comments on his Instagram, and, I was told, did not show up to work the day after the election, along with most of his cabinet (executive) staff. 

​If you want to refresh yourself on everything, or are new, I got you.

In recent weeks, after numerous allegations were raised about a toxic workplace culture, inappropriate workplace relationships and misappropriation of funds, the following has been uncovered:

Violations, at minimum, of  ed codes (state law) EDC § 1209, 1302(a) and 1302(b), violation of the California Public Records Act, and questionable use of taxpayer funds for public gifts.

Let’s break it down.

EDC § 1209 VIOLATION
"A county superintendent of schools shall not increase his or her salary, financial remuneration, benefits, or pension in any manner or for any reason without bringing the matter to the attention of the county board of education for its discussion at a regularly scheduled public meeting of the board and without the approval of the county board of education."

On May 15, 2026, César Morales admitted to giving himself an undisclosed 5% payment in November 2024 — an amount of $15,750. He only disclosed this after legal intervention from the board of education ensued when I elevated concerns to the board.  This was not only confirmed in a statement he published, but also independently confirmed by both the VC Star and VC Reporter, and  then elevated by Ed Source. Additionally, payroll records I have since received confirm this payment occurred. This payment was not brought to the board for discussion nor approval and is in direct violation of state law. I will explore the nature of this payment further down.

Relevant coverage:
He has since removed the statement he published to the VCOE website on May 15, admitting this payment, but I’ve attached an image of it here. Although requests were submitted that the statement also be produced in Spanish, that never happened — despite his ability to produce his campaign statements in both English and Spanish without issue.

I also take issue with the passivity of the statement. César did not "receive" a stipend. He gave himself a bonus — a nearly $16,000 undisclosed bonus from funds that were negotiated to support the represented employees (teachers, paraeducators, etc.) This statement does not reflect true accountability. It was not an administrative or clerical error. The act was intentional.
Picture
EDC § 1302 (a) VIOLATION
(a) The county superintendent of schools shall not increase by ten thousand dollars ($10,000) or more the salary or bonus of any employee of the county office of education unless the matter is brought to the attention of the county board of education for its discussion at a regularly scheduled public meeting of the county board of education.

Since César’s appointment to VC Superintendent of Schools in April 2021, he granted several of his executive employees one-time off schedule payments that exceeded $10,000. These were not reported to the board for disclosure first, as per 1302.

A note about these payments. These payments were not retroactive payments based on negotiated salary increases. These were separate one-time off schedule payments that had been negotiated by the bargaining units (unions) to support the represented employees, in the event that VCOE was able to identify carryforward funds after the books closed. The VCOE signees on the bargaining contracts were César's deputy superintendent of fiscal services, Misty Key, and his assistant superintendent of Human Resources, Juan Santos. VCOE successfully identified carryforward funds three consecutive years in a row (2022, 2023 and 2024). 

While not a past practice of superintendents previous to César as it relates to one-time payments, it appears that César took the “me too” approach with these payments, extending them to all cabinet level and director level staff. As it relates to his cabinet staff, four of his cabinet folks had payments that exceeded $10,000 in both 2022 and 2024. Cabinet staff do not have “me too” language specified in their employment contracts, and as you can imagine, there has been significant concern around the judgment of such a payment for executives making $270k, when these payments were negotiated for the union represented teachers, paraeducators, support personnel, etc.

Cabinet Staff (Deputy, Associate and Assistant Superintendents)

2022 “Other Pay” Amounts (4% off-cycle payment)
  • Misty Key: $10,304.04
  • Lisa Salas Brown: $10,080
  • Consuelo Williams: $10,080
  • Juan M. Santos: $8,040
  • Emily Mostovoy- Luna: $10,080

2024 “Other Pay” Amounts (5% off-cycle payment)
  • Cesar Morales: $15,750
  • Misty Key: $15,120
  • Lisa Salas Brown: $14,175
  • Consuelo Williams: $14,175
  • Juan M. Santos: $13,860

This doesn’t even include director-level staff, many of whom received the 4% payment in 2022, another 4% payment in 2023, and the 5% payment in 2024. Due to salaries of director-level staff, several of these payments also exceeded that $10,000 threshold. Now, cabinet staff did not receive the 2023 4% payment … and I have a theory on that which I’ll get to shortly. This data can be confirmed not only by Transparent California reporting, but as the result of the payroll records I have obtained for cabinet staff.

In addition to these one-time payments, salaries for these individuals increased significantly as well. Each time that deputy superintendent of fiscal services Misty Key (also a contracted consultant for FCMAT) successfully negotiated a raise on César’s behalf — his cabinet staff, whose salary is tied to his based on allocated percentages — also received significant pay raises.

In 2021, upon his appointment, César landed a starting salary, with the help of data provided by Misty Key to the board, of $280,000. This was an approximately $34,000 increase in base salary from the previous superintendent. In 2023, a raise was advocated once more, increasing his pay by another 4.2% to $292,000. And then again, in 2024, he received a 7.8% raise, taking his pay to $315,000. While ultimately, the board shoulders responsibility for approving César’s salary, I believe that data manipulation occurred that skewed the comparison data presented to the board, which influenced the board to increase salary compensation.

His cabinet members have salaries tied to his as follows:
  • Deputy Superintendent: 92% of superintendent pay (increased to 96% of superintendent pay in November 2023 employment contract)
  • Associate Superintendent: 92% of superintendent pay
  • Assistant Superintendent: 88% of superintendent pay​

Because of the structure of these contracts, these individuals saw large increases in base salary between 2021-current (upwards of $30-45,000 annual increases overall). This was never disclosed to the board. Many director level positions also saw base salary increases that exceeded $10,000, with some folks seeing pay increases as high as 40-50% between 2020-2024 (data period avail via Transparent California.)

Again, never disclosed to the board.

Now you may be thinking, what's the big deal? If he didn't have to get board approval, is it really a problem that he didn't disclose it? Transparency and accountability are all we have here, when the position is structured this way. Arguably, it's even worse that none of this was properly disclosed to the board, or the public, in a completely transparent way. Yes, as superintendent and sole employer of VCOE, he can make these salary decisions ... but we, as the voters, get to decide if we like the decisions he is making, and the way in which he is using taxpayer funds. That's why the disclosure part of this state law is so important.

When the cabinet (exec) staff is compared to that of similar size county offices of ed, here is what is called out:

By 2025 VCOE has:
  • Superintendent
  • 2 Deputy Superintendents
  • Associate Superintendent
  • 2 Assistant Superintendents
all clustered between approximately $277k and $314k.
That is a very robust executive tier for an office of VCOE's size.

​VCOE appears elevated:
  • Multiple cabinet positions are paid at levels approaching large-county compensation.
  • The spread between superintendent and deputies is unusually narrow.
  • Additional executive classifications were added between 2020 and 2025.
  • Cabinet compensation grew faster than most of the organization.
  • Cabinet benefits appear richer than what many peer agencies provide.
EDC § 1302 (b) VIOLATION
(b) The county superintendent of schools shall not increase the retirement benefits of any employee of the county office of education unless the matter is brought to the attention of the county board of education for its discussion at a regularly scheduled public meeting of the county board of education and the county board of education approves the increase.

It was also discovered that in November 2023, César, instead of giving the cabinet folks the 4% off schedule payment other staff received, updated their contracts to grant them and their spouses lifetime benefits. During this contract update (when employment contracts had just been re-signed six months earlier), he also increased his deputy superintendent of fiscal services’ (Misty Key) salary from 92% to 96% of his salary. Given that Key is also César’s fiancée, I think there is a lot of explaining to do here.

VCOE has not offered lifetime benefits since 1997, and this is clearly documented and stated in interim and budget reports. There are currently 13 remaining retirees who retired in 1996 and are grandfathered into lifetime benefits. Outside of that, no current employees are eligible for these benefits — and that is phrasing specifically outlined in the budget reports, tied to Fund 17 - Postemploymental Benefits fund. That same fund, during this timeframe, saw $3 million of transfers in — despite no liabilities or expenditures against it, and a reducing retiree pool with access to these benefits. All this, while leadership laid off most of the curriculum department and several long-time support staff, citing “lack of funding” and declining enrollment.

On the conservative side, lifetime benefits paid out for 10 folks over a period of 25-30 years could have very well surpassed $9 million+ of taxpayer funds (based on today's insurance rates).

This was never disclosed to the board, nor brought forth for approval.
​​
Relevant coverage:
Now, the theory here, is that the cabinet staff NOT taking the one time payment in 2023, after it was granted for the represented employees, was strategic. It's believed that when cabinet staff received the first payment of 4% in 2022, it ruffled some feathers, raised some eyebrows among staff that felt that it wasn't appropriate. To dodge some of that scrutiny, the cabinet staff laid low in 2023, not taking the payment. And that's when, instead, their employment contracts were being quietly updated with lifetime benefits. Then, in 2024, after some of the initial stir over the 2022 payment had calmed down, they took part in the 2024 one time payment. And, at that time, César was bold enough to give it to himself as well ... hoping and assuming that because everyone was getting "something," people would be distracted.

SO WHAT HAPPENED WHEN IT ALL CAME OUT
As I was able to confirm the above and publish it, and have elevation support from local media, the board of education was working on their end to address the serious nature of these acts.

On May 26, at the VCOE Board of Education meeting, the board of education voted to move forward on a full audit and investigation of finances under César’s administration. An ad hoc committee was formed, which includes trustees Mike Teasdale and Richard Lucas, who will make recommendations on consultants and auditors who will manage the investigation. You can read about the meeting, via VC Star, and here, via the Thousand Oaks Acorn. You can also read the Acorn's editorial on this.

And while César, in a prepared statement, said that his actions had no fiscal impact because he had returned the bonus and had “voided” the lifetime benefits … arguably, there is significant financial impact. Not only did the return of these monies and cancellation of benefits happen by forced hand, they didn’t come for free. Taxpayers are funding legal counsel separately for both the Board of Education and for César, and will now be funding the investigation that must result. And let's not forget the folks whose jobs were eliminated while leadership was secretly stashing away millions to fund their lifetime benefits.

Further, while he has since “voided” the benefits and informed his staff accordingly, time will tell if any of these executives pursue legal options based on signed employment contracts and promises.
Picture
TO GIFT OR NOT TO GIFT
Each year, VCOE has an annual staff gathering. Under previous superintendent administrations, staff would receive a simple mug or simple water tin, with the VCOE logo on it. This changed drastically under César. Significant swag items were purchased that were also branded largely with César’s name.

In 2025-26 Fiscal Year, based on the PO list I obtained from VCOE, here are at least two purchase orders that caught my eye related to this event.

Thompsons Jewelry
Pg 128 of 145
SITE 0930
All Staff Gathering 2026
Fund 010-5800
$51,399.56

Amicolor
PG 138 of 145
SITE 0930
2026 All Staff Gathering
FUND 010-5800
$48,678.10

A few questions I have. Current VCOE employees have stated they believe about 35-40 employees celebrated anniversaries this year. On anniversary years, these employees receive two gifts. This year, they had the option of picking a pendant (see attached pictures I was sent). And separately, they’re allowed to go to the online VCOE store and pick a second item. In addition, ALL employees have been receiving “swag bags” each year. The vendor used for a lot of VCOE branded swag, is Amicolor, Inc. As you will note on the PO descriptions above, both of these are specific to the 2026 all staff gathering.

It appears that these gifts costs nearly $100,000. But here’s where it gets more curious. There was a lot of online criticism about César’s habit for putting his name on all items, ahead of annual staff day. Employees said 600 bags of swag items were placed on chairs, only for César to demand they be removed ahead of the event. No one received swag bags, and to date, we do not know what happened with all of this swag. In the past, swag has included umbrellas, yeti cups, picnic blankets, lunch coolers, totes, journals and beyond. (See sampling of photos sent for reference.) As it relates to the jewelry purchase, there is some confusion there. If it is specific to the pendants that approx. 40 employees received, how did this total $52,000? We have also discussed concerns of using these funds and swag items as a means of electioneering. What better way to establish name recognition than to use thousands of tax-payer dollars to brand items and signage with your name?

Just to help provide some context on public employee recognition. I spoke to a local school district whose staff size is 2.5x the size of VCOE staff. This year, that local district had 196 employees that celebrated work anniversaries. The district spent $18,000 on plaques/framed certificates.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Separately, I believe the relationship between Cesar Morales, and his deputy superintendent of fiscal services, Misty Key, warrants discussion. When folks raised concern to César about potential conflicts of interest related to his relationship with the #2 person at VCOE, he responded by stating that legal counsel advised him there was no conflict so long as he didn’t directly evaluate her work. First, are we to believe that even if he thought she was doing a poor job, he would fire his fiancée? On its face, that’s preposterous. Second, employment contracts aren’t tied to performance, but strictly to a percentage of César’s pay … which begs the question on just how evaluations are administered. But he’s the sole employer. He can do “whatever” he wants, and he said it himself.

But here’s the bigger issue. As a result of this alleged legal consultation, César’s solution was to promote associate superintendent Lisa Salas Brown to a second deputy superintendent role. For a Class III county, this executive administration is not only top-heavy in personnel, but aggressively compensated compared to similar peers. This relationship directly led to a significant promotion and pay increase for another employee. César also has not one, but two assistants. And also created a duplicative role in HR for his friend and current HR Superintendent Juan Santos — whose own actions have resulted in several districts no longer participating in all-county HR meetings, citing inappropriate comments and behavior perpetuated by Santos.

That aside, the relationship itself has the potential to expose VCOE to significant liability should it sour. What would stop Key from pursuing legal means or claiming retaliation if any negative job impacts were to occur during César’s tenure should the relationship face difficulties?
TO FRAUD OR NOT TO FRAUD ...
When I was reviewing the FCMAT website last night, I happened to come across their presentations page on their website. I was very interested to see that they have a presentation on fraud. 

In the presentation, they cite certain categories of fraud, including "GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS OR BENEFITS FRAUD" and "EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES FRAUD." Now, I'm not alleging anything ... I'm just sharing information. Here are some of the slides from that presentation.
KEEP IT SECRET, KEEP IT SAFE?
When these allegations were first brought to me, I filed a PRA request on April 21 seeking payroll data and employment contracts for cabinet staff.

I didn't receive my first response until May 5 (past the 10-day response period as stated by law). And, I only received this response because I escalated it to the VC Board of Education.  After that, César — instead of reassuring his board and providing them with the data to disprove the allegations — lawyered up, told his staff the devil was after him, and asked for prayers.

Additionally, César's fiancée, Misty, told staff they were going to "find the mole" that was "leaking" me all of the information. There were also rumors that staff were being asked to turn over their text messages. Real morale boosters, if ya ask me!

On May 5, when Misty responded to my PRA, she indicated that they would need 14 more days to review it. 14 days came and went, without a response. I attempted several followups, without response. Finally, I once again looped in the board of education. As a result, trustee Richard Lucas took a day off of work, on May 22, and went to VCOE, and sat there for eight hours, insisting they fill my PRA request. Eventually, their hand was forced and they turned over some of the data, which included salary schedules ... and most importantly, the employment contracts!

That was a dramatic day. Richard called me in the morning to ask if I had received a response, to which I indicated no, I had not. I'm getting messages from folks a half hour later that he was at the office having an "elevated" conversation with VCOE's director of comms, Dave Schermer, by the front lobby. He had to stake out, and work from one of the offices there, while forcing their hand. Because he is a trustee, he has authority to have access to this data immediately — he doesn't need a PRA request, so they couldn't ignore him in the way they were me.

When I heard he was there, I texted: DON'T LEAVE WITHOUT THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS.

This was not part of their plan, I'll tell you that.

After a group of local superintendents called César earlier that week to rescind their endorsement,  I was told that he had admitted to those superintendents that he had given lifetime benefits as a "retention" tool, when they grilled him on the allegations.  Yeah ... he knew what we would find would be a pretty big problem if we ever got our hands on it. I was told that he declared to those around him that I would have to take him to court to get the employment contracts.

I don't believe we would have gotten this information before the election, let alone without legal recourse, until well after the primary.

I'm told that folks in the office heard Juan complaining: "There go my lifetime benefits," after it all went down.

It was that evening that I released that information, publicly. Folks were doing backflips to try and defend César's undisclosed bonus ... but how would these folks feel now, learning about the lifetime benefits?

The following week, VCOE at first refused to fill the remainder of my request (which included compensation records and purchase orders). Then, they pretended they were going to fill it and had me drive down to the office to pick up ... another set of the same records I had already received from them on Friday. At this point, I was done with the game playing and informed them that I would use every legal avenue at my disposal if necessary. The remainder of the requested documents were magically ready for me the next morning.

If you have nothing to hide ... why are you making it so hard for the public to access records that fall under the California Public Records Act? Why are you releasing statements saying you are committed to transparency while intentionally hiding information from the public?

And why is your fiancée sending thinly veiled threats via email?
Picture
Beyond all of this, I would be really interested to learn more about the cabinet floor renovation César allegedly commissioned. I'm told that the renovation included new or office expansions for all cabinet folks, as well as significant expansion of his office, and the addition of a private kitchen just for cabinet staff. 

If you're wondering why I started researching César, it actually had nothing to do with any of this. There had long been multiple allegations of sexual harassment against César and I felt I wanted to get a better understanding of those allegations, especially in the aftermath of the Eric Swalwell revelations. I believe the survivors. And as I spoke to them, I was connected to additional individuals — now having surpassed some 60 folks (former and current VCOE employees) and education leaders county wide — that ultimately revealed the concerns covered in this piece.

I believe these findings are just the tip of the iceberg. While there is much to be uncovered, thanks to the brave whistleblowers that trusted me with this information, board of education members who took these concerns seriously (Rachel Ulrich, Mike Teasdale, Richard Lucas), and media who helped elevate the news once it broke ... voters had the opportunity to vote informed this election season.

Had this gone unnoticed ... César Morales, and those who conspired with him, could have successfully diverted millions of the dollars away from students into their bank accounts. 

Voters spoke up clearly: it's time for César — and anyone who participates in fiscal malfeasance — to go. 
]]><![CDATA[VC Superintendent César Morales' actions trigger financial investigation at the VC Office of Ed]]>Thu, 28 May 2026 03:13:36 GMThttps://www.anonymousmommy.com/blog/vc-superintendent-cesar-morales-actions-trigger-financial-investigation-at-the-vc-office-of-ed​Hot Dog. Lots of updates since my first blog on issues related to lack of transparency, undisclosed payments and a toxic work environment under the leadership of César Morales, the current VC Superintendent of Schools.
 
I’m going to pick up where I left off in the first blog, and also cover what took place at the VCOE Board Meeting on May 26. If you don’t need the updates since you follow me on social, just scroll down until you hit the BOARD MEETING PALOOZA section. For those who asked for the updates in blog format, got you. Please tolerate typos. Most of this was written at like 1 a.m.
Let’s start with the big ones. Since the publication of my first blog on May 12 (Facebook posts aside), César Morales had a statement admitting the nondisclosure of a 5% bonus quietly uploaded on the VCOE website late in the evening of May 15. This only happened because legal intervention occurred and essentially forced his hand.
 
Full text of statement below:
 
Dear Ventura County Community,
I am writing to address a matter that recently came to my attention regarding a one-time stipend I received in or around November 2024. All Ventura County Office of Education staff, including members of my cabinet, also received stipends in varying amounts based on annual salaries. I have since learned, however, that the stipend specific to the County Superintendent should have been submitted to the Board of Education for review and approval prior to being issued, and that process did not occur.
 
I have paid the stipend I received back to VCOE in full.
 
I will also work with the Ventura County Board of Education to implement steps to ensure this does not happen again. I am sharing this information to be fully transparent, to acknowledge the error, and to reaffirm my commitment to accountability and sound governance.
 
I appreciate your understanding and patience as we work through this matter and take the necessary corrective actions.
 
Sincerely,
Dr. César Morales, Ventura County Superintendent of Schools
Picture
WHERE EXACTLY IS THE ACCOUNTABILITY?

I find this statement shirking true accountability and problematic for several reasons:
 
  • First, when he uses the phrasing "I received," ... I want to be clear that it's not like someone else gave him the bonus and he received it unaware of the process. He is the sole employer of VCOE. He gave himself this bonus. This was not a passive action. He was not a passive recipient. This was directed action.
  • Second, these are not stipends. He has a cell phone stipend. He has an auto/mileage stipend. He already gets an additional $3,600 a year for those. And guess what? Stipends are board-approved. This is not that. This was a one-time off schedule payment negotiated by the bargaining units (unions) for the represented employees. Those negotiations resulted in VCOE granting a 5% one-time off schedule payment to represented employees. (This was actually the third consecutive year that an off-schedule payment was granted). Morales wants to act like he didn’t know better … but if he’s telling the truth, presumably, he chose not to take the money in either of the previous two years. Why? Because he knew it was wrong, plain and simple. He got a little too confident and rolled the dice. He fucked around, and now he’s finding out. Let’s just all be honest about it, ok?
  • Third, “me too” has not applied to the superintendent under previous administrations. In fact, under the previous administration, having heard from folks at both the cabinet and director level, they also did not receive these payments when represented employees did. The difference in 5% for a paraeducator, and for someone receiving a $150k+ salary are different … wouldn’t you agree? 
 
César Morales would have us believe that he was unaware of ed code and state law … and just simply didn’t know that he couldn’t take bonuses whenever he wanted without telling anyone. This coming from the man that supporters laud for his fiscal oversight? This coming from the man who is the chair of the board for FCMAT? What’s FCMAT? The Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team’s primary mission is to help California’s local TK-14 educational agencies identify, prevent and resolve financial, operational and data management challenges by providing management assistance and professional learning opportunities. Cesar Morales’ fiancée, Misty Key, is also contracted as a consultant for them.
 
You’re telling me these people have no idea that taking taxpayer money for personal bank accounts without proper disclosing or seeking board approval is … wrong? And in violation of state law?
 
I’m sorry, but were we born yesterday?
 
If you want me to believe that the top two highest-paid leadership at the Office of Ed — which acts as a fiscal monitor to ensure districts remain financially solvent, manages payroll for school employees, and processes budgets — don’t know ed code, then you’re going to need to stop telling me he’s the best person for this position because of his experience and expertise with fiscal management. I mean, hop off it.
 
But I’m going to be straight with you. I don’t believe that. I believe he knew exactly what he was doing, and I believe that is why he attempted to stall response to CPRA requests and only admitted to the payment after the board of education became involved in the matter.
Picture
And, to be clear, at the time of the statement he published … he said he had paid it back in full.

That’s not entirely accurate either. Per VC Star: “He paid the office $7,619, Schermer said, which was the net amount he received from the $15,750 bonus after taxes and benefit contributions were taken out.” After obviously outrage over only half the amount being paid back, his director of communications, Dave Schermer, would provide a second statement to VC Star: “Schermer said in an email that the Office of Education has already been made whole for the remaining $8,131, by adjusting its payments to the IRS and other agencies that withhold money from employees' paychecks.”
 
The VC Reporter also covered the news.

SO NOW THE UNDISCLOSED BONUS WAS CONFIRMED.
 
BUT …. THERE’S MORE.

A TROJAN HORSE IN THE FORM OF A TRUSTEE?

As you all know, I submitted a CPRA request on April 21, of which included a request for César Morales and Cabinet-level staff employment contracts. This was an important request because there were allegations circling that César had granted himself and his executives lifetime benefits.
 
Lifetime benefits have not been offered by VCOE since 1997, except for a small pool of now 13 remaining retirees who chose to retire in 1996 to be grandfathered into benefits.
 
After several additional follow-ups with VCOE to request a status on my CPRA request, Trustee Richard Lucas III called me on Friday morning, May 22, to ask if I had received any documents. I confirmed I had not.
 
Shortly thereafter, I received a message informing me that Trustee Lucas was at VCOE, asking Dave Schermer to provide the requested documents. As a trustee, he should have access to that data, regardless of a CPRA request. That’s why he got it and was able to ensure I got a copy. If you caught Trustee Ramon Flores’ comment … he was quite salty that Trustee Lucas got the documents for me. “The intent is not to provide documents for someone to give to someone else.” Please, Ramon, clutch those pearls a bit harder.
 
Lucas would have to spend his full day there, eight hours, to get simple documents that were already on file. I wholeheartedly believe that if he had not done that, VCOE would never have released them without court intervention, and that they would have very likely tampered with the documents to cover up these benefits.
 
And I want to be clear here … VCOE’s own administrative regulation (1340) and Superintendent (1340) policies specifically include a non-exhaustive list of eligible public documents — of which all my requests meet the criteria for. They are literally line itemed as items that fall within the purview of a public record request.
Picture
Picture
SO, THE CONTRACTS.
 
The language is right there in black and white in those November 2023 employment contracts for Misty Key, Juan Santos, Consuelo Hernandez Williams, Lisa Salas Brown and Joanna Della Gatta. And has been included in every updated contract since, as recently as March 2026 versions.
 
5. “Employee shall be entitled to Employer paid health benefits as a retiree upon separation of employment for Employee and Employee’s spouse for the duration of the Employee or spouse’s lifetime. The benefit is to be processed as Employer paid in the same manner as active employee benefits are provided. Employee (retiree) will pay the same proportional cost of the plan(s) selected for health, dental and vision insurance as paid for active employees. Employee will be eligible for retiree benefits after 10 years of service to VCOE or upon retirement from VCOE.”
 
Education Code 1302(b) specifically says retirement benefit increases must be brought before the County Board of Education for discussion and approval at a public meeting.
 
This did not occur.
 
And remember, this comes out AFTER Morales already admitted violating Education Code 1209 by giving himself an undisclosed $15,750 bonus without board approval, even though technically the benefits were included in the contracts before he took the money.
 
He's also in violation of 1302(a) based on the size of salary increases and one-time payments that have exceeded $10,000 for executive and director-level staff (all of which is supposed to be disclosed to the board).
 
Did I mention that he also, in the November 2023 employment contract, gave his fiancée a salary bump from 92% to 96% of his salary?

THE PROJECTED COST

A conservative estimate for these types of benefits is approx. $30,000 per year. So, if we’re dealing these out for 10 special folks (these executives and their spouses), simple math would tell you that’s $300,000 a year … $3 million within 10 years, $6 million within 20 years … you get the picture. And that's based on TODAY'S insurance prices.
 
Now that nearly $16,000 bonus looks tiny compared to this, doesn’t it?
 
If our superintendent is busy spending his days orchestrating inflated, bloated salaries, hiring multiple assistants, sleeping with staff, stealing funds and granting perks to his favorites … who is really ensuring that the students supported by VCOE programs and schools are being prioritized?
 
Those funds could be used for additional teacher support in classrooms — something I’ve been told is woefully under-supported, which harms both students and educators.

Those funds could have been used for boosted, target support in special education and career technical education programs.

Those funds could have been used to support educators. Instead, César and his fiancée have been identifying how to move large amounts of money around to pad their bank accounts … while charging districts an egregious amount for supportive services.

SO NOW YOU’RE UP TO SPEED:
 
  1. He admitted to taking an undisclosed nearly $16,000 bonus.
  2. He secretly granted top-level executives with lifetime benefits whose financial impact could range between $6-9 million.

BOARD MEETING PALOOZA

Picture
On May 26, the VC Board of Education held its regularly scheduled public meeting. Not surprisingly, the majority of the meeting was dominated by public comments and agenda items related to financial malfeasance.
 
I was told that César Morales had certain staff asking other staff to show up and attend in support of him. If this is true, I wonder if every staff member in attendance was getting paid to be there. To protect the privacy of staff, all I can say is that you’d be right in assuming that they didn’t all attend in “support.”
 
Not surprisingly, his supporters mostly lined up to speak during public comments at the beginning of the meeting. Clocking this, I decided to speak then, instead of toward a specific agenda item.

Here is a snippet of a friend’s observation during this public comment period:
“The entire vibe standing here listening to one apologist after another reminds me of something straight outta The Godfather. The parade of supporters talking about how supportive he is “for the community” while completely ignoring/discounting and excusing the obviously corrupt behavior.”
 
She’s not wrong. It was clear that supporters were instructed to focus on specific messaging:
“We all make mistakes. It’s respectable to see him taking accountability for his mistakes. We’ve all made mistakes like this.”
 
I’m sorry … huh? We all steal taxpayer dollars? That’s a thing? I totally missed this. Dammit. I get none of my payments. I’ve received no Soros payments! No payments from developers. No payments from all the campaigns folks allege I’m running (I’m not on a single fucking campaign team currently, by CHOICE.) And now, I’m finding out that y’all have signed up for stealing education funds from kids? What a day!
 
So, the comments were weird. Look, I’m not saying that every single thing César has done is bad. I mean I think he’s done a lot of bad things and is sexual predator, but I’m sure some people have had good experiences with him. I’m sure he has helped some programs. I'm sure he even likes some parts of his job.
 
But none of that absolves him from stealing. It just does not. Any other person who was caught embezzling funds would be prosecuted and face criminal charges.
 
Why are we giving César a pass?
 
César’s base salary alone is $315,000 … let me remind you — a nearly $70,000 increase from his predecessor, orchestrated in part by his fiancée … you know, the woman whose pay is tied to his pay. JESUS. I really cannot with folks.
Picture
And, I’m going to be honest here … if your only commentary on this entire circus is criticism of the board, I think that is bad faith engagement. This man stole money. He intentionally hid from them that he was stealing money. He violated state law. They trusted César Morales, Misty Key, and relevant staff to be honest, upstanding persons in their respective roles. So no, they didn’t start each meeting with: “Did you happen to steal anything today?”
 
The board does not operate like a typical school district board. César is an elected official, therefore they have less authority. He is the sole employer of VCOE. He does not require approval on expenditures, vendors or even employment contracts. There are some exceptions as it relates to disclosure of salary or payment increases that exceed $10k for example, but the board does not receive the same level of information as district school boards. And when VCOE leadership is intentionally working to deceive the board, and to move money around after interim reports without disclosure, and to rename funds and bury them deep in budget reports … let me be clear here who the bad actor is.
 
It’s César Morales.
 
At least three board trustees have demonstrated a strong response to me. Trustees Rachel Ulrich, Mike Teasdale, and Richard Lucas III all took my concerns seriously from the beginning. And they have vowed to do what they can on their end to put in whatever additional language and policies could be added to help prevent something like this again.
 
But you know what prevents this? Voting for a superintendent who doesn’t steal and have inappropriate relationships with staff, especially those that control the money.

So while we should also ask what the board can be doing, what they could be doing, and what we can expect from them to address this moving forward, I’m really not here for the deflection of this being a “miscommunication” or board issue.”
 
It is a theft issue. Stop it.
 
There were also excellent public comments from those calling for accountability.
 
I will share what I said below… I have shared several others on my Facebook page.

SOME PUBLIC COMMENTS

 Good Evening Board of Trustees and VCOE Leadership,

Recently, I’ve connected with nearly 60 current and former VCOE employees and education leaders in our community. Accounts shared point to a consistent pattern of poor governance, a toxic work environment and questionable fiscal practices at the office of ed, structured to boost compensation packages for top executives.
 
Dr. Morales’s executive cabinet has seen salary increases of nearly 40-45% since his appointment in 2021, as those salaries are tied to his own, based on allocated percentages. In her role as deputy superintendent of fiscal services, Misty Key, whom I’ve been told is engaged to Morales, is responsible for bringing forth data and advocating for salary increases on his behalf. In turn, she receives a salary increase when her fiancée does. She also got a nice little bump in November 2023, when her base salary increased from 92% to 96% of her fiancée’s salary.
 
That wasn’t all that was updated in November 2023. Each cabinet member signed contracts with a special addition: the inclusion of lifetime benefits for themselves and their spouses.
 
This was allegedly never disclosed to, nor approved by, the board, — a direct violation of state law. Lifetime benefits for VCOE employees ended in 1997. This has the potential to cost VCOE millions, and it was done in secret, for the top-paid employees.
 
I was only able to confirm this after Trustee Lucas spent eight hours at the VCOE office last Friday, to insist a response to my public records request. I still await a response to several other items — all of which are listed as eligible public records documents in VCOE policies.
 
As you know, Morales also confirmed that he gave himself a nearly $16,000 undisclosed bonus in November of 2024, revealed only after legal intervention. Morales is the current chair of the board for FCMAT, and Misty Key, is contracted as a consultant by FCMAT. Would you have us believe that these folks don’t know state law and ed code? For those unfamiliar, FCMAT is the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team for California’s TK-14 educational agencies.
 
To recap, we have a superintendent who is illegally granting himself undisclosed bonuses and his cabinet undisclosed lifetime benefits. Fiscal leadership is moving around millions of dollars, after budget adoption, allegedly without proper disclosure to the board. We have dozens of accounts from past and current VCOE employees that have cited workplace retaliation and toxic working environment. And, we’ve heard first-hand accounts about how this superintendent has retaliated against local school districts, and whose actions have harmed students as a result.
 
Respectfully, I’m asking that a full investigation be launched into the office of ed’s financials and the numerous allegations of a hostile, toxic work environment. Students deserved leadership that is student-centered. Educators deserve leadership that is supportive. And the community deserves transparent leadership. Morales is not the victim here — those who relied on him to set an example and lead in this role, are.”
 
***************
I also want to take a moment to share a letter from LVUSD Superintendent Dan Stepenosky that was sent to the board of education yesterday morning (with permission).
 
“I am writing to express my perspective, which is shared by a number of my superintendent colleagues, regarding the direction and leadership of the Ventura County Office of Education under Superintendent Dr. Cesar Morales and Deputy Superintendent Misty Key. The organization has strayed significantly from its intended mission of supporting students, promoting student achievement, and serving the educational communities throughout Ventura County and the surrounding region.
 
I respectfully ask the Ventura County Office of Education Board of Education to help ensure the County Office returns to a student-centered, collaborative, transparent, and professional approach in its work with school districts and educational partners.
 
My concerns are rooted in multiple interactions and decisions that I believe demonstrate unprofessional, retaliatory, and exclusionary conduct toward the Las Virgenes Unified School District, its staff, and most importantly, its students.
 
One specific example occurred on September 11, 2024, when LVUSD staff received a communication from the Ventura County Office of Education indicating that Agoura High School students would no longer be permitted to participate in the Ventura County Mock Trial competition, ending a 28-year history of participation. This was just days before the event and was directly connected to Dr. Morales unilaterally removing all contact with LVUSD, as outlined further below. The sudden pull left students and families scrambling, wondering whether their hard work would be recognized.
 
The reason provided was that Las Virgenes Unified School District is not located in Ventura County. However, prior to this exclusion, VCOE had included AHS students because a portion of LVUSD does, in fact, reside within Ventura County boundaries. LVUSD has approximately 300 students whose Average Daily Attendance generates funding for the Ventura County Office of Education.
 
Additional actions by Dr. Morales and Ms. Key have further reinforced the aforementioned exclusionary conduct that LVUSD has experienced over the past two years. Dr. Morales has prohibited me from attending superintendent meetings and has excluded members of my senior leadership team from professional and job-alike meetings that LVUSD staff had participated in collaboratively for decades. He also attempted to remove LVUSD from the SELPA structure; however, I understand that Mary Samples intervened and advised that such an action would be illegal, unethical, and harmful to students.  We are very appreciative of Mary and her perspective that students should not be affected by the unfortunate stance taken by Dr. Morales and Ms. Key.
 
Furthermore, LVUSD staff members have been excluded from the Ventura County Office of Education's professional development opportunities. For example, just this year, our Director of Secondary Education registered for and paid for a professional development training (Multilingualism Leadership Network) through VCOE in October 2025, received the associated books and materials, and then was abruptly informed that she would no longer be permitted to attend without explanation.
 
These actions are inconsistent with the collaborative spirit and regional support role that county offices of education are intended to uphold.
 
I also have significant concerns regarding the conduct of Dr. Morales and Ms. Key in relation to VCSSFA and their fiduciary responsibilities associated with that organization. Specifically, during a dispute between our insurance provider, ACSCIP, and VCSSFA, I believe Dr. Morales and Ms. Key failed to act in the best interests of the VCSSFA JPA and its member districts.
 
It has additionally come to light that Dr. Morales and Ms. Key maintain a close personal relationship with VCSSFA CEO Elizabeth Atilano-Melvin. In my opinion, this relationship raises significant concerns about conflicts of interest and impartiality and may help explain the unusually personal and adversarial responses directed at LVUSD throughout this process.
 
I believe these circumstances warrant careful independent review, particularly given the resulting litigation between ACSCIP and VCSSFA and the significant financial and legal exposure now facing VCSSFA and its member districts.
 
In addition, I am concerned that Dr. Morales and Ms. Key failed to fulfill their legally required oversight responsibilities related to the District of Choice program (Education Code sections 48301 and 48307) involving Oak Park Unified School District. Specifically, I do not believe appropriate due diligence or monitoring occurred regarding the legally required 10% cap between Oak Park and Las Virgenes Unified School District. This action has put OPUSD and its very new superintendent in a position of extraordinary fiscal vulnerability.
 
Since we are part of two counties, Los Angeles County Office of Education ultimately retained an independent external investigator, who found that Oak Park had exceeded the allowable cap, placing millions of dollars in ADA-related funding at risk for Oak Park Unified School District.
 
Collectively, these issues raise broader concerns regarding governance, transparency, fiduciary responsibility, retaliation, a hostile work environment, and the overall culture and direction of the Ventura County Office of Education.
 
Accordingly, I respectfully request that the Ventura County Office of Education Board of Education take the following actions:
 
Recommit VCOE to being an agency of support, advocacy, and collaboration for all students, educators, and school districts across the region.
 
1. Retain an external and independent auditor to investigate potential financial malfeasance and fiduciary failures.
2. Retain an external and independent investigator to review allegations and concerns regarding retaliation, harassment, exclusionary practices, and hostile work environment culture.
3. Ensure appropriate oversight, compliance, and due diligence regarding the District of Choice program.
4. Reinstate Las Virgenes Unified School District leadership staff participation in superintendent meetings, job-alike sessions, professional development opportunities, and regional collaborative structures.
5. Recommit the Ventura County Office of Education to transparency, professionalism, and student-centered leadership.
Picture
Now, after some regular board meeting business, we got to board member and superintendent comments.
 
César Morales chose to read a legally prepared statement. It essentially stated that both the undisclosed bonus and lifetime benefits were oversight errors, but that since he returned the money and cancelled the benefits for the cabinet staff (wow, bet that was a fun Tuesday morning huddle!) it didn’t actually cost the county anything … so all good right? Like it never happened!
 
I beg to differ. We, the taxpayers in Ventura County, and the students — whom should be benefitting from robust funding for education and programming — are most certainly paying.
 
Not only did the Board of Education have to retain legal counsel as a result of this fiscal malfeasance, so did César. They're not paying that out of their own pockets. Remember … that was César’s first response. He declared that he was getting a lawyer and that the devil was after him and asked for prayers.
 
You know … if you weren’t behaving badly, you would have just turned over the public records as requested.
 
This man has spent thousands of dollars on VCOE swag branded with his name on each and every item so that it could double as campaign materials when the time called for it. Don’t even get me started on the “work trips” he’s taken.
 
There was no apology. His posture was slumped. Bro out here acting like he’s the victim.
 
Victim of his own actions. The only reason we are here, talking about this, is because of HIS actions.
 
It’s not “because” of me, or “because” it’s an election season. It’s because these rumors have been circulating forever and finally, brave whistleblowers trusted me enough to share information. These are no longer rumors. They are facts we are talking about.
Picture
And speaking of costs …
 
Per VC Star’s succinct description:
 
“The Ventura County Board of Education will investigate and audit its own agency after Superintendent of Schools César Morales admitted twice to granting himself and his top deputies pay and benefits that weren’t authorized by the board.
 
The board voted 5-0 on May 26 to appoint two of its members to a committee to oversee an investigation that will include a full forensic audit and interviews with current and former staff of the Ventura County Office of Education.
 
The two board members who volunteered for the committee, Michael Teasdale and Richard Lucas III, are tasked with appointing experts to investigate the office’s finances, management and compliance with state law.”
 
The right move, but that certainly isn't at “no cost.”
 
Trustees Teasdale and Lucas were both strong in their support of a full investigation, with Teasdale initiating the motion. He was direct in his commentary, citing broken trust and an impacted working relationship. Chair Rachel Ulrich also spoke to the necessity. 

While it received a 5-0 vote, you could tell it pained Trustee Flores to support it, and frankly ... I've got nothing for Arleigh Kidd. I didn't find any of his comments to be contributions worth including.

I’m going to speak for a brief moment on how much Trustee Ramon Flores’ comments concerned me in general.
 
Not only was he an apologist for César in his online statement — and remains a featured and ardent endorser — I felt his overall maneuvering at the board meeting really problematic.
 
When the agenda item pertaining to filming board meetings came up (right now, only audio recordings are posted later online) … he focused his comments to questioning “What problem are we solving here? How will we prove ROI?” I said TRANSPARENCY. And, of course, my eloquent and smart friend Cindy Liu also said: ACCESSIBILITY. 
 
It’s wild to hear a trustee balking at video recordings or live streams of public meetings (while attempting to gaslight us into dismissing theft because we can’t “see into the heart of someone.”) He just kept asking about how we’d prove ROI. Maybe Flores could do a study as to the ROI of preventing approx. $9 million to top executives for lifetime benefits. Holler back at me on that Flores.
 
Also, I’ve got another bone to pick. Flores also made a point of criticizing a community member, MEEEEE, for submitting a CRPA request, which VC Star also caught:
 
“Flores also said he thinks some of the records requests are so broad they amount to a "denial of service" attack, a term for when a hacker floods a computer or network with repeated requests in order to overload the system with traffic. He described Weihe's requests for all payroll data and purchase orders as "someone trying to slow down the operation of this office."
 
I realize there is a thing called blackmail. And I’ve been told César has got some on Flores. But he should be ashamed of allowing that to dictate how he shows up as a trustee. Asking for records VCOE’s OWN POLICIES say fall within purview, is not “slowing down the operation of this office.”
 
I was especially surprised to hear as well, that Trustee Lucas had followed up yesterday morning about my remaining records requests and he was told they wouldn’t be complying with them at that point further.
A PRA UPDATE!

I followed up again this evening to the folks over at VCOE and this time I let them know that if I didn’t have a response by 10 a.m. tomorrow, I’d be pursuing full legal measures.
 
And well golly gee. Guess who got an almost instant reply back? Now, the documents will be ready for me to pick up at noon tomorrow, I’ve been told.
 
If my request is filled as requested, I should be receiving:
 
1) Payroll data exported from ESCAPE ERP for fiscal years 2020-21- to current for:
* Misty Key, Consuelo Williams Hernandez, Juan Santos, Lisa Salas Brown, Cesar Morales
* This should include all forms of compensation, including regular pay, one-time payments, travel reimbursements, stipends, etc.
 
2) An exported spreadsheet of purchase orders and expenditures for fiscal years 2020-21 to current.
Picture

SO WHAT'S NEXT

1. More PRA docs tomorrow — let's see what we learn
2. Hopefully he's voted out on Tuesday, June 2
3. An investigation conducted by experts and professionals that the VCOE board hires
4. Whistleblower protection ... the threats and fear flying around the offices haven't stopped.

]]><![CDATA[Dr. César Morales, Ventura County Superintendent: Questions of Power, Transparency and Accountability]]>Wed, 13 May 2026 03:06:31 GMThttps://www.anonymousmommy.com/blog/dr-cesar-morales-ventura-county-superintendent-questions-of-power-transparency-and-accountabilityY'all made  me re-publish my website for this. Thanks, Dr. César Morales.

When Whispers Become Patterns: Questions of Power, Transparency and Accountability at Ventura County Board of Education

Yes, this is long. I've worked to consolidate numerous posts I've shared on social media related to this issue to make it more accessible for folks not on Facebook. If you've been keeping up, some of this is what you've already read.

Disclaimers:
  • No one asked me to write this. No one is paying me to write this. I am receiving no compensation for this post. 
  • This piece also does not attempt to present definitive conclusions or prove every allegation that has been shared with me. Some concerns outlined here are based on publicly available documents, board minutes, salary schedules and financial records. Other concerns are based on conversations with current and former employees, elected officials and individuals deeply connected to Ventura County education systems who requested anonymity due to fear of retaliation. (I have connected with more than 60 individuals at this point.)

What follows is an attempt to document patterns of concern that have been raised repeatedly, by multiple people, across multiple contexts — and to ask whether those patterns warrant deeper scrutiny, transparency and independent review as it relates to the Ventura County Office of Education under the leadership of Dr. César Morales.

At a certain point, I gotta ask:  When do repeated concerns stop being “just rumors?”

How We Got Here

Picture
In the aftermath of the Swalwell fallout, many people asked how “this” happened.

Apparently, concerns about his behavior had circulated for years. Rumors. Whispers. Stories people had heard but didn’t act on. And the same question kept surfacing: How did someone climb this high without intervention?  How did we let this happen?! The truth is, rumors are hard to act on. That's what has been discussed, call after call.

They’re easy to dismiss when there’s no formal complaint, no smoking gun, no neat little package of evidence tied up with a bow. I get it. You weren't "in the room where it happened." Sigh.

And frankly, people stay quiet for understandable reasons. They fear retaliation. They fear not being believed. They fear becoming collateral damage. Survivors know their motives will be questioned and their character scrutinized — especially if they’re not viewed as a “perfect victim.” I've been watching it play out in front of me as this story has unfolded — by the same people who performatively clutched their pearls about Swalwell. Crickets now — that, or they're busy participating in smear campaigns. I don't know which is worse, but I do know it's all pretty gross and disheartening.

But when the same concerns surface repeatedly — over years, across people, across institutions — eventually it becomes less about isolated allegations and more about patterns, which is what I've really attempted to focus on and identify. This isn't about one or two accounts. 

Over the last several weeks, I've connected with dozens of folks who have revealed a lot about patterns surrounding Ventura County Superintendent of Schools Dr. César Morales. The sheer volume of stories and responses cannot be overlooked.

What started as an effort to better understand allegations of sexual harassment quickly expanded into shared concerns about poor governance, compensation transparency, executive/workplace culture, power dynamics and public accountability at the Ventura County Office of Education, under the leadership of Dr. Morales (although many of these issues didn't necessarily start with just his administration.)

Morales isn't a hired employed. He's elected. And when significant power is concentrated within a public institution such as is the structure at VCOE, transparency and oversight become even more important, and worth your attention.

The One-Time Payment Allegations

There are many issues I'll cover, but I'm going start first with the issue that may ultimately matter the most, at least to most people. I already wasn't going to be down with someone who has multiple sexual harassment allegations against him, but maybe that's just meeeee.

Several individuals alleged that Morales — and potentially other executive staff — received one-time off-schedule payments or bonuses that were never publicly disclosed or approved through the required board process.

Let me break it down for you ... an "undisclosed bonus," y'all ... is what I would consider  stealing. We've been delicate here with phrasing but like ... shouldn't we be calling it what it is? If you are giving yourself bonuses without following state law for review and approval, you are ... stealing taxpayer money. Like, we're talking amounts in the $17,000 range.  Is that 5% of $315,000? Someone go do the math for me. I don't math. 

To be clear: I have not independently verified these payments because VCOE has not yet produced the payroll data necessary to confirm or refute the allegations. I submitted a PRA request. To date, they have pushed out any review of the request, only responding after I escalated to the Board of Education trustees. Yeah, they weren't too happy about that.

But I want to call your attention to California Education Code §1209, which states that a county superintendent cannot increase their own salary, financial remuneration or benefits without first bringing the matter before the county board of education at a public meeting and obtaining board approval. This isn't just ed code, it's also a part of VCOE's board policies (as it should be.) It's pretty crystal clear.

Then, there's Education Code §1302, which similarly requires public discussion of salary or bonus increases exceeding $10,000 thresholds for county office employees.

If undisclosed payments occurred outside those procedures, that would represent a serious governance issue, wouldn't you agree?

And there is a very simple way to clear this up.

Release the payroll records. That’s it. That's all I'm asking for.

If the allegations are false, the payroll data should quickly and definitively resolve the issue.

Instead, my PRA requests seeking salary schedules, contracts and payroll information have faced delays and extensions. Dr. Morales begged his staff to pray for him because the "devil is after me." And ... he hired a lawyer.

Which begs the question: what is Dr. Morales hiding?

Asking for transparency should not be treated like a threat. Especially not in a public institution managing billions in educational resources and serving vulnerable student populations.
Picture

The Power Dynamic Problem

One of the most consistent themes raised in conversations involved repeated workplace relationships that have, and do, carry significant power imbalances — these go as far back as his time as a superintendent for OSD.

Several individuals described Morales as engaging in relationships with lower-power staff or women working within education systems he oversaw. Some of these relationships, by many accounts, were described as the “worst kept secrets” within the education community. Nearly everyone I spoke to knew all about these relationships. It's actually pretty staggering how many folks do know about this, and don't know about this, at the same time.

To be very clear: I don't care about policing consensual adult relationships or shaming the women involved. I mean if you're an absolute sleaze bag (and I believe he is), I'll totally take that character flaw into account on a personal level when I think about who should be representing our schools ... but I realize that doesn't sway everyone. That's not my focus here.

The reality is that workplace relationships involving power imbalance create serious ethical and institutional concerns — especially when they involve public officials overseeing taxpayer-funded organizations. Boop.

There's a whole host of questions that arise when considering potential liability tied to a workplace relationship with power imbalance, right?

  • Could employees feel pressured to maintain relationships because of professional consequences?
  • Could other employees perceive favoritism?
  • What safeguards exist when relationships sour?
  • What liability does this create for the institution?
  • What happens when executive decisions intersect with personal relationships?

These become even more significant when considering Morales’ current engagement to VCOE Deputy Superintendent of Fiscal Services Misty Key. The top two County Office of Ed folks are in a relationship ... and their actions each impact each other's compensation! This is wild bananas, folks.

At a February 2026 endorsement meeting, Morales reportedly stated that county legal advised there was no conflict so long as he did not directly evaluate Key’s performance (he never produced that legal statement by the way ... and when board trustees expressed concerns — he told them they don't have authority over personnel decisions). Shortly afterward, he promoted an associate superintendent to deputy superintendent of student services — so that Key could be evaluated by someone other than her fiancé. It's pretty much unheard of for deputy superintendents to evaluate one another ... more than that, it's actually highly unusual for a county office of Ventura County's size to have two deputy superintendents (very well compensated positions, mind you). Go us, paying for Dr. Morales' fucked up sex life escapades. 

For context:
  • Ventura County serves approximately 124,000 students across 19 school districts.
  • Los Angeles County serves roughly 1.3 million students across 80 districts.
  • Yet LACOE reportedly operates with only one deputy superintendent structure in comparable areas.

Again, the concern here is not simply shitty, sleazy  personal behavior.

It is how personal relationships intersect with public authority, executive/cabinet staff structure, compensation and institutional oversight. That's where we see these governance concerns really begin piling up.

Compensation, Governance and the Transparency Problem

Over the last several weeks, I reviewed:
  • publicly available salary schedules (just this year, cuz why make it all avail?)
  • board agendas
  • meeting minutes
  • audio recordings
  • Transparent California data
  • organizational charts
  • board policies
  • and Education Code provisions related to superintendent compensation

WHEW. That was exhausting just laying that out there. Dog. Bone. Dog. Bone.

And the deeper I looked, the more questions I had.

The Superintendent Salary Question

When Morales was appointed County Superintendent in 2021, his salary reportedly increased roughly $35,000 above that of his predecessor, landing around $280,000 base salary to start.

Since then, the board approved additional raises that ultimately brought his base salary to approximately $315,000 plus benefits. This is a $70,000 increase in base pay alone between 2021 and now.

That alone does not prove wrongdoing. I mean, the board did approve these salary increases.

But concerns certainly have emerged around how those salaries were benchmarked and justified.

At the center of those discussions was salary comparison data presented to the board by Deputy Superintendent of Fiscal Services Misty Key — Morales’ now-fiancée.

That dynamic alone raises reasonable questions. The individual responsible for preparing compensation comparison data for the board also has her own compensation package determined by the superintendent whose salary she is helping benchmark.

That is, at minimum, a governance structure that deserves serious scrutiny.

The “Similar Size and Scope” Issue

In reviewing previous board discussions, something jumped out at me.

In 2019, during then-Superintendent Stan Mantooth’s salary review, trustees explicitly stated they preferred using median salary comparisons — not averages — because averages could be skewed by outliers, creating a large range.

Board discussion at the time specifically referenced comparing Ventura County to Class II and III county offices of education that were most similar in:
  • student population,
  • operational scope
  • and program structure

And at that time, it was Misty Key who very confidently reported that the list presented was the exact and best list that most closely represented Ventura County comparables. She spoke at length to it during that meeting.

At that time, Mantooth's superintendent salary landed almost exactly at the peer median based on this board discussion, raised from $240k to $246k.

But by 2021, when Dr. Morales' salary is being discussed after his recent appointment to the position,  the methodology appears to have shifted substantially.

Larger counties — including Los Angeles, San Diego and others — were added into the comparison pool under the label of “similar size and scope,” even those these Class I (Ventura County is Class III) counties are by no reasonable explanation, "comparable." In 2019, Key specifically stated that LA was in class all of its own due to its size ... and now, she's presenting it as a "comparable" county? Huh?

Plus, that ain't all ...
  • median comparisons disappeared
  • averages became the primary and only benchmark listed
  • and the expanded comparison pool significantly raised the salary target range

As covered, this matters because including massive counties naturally inflates the comparison average. It's exactly why the board said they didn't want to use the "average" benchmark when decision-making. ​IT SKEWS THE DATA UP. 

When  the peer analysis is limited to counties more comparable in operational scale (as was used in 2019 list), the compensation picture changes dramatically.

Now, when it came time for Dr. Morales' salary discussion ... the data provided, as mentioned above, was comprised based on a larger pool of of counties, and only showed the board the "average", not the "median." In listening to the audio recording, I'm inclined to believe that then-Trustee Mark Lisagor, played a significant role in coordination with Misty Key, on how this data was presented — not only during this salary review, but in subsequent years. 

Anyway, that data showed that the "average" was: $281,519. 

Dr. Morales was brought in at $280,000.

HOWEVER, when the appropriate, comparable list (as was identified in 2019) is used for this salary discussion,  the average becomes $272,314.

And the MEDIAN, which wasn’t even included, is $262,042.
(That's about a $19,000 difference!)

Even after accounting for cost-of-living differences, analysis suggests Morales’ prior salary was already aligned with — or above — peer market median rates before subsequent raises were approved.

Again, this does not automatically prove intentional manipulation.

But it absolutely raises questions about how the methodology changed, and the lack of transparency around those changes. Not to mention an acknowledgement of an "incentive structure" when you consider the compensation dynamic between the superintendent and deputy superintendent of fiscal services (even before you add in the relationship!)

The Executive Compensation Structure

Concerns shared did not stop at the superintendent salary itself. Multiple individuals brought up the  top-heavy executive structure at VCOE.

Publicly available data suggests:
  • multiple executive-level salaries exceed $300,000
  • deputy superintendent compensation sits unusually close to superintendent compensation
  • executive compensation concentration appears elevated relative to comparable county offices of education

Analysis comparing executive cost per student suggests VCOE may carry significantly higher leadership costs relative to larger neighboring offices of ed, including San Diego County Office of Education and Los Angeles County Office of Education.

The key issue raised repeatedly was this: Why is Ventura County paying big-county executive prices across a mid-size system?

That question becomes more pressing when VCOE leadership simultaneously cites:
  • declining enrollment,
  • deficit spending,
  • special education pressures,
  • transportation costs,
  • workforce reductions,
  • and classroom closures
How do we reconcile these two different realities?

The OPEB and Reserve Fund Questions

Beyond executive compensation and governance concerns, another issue repeatedly raised in conversations — and one that deserves far more public explanation — involves VCOE’s reserve structures and OPEB funding activity.

For those unfamiliar, OPEB stands for “Other Post-Employment Benefits,” primarily retiree health care obligations. Public agencies often establish dedicated reserve or trust funds to prefund these long-term liabilities.

Having an OPEB structure itself is not unusual. In fact, it’s common. What raises questions is how these funds are being presented, utilized and discussed in the broader context of VCOE’s financial narrative.

In reviewing interim financial reports, reserve fund discussions and budget documents, several inconsistencies stood out.

VCOE maintains:
  • a Special Reserve Fund for OPEB
  • and a Special Reserve Fund for Other Than Capital Outlay Projects

The presentation of the data is difficult for the public — and frankly, sometimes even board members — to follow clearly.

Specific to the OPEB ... it's seen a significant shift since 2021, with $1 and $2 million transfers into the fund ... with no liabilities or expenditures against it. It's now got approx. $10 mill in this fund ... for what purpose? There are, I'm told, only 17 remaining grandfathered-in employees with lifetime benefits. No one can explain the way this fund is being used ... outside of questions if it's connected to rumors that Dr. Morales has given himself, and select executives, lifetime benefits and are parking funds here for that purpose.

Then, when you combine this all with:
  • repeated references to carryforward balances
  • one-time funding availability (multiple years in a row)
  • reserve flexibility
  • and ongoing executive compensation growth

it raises entirely reasonable questions about how VCOE is portraying its financial condition to both the board and the public. Don't forget that this is happening while discussions have occurred regarding workforce reductions, classroom closures, elimination of positions, special education concerns, and repeated messaging about financial pressure.

If substantial reserve capacity and one-time flexibility exist, I think it's fair that taxpayers and employees naturally want to understand the purpose of this OPEB fund, and related funds, better.

Several individuals with education finance experience also raised concerns that VCOE’s budget presentations can be difficult to compare year-over-year because categories, presentation structures and reporting formats appear to shift in ways that make trends harder to track consistently.

Again, I am not alleging that the existence of these reserve structures is improper. Rather, the concern is whether or not:

  • the board is receiving sufficiently transparent and understandable financial reporting
  • the public is getting a consistent picture of VCOE’s true financial position
  • reserve discussions align with the financial hardship narrative being presented publicly​​

Retaliation, Culture and Institutional Fear

As more individuals reached out, another pattern emerged repeatedly: fear of retaliation.
People described a workplace culture they characterized as retaliatory and heavily driven by loyalty ("yes people").

Multiple current and former employees described Morales as vindictive toward individuals who challenged him or disagreed with executive leadership decisions.

Others described concerns about long-time employees leaving, institutional knowledge disappearing and departments being gutted or restructured under Morales’ administration. I've had numerous folks reach out sharing stories about being coerced into signing "exit" agreements with NDAs in order to receive small exit compensation packages. Of course they have all signed. You need the money when your longtime job is being yanked out from underneath you.

Others raised concerns about:
  • district relationships (ain't great)
  • executive retaliation
  • campaign activity involving executive staff 
  • and blurred lines between public resources and political promotion.

And then there’s the branding issue.

Morales’ name reportedly appears across an extraordinary amount of VCOE swag, signage, communications and social media promotion.

Multiple educators independently described VCOE communications as feeling more centered around promoting Dr. Morales personally than promoting the institution itself.

Collectively, these concerns paint a picture many described as deeply uncomfortable.
Statement from LVUSD Trustee Angela Cutbill 
I was disappointed not to be able to ask my questions at last night’s forum. Both of them would have been directed to the current VCOE Superintendent (Dr. César Morales):

--How do you square supporting students while removing them from an academic competition in which their school participated in for 28 years as personal retaliation to their district?

--Will you stop barring district administration from districts you don’t like from attending meetings, courses, professional development etc. so they can fully participate in County Office of Education events in order to better serve their own districts?

We are a district that exists both in LA and Ventura Counties. We have literally hundreds of students from Ventura County. For decades we have participated in events, competitions, professional development, etc in both, but mostly in Ventura County. Regarding the first – on September 5, 2024 one of our high schools received their welcome email from VCOE for the Mock Trial competition, nothing was said about their removal or inability to enter. This is a competition this school had participated in at VCOE for 28 years. One week later, they received a call saying they were “kicked out” (VCOE’s words, not ours) with no explanation. This came after the deadline for LA County’s competition but we appealed to LACOE and they found an opening so our students could compete.
Our district’s administration has been continually barred from attending events under the current VCOE administration. Innumerable times they sign up, only to be told “no room, we can’t have you,” etc. In some cases they take our money, send the books for the course, then a week later we are told “we made a mistake, no room”.
​
I have seen a lot of things in education over the years, but to take out personal issues and retaliate in a way that affects students – our very reason for existing – and those who wish to serve those students, is a new one on me. I have more examples and plenty of receipts but I’ll end with this – it is inexcusable and it needs to stop – for students

Why This Matters

This is not about gossip. It is not about politics. And it is not about doing “dirty work” for political opponents.

County offices of education exist to serve students, districts and families — especially vulnerable student populations including foster youth, unhoused students, migrant students and special education students.

These institutions oversee enormous public resources and wield significant influence across educational systems.

We deserve transparency, accountability and strong governance. That is how public trust is built and maintained.

And when patterns of concerns repeatedly intersect across:
  • executive compensation
  • governance structure
  • workplace relationships
  • retaliation allegations
  • financial transparency
  • and concentration of authority

it is entirely reasonable for the public to ask questions!

Whether these concerns ultimately reveal misconduct, poor governance, weak oversight or simply a culture too insulated from accountability (or, cough all of the above), Ventura County taxpayers deserve clear answers and independent review. Families whose students rely on these services through the Office of Ed deserve honesty. So do the hardworking educators and staff.

I recognize some people will dismiss this entirely. Others will insist none of it matters unless every allegation can be fully proven immediately. Been there, yawn.

I won't ignore these patterns just because they might be inconvenient for an agenda.

What Happens Next

The matter has now formally moved into the hands of legal counsel.

Following outreach to the VCOE Board of Education regarding concerns surrounding executive compensation, alleged undisclosed one-time payments, governance structure and broader transparency issues, both the board and Dr. Morales have retained separate legal counsel. The matter has since been discussed in closed session due to potential legal exposure and liability concerns.

An update is expected at the next VCOE Board Meeting, currently scheduled for May 26, 2026.

In the meantime, I still await a response to my PRA requesting:
  • payroll records
  • employment contracts
  • salary schedules
  • and compensation documentation

The 14-day extension period ends on May 19.

The fact that these concerns escalated quickly into closed-session legal discussions underscores the seriousness of the issues being raised. This is where transparency matters most.

The public deserves:
  • clear answers
  • transparent financial documentation
  • clarification regarding compensation approvals and governance procedures
  • and an honest accounting of whether proper oversight occurred

If the allegations surrounding undisclosed compensation and governance failures are unfounded, the release of records and a transparent public explanation should help put many of these concerns to rest.

If they are substantiated, then the public deserves accountability.

And with ballots already in voters’ hands, timing matters.

Sources
]]><![CDATA[2024 Conejo School Board Candidates]]>Sat, 31 Aug 2024 20:09:06 GMThttps://www.anonymousmommy.com/blog/2024-conejo-school-board-candidates​It’s 2024, and we’re facing yet another Conejo Valley Unified School District school board election with far-right extremists attempting to gain a seat on the school board. If you’ve been keeping up, in 2018, a community effort successfully flipped the Conejo School Board, defeating a trio slate of far-right extremists whose anti-LGBTBQ+ and book censorship views were not embraced by our community. Every two years, the far-right groups in Conejo Valley — Free Ventura, Move the Needle (Tim McCarthy), Conservative Moms of Conejo Valley, Conejo Valley Mama Bears (Joelle Mancuso) + Godspeak Calvary/Rob Mccoy folks, toss out their “best?” to regain elected power on the school board, with no success to date. Not even through their propaganda paper, the Conejo Guardian.
 
But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be any less vigilant. A lot of damage can be done by one trustee with bad intentions, let alone a board majority.
 
NOTE: If you are unaware of the Conejo Valley Mama Bears, the group was launched by Rob McCoy buddy, Joelle Mancuso. Group members regularly post pretty horrifically transphobic posts in the group, disinformation about the COVID pandemic, and general contempt for public schools. None of this is a surprise to those of you who have been actively paying attention the last few years, and have caught my other blogs on their concerted effort to encourage a mass exodus from public schools and to garner support for school choice vouchers.
 
In 2020, the far-right candidate that got elected in 2016, Sandee Everett, lost her re-election campaign, and then in 2022 … perhaps the strongest of recent efforts (the Conejo Valley Mama Bear trio of Joelle Mancuso, Karen Meyer and Sophia DeDomenico) also lost at the ballots across their slate. Our community has been clear: we are not going back.
 
And now here we are: 2024. I heard that local Republicans had been on the search for a while, desperate to find two candidates to run this year in the two areas that have elections. And folks, their candidates, demonstrate that level of desperation.
 
As a reminder, our CVUSD board elections are no longer “at large.” They are “by-area,” meaning our district is split up into five areas. You may only vote in the area you live in, and you may only run in the area you live in. So, in 2024 … Area 1 (Westlake) and Area 5 (Newbury Park), are the two areas in which we have school board elections for the Conejo School Board. The other three trustees will face re-election in 2026, so if you live in areas 2, 3 or 4, you won’t see this race on your ballot — but the collective board impacts you … which is why you should still care just as much as you would have in an at-large election.
 
Below, is information on the two candidates running against Area 1 Trustee Karen Sylvester and Area 5 Trustee Lauren Gill.
 
Area 1 (Westlake): Nancy Van Volkinburg is running against trustee Karen Sylvester
 
Let’s dive in on Nancy Van Volkinburg. We’ve come across pictures of her featured on the Moms for America event page on their website (included below). When I posted these pictures, she claimed I was spreading disinformation, and that she was not affiliated with Moms for America, Ventura Chapter — despite being featured on the group’s website in their event photos and belonging to the Conejo Valley Mama Bears group, whose leaders are also the leaders and representatives of the Ventura Chapter of this organization. She also claimed to me, via Facebook exchange that she was not in the Conejo Valley Mama Bears group, acting as though she had never heard of it. When we presented screenshots of her commenting in the group as a “top contributor” the very next day … her response was that she “stands corrected.” The ease with which this woman lies — and what she lies about — is both fascinating and bizarre.
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
So, let’s take a deeper dive into Moms for America. They note on their website:
 
“Moms for America is a national movement of moms reclaiming our culture for truth, family freedom and the constitution. We Activate, Empower and Mobilize Moms to promote and advance freedom in our homes, communities and through our vote.”
 
They advocate for what they call an end to “critical race theory and gender manipulation,” and call it an uprising of “the momma bears.” They provide training and mentoring on running for school boards. Here’s a goodie from their website which is so coded: “Join Moms for America Groups in doing our part in restoring our American culture by raising patriots right in our own homes!”
 
Moms for America have engaged in several forms of political activism ranging from launching a national parents strike on schools masks during the height of the pandemic, organizing “Keep Christmas” rallies, hosting rallies to thank Trump for his policies on school choice, etc. The group was also one of several sponsors of the  Jan. 6, 2021 “March to Save America” Trump rally that ultimately fueled the Capitol Insurrection. Vimeo has terminated their account after citing multiple videos flagged for misinformation.
 
It’s been reported that “Moms for America has also been a major player in pushing voter suppression, election denialism, attacks on public schools and COVID-19 misinformation.”
 
Nancy has also come out and endorsed Franke Enderle — who we’ll discuss in a moment — even after folks raised concerns about his wildly problematic and harmful social media tweets, stating that she stands by her endorsement. When you see his tweets, I’ll let you determine how you feel about her strong and public support for his candidacy.
 
On her website, she lists that her experience as a trustee in northern California equips her for this role. Now, I haven’t been able to find anything online verifying her role as trustee for Potter Valley Community Unified School District, near Ikiah, California … but that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. That said, Ballotpedia lists this district as being comprised of four schools with a combined student population of about 276 kids. In comparison, CVUSD has 27 schools and more than 16,000 students. I don’t want to discount her experience as a trustee … (whenever that was — assuming pre 1996, which is when she moved to the Conejo Valley) … but there is a quite a difference here between the two districts, and white a distance in time (assuming at least 28 years) since she would have served as a trustee if we assumed as recent as 1995. (Again, still no real information that she’s provided … she’s been dodgy on her page with details, which is no surprise.)
Area 5 (Newbury Park): Frank Enderle is running against trustee Lauren Gill.

Alright, let’s take a look at Frank Enderle. Dude runs a lot and loses every time. I’ve always assumed it’s been to boost his realtor business, because, let’s be honest. He is not a serious person. 
 
Frank has taken to blocking every single person he disagrees with on his candidate page, and pretending that all the tweets he’s been making for years weren’t him, and that he’s being “cyberbullied” because people are calling him out for these tweets. The tweets? … They’re below (just a snippet). Full of tweets misgendering Michelle Obama, and suggesting that a rape victim isn't "rapeable" because of her looks. Y'all ... this is who the "family morals" crowd is backing to oversee education decisions as a trustee? 
 
Frank is also a contributor to the Conejo Valley Mama Bears.
Picture
Picture
Picture
Nancy Van Volkingburg and Frank Enderle will not be champions for our Conejo Valley public schools, and based on their expressed views about our LGBTQ+ community, I don't believe they are safe for our LGBTQ+ students and decisions related to their healthy, safety, education and inclusion in school.

If you live in Area 1 (Westlake), I recommend voting for trustee Karen Sylvester.
​If you live in Area 5 (Newbury Park), I recommend voting for trustee Lauren Gill.
]]><![CDATA[There's something suspicious about The Conejo Guardian]]>Tue, 25 Jul 2023 17:17:11 GMThttps://www.anonymousmommy.com/blog/theres-some-suspicious-about-the-conejo-guardianA suspension is brewing for the highly controversial, far-right propaganda "paper" backed by Godspeak Calvary Pastor Rob McCoy. Let's dive in. It's a real doozy y'all!
If you search the State of California Department of Justice Charity Registry, you can come across information for registered nonprofits.

If you enter in Conejo Guardian (RCT CT0284531), the registry status is “delinquent.” Now, there are lapses of time in which the DOJ doesn’t process paperwork or a charity forgot to submit their annual paperwork and they’re listed as delinquent until that’s all sorted out or pending. But that’s not the case for the Conejo Guardian.

The Conejo Guardian has NEVER been in compliance with the DOJ. Their first attempt at filing paperwork for the 2020 accounting year wasn’t even received until July 12, 2023 … and it was rejected for missing multiple forms (they didn’t pay registration fee, signatures were missing AND they didn’t provide their revenue). Their attempt at filing paperwork for the 2021 accounting year was also rejected for several reasons.
​

Picture
On March 7, 2023, they were served with a delinquency notice and warning of assessment of penalties and late fees, and suspension or revocation of registered status.

The letter stated:

“The California Franchise Tax Board will be notified to disallow the tax exemption of the above-named entity. The Franchise Tax Board may revoke the organization’s tax exempt status at which point the organization will be treated as a taxable corporation (See Revenue and Taxation Code section 23703) and may be subject to the minimum tax penalty.
PLEASE NOTE: Charitable assets cannot be used to pay these avoidable costs. Accordingly, directors, trustees, officers and return preparers responsible for failure to timely file the above-described report(s) are personally liable for payment of all penalties, interest and other costs incurred to restore exempt status.”
On June 22, 2023, the Conejo Guardian received a notice of intent to suspend or revoke registration:

“Based on the violations set forth below, the registration of CONEJO GUARDIAN will be suspended or revoked unless the organization cures its delinquency or submits the enclosed Appeal and Request for Hearing* within thirty (30) calendar days of the date of this Notice. The Attorney General may revoke or suspend the registration of a charitable corporation for violations of the Supervision of Trustees and Fundraisers for Charitable Purposes Act (Government Code § 12580 et. seq.; § 12598). An organization that is delinquent, suspended or revoked is not in good standing and is prohibited from engaging in conduct for which registration is required, including soliciting or disbursing charitable funds. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 11, § 999.9.4.)

If the organization has not cured its delinquency with our office, or submitted a signed Appeal and Request for Hearing* within 30 days, your registration will be suspended or revoked, and you will no longer be permitted to conduct business in the State of California. The suspension/revocation of CONEJO GUARDIAN is based on the following violations: 1. Failure to file the Annual Registration Renewal Fee (Form RRF-1) Report(s), together with required renewal fee, for fiscal year(s) ending: 12/31/2020, 12/31/2021, in violation of Government Code section 12586, subdivision (a), and California Code of Regulations, title 11, sections 301 through 306 and 311. 2. Failure to file IRS Form 990, 990-PF or 990-EZ for fiscal year(s) ending: 12/31/2020, 12/31/2021, in violation of Government Code section 12586, subdivision (a), and California Code of Regulations, title 11, sections 301 through 305. Note that Schedule B is not required. Please exclude Schedule B from your IRS Form 990, Form 990-EZ or Form 990-PF filing. 3.

Late fees were assessed to the organization for failing to file the required documents. The fees are calculated as $25.00 per month, or partial month, starting the 31st day after the first delinquency letter was mailed. The late fees are in addition to any annual renewal fees that may also be due and cannot be waived. Fees will continue to accrue until all the outstanding documents have been filed with the Registry.”
Per their latest statement of information filed in August 2022:
  • The Chief Executive Officer of the board is Amy Chen (chick who launched a paper shell of a fake nonprofit to try and win a school board seat and lost; husband has a dentistry practice that advertises in the Conejo Guardian)
  • The Secretary of the board is Doug DeGroote (who operates De Groote Financial, an independent wealth management firm serving high-net-worth clients in California)
  • The Chief Financial Officers is David Glienke (president of ClearCoast Wealth Management)

Additional Officers listed include:
  • Joshua Linn (Senior Vice President with IPA Commercial Real Estate and heads the firms Westlake Village office)
  • Bryce Eddy (launched the Liberty Station podcast with Rob McCoy)
Picture
It’s pretty astounding that these folks from wealth management firms who serve on the board all couldn’t figure out a way to submit paperwork and pay registration fees. What I find even more interesting is that one of the reasons their 3-years-late paperwork submission was rejected was because they didn’t provide their financial revenue information.

Why do you think these folks are trying to hide that? I thought they were all about “the truth.” I’m not surprised that Rob McCoy is tied to a political propaganda effort that has falsely represented itself an independent community paper and that they don’t really want you to know who the funders are behind the paper.

And, as I've been reading through the intention to suspend letter to the Conejo Guardian, which is delinquent with the State of California Department of Justice Registry … this line in that notice is popping out:

“A delinquent organization may not engage in any activity for which registration is required, including solicitation or disbursing of charitable assets.”

It may NOT engage in solicitation. Solicitation is the act of requesting.

The Conejo Guardian has never been current with this registry. It’s been delinquent for the entire course of its existence. And not because paperwork got lost or there was a delay in processing. In other words, there’s no reasonable explanation for a lapse. Like, it NEVER turned in its full paperwork or revenue reports to meet compliance. The only two times it attempted, their paperwork was rejected (and it was sent in years late, at that).

I'm reminded of a “sermon” that Rob McCoy gave which took place in March of 2023 in which he directly solicited donations on behalf of Conejo Guardian. Not only did he solicit donations, he mentioned that the Conejo Guardian has hosted a large fundraiser the night before.

Rob McCoy:

“The businesses that support it get attacked. So we’re just gonna make it individually supported, like you sponsor the kids in Uganda, we’re gonna sponsor a newspaper. I wanna put the URL, the QR code. Hold up your camera and I wanna see you doing it. Take your camera, from your phone, like you’re gonna take a picture of it, it’ll pop up a little thing, touch that, and it’ll take you right to the website where you can donate. Every do that. And everybody do it. Perfect. I got plenty of time. I’m in no hurry.”

Now one could argue that they didn’t know they had been delinquent for their entire existence, but they would have, at the very least, known in early March 2023 based on the notice they received dated March 7. Based on this date of the sermon in the video (March 26, 2023), they had received the delinquency notice PRIOR to the fundraiser. And that notice, as well as the suspension notice they received on June 22 were both clear:
​
"An organization that is delinquent, suspended or revoked is not in good standing and is prohibited from engaging in conduct for which registration is required, including soliciting or disbursing charitable funds. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 11, § 999.9.4.)"
WHEW. OK, reward yourself to a drink before moving forward.
Picture
Back to the money. Who is the  money behind this paper?

Per ProPublica, Conejo Guardian’s 990 for fiscal year ending December 2021 lists its expenses as $23,626 (via its SCHEDULE O itemization):

1. DONEE: $15,644 to Kilpatrick Family Ministries - (Joel Kilpatrick is the editor of the paper. Apparently they donate to his family ministry as payment?) I wonder if this “donation” would also be considered a “disbursement of charitable assets.” Given that they are delinquent with the CA DOJ … (“A delinquent organization may not engage in any activity for which registration is required, including solicitation or disbursing of charitable assets.”)
2. Advertising and Promotion: $180
3. Insurance: $1,528
4. Uncategorized: $5,312
5. Bank Service Fee: $960
6. Bank Fee: $2
TOTAL: $ 23,626
Picture
Some information is not included on their Schedule O. Their 990 form states that the expenses to be itemized in schedule O should actually total $25,896 … see #10 and #16 in the expenses section, but the expenses itemized only add up to $23,626, so $2,270 is unaccounted for here.

(Interestingly, they list “Grants and similar amounts paid" (990 form Part 1, Expenses #1) as $17,914, but the only donee they list on Schedule O, is the Kilpatrick Family Ministries at $15,644. The difference between those two is $2,270 … who else got a little something something?

The 990 also states that $2,255 was categorized as an expense for: “Salaries, other compensation, and employee benefits” but states further down that no board members received compensation. Therefore, I’m curious where this money went.
Picture
But what’s also unaccounted for … PRINTING?

​Under Expenses #15: Printing, publications, postage, and shipping … Conejo Guardian lists ZERO expenses for … printing. This is a paper that boasts a once-monthly full color, 24-page (on average) edition to a circulation of 44,000.

Who’s printing it for free for them?

Who really is helping Rob McCoy fund and disperse a propaganda paper in our community ... and if they're "the paper of truth," why do they have so much to hide?
]]>