Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics Accountability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press Lompoc council to act after judge lets fraud charges proceed against councilmember
Summary
Dozens of residents and community groups demanded Councilmember Steve Bridge resign or be sanctioned after reporting and a preliminary court finding that felony charges tied to the city rebate program should proceed to trial; the council asked staff for options and an independent review of the rebate program.
At the June 2 Lompoc City Council meeting, residents urged action after a judge found enough evidence for felony charges involving a city energy rebate program to proceed to trial against Councilmember Steve Bridge.
Multiple public commenters called for Bridge to resign. "We the people demand that our voices be heard," said Gary Jeffrey, a young resident who addressed the council and said it was time for action. Angelica, a community organizer with Cause, told the council: "The people of Lompoc deserve to know where their elected leaders stand and what steps will be taken to restore public trust." Renee, representing 805 Undocufund, said the judge's ruling to send the case to trial had already damaged public confidence.
Bridge gave a prepared statement to the council and denied monetary gain. "I completed an energy and efficiency upgrade using a city rebate program," he said. "I donated my own time, paid out of my own pocket for materials and labor and I never profited personally. I was elected by the people of this community, and I intend to serve out that term and answer these charges in court." (Bridge spoke from the dais against counsel's advice.)
Speakers during the public comment period described reporting from local outlets and court records that alleged fraudulent use of a contractor license number on rebate invoices. One commenter summarized reporting at the preliminary hearing: the district attorney said some applications lacked proof of licensed-contractor work and that invoices included a license number the DA found to be fraudulent.
Councilmembers said they would not presume guilt but acknowledged the political and public-trust consequences. City Attorney said the council could not unilaterally remove an elected official but could explore a censure resolution, removal from committee assignments, and removal of appointed commissioners. "I can bring back a staff report that lists some options that the council might want to consider," the city attorney said, adding he was soliciting proposals from outside independent consultants to review the rebate program and hoped to return findings at the next meeting or the meeting after that.
The council did not vote to remove Bridge or to demand his resignation during the session. Instead, members directed staff to prepare a report laying out options other councils have used and to pursue an independent audit of the rebate program so the body can consider formal steps at a later date.
What happens next: the city attorney is assembling scopes of work from outside consultants and will present a staff report on possible council actions and an independent review timeline at a future meeting.
