Former staff and community advocates accuse commission of contracting mismanagement; demand transparency

A former research director and several community advocates told the Mental Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission on Thursday that they believe the commission’s contracting and workplace practices warrant scrutiny and greater transparency.

Fred Molitor, who identified himself as the commission’s former director of research and evaluation (June 2016–August 2017), spoke during the in‑person public comment period and described what he called a hostile work environment under the agency’s former leadership. "The atmosphere within the MHSOAC is one based on threats, intimidation and harassment," Molitor said in his allotted public comment, adding that he observed contracts issued without competitive bidding and poor oversight of performance and payments. Molitor said he filed a complaint with the state auditor after leaving the commission.

Community advocates echoed concerns about procurement and staff conduct. Susan Gallagher, executive director of Cal Voices, told commissioners she was disturbed that the meeting began late and that some speakers were using the meeting platform to promote individual agendas. "We don't need all the fancy stuff. What we need is investment in community, investment in peers," Gallagher said. She urged a pause on sole‑source contracting and asked for public release and review of recent contracting decisions.

Stacy Hiramoto of the Racial and Ethnic Mental Health Disparities Coalition (REMCO) urged active community involvement in the search for a new executive director and said the commission “has really lost trust of many people in the community” because of recent actions. Hiramoto requested transparency about the reallocation of EMPATH funds and asked that advocacy partners be engaged in the hiring process.

Commission response and context Commission staff and the interim executive director, Will Lightbourne, listened to public comments and thanked speakers. Commissioners repeatedly told staff they would follow up on concerns and asked for additional documentation and clarity on contracting processes. Several commissioners specifically acknowledged the public’s distrust and asked staff to provide more details about procurement pathways and contract history as part of future agenda materials.

What is known from the public record - Molitor publicly described observing large contracts with for‑profit organizations that were, in his view, not awarded through competitive bidding and not sufficiently monitored for deliverables. He said contractors were later asking for additional funds for incomplete work. Molitor said he filed a complaint with the state auditor after leaving the commission. - Public commenters requested a moratorium on sole‑source contracting and asked the commission to release contracting records for public review.

Limitations and what the commission can do now The commission cannot itself adjudicate personnel or procurement investigations in public comment; it can, however, request staff provide a factual accounting of contracting processes and return with documents and, if necessary, requests for audits or referrals to state oversight bodies. Commissioners asked staff to follow up and to provide additional contract documentation in future meeting packets.

Ending The public statements underscored strong community concern about contracting transparency and workplace culture. Commissioners asked staff to prepare further documentation and to consider enhanced public engagement as part of the commission’s next steps.