DA Clears Councilwoman McCullough of Criminal Charges

A few months ago I did an investigation into the use of Council travel expenses by Council member McCullough. It appeared to me that Mrs. McCullough had violated State and City law on several occasions and that around $1,000 had been spent inappropriately. Among the behaviors that I questioned was her use of limousines when less expensive transportation was available, and her habit of paying some personal expenses for her husband when he accompanied her on trips.

I tried to get City officials to look into this but the City Manager, City Attorney, City Police Chief, and even the Mayor (Robinson) refused. As a result I sent the report to the OC District Attorney more than a month ago for him to review.

Yesterday I received a reply. The District Attorney, Robert Mestman, reviewed the information and concluded the following -

“As a preliminary matter, regardless of the merits of the allegations, criminal charges for most of the alleged conduct would be barred by the statute of limitation. The conduct described, if true and a violation of law, would not amount to felonious criminal conduct. The conduct alleged occurred in 2012-2013, though as you point out the most recent expense reimbursement submission occurred in January 2014. As you know, the statute of limitation for misdemeanor offenses is one year pursuant to Penal Code section 802(a).

With regard to possible violations of Penal Code section 424, as you know, the mental state required for such violations is more than strict liability or even general criminal intent. Knowledge and/or criminal negligence is required. (See Stark v. Superior Court (2011) 52 Cal.4th 368.) Furthermore, I do not believe that the alleged conduct falls within the parameters of a civil violation under Government Code section 8314.

After carefully reviewing the matter, our office has concluded that most of the allegations of criminal misconduct would be time barred. Notwithstanding that prohibition, there is insufficient evidence to prove criminal conduct for any of the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, no criminal charges will be filed and no civil actions will be pursued. Our office is closing the matter at this time.”

The fact that the District Attorney has chosen not to pursue the case does not contradict the results of my findings. That this behavior does not rise to the level of “criminal conduct” does not condone it. Driving in a limousine and taking your husband along for a free ride is not acceptable behavior, in my opinion, even if it isn’t considered criminal behavior by the DA. Paying for your husband’s personal expenses using taxpayer money is not acceptable, even if the District Attorney does not consider this serious enough to pursue charges.

I am content to let the matter close. I hope that in the new rules which are being drafted by the Council, they will prevent this from happening in the future, and if it happens, the City will build in our own enforcement procedures.

About Jim Gardner

Dr. Jim Gardner is the editor of CITY WATCH on The Patch and a contributing editor to OC Politics and Voice of OC. He is running for City Council in Lake Forest. You can check him out on LinkedIn and/or Facebook.

/%^ɓ