Integrated Voting Systems (IVS), the company that printed and mailed ballots for Mendocino County’s March 5, 2024 presidential primary election, has filed a lawsuit seeking nearly $98,000 in unpaid invoices.

The dispute stems from a ballot-printing error discovered shortly before the election. According to a complaint filed April 23, 2026 in Mendocino County Superior Court, the county notified IVS on February 7, 2024, that Republican ballots had been mailed every voter, regardless of their party affiliation. IVS acknowledged responsibility the following day, attributing the mistake to an incorrect data file provided by a third-party vendor hired by the company.

IVS CEO Eric Kozlowski described the error in detail to the Secretary of State on February 9, 2024: “The issue was created by a third-party vendor that sent us incorrect ballot images. These ballot images were created from a test file produced by the vendor for converting the black print from CMYK to Black only using a static republican ballot image. The vendor created the correct file also. When the images were posted to our FTP site, the vendor posted the test file instead of the correct live file. When we looked at the file for our internal QC (quality control), the header fields, watermark, and barcodes were all correct.”

IVS says it immediately reprinted corrected ballots and mailed them at its own expense. The complaint stated replacement ballots were delivered to the U.S. Postal Service by February 13, allowing the election to proceed as scheduled.

After completing its work, IVS issued three invoices to the county on March 27, 2024:

• Invoice 13340: $22,515.89

• Invoice 13341: $29,241.37

• Invoice 13343: $45,999.80

The invoices totaled $97,756.06.

The county did not pay the invoices. Instead, on July 25, 2024, Deputy County Counsel Brina Blanton sent IVS a settlement proposal alleging that the ballot error had cost the county approximately $107,705.93 in additional expenses. According to the proposal, those costs consisted primarily of staff time, including 675.5 hours of regular employee labor and 403 hours of additional staffing needed to provide extra help.

The county proposed that IVS waive the unpaid invoices and pay the county an additional $9,948.87.

In a September 24, 2024 response, attorneys Elizabeth Skane and William Mullins, representing IVS, requested documentation supporting the county’s claimed damages. The attorneys sought payroll records, timekeeping records, employment agreements, wage information, and election budgets from 2020 through 2024.

According to the lawsuit, communications continued throughout 2024 and 2025, but IVS contends the county was slow to respond and failed to provide sufficient documentation to justify its claimed losses.

The complaint states that the county eventually produced approximately 400 pages of records, including voter emails sent to the Elections Office and election timesheets. IVS argues that the records did not include hourly wage information or documentation showing actual labor costs, making it impossible to verify the county’s estimate of damages.

The lawsuit asserts five causes of action:

• Breach of Contract — IVS argues that it fulfilled its obligations under its agreement with the county and that the county breached the contract by refusing to pay for services received.

• Quantum Meruit — IVS claims the county accepted and benefited from election printing and mailing services and must pay their reasonable value.

• Common Counts – Services Rendered — IVS alleges it provided election-related services for which payment remains due.

• Account Stated — IVS argues that the county received and retained the invoices without timely objection, creating an obligation to pay the stated amount.

• Declaratory Relief — IVS seeks a court ruling establishing the county’s obligation to pay for services rendered and accepted, and determining that the county cannot withhold payment solely on the basis of internally generated labor estimates.

IVS is seeking $97,756.06 in damages, plus pre-judgment interest, attorneys’ fees where authorized, and court costs. The company is also asking the court to declare that Mendocino County remains obligated to pay for services it accepted and used during the 2024 primary election.

IVS did not respond to a request for comment.

In a statement to MendoLocal.News, Mendocino County said it is currently unable to discuss the pending litigation but expects to be able to respond to questions at a later date.

Dead and malnourished sea lions are being reported along the Mendocino Coast in unusually high numbers, according to the Marine Mammal Center in Sausalito.

Giancarlo Rulli, a spokesperson for the center, said staff have been receiving reports from the Mendocino Coast as often as several times a day over the past two to three weeks. While that is a significant increase for the area, it remains far below the numbers seen elsewhere in California. In Santa Cruz County, for example, more than 300 dead sea lions were reported last year.

Rulli said the overall number of dead and stranded marine mammals reported along California’s 600-mile coastline remains within historical norms. However, scientists are concerned about a persistent marine heatwave affecting coastal waters.

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), coastal sea surface temperatures off California are among the warmest ever recorded for this time of year, rivaled only by conditions observed during the powerful 1997–98 El Niño and the “Warm Blob” marine heatwave of 2014–15.

Young, recently weaned sea lions are particularly vulnerable, Rulli said. Changes in ocean conditions can affect the availability of traditional prey species at a time when juvenile animals are still developing the skills needed to forage successfully on their own. Stranded animals can suffer other ailments such as pneumonia.

The Noyo Center for Marine Science did not respond to a request for information about local reports of dead or stranded sea lions, making it difficult to quantify the extent of the problem on the Mendocino Coast.

Sarah Grimes, the stranding coordinator for the Noyo Center, said in an email that a cause of death had not yet been established for the young grey whale that was found dead at Virgin Creek Beach at the end of April.

NOAA Fisheries cautions that the presence of a seal or sea lion on the beach does not necessarily mean the animal is sick or injured. Marine mammals commonly come ashore for a variety of reasons including to rest, breed, molt, and avoid predators.

Signs that an animal may be in distress include severe injuries such as excessive bleeding or open wounds, extreme emaciation, or unusual behaviors including persistent head shaking, seizures, disorientation, foaming at the mouth, or eating rocks or sand. Animals displaying these symptoms should be reported to the National Marine Mammal Stranding Response Network.

In Mendocino County, reports can be made to the Marine Mammal Center at (415) 289-7350.

Members of the public can also help by keeping their distance from marine mammals and ensuring that pets, especially dogs, remain leashed on beaches. This precaution is particularly important from late May through October during pupping season.

The Mendocino County Registrar of Voters reported preliminary election results on Tuesday after the polls closed at 8 p.m. The numbers printed below were produced at 12:00 a.m. The final vote count is not expected for several weeks. After the November 2024 election, the final official results were run on December 3, 2024.

This morning’s count, which is largely based on absentee ballots mailed before June 2, reflected the vote of roughly one in six registered voters.

Few voters cast ballots in every race. The governor’s race drew the greatest participation, with 9,035 ballots cast out of 9,177 counted so far

Governor’s Race

Voters also participated heavily in the election for the California Senate — 8,625 were ballots cast — and State Assembly — 8,669 ballots were cast.

State Senator (2nd District)

State Assembly (2nd District)

Measure A

A bond measure for the Mendocino-Lake Community College District did not reach the required 55% threshold needed to pass in early voting — 8,056 voters cast ballots.

Superior Court Judge

A contested race for superior court judge revealed strong support for the incumbent, Judge Patrick Pekin. The 5,760 votes received by Pekin in early voting exceeded the 5,697 votes received by Judge FredRicco McCurry who ran unopposed after being appointed by Gov. Gavin Newsom last year. Pekin also received the highest percent of the vote of any candidate in any race in early voting

Mendocino County Board of Supervisors — District 3

The District 3 Board of Supervisors race proved to be the most highly contest race in the primary election, with Eric Hart leading Buffey Wright Bourassa by five votes in early voting — 1,499 ballots were cast in early voting, or about 14% of registered District 3 voters.

Mendocino County Board of Supervisors — District 5

Supervisor Ted Williams, the incumbent, appeared to have a decisive edge in the District 5 race. Turnout for early voting was strong with 1,946 ballots cast, or 17% of the registered vote

.

It’s Form 700 season — the time when candidates for elected office publicly disclose their economic interests, including sources of income, investments, business positions, gifts, and real property holdings.

The disclosures serve an important purpose. California’s Political Reform Act requires public officials to identify financial interests that could create conflicts of interest and, in some circumstances, disqualify themselves from participating in governmental decisions that may have a material financial effect on those interests or those of their immediate family members.

Failure to make required disclosures can result in administrative, civil, and, in some cases, criminal penalties. The Fair Political Practices Commission has repeatedly emphasized that omissions attributed to oversight or misunderstanding do not necessarily excuse reporting violations.

Form 700 statements are public records. Agencies are generally required to make them available promptly upon request and no later than the second business day after receiving a filed statement.

However, a coastal resident who requested copies of candidates’ Form 700 filings waited approximately six weeks for scanned copies from the Mendocino County Elections Office. When the documents were eventually provided, they did not initially include a filing for judicial candidate Colby Friend, who is running for Superior Court judge. The Registrar of Voters subsequently followed up with a cover page that stated that Colby was attaching disclosures for investments and real property, but these were not provided to the resident.

Among the candidates whose filings were provided, four reported no disclosable interests:

• Todd Lyly, candidate for Fifth District supervisor

• Kevin Evans, candidate for Fifth District supervisor

• Clay Romero, candidate for Third District supervisor

• Megan Hunter, candidate for Auditor-Controller, who is running unopposed

Neither Lyly nor Hunter checked the form’s “No Reportable Interests” box, although both signed their statements under penalty of perjury. When contacted by MendoLocal.News, Lyly and Romero said they would review their filings for accuracy and amend them if necessary. In addition to a single family residence, which Lyly is not required to disclose, Lyly owns 2621 N. State Street, which is zoned commercial. Evans said his filing was accurate. Hunter did not respond to a request for comment.

Among the remaining candidates, Russell Green, a candidate for Third District supervisor, filed one of the most extensive disclosures, listing investments, business interests, and real property holdings.

Fifth District Supervisor Ted Williams disclosed a technology consulting company and his position on the Golden State Connect Authority board. County Superintendent of Schools Nicole Glentzer disclosed a partnership interest in Circle X Cattle Company. Assessor-Clerk-Recorder candidate Tonya Mounts disclosed her role as chief executive officer of Mounts Family LLC, which she described as a mechanical shop located at 359 N. School Street in Ukiah.

Superior Court Judge Patrick Pekin disclosed the law office where his wife, an attorney, is employed, as well as rental property income.

Superior Court Judge Fredric McCurry disclosed income received by his spouse, as well as individual stock holdings in Amazon and GameStop. Green also reported multiple stock investments.

Treasurer-Tax Collector Chamise Cubbison disclosed her position as a trustee of the Mendocino County Employees Retirement Commission and reported an investment, her husband’s business entity, and a personal loan from Lorie Leaf.

Buffey Bourassa, a candidate for Third District supervisor, disclosed income of less than $2,000 from Buffey Bourassa Consulting, described on the form as “tribal consulting liaison.”

Eric Hart, also a candidate for Third District supervisor, reported less than $500 in income from property located in Willits.

Required disclosures

Required disclosures can range from relatively minor gifts to ownership interests in multimillion-dollar businesses. Form 700 disclosures generally fall into several categories:

1. Gifts. Gifts valued at $50 or more from a single source during the reporting period must generally be disclosed. For example, a dinner at a restaurant that costs more than $50 and is paid for by someone else may be a reportable gift. Transportation provided without charge may also be reportable under certain circumstances, depending on who provided it and the purpose of the trip.

2. Income. Sources of income totaling $500 or more generally must be disclosed. Candidates must also report certain economic interests held by a spouse or registered domestic partner. If a spouse or domestic partner is self-employed, the business entity may also be reportable.

3. Business ownership. Candidates must disclose business entities in which they hold ownership interests that meet reporting thresholds.

4. Loans. Certain personal loans must be disclosed. Additional restrictions apply to loans received from public officials, employees, consultants, contractors, or others connected to the agency associated with the office sought. Under some circumstances, a loan that is not repaid may be treated as a gift.

5. Real property. Real property interests valued at $2,000 or more generally must be disclosed.

6. Investments. Investments worth $2,000 or more in business entities doing business in, planning to do business in, or otherwise affected by the jurisdiction must generally be disclosed. Diversified mutual funds and similar investment vehicles are typically exempt from disclosure.

7. Business and nonprofit positions. Candidates must disclose positions such as director, officer, partner, trustee, employee, or management roles in business entities and nonprofit organizations, even when those positions are unpaid.

In addition to disclosure requirements, California law limits the value of gifts that many public officials may receive from a single source during a calendar year. For 2025–26, that limit is $630.

Clarifications: This story is available to be republished under the Creative Commons 4.0 license. (CC BY 4.0) by an media organization operating in Mendocino County.
We added a statement from Mr. Karas that the district is not operating in the red. (May 29, 2026)

Mendocino-Lake Community College District is asking voters to approve a $98 million general obligation bond to renovate and expand its campuses across two counties. What the district is not telling voters is that it already owes $203.9 million on bonds from a measure passed nearly two decades ago — and that local property owners are responsible for every dollar.

Measure A, which will appear on the June 2 ballot, would fund new and renovated facilities at the district’s main campus in Ukiah and centers in Willits, Fort Bragg, and Lakeport, as well as the Coastal Field Station, just north of Point Arena. If approved, the measure would roughly double the district’s total outstanding bond obligations.

The district’s existing debt stems from Measure W, a $67.5 million general obligation bond that voters in Mendocino and Lake counties approved in November 2006 with 62.4% of the vote. Nineteen years later, records show the district has issued 90 individual bonds across seven separate sales — and the final payment will not be made until 2052, nearly a half-century after voters went to the polls.

A Debt That Grew

Mendocino College issued its first bonds under Measure W in March 2007. It issued a second and final authorized series in August 2011. Then it refinanced — twice. A September 2015 refunding restructured $48.6 million in outstanding bonds. A March 2022 refunding restructured an additional $62 million.

Each refinancing extended the district’s obligations further into the future.

The district’s audited financial statements for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2025 — prepared by San Diego-based certified public accounting firm CWDL and issued December 8, 2025 — show the district carries $99.4 million in bond liabilities on its books. When all future principal, interest, and accreted growth on those bonds is counted through their final maturity, the total obligation reaches $203.9 million, according to the statements and MendoLocal.News research.

That figure is nearly three times the $67.5 million voters authorized in 2006.

The Bonds Voters Don’t Know About

The most consequential piece of the district’s debt is largely invisible to the public.

Buried in the district’s bond history is a class of securities called Capital Appreciation Bonds, or CABs. Unlike conventional bonds that pay interest every six months, CABs pay nothing until maturity. The debt simply grows — year after year, silently — until a lump-sum payment comes due.

The district issued CABs as part of both its 2011 bond series and its 2022 refinancing.

The largest single bond in the district’s portfolio is a 2022 CAB that matures in 2050. Records filed with the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board show the district received approximately $17.8 million when it sold that bond. Taxpayers will owe $87.26 million when it comes due — a ratio of nearly five to one.

More striking: a separate set of CABs issued in the district’s 2011 bond series were never retired in the 2022 refinancing. Because CABs typically cannot be called before maturity, those bonds are still accreting on the district’s books. As of June 30, 2025, the remaining 2011 series carries $23.5 million in carrying value, with future obligations totaling $62.4 million extending through 2052 — the last payment date for any Mendocino College bond.

The district’s own audited statements describe annual CAB accretion — the year-over-year growth of unpaid interest — as interest expense. That figure totaled $4.6 million in fiscal year 2025 alone.

Taxpayers Are Already Paying

General obligation bonds are backed by local property taxes, not tuition or state funds. Every dollar the district borrows under Measure W must be repaid by property owners in Mendocino and Lake counties.

In fiscal year 2025, the district collected $4.1 million in local property tax revenue specifically designated for bond capital repayment, according to its audited financial statements. That levy will continue each year — the the amount can vary — until the final bond matures in 2052.

Measure A, if approved, would authorize the district to levy additional property taxes to service the new debt — on top of the existing levy. Because taxes are levied according to assessed value — which has little or no relationship to a property owner’s ability to pay — residents who bought property in the last six years after the pandemic run-up in prices are required to contribute significantly more than their neighbors — on top of their higher baseline taxes.

The district’s audited financial statements also show it ended fiscal year 2025 with a negative net position of $20.8 million, meaning its total liabilities exceed its total assets by that amount. In 2024, the district ended the fiscal with a negative net position of $20.9 million

The District’s Response

Mendocino-Lake Community College District officials responded to a request for comment on the district’s existing bond obligations with a link to the most recent audited financial statements. The district did not comment on the relationship between that debt and Measure A.

Mr. Karas took issue with a statement that the district has been operating in the red for the last two years, as reflected in its negative net position. “We have a balanced budget and reserves meeting State guidance,” he said in an email.

The district’s bond oversight committee, a citizen panel required by California law, reviews expenditures under Measure W. The committee’s most recent public report is dated 2015. It did not contain any information about continuing taxpayer indebtedness.

California law enacted in 2013 restricted school districts from issuing new CABs after concerns about the instruments. Whether Measure A bonds could be structured as CABs, and under what restrictions, was not addressed in the district’s public ballot materials.

A Pattern Statewide

Mendocino College’s bond history is not unique in California. Community college districts statewide have used CABs to lower near-term debt service costs while pushing large obligations decades into the future — a practice that drew scrutiny from state legislators and the California State Auditor beginning in the early 2010s.

What distinguishes Mendocino College’s situation is that its oldest CABs — issued in 2011 and still outstanding — survived a 2022 refinancing that was designed in part to reduce the district’s long-term costs. Because CABs cannot be called early, those bonds will continue growing for nearly three more decades regardless of what voters decide on Measure A.

Measure W was approved in 2006 for $67.5 million. Nearly two decades of borrowing, refinancing and compounding interest later, the total bill has grown to $203.9 million. Local property owners are currently paying $4.1 million per year toward that debt and will be doing so until 2052.

Measure A would start the clock again.

Read our previous stories:

A New Vision for Mendocino College Gets Lost in the Fine Print (May 28, 2026)

Measure A Fliers Suggest Bond Would Fund Fire Academy Already Paid for by the State (May 27, 2026)

Tim Karas has spent six years watching young people leave Mendocino County

They drive north to Humboldt County or south to Sonoma, chasing nursing degrees and other certifications that Mendocino College does not offer.

“Everyone wants us to expand nursing,” said Karas, the superintendent/president of the Mendocino-Lake Community College District. “Fire, marine science, the trades. That’s what people ask me about when I go around the community. Why don’t we have more nurses? Why don’t we have more paramedics? Why don’t we have more plumbers?”

The answer, he has concluded, is concrete and steel, as well as up-to-date laboratories and electronic infrastructure — or rather, their absence.

Now, Karas has pinned his hopes on Measure A, a $98 million bond measure on the June primary ballot that would fund new and renovated facilities at the district’s campuses in Ukiah, Fort Bragg, and Willits. If approved by 55 percent of voters, the measure would authorize the district to borrow from bond investors, with taxpayers repaying the principal and interest — a total of roughly $210 million — over the life of the bonds.

The vision is straightforward: build the specialized facilities that would allow Mendocino and Lake County residents to train for well-paying careers without leaving home. A new Allied Health and Career Technical Education Complex in Ukiah. A rebuilt Mendocino Coast College Center outside Fort Bragg. An expanded North County Center in Willits, housing programs in Fire Science, Sustainable Construction and Lab Science.

But there is a problem. Almost none of that appears in the materials voters are actually reading.

Lost in the boilerplate

The full text of Measure A, as it appears in the voter guide, reads less like a mindful plan to steward public monies for the greatest impact and more like a laundry list of projects drafted by a committee determined to spend tens of millions of dollars because they can.

The money, it states, can be used to build or renovate “science buildings, advanced technology buildings, wellness/allied health facilities, culinary arts facilities, arts and woodworking buildings and facilities, nursing and physical therapy facilities, agricultural facilities and buildings, early childhood education center ... student services and welcome centers, bookstore, dining, food services, physical education facilities, visual and performing arts facilities including theaters and galleries, classrooms, and buildings, bus stops, parking lots ... affordable student and workforce housing units ... the construction and installation of on-premises, cloud-based, or hybrid data center and related infrastructure.”

The list runs to well over one hundred items.

“Why are you going to fund a parking lot?” Karas acknowledged voters have asked. “We’re not. But that’s where the hard part is — the list is like a legal form. You have to put all the stuff there as boilerplate.”

The language is standard practice for California community college bonds, which are governed by strict constitutional requirements. Bond attorneys routinely include exhaustive lists of permissible expenditures to protect districts from legal challenges. But the effect, in a rural county with few reporters and a skeptical electorate, has been to obscure the very projects the measure was designed to fund.

“The ballot language doesn’t say ‘Willits Center’ or ‘Ukiah Allied Health Building,’” Karas conceded. “It highlighted programs more than places. And I know what that means because I’m in the weeds. But voters aren’t.”

Three campuses, one chance

The district’s case for Measure A is rooted in a Comprehensive Facilities Master Plan covering 2025 to 2035 — a 250-plus page document that lays out, in granular detail, what the bond money would actually build.

In Ukiah, the centerpiece is a new 17,800-square-foot Allied Health and Career Education Complex designed to replace a cluster of aging temporary buildings and consolidate signature programs — nursing, culinary arts, middle college — into the heart of campus. Several of the district’s main buildings, including MacMillan Hall and Lowery Hall, are candidates for deep renovation or outright replacement. The campus’s original structures date to the 1970s, built for an era when nursing shortages and fire science academies were not among the college’s central missions.

“Those programs didn’t even exist when the campuses were built,” Karas said. “They were all added in the 2000s.” The buildings, he added, were never designed for them.

On the Mendocino Coast, the plan calls for demolishing the existing main and art buildings at the Fort Bragg center and replacing them with a single, consolidated 28,750-square-foot facility housing academic, scientific and arts programs, including a dedicated Environmental and Biological Sciences Center. The Krenov School for Fine Woodworking — a program with a national reputation — would be relocated and expanded on the same campus.

In Willits, the situation carries particular urgency. The district has already secured approximately $20 million in grants for the North County Center expansion — $12 million from California’s Proposition 2, roughly $4 million from a federal Economic Development Administration grant, and $4 million in non-reimbursable funds. The planned 18,500-square-foot building would house career technical education programs in Fire Science, Sustainable Construction and Lab Science.

But nearly all of those grants are reimbursement-based: the district must spend the money before it can recover it. The bond money will provide the initial cash flow to pay construction workers and contractors. It’s critical to moving forward.

The federal portion carries additional uncertainty. With the current administration’s posture toward federal spending in flux, Karas said he feels pressure to break ground before the political climate shifts further. “Our project somehow made its way through both administrations,” he said. “Both lenses still found value in it. Maybe we have a unicorn. But the best thing I can do once we have money is to actually do the construction.”

A communication gap

The disconnect between Measure A’s ambitions and its public presentation has not gone unnoticed.

Critics have focused on the bond mechanism itself — pointing out that of the roughly $210 million voters would ultimately pay, more than half represents financing charges and interest to bond investors. The cost of the bond are also not equally distributed. Newcomers who purchased properties following the run-up in values during the pandemic will pay multiples more than their neighbors, compounding gross inequalities in public services funding created by Proposition 13.

Karas does not dispute the math. But he argues the framing misses the point. Community colleges in California have no general fund allocation for capital construction. Bonds are not merely the conventional path — they are, under the state constitution, essentially the only path. “I do not know an example of a community college district in California that used something other than bonds for facility construction,” he said.

What he acknowledges more readily is that the case for those bonds was never clearly made to the public. The district’s voter outreach materials — mailers, a website, a FAQ page — describe the bond in general terms but fail to connect the dots between upgraded classrooms and a 35-year tax on property owners.

“The ballot language maybe could have had a better pointer to the facility master plan, which is the driver,” Karas said.

The Mendocino College Foundation, a separate nonprofit entity, has funded the campaign in favor of Measure A. The district, as a public agency, is legally constrained in its campaign activities — a distinction that has contributed to fragmented messaging.

A vote that comes down to trust

Measure A needs 55 percent approval to pass — the threshold California sets for local school and community college bonds. Karas said that if the measure fails in June, the district is unlikely to return to voters with another attempt anytime soon.

A $120 million bond measure proposed in Humboldt County in 2024 underscores the stakes — the bond fell short of the required threshold with just 52.6% support.

Julie McGovern, executive director of the Mendocino College Foundation, wants voters to understand the level of accountability that is baked into Measure A.

She pointed to the district’s last bond measure, Measure W, passed in 2006, as a model of what rigorous stewardship looks like in practice. A report to the community, published in 2015 after all Measure W funds had been expended, documented spending down to the cent. An independent citizens’ oversight committee — composed not of college employees but of community members with an interest in responsible use of public funds — reviewed the books annually throughout the life of the bond.

“I don’t think anybody wakes up in the morning and says, ‘Yay, I want to pay more taxes,’” McGovern said. “But we do have to see the long-term picture. If every other college district in California is putting out a bond measure to improve their facilities and we are not, then our students and our community will be left behind.”

It is, she acknowledged, an argument that depends on trust — trust that the specific projects described in the facilities master plan will actually be built and that the oversight mechanisms will function as designed.

Whether voters in Mendocino and Lake counties are prepared to extend that trust, at a cost of roughly $210 million over the life of the bonds, is a question the June ballot will answer.

Editorial Note: We are adding links to the bottom of this article to provide additional information about this measure.

Correction: An article published in the Mendocino Voice, and quoted below, misstated permissible spending under Measure A. The district clarified in interviews that staff training and employee salaries would not be covered, though the Voter Guide does list staff training as one of the allowable expenditures. (May 28, 2026 3:36 p.m.)

A series of political flyers about Measure A — a 35-year levy on property owners — has raised concerns among voters about claims and costs.

The most recent flyer arrived Tuesday, claiming that Measure A “will expand safe, modern classrooms and labs to train the firefighters we desperately need — people who will live and serve right here in our communities, including wildfire training and making the updated Firefighting Academy a reality.”

However, in March, the state of California announced a $20 million investment to fund a new 19,000-square-foot building on the Mendocino College Willits campus specifically for a new fire academy.

According to state Sen. Mike McGuire, who spoke at the funding announcement ceremony, the building will house training programs in fire science, construction and energy technology, laboratory services, and healthcare workforce development.

“I couldn’t be more excited that we are building the newest Fire Academy on the North Coast right here in Willits,” McGuire said.

Measure A would authorize the sale of $98 million in general obligation bonds and obligate Mendocino County property owners to repay approximately $210 million in principal and interest — roughly $3,800 per assessor parcel over three and a half decades.

However, because of the structure of the tax, people who purchased property within the last six years could pay substantially more. The voter information guide also notes that the total cost of the bond could exceed current estimates.

“The foregoing information is based upon projections and estimates only,” the guide states. Amounts such as the estimated $210 million debt service “are not maximum amounts and durations and are not binding on the district.”

Dennis Miller, a Fort Bragg retiree, has been speaking out about the cost of the bond at public meetings.

“There’s not a lot of information about how much bonds cost, and to me it is unbelievable,” Miller recently told the Willits City Council.

Miller said he is not opposed to funding education but would prefer a parcel tax, which would directly fund the college. According to the voter guide, more than half of taxes levied on property owners would go toward financing fees and interest paid to bondholders.

Despite the much higher long-term cost to taxpayers, government entities sometimes favor general obligation bonds because they can pass with 55 percent voter approval, compared with the 66.66 percent threshold generally required for parcel taxes.

In a letter to the editor published by The Mendocino Voice, B.B. Kamoroff of Willits noted that while the flyers portray Measure A as supporting “affordable education,” the voter guide lists more than 100 potential projects eligible for bond funding.

Kamoroff cited projects including dining facilities, bookstores, theaters, galleries, athletic and wellness facilities, performing arts spaces, a data center, land acquisition, demolition work, roads, parking lots, irrigation systems, vehicles, furniture, elevators, generators, and administrative costs.

“The funds will also go to pay assessment reviews, planning costs, staff training, and to the district for employee salaries,” Kamoroff wrote.

Kamoroff described it as “regrettable” that the flyers misrepresent how the money would be spent.

Additional stories:

Ballot Measure A: Fort Bragg resident questions true costs to homeowners, Ukiah Daily Journal, May 26, 2026

A New Vision for Mendocino College Gets Lost in the Fine Print, MendoLocal.News, May 28, 2026

Ahead of the June 2 primary election, six candidates running for Mendocino County Board of Supervisors in Districts 3 and 5 answered questions about wildfire preparedness and emergency services funding. The candidates addressed critical issues including their commitment to allocating Measure P sales tax revenues for fire protection, support for renewing the quarter-cent sales tax when it sunsets in 2033, and their vision for sustainable funding of local fire and EMS services.

View questionnaire

Candidates for the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors squared April 29 in Laytonville. Eric Hart, Clay Romero, and Buffey Wright-Bourassa discussed Mendocino County’s post-cannabis economic slump, permits and code enforcement, and escape assessments. The three pointed to their varied backgrounds — working within county government, engineering and the private sector—as they pitched solutions. Key themes included fixing slow permitting systems, stabilizing funding for emergency medical services, and exploring new tools, including AI, to improve county operations. Russell Green did not participate.

Watch the forum on YouTube

Question 1: The Laytonville area as defined by the Laytonville Unified School District, the Long Valley Fire Protection District as well as the Laytonville Area MAC boundaries is split between the third and the fourth districts. As county supervisor, how do you plan to represent Lakeville’s needs across two districts?

• Eric Hart proposes both a long-term and a short-term strategy. Long-term, he advocates for redistricting in 2030 to unify communities based on where residents actually live, work, and socialize, rather than splitting them down the middle. Short-term, he believes the solution lies in collaboration with the other four supervisors. He notes that while he may not agree with the District 4 supervisor on everything, they share a common responsibility to the county as a whole and must work together to take care of residents regardless of district boundaries.
  

• Clay Romero emphasizes that he views the residents as people rather than statistics divided by district lines. He believes that when essential services like emergency medical services and ambulances are at stake, jurisdictional boundaries should be secondary to ensuring the public’s safety. His approach is to treat the entire county as one unit, stating that “this is all the same county” and that representation should not be difficult if the focus remains on the needs of the people.
  

• Buffey Wright Bourassa cites her experience serving three terms on the Tribal Council as evidence of her ability to work across different governmental systems. She highlights the fact that current District Three Supervisor John Haschak encouraged her to run and her relationships with other members of the board of supervisors.

Question 2: What are the top three issues you have seen or heard about in the Laytonville area?

• Eric Hart identifies the struggling economy following the cannabis “crash” and COVID-19, the lack of housing caused by sewer infrastructure limits and county planning barriers, and the need for better basic daily services, such as reliable cell service.
  

• Buffey Wright Bourassa focuses on the lack of sewer and water infrastructure hindering growth, the difficult permitting process (specifically mentioning high costs for water testing), and the inadequacy of transportation, noting that Mendocino Transit Authority does not serve Laytonville.
  

• Clay Romero points to the failing economy, what he calls the “very bad policy” of the current cannabis ordinance, and the critical need for a wastewater system to handle drainage and runoff in the town area.

Question 3: What is your track record in working for the public’s best interest and what qualifies you for this office?

• Eric Hart points to 25 years of experience in operations optimization for large corporations like AT&T, including as a technical director supporting thousands of AT&T employees. Locally, he served on the Civil Grand Jury investigating county accountability and has led both local and county-wide fire safe councils.
  

• Clay Romero emphasizes his perspective as a self-employed machinist who has not worked in government. He also cites 15 years spent studying healthcare funding systems, claiming he has designed a system that could significantly reduce county costs.
  

• Buffey Wright Bourassa highlights nearly 12 years of experience within county government, including as a human resources technician and substance Use disorder prevention specialist, and three terms on a tribal council. As the Restorative Justice Program Manager for the Mendocino County Sheriff’s Office, she currently manages the inmate welfare fund budget and coordinates over 60 volunteers.

Question 4: What do you see as the biggest weakness and the biggest strength in Mendocino County?

• Eric Hart sees the strength in the creative and unique character of the residents. He identifies the weakness as a historical dependence on “boom-bust” economies (timber and cannabis) rather than building a stable baseline of small businesses.
  

• Clay Romero believes in the strength is the county’s brilliant and hard-working people, while the weakness is the geographic isolation that makes it expensive and difficult for outlying areas to obtain specialty materials for business.
  

• Buffey Wright Bourassa finds strength in how the community unites during crises like fires or the opioid epidemic. The weakness is the internal “silos” within county government and organizations that prevent effective collaboration.

Question 5: What is the biggest reason people are disillusioned with the Board of Supervisors, and what is your vision for working with them?

• Eric Hart argues that the Board has failed to implement its vision and has essentially allowed the CEO to run the county. His vision is for the Board to reclaim its leadership role and fix internal departmental inefficiencies.
  

• Clay Romero criticizes the Board for ignoring public input at meetings. He views county residents as “customers” who deserve better service and wants the Board to focus more on how property tax money is actually spent.
  

• Buffey Wright Bourassa believes disillusionment comes from the public only seeing the “show” of board meetings. She advocates for more accountability and town halls to facilitate face-to-face conversations with residents.

Question 6: What is the primary role of the Planning and Building Services department, and what is your view on complaint-driven inspections?

• Eric Hart believes the department should be a partner in building safety, but is currently hindered by outdated systems, a lack of IT support, and a negative culture. He wants to track complaints to prevent “weaponization” and shift the department toward a “find a way to yes” mentality.
  

• Clay Romero views the current system as “maddening” and advocates for simplification and common sense.
  

• Buffey Wright Bourassa finds the neighbor-on-neighbor complaint system difficult, she notes that professional code enforcement would require additional funding. She noted that she lived on tribal land and they also were required to tell on each other.

Question 7: How are escape assessments being handled, and what is the impact on residents?

• Eric Hart attributes the problem to disorganization and poor structure within the assessment department. He emphasizes the need for predictable billing and a “humane” approach when the county has “dropped the ball”.
  

• Clay Romero calls massive, unexpected tax bills “completely unreasonable.” He argues that if the county missed assessments for seven years, the resident should be given seven years to pay it back without penalties.
  

• Buffey Wright Bourassa notes that these assessments are tied to cleaning up records following a state audit. She advocates for better communication and processing rather than simply sending residents a bill for tens of thousands of dollars.

Question 8: How would you go about balancing the budget after the state audit?

• Eric Hart proposes a three-step approach: 1) collect money left on the table (like unpaid TOT from Airbnbs); 2) eliminate internal waste and inefficiencies; and 3) pursue state and federal grants.
  

• Clay Romero believes the budget should be balanced by growing the physical economy (manufacturing and agriculture) rather than treating residents like a “cash cow” or relying on government jobs.
  

• Buffey Wright Bourassa opposes using reserves for structural deficits and advocates for upgrading the county’s accounting infrastructure (noting that staff currently rely on Excel spreadsheets) to ensure stronger financial discipline.

Question 9: Do you see a role for Artificial Intelligence (AI) in government?

• Eric Hart sees AI as a tool for efficiency (like summarizing text) but warns that it is not yet ready to replace human thinking or core government responsibilities.
  

• Clay Romero views AI as a useful tool for sorting vast amounts of information. He suggests its dangers are exaggerated and that if it creates a problem, one can simply “unplug it”.
  

• Buffey Wright Bourassa cites the county’s new disclosure policy and expresses concerns about cybersecurity risks and the high environmental cost (water and electricity) of AI data centers.

Question 10: What are your thoughts on improving animal care and animal control services?

• Eric Hart frames the issue as public safety, focusing on aggressive dogs and nuisance wildlife. He advocates for better-funded spay and neuter services to address the problem at its root.
  

• Clay Romero initially admitted he was unaware of major problems in this area but stated he is a “reasonable guy” open to learning more and supporting necessary improvements.
  

• Buffey Wright Bourassa attributes current issues to a lack of funding and staffing compared to the 1970s.

Question 11: What are your personal limits on free speech and conduct toward protected groups?

• Eric Hart states that while free speech is protected, it has limits regarding threats to life and safety. He notes that attacks on public figures should be focused on criticizing issues and actions rather than attacking protected characteristics like race.
  

• Clay Romero describes himself as a “very tolerant man” who will defend the right of others to say whatever they want, even if he dislikes it, until those words lead to harmful actions.
  

• Buffey Wright Bourassa highlights her background as an equity officer and emphasizes the importance of treating all people with respect, regardless of their point of view, political standing or pronouns.

Question 12: What are your thoughts on funding for public ambulances staffed by fire departments?

• Eric Hart notes that depending on the part of the county, 80-90% of fire calls are medical. He supports creating a steady funding stream and states he would personally support a tax for these essential services.
  

• Clay Romero views emergency medical services as a matter of life and death. He pledges to ensure these services are funded because “the equipment is just simply not there to help people” currently.
  

• Buffey Wright Bourassa strongly supports ensuring fire districts receive predictable, transparent funding from sources like Measure P and Prop 172.

Question 13: What are your plans to assist small cannabis growers?

• Eric Hart argues the county failed by treating growers as a “cash cow.” He wants to support existing small “mom and pop” high-quality organic cannabis growers and proposes a graduated process for new businesses to get established. He said the county needs to push for better state regulation.
  

• Clay Romero advocates for simplifying the ordinance and treating cannabis like any other regular agricultural product to help revitalize the local economy. He said regulation boils down to: “when you are growing cannabis, don’t irritate your neighbor.”
  

• Buffey Wright Bourassa supports a one-time amnesty for penalties and interest to help growers get into compliance, but does not support forgiving the base taxes already paid by others. She said people who did the right thing should be protected.

Question 14: What will be done, if anything, about mental health in our county?

• Eric Hart considers mental health a core county responsibility. He advocates for supporting non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and working with the state to secure better funding.
  

• Clay Romero expresses a personal passion for the issue due to the impact of mental illness on the community. He pledges to use his position on the board to make mental health funding a priority.
  

• Buffey Wright Bourassa identifies “huge gaps” in current crisis response programs. She calls for stronger coordination between law enforcement, EMS, and behavioral health to ensure patients and their families aren’t left without options.

Other Resources:

Mendo Local Candidate Forum — District Three

Mendocino Voice Coverage of District Three Laytonville Forum

Mendocino Voice Coverage of District Three Willits Forum

MendocinoCoast.news sent the same set of written questions to both campaigns to help Mendocino County voters get to know the two candidates vying to serve as Superior Court Judge. The questionnaire focuses on judicial experience, approach to the work of the court, and the responsibilities of the bench. Judge Patrick M. Pekin returned his answers by the initial deadline. Attorney Colby J. Friend requested a short extension while on vacation and submitted his responses soon after.

The outcome will shape Mendocino County court operations, access to justice, and judicial culture through 2032.

Please visit MendocinoCoast.news to read the responses in full and view a side-by-side comparison.

The Candidates

Judge Patrick M. Pekin (Incumbent)

• Background: Age 51, lives in Mendocino, elected 2020, practicing law since 2003

• Experience: Extensive criminal defense background, presided over criminal, civil, family law, Behavioral Health Court, and Adult Drug Court

• Community ties: Volunteer firefighter, ocean rescue team member, Mock Trial coach, Save Our Coast Court advocate

• Endorsements: Every sitting and retired Mendocino County judge from last 15 years, DA, Public Defender, 4 county supervisors, law enforcement

• Campaign spending: ~$3,000

Attorney Colby J. Friend (Challenger)

• Background: Age 52, lives in Willits, practicing law since 2004

• Experience: Family law practice, no judicial experience, diverse work history (construction, restaurants, business owner)

• Community ties: Youth sports coach, community garden founder, theater participant, radio host, pro bono work

• Endorsements: Declines attorney/judge endorsements on ethical grounds; seeks community-based endorsements

• Campaign spending: Under $1,000 spent, up to $10,000 anticipated

Key Issues in the Race

Juror Shortage Crisis

Pekin’s view: County holds many jury trials; need for judicial districts; low turnout reflects civic disengagement

Friend’s view: Compensation is inadequate; expand juror pool; create voluntary recall list of individuals willing to serve as jurors; improve experience

Coast Courthouse Access

Pekin’s position: Deep Coast ties; commuted to Ukiah for years; supports technology solutions (remote interpreters, court reporters)

Friend’s position: Supports satellite courts in every district; compares county size to Jamaica/Hawaii; funding is the core issue

Public Access to Court Records

Pekin’s stance: Must follow California Rules of Court requiring in-person access; encourages working with court clerks

Friend’s stance: Strongly supports transparency; criticizes charging for digital copies; wants user-friendly searchable portals

Judicial Philosophy Differences

Pekin emphasizes:

• Following law and facts regardless of personal belief

• Experience with difficult cases (gang homicides, prison crimes)

• Patience combined with firmness

• Speaking in plain language to aid understanding

Friend emphasizes:

• Court prioritizes process over truth too often

• Every case deserves care and attention

• Broader life experience informs empathy

• Commitment to ensuring people feel heard

Significant Contrasts

Endorsements

Pekin: Embraces establishment support from entire judicial community

Friend: Rejects attorney/judge endorsements as ethically problematic, questions their appropriateness

Experience

Pekin: 5 years as sitting judge, extensive criminal trial experience

Friend: No judicial experience, family law focus, diverse non-legal work background

Judicial Temperament

Pekin: Emphasizes empathy alongside fair an equal application of the law and communicating in plain language

Friend: Emphasizes empathy from varied life experiences (cancer survivor, single parent, multiple careers)

Court Culture

Pekin: Works within existing system, advocates for practical solutions

Friend: Challenges court dress codes as First Amendment violations, questions judicial traditions

Systemic Issues

• Geographic challenges: County size (larger than Delaware, similar to Jamaica) creates access problems

• Resource shortages: Statewide lack of court reporters and certified interpreters

• Consolidation trend: Court operations centralizing in Ukiah, reducing Coast access

• Technology gaps: Odyssey system has problems; remote appearance pilot program expiring June 2026

• Election timing: June 2 election gives candidates only 4 months vs. November general election

• Transparency limits: California keeps judicial evaluations confidential; limited public records

Notable Details

• 2016 race was razor-thin: Pekin lost to Faulder by just 154 votes (49.51% vs 50.13%)

• If Friend wins: All 8 judges would live inland; no Coast-based judge

• Judge salary: ~$240,000 first year

• Pekin’s unique experience: Represented prisoners in Salinas Valley and Soledad State Prisons

• Friend’s creative compensation: Accepted figs, fish, books, tacos, paddleboard lessons for legal work

• Background checks: Friend has multiple minor traffic violations across states, he is currently a party in a family law case that is presided over by Judge FredRicco McCurry; Pekin’s records restricted

Three candidates vying to represent District 5 on the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors — Kevin Evans, Ted Williams, and Todd Lyly — participated in an election forum Monday, April 6, sponsored by Mendo Local Public Media and the Independent Coast Observer. The candidates addressed issues ranging from economic development and how to generate more and better-paying jobs to housing, public safety, and equitable uses of taxpayer funds.

INTRODUCTIONS

The forum opened with each candidate giving a brief statement about their background and their motivation for running for office. Each candidate was given two minutes for introductions and two minutes to answer each question that followed.

Kevin Evans
Kevin Evans said he is running out of concern for the county’s financial future following a recent state audit, emphasizing the need for better tracking of revenue sources to ensure sustainable funding for essential services like housing, roads, and public safety.

Ted Williams
Incumbent Ted Williams highlighted his experience and institutional knowledge, arguing that effective leadership requires understanding the limits of the Board of Supervisors’ authority and building relationships across independently elected departments to achieve progress.

Todd Lyly
Todd Lyly emphasized his lifelong local roots and business experience, saying he entered the race in response to community frustration with high permitting costs, slow processes, and concerns about water and development policies driving residents and businesses out of the county.

QUESTION ONE

What specific actions would you, as the District 5 supervisor, take to bring more jobs to the district, and which sectors would you prioritize?

Kevin Evans
Kevin Evans said he would prioritize sectors like agriculture, tourism, and healthcare while advocating for reduced permit fees and a streamlined process for workforce housing.

Todd Lyly
Todd Lyly called for the revitalization of traditional industries, such as timber harvesting and manufacturing, to create a stable tax base for the county.

Ted Williams
Ted Williams emphasized the opportunity created by the General Plan update to create conditions where people are willing to invest, hire, and build. He spoke about aligning zoning, reducing uncertainty, and allowing the public to shape growth in order to preserve the character of the coast. He said one practical step forward would be to allow licensed professionals to self-certify certain permits like other counties do.

QUESTION TWO

What’s your thinking on balancing the development of more affordable housing for locals versus preserving a robust visitor housing supply?

Ted Williams
Ted Williams argued that the visitor economy and affordable housing must be viewed together as balanced needs and suggested that investing in infrastructure like water and sewer systems is the best way to lower development costs.

Kevin Evans
Kevin Evans supported existing short-term rentals but expressed concern about an influx of outside investors. He warned that existing short-term rental operations could become oversaturated while the cost of affordable housing increases, and he noted the impact on emergency and healthcare facilities. He proposed a formula to prioritize long-term workforce housing development.

Todd Lyly
Todd Lyly contended that a stable base of year-round jobs is the most important factor, as tourism alone cannot sustain the services the county requires.

QUESTION THREE

What is your position on low-impact camping and short-term rentals?

Todd Lyly
Todd Lyly declined to take a specific position on these ordinances, stating that he had not yet had the opportunity to research their actual impact on the local economy.

Ted Williams
Ted Williams supported a regulated, legally defensible approach that protects neighborhoods while recognizing that tax revenue from these activities currently funds volunteer fire districts. He noted the difference between local residents renting part of their home for extra income and large-scale commercial operators.

Kevin Evans
Kevin Evans said he supported the rights of property owners to develop their properties as they see fit. At the same time, he said he opposed uses that negatively affect the quality of life for neighborhood residents or place an undue burden on emergency services or county staff responsible for enforcement.

QUESTION FOUR

A lot of attention is paid to the Potter Valley dam decommissioning, but District 5 has its own challenges with water. Should the county pay more attention to water scarcity in District 5, and if so, what would you suggest as solutions?

Todd Lyly
Todd Lyly suggested that the county explore the use of desalination plants and increased storage capacity to meet future water needs.

Kevin Evans
Kevin Evans noted that District 5 is facing significant water issues along both its coast and inland areas, primarily due to drought and resource management challenges. He recommended that the county act as a “pipeline” for state and federal funding to assist independent local water districts with infrastructure projects.

Ted Williams
Ted Williams said District 5 water needs deserve more attention given limited storage, aging systems, and seasonal variability. He added that the most effective solutions will require local leadership. He noted there has been discussion about countywide taxes to support needs related to the Potter Valley Project but said it would not be appropriate for coastal communities to subsidize commercial agricultural water use elsewhere when they have their own unmet needs.

QUESTION FIVE

Healthcare policy is determined primarily by the California Legislature and the federal government and often doesn’t reflect the needs of rural counties. What can the Board of Supervisors do, if anything, to change that?

Kevin Evans
Kevin Evans advocated for the county to fund its share of social programs like SNAP and IHSS while acting as a local advocate within the framework of state and federal regulations.

Ted Williams
Ted Williams noted that the county can improve care by ensuring county policies do not make it more difficult to deliver services and by coordinating with providers to avoid duplicating services. He also said health care access follows economic stability, so improving local health care means strengthening the local economy.

Todd Lyly
Todd Lyly argued that building a stronger local tax base is the best way for the county to address healthcare needs.

QUESTION SIX

Mendocino County spends a disproportionate amount of resources on public safety, addressing activity that tends to be concentrated in discrete areas geographically remote from District 5. Is there a way to reallocate resources so that District 5’s property taxes are spent proportionately on the district’s actual needs?

Ted Williams
Ted Williams contended that public safety resources must be allocated based on countywide need. He noted that even if resources were distributed disproportionately, other supervisors would be unlikely to support reducing funding in their own districts.

Todd Lyly
Todd Lyly reiterated the need for a strong economy and the importance of helping the hamlet of Potter Valley (District 1) address the consequences of the Potter Valley Project decommissioning.

Kevin Evans
Kevin Evans argued that District 5 disproportionately funds the county through taxes and called for a more proportional distribution of funds, specifically mentioning the need to support rural fire districts.

CLOSING STATEMENTS

Todd Lyly
Todd Lyly called for a collaborative approach in which the unique benefits and resources of each district are developed to support the county as a whole, specifically highlighting tourism, water, and timber harvesting.

Ted Williams
Ted Williams said there are easy answers that sound good, but governing requires understanding constraints, building consensus, and delivering results. He advocated for surfacing the truth, even when it is unsettling.

Kevin Evans
Kevin Evans highlighted his 30 years of municipal government experience and pledged to bring transparency and professional management to the supervisor’s office.

The owner of a chain of cannabis dispensaries and a candidate for the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors is facing a lawsuit alleging sexual harassment, retaliation and whistleblower violations, according to a complaint filed in Superior Court on March 24.

The suit was brought by Alyson Swartz, a former employee who was terminated almost immediately after submitting a written complaint of sexual harassment on Jan. 10, 2026, according to her attorney, Oscar Ramirez.

Russell Green, the founder, CEO and owner of Kure Wellness, acknowledged the suit in an email to MendoLocal.News. “We strongly deny the claims set forth in the complaint and believe them to be without merit,” he wrote. “We have full confidence in the judicial system and look forward to defending ourselves through the appropriate legal channels, where the facts will speak for themselves.”

Ramirez, a principal at Los Angeles-based firm Blair & Ramirez, said the complaint was filed after Swartz completed the mandatory administrative process required under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act and received a right-to-sue notice. “The process, not any external event, governed the timing of this filing,” Ramirez wrote in an email to MendoLocal.News.

According to the complaint, Swartz was hired by Kure in 2023 and maintained a record free of disciplinary warnings, reprimands, or corrective actions.

The suit alleges Swartz’s claims arose after Green, who served as her direct supervisor, began sending degrading and sexually charged text messages to her personal phone.

Among the messages allegedly written by Green and quoted in the complaint: “[A]s a guy who loves women lol, [y]ou look trashy af.”

He also allegedly asked, “[D]on’t you have a boyfriend or someone [sic] to argue with?”

After Swartz characterized the messages as sexual harassment, Green allegedly responded, “it’s sexual harassment if you are retarded / I am married and have hot women, any jury will see that / sleep it off bebe.”

The suit states the messages referenced and disparaged Swartz’s appearance and were rife with disability-related slurs.

On Jan. 10, 2026, Swartz filed a written complaint with the company’s human resources contact, whom the suit identifies as Green’s mother.

According to the complaint, Kure acknowledged receipt of the complaint and, on the same day, informed Swartz it was “reviewing significant compliance irregularities regarding the Metrc system that occurred under your supervision.” Metrc is a state-mandated software platform used to track cannabis products through the supply chain.

Within days, the suit says, Swartz was suspended and effectively terminated, with an offer of severance, which she rejected. “A company whose sole HR contact is the accused harasser’s mother is a company with no meaningful complaint process at all,” Ramirez wrote.

Swartz is seeking $10 million in damages on three causes of action, as well as punitive damages and attorney’s fees.

More election-related stories:

Mendo Local Candidates Forum — Board of Supervisors District Three

Mendocino County Voter Rolls Show Shift Toward Conservative Parties

About Mendo Local

Mendo Local is an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit publication that is funded by monetary donations from our readers and in-kind donations from our volunteer editor. Similar to nonprofit newsrooms like CalMatters, we believe that for nonprofit news to be trusted, the public must know who is paying for it. Transparency distinguishes legitimate, objective journalism from propaganda or advocacy funded by hidden interests. We disclose supporters who donate more than $5,000 and we do not accept anonymous contributions.

As of April 8, 2027, Mendo Local has currently received $6,137 in donations toward $10,000 in annual operating costs from nearly 100 donors whose giving ranges from $4 to $500. We are also seeking to separately raise $400 to update our voter registration analysis with current data following the June election.

You can help by subscribing for pre-set amounts on Substack or donating any amount to our current effort to raise operational funds. Or, you can send a check made out to our fiscal sponsor, The Tiny News Collective, to P.O. Box 362, Mendocino, CA 95460. Please note that we will need your email, along with your check, for compliance purposes. The Tiny News Collective is a registered 501c3.

An analysis of voter registration data by MendoLocal.News shows a recent shift in Mendocino County toward parties typically associated with more conservative political views.

Between 2020 and 2024, the number of registered Democrats declined by 4% to 25,338 voters. Green Party registration fell 6% to 753 voters. Registration in the Peace and Freedom Party, a small socialist party, increased 27% to 375 voters.

Over the same period, Republican registration rose 12% to 12,561 voters. The American Independent Party, often associated with conservative positions, increased 36% to 2,650 voters. Libertarian registration rose 14% to 740 voters.

Voters registered with no party preference declined 7% to 11,196.

Overall, the county’s registered voter population grew slightly, increasing by 201 voters to a total of 53,898. The net shift toward more conservative parties represents about 4% of the electorate.

National research suggests that party switching remains relatively limited but has, in recent years, slightly favored Republicans. A 2022 analysis by The Messina Group found that from 2018 to 2020, about 1.3 million Democrats switched to the Republican Party, compared with 1.0 million Republicans who became Democrats. From 2020 to 2022, roughly 673,000 Democrats switched to Republican, while about 570,000 Republicans switched to Democrat.

Overall, the net advantage in party switching favored Republicans by about 267,000 voters from 2018 to 2020 and about 103,000 voters from 2020 to mid-2022. Still, party switchers represent a small share of the electorate. Between 2016 and 2022, about 3.3% of registered voters in the states studied changed party affiliation.

Other research has found similar levels of voter movement between parties. A 2020 analysis by the Pew Research Center found that 9% of voters who identified as or leaned Republican in 2018 identified as or leaned Democratic two years later. A similar share of Democratic-leaning voters shifted toward the Republican Party during the same period.

However, local data diverges from the national trends. According to a January report from Gallup, 45% of U.S. adults identify as political independents. In Mendocino County, that figure is about 30%.

The analysis is based on a snapshot of registration data from February 2025. With reader support, Mendo Local will update the analysis following the June primary election.

Mendo Local is an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit publication that is funded by donations from our readers. Similar to nonprofit newsrooms like CalMatters and the Independent News Network we believe that for nonprofit news to be trusted, the public must know who is paying for it. Transparency distinguishes legitimate, objective journalism from propaganda or advocacy funded by hidden interests. We disclose supporters who donate more than $5,000 and we do not accept anonymous contributions.

Mendo Local has currently received $6,017 in donations toward $10,000 in annual operating costs from nearly 100 donors whose giving ranges from $4 to $500. You can support the acquisition of updated voter registration data by subscribing here or donating any amount to our current effort to raise operational funds. Or, you can send a check made out to our fiscal sponsor, The Tiny News Collective, to P.O. Box 362, Mendocino, CA 95460. Please note that we will need your email for compliance purposes. The Tiny News Collective is a registered 501c3.

The cost of the voter registration database in 2025 was $393.

Four candidates vying for the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors District 3 position — Eric Hart, Buffy Wright Bourassa, Clay Romero, and Russell Green — participated in an election forum Thursday, March 26, sponsored by Mendocino Local Public Media, addressing critical issues facing the county including economic development, road maintenance funding, financial oversight, and public safety spending.

INTRODUCTIONS

The forum began with each candidate introducing themselves and outlining their qualifications and priorities. Each candidate was given a time limit of two minutes.

Buffey Wright Bourassa

Buffey Wright Bourassa, born and raised in Mendocino County, highlighted her Native American family's deep roots in the area and her decade of experience in county government across human services, public health, behavioral health, and the sheriff's office. She emphasized her commitment to public service and bringing the voice of District 3 to the table, focusing on improving infrastructure, supporting local economic development, ensuring responsible use of public funds, and strengthening public safety by addressing root causes.

Clay Romero

Clay Romero, a 51-year resident of District Three and a graduate of Laytonville High School (Class of ‘78) , stressed the importance of community and working together despite differing backgrounds. He outlined five core priorities: safety, economic stability, a clean environment, freedom, and basic fairness. Romero also noted his 31 years of experience running his own business and his extensive knowledge of the county and board of supervisors.

Eric Hart

Eric Hart, a California native who grew up on a horse ranch in Illinois, shared his 25-year career experience in California improving operations and fixing organizations, from AT&T to local nonprofits. Living off-grid outside Willits, he has been involved with groups like the Fire Safe Council and Mendocino County Community Foundation. Hart aims to bring his problem-solving skills to the county, focusing on transparency, improving government efficiency, and strengthening community health through healthcare, public safety, infrastructure, economy, housing, and stable county operations.

Russell Green

Russell Green, a lifelong Willits resident and Willits High School graduate, emphasized his business background, including founding Cure Wellness and having the first micro-business in the county. He expressed a desire to reduce government interference and taxes, advocating for efficiency and a "win for once" for the people. Green highlighted his skills in managing money and his use of advanced AI technologies for analysis.

QUESTION ONE

What specific actions can a District 3 supervisor take to support economic development, and which sectors would you prioritize?

Buffey Wright Bourassa

Bourassa advocated for focusing on "basics" like reliable roads, predictable permitting, workforce development, and rural coordination between the county, cities, schools, and tribes. She prioritized small businesses, local entrepreneurs, agriculture, value-added food production, tourism, workforce training, and public sector-adjacent industries like healthcare, education, and skilled trades.

Clay Romero

Romero championed industries that produce physical products, such as machining, fabrication, manufacturing, construction, and energy, believing these are essential for long-term economic support, unlike service jobs alone. He cited the difficulties faced by Laytonville and the need for efficient permitting processes, referencing a cannabis grower who found it easier to get permits in Nevada County.

Eric Hart

Hart called for moving away from a "boom-bust" extractive economy by encouraging stable, long-term industries that bring money into the county and promote local ownership. He suggested value-added and vertically integrated industries, such as milling local wood products, and leveraging rural expertise for technologies like tank monitoring and fire hardening products. He also proposed supporting agrotourism and positive branding around "healthy living, organic farming, food combined with the W's: wine, weed, wilderness, waves and wellness."

Russell Green

Green's primary focus was on streamlining planning and building processes, stating, "quit king making with planning and building." He argued for easy, over-the-counter permits with clear pricing to encourage business creation. While open to all sectors, he specifically mentioned artificial intelligence and medical technology as priorities, alongside supporting logging and grazing.

QUESTION TWO

Would you support a 20-year sales tax on county businesses to fund road maintenance? Why or why not, and what alternatives would you consider?

Eric Hart

Hart stated he would support a tax only after exhausting other options, such as collecting uncollected assessments, selling unused county properties, and addressing internal inefficiencies. He also suggested examining gas tax allocations and electric vehicle contributions.

Russell Green

Green firmly opposed any new taxes, arguing that residents are "taxed to death." He called for greater efficiency from the current tax base and a "fair shake" from the state. He also criticized the county for blocking projects like asphalt plants, which increase the cost of road paving efforts.

Clay Romero

Romero also opposed adding to the existing sales tax, which he noted is already very high in Mendocino County. He suggested exploring alternative healthcare funding systems to reduce county insurance costs and free up funds for other needs.

Buffey Wright Bourassa

Bourassa said she could support a road measure if it were "transparent, accountable, time limited, and tied to a very clear project list in annual public reporting." She emphasized the need for voter trust and independent oversight, while also advocating for aggressively pursuing state and federal transportation dollars and prioritizing critical roads.

QUESTION THREE

Do you feel qualified to provide financial oversight at the county level? As part of your answer, and as a resident of Willits, can you please address the fiscal challenges facing the City of Willits and what role, if any, the county should play?

Clay Romero

Romero, drawing on 31 years of business experience and a dozen years of studying county information, felt well-qualified. He acknowledged Willits' challenges, including software issues, a "toxic culture" noted in a grand jury report, and questionable use of federal pandemic funds. He believed the current city council members are "good people" but noted a lack of experience.

Russell Green

Green asserted his strong qualifications, citing his family's century-long business history in Mendocino County and his personal training in finance. He highlighted his use of advanced AI technologies for budget analysis and his commitment to efficiency. Regarding Willits, he believed the council "wasn't paying enough attention to their manager and their numbers," overhired, and failed to react quickly to financial downturns. He stated the city is an independent entity but the county should act as a supportive partner.

Buffey Wright Bourassa

Bourassa affirmed her qualifications, citing her background in government program management, contracts, budgets, compliance, and administrative oversight. She pointed to a California State Auditor report highlighting Mendocino County's persistent deficits and weaknesses in financial reporting. For Willits, she acknowledged the fiscal emergency and layoffs, emphasizing the county's role as a "stable partner" in areas like economic development, infrastructure, and emergency preparedness, while respecting local control.

Eric Hart

Hart referenced his extensive background in operations, budgeting, and accountability. He stressed that financial oversight involves more than just approving line items, but also ensuring realistic assumptions, protecting reserves, and transparent reporting. He described Willits’ situation as a reminder of what happens when financial discipline slips, advocating for earlier action and transparency from the city council. He believed the county should advocate for the city with state and federal governments and provide resources where interests align, but not take over.

QUESTION FOUR

If you had been serving as an elected official in Willits during its current fiscal crisis, what would you have done differently?

Russell Green

Green, drawing on his business experience, stated he would have immediately recognized that the numbers “didn’t add up” and would have deployed AI agents to analyze the budget and identify the problem. He would have been more inquisitive with staff, not trusted anyone to tell him what he could afford, and avoided overhiring. He would have planned for tough times rather than taking good times for granted. He also would have pushed the county to ensure fair property tax revenue. He largely agreed with the actions the city council ultimately took but would have taken them sooner. He suspected that Bruce Burden, with his private business acumen, was instrumental in recognizing the financial issues.

Eric Hart

Hart acknowledged that hindsight is 20/20 but stated that with the information available, he would have acted earlier and more transparently. He noted that the crisis was a long-term structural gap where expenses outpaced revenue, and relying on reserves and one-time transfers was a warning sign that should have been addressed sooner. He would have pushed for clearer, more consistent financial reporting, including monthly actuals versus budget and reserve levels, to ensure the council and public understood the situation. Hart said he also would have started the adjustment process earlier, which might have saved some jobs, by looking at staffing and service priorities before layoffs became the only option. He emphasized that it's an elected official's job to recognize trends early and make corrections before a crisis.

Buffey Wright Bourassa

Bourassa stated that accountability is about building systems where warning signs are visible and acted upon early. If she had been an elected official in Willits, she would have pushed for much earlier and clearer financial reporting, early public disclosures of the problem's seriousness, and a review of all plans before the emergency level was reached. She would have asked for regular public budget updates, multi-year forecasting, outside reviews when needed, and a clear explanation to the public about what was structural versus one-time. She also would have wanted the city to be more proactive in identifying cost pressures, staffing liabilities, and operational inefficiencies. Most importantly, she said she would have treated transparency as part of the solution, ensuring honesty with the public and fostering a culture where staff could raise red flags early.

Clay Romero

Romero identified the primary missing element as the complete disregard for the finance director's warnings. He also noted a problem with the city being two years behind on verifiable audits, which hindered finding the right solutions. He believed that some council members "just didn't know" due to this lack of transparency, which led Willits to a "terrible situation." He stated that these would be "red flags" he would actively look for at the county level and would speak up about them.

QUESTION FIVE

County officials have said that roughly 70% of general fund spending goes toward public safety. How would you evaluate whether that money is being spent effectively, and what additional data or metrics would you need to make that assessment?

Clay Romero

Romero acknowledged the complexity of evaluating public safety spending, stating it would require his "own knowledge of what things cost" and what to expect. He mentioned an anecdote about the cost of a child psychologist hired by the county as an example of potential inefficiencies.

Eric Hart

Hart proposed evaluating public safety spending by looking at outcomes, such as trends in crime, response times, and recidivism. He also suggested assessing system performance, including staffing levels and bottlenecks between departments, and cost-effectiveness compared to similar rural counties. He called for better, more consistent data and multi-year trends to ensure accountability.

Buffey Wright Bourassa

Bourassa emphasized the responsibility to evaluate not just the amount spent but also the outcomes. She highlighted the challenges of covering a vast territory with limited staff, leading to long response times. She questioned whether current spending makes people safer, reduces repeat calls, or provides value from prevention and diversion efforts. She called for data on response times by geography, vacancy rates, recidivism, and the effectiveness of alternative programs.

Russell Green

Green echoed concerns about potential "bloat" in contracts and salaries, referencing past county compensation packages. He found the 70% allocation "staggering" and questioned its necessity. He proposed a detailed analysis of expenses and income using AI technology for real-time reports and anomaly detection. He also suggested exploring public self-regulation, such as supporting CCW holders, and investing in logging and grazing to mitigate fire risk.

CLOSING STATEMENTS

Russell Green

Green emphasized that he is running for the "right reasons," stating he doesn't need a job and is not beholden to special interests or parties. He wants the people to "get a win for once" and believes "taxation is a form of theft," advocating for more careful government spending. He expressed concern about a Sheriff's Department employee voting on the sheriff’s department’s budget. (This was reference to Bourassa, who would presumably recuse herself from these votes if elected.) He also highlighted the damage done by partisan alliances that lead to a "status quo of placate and then do nothing," and elected officials lacking the "backbone to bring about change." He invited interested individuals to reach out on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/russgreen707/ or visit his website, green4mendo.com.

Eric Hart

Hart expressed his eagerness to continue problem-solving and helping people, which he sees as his core motivation and something he has done for years in the community. He views the supervisor role as an opportunity to "step that up a level and increase the impact." He announced upcoming "meet and greet" events at Flying Dog Pizza on April 8th at 5:30 p.m., and in Laytonville and Covelo in the coming weeks, which will be posted on his Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/erichartforsupervisor and website, erichartforsupervisor.com. He also mentioned holding office hours at Brickhouse (first and third Thursdays from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m.) and Northspur Brewing (fourth Thursday evenings around 5 p.m.).

Clay Romero

Romero highlighted his personal approach to campaigning, which involves talking to people directly, and expressed his passion for the role. He emphasized his interest in helping people and treating them fairly, drawing a parallel to a child's sense of fairness. He noted his concern for individuals who start businesses but die before obtaining permits, advocating for reduced permit fees to build the tax base. He also voiced strong opposition to the Potter Valley Project decommissioning, calling it "reprehensible" to dynamite a valuable piece of infrastructure and environmentally wrong, especially given the 600,000 people downstream who rely on the water. He mentioned his website, clayformendocino.org.

Buffey Wright Bourassa

Bourassa thanked the forum organizers and fellow candidates, acknowledging Mendocino County's challenges with its budget, roads, and the need for stronger, more stable services. She stressed the county's "strong communities and people who care deeply about where we live." She reiterated her commitment to bringing the "voice of our communities forward." She said she believes progress is made by "working together, focusing on practical solutions and following through." She committed to "showing up, listening, and doing the work." She listed upcoming engagements including a radio interview at KLLG, a chili cookoff at the Willits Senior Center, neighborhood meet and greets, and attending the Round Valley tribal council and MAC meetings. She referred voters to her website teambuffey.com.