Posted on

Our Complaint to FPPC against Councilman Fish

COM-09242026-03946

My complaint concerns Councilman Bryan “Bubba” Fish’s employment by Los Angeles County as a full-time “transit advocate,” his campaign for City Council as a transit advocate, and his subsequent participation in Culver City deliberations on transit matters. In my view, these circumstances constitute a conflict of interest.  Consider this complaint to be similar to COM-04032026-01024 against Fish.

There is an additional inconsistency that I ask the FPPC to address. You upheld complaint COM-01272026-00232 against Councilmember Dan O’Brien, concluding that, as director of the Culver City Chamber of Commerce—a bona fide association—he may not deliberate on matters related to the Chamber. This apparently includes transit matters such as Save Sepulveda, which could restrict parking for businesses along Sepulveda Boulevard.

Yet you rejected substantially similar complaint COM-04032026-01024 concerning Councilmember Fish.

Please explain the rubric applied. Why may an officer of a bona fide association, whose connection to the matter may be indirect, be barred from deliberating, while a government employee paid specifically to advocate for the subject matter may participate in deliberations on that same subject?

As it stands, the distinction does not appear to advance the goal of keeping government decisions free from individual self-interest. Rather, it appears to permit government officials to advance governmental interests and policy objectives while restricting representatives of private citizens and associations from representing the concerns of their constituents.

My understanding is that the purpose of the Fair Political Practices Commission is to prevent public officials from personally benefiting from governmental decisions. Once the standard is extended to representatives of a class or association, however, it risks chilling civic participation and the ability of citizens to petition their government for redress of grievances.

The landlord-tenant context illustrates the concern. Councilmember Fish, as a renter, may serve on the housing subcommittee and help shape rent-control policy. Yet Councilmember Vera, as a property owner, reportedly had to recuse himself from a discussion concerning protection of landlord information. Whether or not those individual decisions were legally correct, the apparent disparity warrants a clear explanation.

I also understand that existing law may restrict certain government employees from running for elective office, and I believe those restrictions may be relevant to Councilmember Fish. However, that is not my principal concern here.

The central issue is that Councilmember Fish is a government-paid official serving on the City Council while advancing objectives associated with his government employment. The FPPC has upheld his ability to do so while, in my view, denying Councilmember O’Brien the ability to represent ordinary constituents and local businesses affected by government policy.

This raises a serious question of whether the governing standard is being applied evenhandedly. It is an unusually clear opportunity to explain which residents, employees, association representatives, and advocates may run for office and deliberate on issues central to their work, affiliations, and constituents.

I respectfully request a written explanation of the applicable legal standard and how it was applied differently in these two complaints.

Posted on

Our 2026 Election Recommendations – for a Transparent, Accountable, and Responsible Council

We’ve been around since 2019, and each election we’ve seen a key issue come forth. In 2020, we had rent control and a Council that wanted to defund CCPD by 50%. In 2022, we had single family zoning, homeless camps, and lane closures. In 2024, we fought to keep the gains we made on these issues.

2026 seems a more abstract issue – transparency, accountability, responsibility – but is really more important than any issue we faced before. It determines whether our city remains viable for the foreseeable future.

Council has been embroiled in several issues this past cycle, which is raising eyebrows:

*

Taken individually, each is a scandal. Together, these reflect a Council that has their own agenda, seeks to escape accountability to voters, and ultimately loot the treasury for themselves. Especially regarding Measure YV, this may be our last chance to change direction. That’s why we make the following recommendations:

NO on YV – this would allow 16 year olds to vote in the election, and give an impressionable voting bloc to whoever had the best access to the kids.  This would create an arms race, with your kids as victims.

Kimberley Griffin and Jeannine Wisnosky-Stehlin for Council – they are critical of the current Council’s conduct, would conduct themselves responsibly, and engage voters on the issues.  They have competitive campaigns – you’ve seen their lawn signs all over town.

Everyone but Brian Guerrero for School Board – he’s opposed bringing back honor classes.  Darrel Menthe is particularly interesting for his opposition to using the school district in Council politics.

Posted on

To the Victor, the Spoils?

What you need to know about Jubilo Village, the $20 million “loan” to a private church project, and what it means for Culver City’s budget and transparency

Last year Council approved the Jubilo Village project, a nearly $100 million upgrade to Culver-Palms United Methodist Church at 4464 Sepulveda Blvd, which would include 95 units of “affordable housing.”  This was a no-bid contract – meaning other viable housing projects did not get the chance to compete with this church for the city contract. This includes a $20 million “loan” which the city does not expect to be paid off.

Residents strongly opposed this project, filing two separate lawsuits to try to stop it, but were ultimately defeated. 

The real issue is who was involved.  Disa Lindgren, who sits on the church’s Board of Trustees, was also Councilman Puza’s campaign manager.  She’s not the only one.  The groundbreaking ceremony for Jubilo Vilalge is a who’s who of people who helped Puza get elected.  

The City Attorney attested that this does not constitute a conflict of interest.  But it does raise a fundamental concern about people getting elected – and measures passed – merely for the purpose of feeding off the city treasury, and benefiting their friends. 

This isn’t an isolated incident.  Conflict of interest?  Or just – to the victor, the spoils?

Puza’s 2022 campaign photo
Jubilo Village groundbreaking at Disa Lindgren’s church

1. Councilman Freddy Puza  2. Disa Lindgren  3. Councilwoman Yasmine Imani-McMorrin 
4. Former Mayor Meghan Sahli-Wells  5. Former Mayor Alex Fisch  6. Councilman Bubba Fish

Posted on

Why we urge a NO vote on YV “Vote16”

Councilmembers Puza and Fish illegally campaigning at CCHS back in 2022. They suffered no consequences. If YV passes, this will only escalate.

Measure YV “Vote16” will open up our schools and children to outside political forces looking to court and influence them.  Protect our kids – vote NO.

High school has been a formative time in all our lives. It was our first introduction to politics and culture. The Vote16 amendment makes promises to engage Culver City High School students in our civic culture by granting them the right to decide who our next councilmembers will be.

The reality is a bit different.

For a while now, activists have had an eye to campaigning in our school district. They’ve pressured Council to approve this measure on the ballot – for a second time.

Let’s set aside how this is going to work. Let’s assume the proponents thought of all that-how those under 18 get registered, whether outside students can vote, whether students can run for Council, etc.

The fact is, this measure makes our students a captive, impressionable voting bloc. The candidates with the best access to the school district will have an advantage over outsiders. That makes our Council less accessible or accountable.

Councilmembers Puza and Fish illegally campaigning at CCHS back in 2022.  They suffered no consequences.  If YV passes, this will only escalate. Learn more about this incident HERE.

And a voter is public record. Their name, address, and contact info would be published by the election administrator, available to anyone who requests it. It’s a necessary part of elections. That means your 16-year old child would be getting contacted – and courted – by strangers with political motives.

Is that the school district you want? Do you want it to become a political football, with your children being contacted by competing strangers, pressured to vote for their favored candidates? Or do you feel like your children should be shielded from the political winds of our city?

If you feel like our Council elections should leave our kids alone, vote NO on Vote16.

You can read more about our argument against Vote16, along with our rebuttal, on the city’s election website.

Posted on

2026 Political Outlook

First of all, thanks to everyone who met the call for donations.  We met our fundraising goal, ensuring we will be functional for 2026.  So here we are for another year. 

And we are certainly needed.  Already, Council is looking to restrict traffic  on both Overland, and now Sepulveda.  The lawsuits against Jubilo Village failed, so we’re looking at $20 million in city funding for that.  Dan O’Brien and Freddy Puza are both up for re-election this year, and we don’t yet know who will rise to challenge Freddy.  And now we are informed that the progressive Council majority will put the failed “Vote 16” ballot measure back on the ballot.  If that passes, expect them to aggressively ballot harvest the high school.

So that’s in in a nutshell for Culver City. 

But that election is in November.  And as we know, Culver City is not an island.  We are surrounded by the city of Los Angeles.  What happens there affects us intimately – as we have witnessed in our various freeway underpasses.  The 405/Venice cleanup was a heroic effort involving Culver City, two LA councilmembers (Park, Yaroslavsky) as well as the Mayor and the County Board of Supervisors. 

Both Traci Park and Karen Bass are up for re-election.  Furthermore, Park has only one challenger – a Bonin protégé who promises to undo all the work Park has done.  And DSA champion Nithya Raman (LA CD4) just announced a last minute candidacy against Karen Bass.  Their elections are in the June 2 primary.  

Whoever wins Traci’s primary will automatically be elected to Council, as an absolute majority will bypass the general election.  Meanwhile, 25 candidates have announced their candidacy for mayor, recalling memories of the desire to oust DA Gascon. Spencer Pratt, whose house burned down in the Palisades, is a promising contender.

The opposition to Bass is palpable, given her handling of the Palisades fires.  But we also risk diluting our opposition among some ~20 challengers.  Meanwhile, we can expect the DSA to hit a heavy ground game to get Raman into the top two candidates who would make it to the general election. 

And we need to do what we can to avoid a Bass/Raman runoff.  As you know, the DSA is violently opposed to everything we stand for.  They want to defund the police, abolish prisons, leave vagrant camps unregulated, and implement road diets.  They’re “housing first” – meaning if the homeless don’t want to move, we can’t touch them. 

So this election has very concrete consequences for Culver City.  We will be getting involved, as we need an LA Council we can work with.  And, given the schedule for this year, we can afford to spend some time on it.

Look forward this year to updates on the LA race and how you can get involved.  But we will certainly be keeping you up to date on the city election and any crazy ballot measures our Council wants to pass. 

Posted on

Vote NO on Prop 50 – here’s why

Sacramento has called a special election in California, due Tuesday November 4th, to do away with existing Congressional districts for the next three elections. The existing districts, drawn by an independent redistricting commission, would be replaced by districts drawn by Sacramento. We invite people to check the proposition’s proposed new districts to see what they would look like, if this passes.

We think this Proposition is a horrible idea. But why take a position on such a partisan proposition regarding national politics?  Our PAC had an extensive debate on this issue, with a well spoken minority that wanted us to stay out of it.  Taking a position on this without taking a partisan stand is threading a very small needle.

NO on 50

Our issue is, ff California scraps its redistricting commission, and resorts to districts drawn by Sacramento, then Sacramento will now be in charge of our Congressional delegation. It carves up cities (including Culver City) into other districts, and slams separate cities together.

Gerrymandered districts will make it impossible for locals to control their Congressmen.  It means more edicts coming down on our city from Sacramento, like forced upzoning, attacks on our police department, etc.  It’s a real issue for us, one we saw when the entire county machine attacked our 2020 ballot measure.  And it hits at the national level too.

We’re not going to get into the “he said, she said” argument of how Texas did it first.  Because there’s no point getting dragged into it.  It’s a prisoner’s dilemma where we have no winning situation.  Democrat partisans should understand, if every state were to gerrymander like California will under Prop 50, Democrats will stand to lose another 15 seats or so nationally.

And a country where all states gerrymander to a “winner take all” congressional delegation, means a country where the ruling state party has absolute control.  Locals will not be able to field competitive candidates.  They will have no say on critical issues.

That’s why we are urging a NO vote on Prop 50.  It’s a Faustian bargain, where locals lose no matter what.

Posted on

“It’s a Trap!” – about Measure CL sales tax increase

Tell Council – our police and fire are NOT options paid for with ballot measures!

Also – Fiesta La Ballona this weekend!
A ballot box will be available.

Ballots are due Tuesday the 26th for the all mail-in Ballot Measure CL – a ¼% sales tax increase in Culver City.  Councilmembers O’Brien and Vera are both urging YES to keep the city solvent. But needless to say, everyone is upset about having to approve yet another tax increase, especially after Council recklessly approved:

  • $20 million for Jubilo Village “affordable housing project” – conveniently run by Freddy Puza’s campaign manager, Disa Lindgren
  • $6.5 million to buy out Martin Retting gun store – spearheaded by fly-by-night activist group “Culver 878”
  • $2.5 million to bail out CCUSD (while this may have been necessary, this weighs on CCUSD’s financial recklessness)

We say this because it’s important to understand the text of the ballot measure, so we understand what Council majority is up to:

“Shall an ordinance providing funding for maintaining three fully-staffed fire stations/911 emergency response times; retaining firefighters, paramedics, police officers; homeless reduction services/ encampment prevention; improving parks/fields; repairing potholes/streets/storm drains; senior/youth services and other General Fund uses, by enacting a 1/4 cent sales tax, providing approximately $5,600,000 annually until ended by voters, requiring all funds locally controlled, audits/public spending disclosures, be adopted?”

Meaning – while they squandered all our money on pet projects (leading us to tap into our reserve funds), they are asking for a sales tax increase to fund basic city services like fire and police.  And more so, “encampment prevention” which the last moderate Council seemed to do just fine with no tax increases.

This is an utterly cynical move by progressive Councilmembers Puza, McMorrin, and Fish, who denied they would defund the police if elected.  They have set up a scenario to do just that.

We have decided not to endorse a YES or NO position on this ballot measure, due to popular opposition to any more tax increases.  But it’s important to especially call out Councilmember Puza, who’s up for re-election next year:

Our police and fire don’t need ballot measures!

Posted on

June 18th 7pm – Reimagining Affordable Housing

Join us! June 18th 7pm

With Councilmember Albert Vera
and former Councilmember Goran Eriksson

American Legion Post 46
5309 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Or online – RSVP for Zoom link

Reimagining Affordable Housing 

Council approved $16 million for Jubilo Village – a private church.  Is there a better way for affordable housing?

Come listen to Vera and Eriksson give their analysis on this, and what we as taxpaying residents can do about it.

We’ve seen the headlines. $24 million for Tilden Terrace – a 31 unit building. $35 million for the Astro/Ramada hotels with 70 beds for homeless – $10 million of that coming from the city.

And now, Jubilo Village, a 95-unit affordable housing project, is looking to cost close to $100 million – with $20 million plus $16 million in federal vouchers from our city approved this week.  This development sits on the church of Freddy Puza’s campaign manager, which raises a conflict of interest issue as well.

We are following two lawsuits against this “loan”, which will never be repaid, as well as a staff report saying this will bankrupt the city.  

Meanwhile, the state put our housing goals at over 3000 new units, with limits on affordability. Given these numbers, is this route any more than a pipe dream? Will our city just wind up bankrupt, with nothing to show for it? Could this money be better spent on rental assistance programs, or nurturing our existing housing stock?

Come join us at American Legion Post 46 to discuss how we can better spend our money as a city, and as a state, to resolve our housing issues.

Posted on

UNDER FALSE PRETENSES? Regarding our new Council

The results are official. Bryan “Bubba” Fish has been certified to take over Councilman Eriksson’s seat.  Monday, December 9th, he will be sworn in and return Council to a progressive 3-2 majority: McMorrin, Puza and Fish vs. Vera and O’Brien.  Fish stands for defunding police, eliminating “sweeps”, and eliminating car lanes.   

So what happened?  How did our candidates lose?  What can we expect next?  How can we brace ourselves?

First off, Fish ran an aggressive ground game campaign.  He was knocking on doors practically full time since June.  But more so, he was misrepresenting himself.  When people confronted him about the MOVE project downtown, and the lawsuit to prevent Council from bringing back the second car lane, he denied it.  He ran on “safe streets”, implying he’s for public safety, but avoided any mention of defunding the police – except among his supporters.  He claimed support with Dan O’Brien and Akiba rabbi Zach Shapiro – something they both made public statements rebuking.

Yasmine did the same, invoking “safety” and a picture of her with her police officer father. She also had the benefit of incumbency under a successful Council in which she was the minority.  

Our whole campaign was playing catch-up with voters, explaining to them what would really happen if he were elected to the Council majority.  He and Yasmine resisted our efforts by characterizing us as evil corporate landlords, while they pushed their presence in precincts like Fox Hills – locked down buildings where it’s hard to reach out to voters. 

The takeaway here is voters are not aware of what they voted for.  As the saying goes, a lie goes halfway around the world, while the truth is still tying its shoelaces.

What should we beware? What can we expect?

  • The second car lane downtown will probably be removed again – with a disturbing legal precedent to boot.  We should see other lane closures as well.
  • The transient camps are coming back.  Without sweeps, there’s no enforcement of sidewalks.  We can build transients the Taj Mahal, but if they don’t want to move, a progressive Council won’t touch them – or their belongings.
  • We can expect defunding CCPD to come back on the table.  The good news is, as a simple 3-2 majority, they have to wait for the normal budget process in June.
  • Incremental Infill is coming back – meaning 4-8 units on any lot, depending on their creative interpretation of SB9. 
  • Expect more of the two-hour activist diatribe on Gaza, and this Council claiming it represents Culver City residents.  We should brace for this new Council to make anti-Israel resolutions.

A lie may be faster, but the arc of justice is long.  We will prevail.  Here’s how we brace ourselves.

  • The R-word: Recall.  We mention this to manage expectations, not to make a suggestion. Recalls are made specifically for those who come in under false pretenses to do unpopular things.  But they are extremely difficult – we’d need 20% of voter signatures (~5800 valid) to spur a special election.  That’s twice what we needed for our initiative.  
  • That means we need to start with groundwork – we need to tell Council we will hold them accountable if they enact policies they didn’t run on and weren’t voted in to do. Then we need to keep tabs on their performance, regarding the above policies.
  • To do this, we need to make the threat credible, or they will call our bluff and ignore us.  We have the experience of getting our initiative on the ballot, and others have the experience of the Fisch/Lee recall attempt.  But to make this threat stick, we need a professional effort with its own PAC and fundraising.  PCC will not support any recall effort that doesn’t have an associated PAC with proper funding.
  • Election analysis showed that we were victorious in the park neighborhoods – even Tellefson Park area, which has a lot of multifamily renters.  It was neighborhoods like Fox Hills and Arts District, where we aren’t as present or voters are behind locked doors, where Bubba prevailed. That means we need to extend our outreach.  “Did you know you voted for x/y/z?  Would you have voted for Yasmine and Bubba if you knew they were going to do these things?”  Based on that, we can gauge and build support for a recall.

Constituents concerned about these issues should contact the new Council and express their opinions as soon as possible. Speaking during the inaugural Council meeting would be an auspicious time to do this.

Posted on

On Bryan “Bubba” Fish’s misleading campaign

We wrote the following letter to the editor to Culver City News, regarding their article on Bryan “Bubba” Fish’s recent campaign:

Dear Editor,

Bryan “Bubba” Fish uses misleading terms to describe his platform in your article “Fish places safe street and housing at top of agenda”.  I’d like to elaborate on what he means in its three pillars: “safe streets, housing for all of us, and care-first budget.”

“Housing for all of us” means “housing first” – the philosophy that unless we have permanent supportive housing available for anyone who sleeps on our streets, we cannot touch them or their belongings. 

Needless to say, this attitude on the Council majority would bring back every transient camp we worked so hard to clean up over the past two years.

When Fish claims he wants “safe streets”, he is not talking about crime prevention or public safety.  He wants to “ban cars” as the main public safety threat.  When Council opened up the second car lane downtown, his argument against it was not traffic-based.  It’s that this will exacerbate climate change. Meanwhile, he opposed cleaning up the transient camps at the freeway underpasses (like Venice/405), as it goes against his “housing first” philosophy.  He also supported the ridiculous “bulbout” proposal at Washington Blvd., rather than clean up the sidewalk camp.  Even by his own standards – if the sidewalks are used for transient camps, and only cars can safely traverse, how is this “safe streets?”

When Fish says “care-first budget” he’s talking about defunding the police – namely the 50% reduction progressives have wanted for our city since the George Floyd riots of June 2020.  He advocated against the StarChase program – which allows police in pursuit to launch a “sticky GPS” device on the target vehicle, thus avoiding an unsafe chase.  It’s his argument that should give pause – that police would use it haphazardly, without attempting a stop.  This is a basic slander of our police department as unaccountable and unmonitored.  His very philosophy is police are dangerous, unnecessary, and should be abolished.  Which is effectively what a 50% reduction would do.

Protect Culver City has had to chase down many constituents with the reality of a Fish Council.  He’s been misleading on the campaign trail as well – avoiding the fact he would defund police, bring back transient camps, and impose more road diets.   Hopefully your publication can help set the record straight.

Ron Bassilian, President
Protect Culver City