Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mayor Complaint topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ethics commission continues complaint involving Mayor McCarty to public hearing
Summary
After hearing a report that investigators found insufficient evidence to sustain two allegations against Mayor McCarty, the commission voted 5–0 to continue the matter for a public hearing to ensure procedural notice and allow further process.
The Sacramento Ethics Commission voted unanimously on June 22 to continue for public hearing a complaint that named Mayor McCarty, after the commission’s independent evaluator reported investigative findings.
Trevor Taniguchi, the evaluator who led the investigation, summarized the complaint filed by Carla Black. The complaint raised two principal allegations: that the mayor accepted contributions from a core cannabis permittee within 12 months of a March 25, 2025 council decision extending operational deadlines (a potential Political Reform Act/pay-to-play concern), and that the mayor’s 2024 campaign failed to aggregate contributions from related entities, which could breach the city’s unique aggregation requirement.
"Based on all review of those records, we did not find any evidence that supports the allegation that mayor McCarty's 2024 or 2028 campaigns accepted a contribution from a core permittee within the 12 months of that 03/25/2025 decision," Taniguchi said. He also told the commission that Sacramento’s municipal aggregation rule primarily targets contributors and that the office found insufficient proof that the mayor had the actual knowledge required to hold a candidate liable under that provision.
Commissioners pressed investigators on the aggregation rule’s unusual structure, the role of disgorgement in remedying improper contributions, and whether the matter’s procedural label (agenda language calling it a "no cause" item) matched the materials presented. Counsel Gary Lindsey said the matter should be re-agendized as a public hearing so that notice requirements and respondent rights are satisfied.
Vice Chair Velasquez moved to continue the matter for a public hearing in compliance with applicable notice rules; Commissioner Emery seconded. The motion passed 5–0. The commission’s vote preserves the option to hold a formal hearing and to decide whether further investigation or formal enforcement is appropriate after that hearing.
The evaluator had recommended dismissal based on the facts and interviews, but the commission chose to proceed to a hearing to ensure procedural completeness and allow commissioners to evaluate whether additional investigation or testimony is needed.
