Laserfiche WebLink
r <br /> A. Clear Violation of Special Event Sponsorship Policy <br /> The Santa Ana Special Event Sponsorship Policy exists to serve the <br /> residents of Santa Ana. The policy is undermined and rendered <br /> meaningless if funds are spent indiscriminately outside the Santa Ana <br /> City's jurisdiction. <br /> • Santa, Ana's "In the City" Standard: The City's published <br /> program criteria explicitly mandates that sponsorships are for <br /> events "taking place in Santa Ana" or that "directly benefit <br /> Santa Ana residents." The Anaheim "Little Arabia" event fails the <br /> geographical test. <br /> • Fiduciary Breach of Location: Fact that the $2,500 was <br /> directed to a non-profit entity operating entirely outside the City <br /> of Santa Ana's limits makes this transaction Inherently more <br /> suspect and problematic. This constitutes an egregious diversion <br /> of Santa Ana taxpayer dollars to subsidize events in another <br /> jurisdiction. <br /> • Lack of Documented Direct Benefit: A general claim of <br /> "uplifting all of Orange County" (as reportedly stated by the <br /> Councilmember) is not the legal or policy standard for Santa <br /> Ana discretionary funds. The policy requires a direct benefit. No <br /> public documentation, application, or staff review has <br /> established a clear, measurable, and exclusive public benefit to <br /> Santa Ana residents that warrants the diversion of $2,500 from <br /> our City's local needs to a neighboring city's event. <br /> • Prohibition on Political Appearance: The policy includes <br /> specific guardrails against events that are or may be "perceived <br /> to be politically oriented." Directing a $2,500 public sponsorship <br /> to an event in an adjacent district while actively campaigning for <br /> State Assembly (a district that includes Anaheim) creates an <br /> undeniable, flagrant appearance of using public resources for <br /> political serf-promotion and is inconsistent with the prudent <br /> stewardship required by the City's Code of Ethics. <br /> B. Potential Complicity of Administration (City Manager & Staff) <br /> I have concurrently requested the actual approval forms and paper <br /> trail. I submit that the approval of this non-compliant, out-of- <br /> jurisdiction expenditure raises serious questions about the <br /> administrative integrity of the City Manager's office and supporting <br /> staff (8th floor and Finance). <br /> • Failure of Fiduciary Oversight: The City Manager and staff <br /> (including Messrs. NuNez, Thai, Downs, and Ms. Vazquez) have <br /> a clear fiduciary duty to block expenditures that are facially non <br /> 2 <br />