Transparency and Ethics

---

 I believe voters deserve straightforward answers about potential conflicts of interest before Election Day, not after.

My wife, Amanda, is a principal in the Rocklin Unified School District and has worked for the District for more than 20 years. Because I am running for the Rocklin Unified School District Board of Trustees, I understand why people may have questions about how her employment and my service on the Board would intersect.

I have taken those questions seriously from the beginning.

Yes. California law does not automatically prohibit someone from serving on a public board because their spouse works for the same public agency.

Government Code Section 1090 establishes strict conflict-of-interest rules involving public contracts. At the same time, Government Code Section 1091.5(a)(6) specifically provides a "noninterest" involving a spouse's public employment when that employment has existed for at least one year before the official's election or appointment.

Amanda's employment with Rocklin Unified began more than 20 years before my potential service on the Board.

Rather than simply assuming how the law would apply, I proactively contacted the California Fair Political Practices Commission and asked for guidance about my circumstances.

The FPPC explained that Section 1091.5(a)(6) generally provides a noninterest for qualifying spousal public employment that existed for at least one year before the official's election or appointment.

The FPPC also made clear that the exception is interpreted narrowly. In particular, promotions or similar changes in employment status can present different legal questions.

Because I am not yet a Board member and there was no specific contract or Board decision before me, the FPPC explained that it could not provide a blanket determination about hypothetical future decisions. Section 1090 questions must be evaluated based on the particular contract or governmental action involved.

The FPPC recommended that I consult District counsel when an actual issue arises and seek formal FPPC advice when appropriate.

That is exactly what I intend to do.

Amanda and I have discussed what my service on the Board could mean for her career.

She has knowingly and willingly decided that, while I serve on the Board, she will not seek or apply for a promotion or higher-level position within Rocklin Unified School District.

That is a voluntary decision we have made as a family. It is not intended to suggest that California law prohibits every possible employment change. Rather, we believe it establishes a clear boundary and avoids creating unnecessary questions involving advancement in her career while I am serving as a trustee.

Amanda has spent more than two decades serving students and families in Rocklin Unified. Her career existed long before my candidacy. At the same time, we both understand that serving on the School Board carries responsibilities that require transparency and careful attention to conflicts of interest.

Not every Board decision affecting an employee creates the same type of conflict.

California courts, Attorney General opinions, and the FPPC distinguish between an individualized employment decision, such as certain promotions, and broader decisions affecting employees generally.

For example, in Thorpe v. Long Beach Community College District, the California Court of Appeal held that the spousal-employment exception did not permit a promotion into a materially different supervisory position requiring governing-board approval. The court described the purpose of the exception as allowing continuation of the existing employment status quo.

However, the California Attorney General later concluded that a school district could approve a lateral transfer of a teacher whose spouse served on the school board when the transfer involved the same compensation and did not constitute a promotion, even though the teaching duties were different.

More recently, in FPPC Advice Letter A-24-143, the FPPC concluded that an elected district board member could participate in approving a collective bargaining agreement affecting the member's spouse when the spouse's employment predated the election by more than one year, the agreement applied equally to employees in the applicable classifications, and it did not change the spouse's employment status.

These examples are important because they demonstrate why each situation must be evaluated based on its actual facts rather than assuming that every vote affecting District employees presents the same conflict.

It is also important to understand that an individual trustee does not independently direct District employees or make personnel decisions.

Rocklin Unified is governed by a five-member Board of Trustees, and the Board exercises its authority collectively. In most matters, a decision requires a majority vote, meaning at least three Board members must agree.

The Superintendent works for the Board as a whole and is responsible for the day-to-day administration of the District. Individual trustees do not supervise principals, teachers, or other District employees.

That structure provides an additional layer of accountability. No single Board member can independently approve a contract, direct a personnel action, authorize a promotion, or make District policy.

My responsibility, if elected, would be to participate as one member of a five-member governing board, follow the law, ask appropriate questions, and make decisions in the best interests of the District as a whole.

My approach is simple:

Follow the law. Be transparent. Get professional advice when necessary.

When a matter comes before the Board that could raise a question involving Amanda's employment, I will disclose the situation as appropriate and consult the District's legal counsel.

If a question requires additional guidance, I will seek formal advice from the FPPC or other appropriate legal authority.

If the law requires me not to participate in a particular decision, I will follow that requirement.

I will not attempt to make these determinations based on what is politically convenient for me or my family.

Because voters should not have to wonder.

Amanda's position with RUSD is something I have been open about throughout my candidacy, and it is an issue we considered carefully before I decided to run. 

Before serving on the Board, I wanted to understand the rules, which is why I contacted the FPPC and researched the applicable California law, court decisions, and Attorney General opinions.

I believe that is how public officials should approach potential conflicts: identify them, ask questions, seek qualified advice, disclose them when appropriate, and follow the law.

My responsibility as a trustee would be to make decisions based on what is best for the students, families, employees, and taxpayers of Rocklin Unified.

My wife has worked for Rocklin Unified for more than 20 years and currently serves as a principal.

California law specifically addresses preexisting spousal public employment through Government Code Section 1091.5(a)(6).

Amanda has voluntarily committed not to seek or apply for a promotion or higher-level District position while I serve on the Board.

The FPPC has advised me that specific Section 1090 questions must be evaluated when an actual contract or governmental decision exists.

If elected, I will consult District counsel, seek formal guidance when necessary, and comply with any participation or recusal requirements that apply to a particular decision.

For me, this comes down to transparency, accountability, and doing things the right way.

For those who would like to review the legal framework in more detail, the following statutes, court decisions, Attorney General opinions, and FPPC guidance are the primary authorities relevant to this issue. 

California Government Code Section 1090
California's general prohibition involving public officials and financial interests in public contracts.

California Government Code Section 1091.5(a)(6)
The statutory provision addressing qualifying preexisting employment or officeholding of a public official's spouse. The statute currently provides that a public officer or employee is not deemed interested based on a spouse's public employment or officeholding when it existed for at least one year before the official's election or appointment.

Thorpe v. Long Beach Community College District (2000), 83 Cal.App.4th 655
A published California appellate decision addressing the application of Sections 1090 and 1091.5(a)(6) when the spouse of a governing-board member sought a promotion to a materially different position requiring board approval.

California Attorney General Opinion 07-808, 92 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 30 (2009)
Concluded that a school district could grant a teacher a lateral transfer to a position with the same compensation but different teaching duties when the teacher's employment predated the spouse's board service by more than one year.

California Attorney General Opinions concerning collective bargaining and spousal employment
The Attorney General has addressed circumstances involving school boards, public employees, collective bargaining agreements, and the Section 1091.5 spousal-employment exception.

FPPC Advice Letter A-24-143, Jesse Bullis (January 13, 2025)
The FPPC concluded that a district board member could participate in approval of a union agreement affecting the member's spouse where the spouse's qualifying employment predated the election, the agreement applied uniformly to employees within their classifications, and the agreement did not change the spouse's employment status.

The guidance I received from FPPC staff was general guidance rather than a formal advice letter resolving a specific Board action. Because there was no actual contract or governmental decision before me, the FPPC explained that it could not provide formal Section 1090 advice based on hypothetical future situations.

I include that distinction because transparency means accurately describing both what the FPPC told me and what it did not determine.

This information is provided to explain how I intend to approach potential conflicts of interest as a candidate and, if elected, as a trustee. It is not intended as legal advice for others. Individual conflict-of-interest questions depend on their specific facts and applicable law.