Why Hardy Bullock’s Defense of Failed Measure V Surprised Me
I attended the Nevada County Board of Supervisors meeting on August 25 and made a specific request during public comment: I asked the Board to direct County staff, with the involvement of Auditor-Controller Gina Will’s office, to determine and publicly disclose the complete taxpayer cost of Measure V.
Several hours later, near the end of the meeting during Board member announcements, Supervisor Hardy Bullock delivered prepared remarks concerning the recent Fair Political Practices Commission enforcement action involving Measure V.
Bullock framed his disagreement as his personal view, stating that, “in my view,” the FPPC’s conclusions did not align with constitutional standards. I respect his right to express that opinion.
But I was surprised—and frankly troubled—by what followed
Bullock offered a detailed defense of the Measure V effort, praised the work of County staff and community members, characterized the County’s actions as a good-faith effort to inform voters, and said he “respectfully and entirely” disagreed with the FPPC’s findings.
What he did not address was the fundamental taxpayer question I had raised earlier in the very same meeting:
What did Measure V actually cost Nevada County taxpayers from beginning to end?
The FPPC proceeding gives us some numbers. The County spent $34,614 in public funds on two Measure V mailers distributed shortly before the November 2022 election. Nevada County has now also agreed to a $31,500 administrative penalty.
But those numbers represent only identifiable pieces of a much larger undertaking.
Measure V did not suddenly appear when those mailers were printed. The proposed half-cent sales tax had to be conceived, researched, developed, discussed, legally reviewed, presented to the Board and ultimately placed before voters. County executives, department heads, County Counsel, employees, consultants and others devoted time and resources to that process.
Bullock essentially confirmed that point himself. During his August 25 remarks, he described Measure V as the product of “extensive work by this board, by senior staff, and by relevant community members.”
Precisely.
If extensive work was performed by the Board and senior County staff, taxpayers paid for that work. That does not automatically mean every expenditure was improper. It does mean every taxpayer-funded expenditure and reasonably identifiable use of County resources should be accounted for.
And the taxpayer expense did not end when voters rejected Measure V in November 2022.
The FPPC investigation began in 2023 and continued for years. During that time, County Counsel, County executives, employees and outside attorneys had to deal with the investigation, documents, legal issues and ultimately the negotiation and review of the stipulated resolution.
Those resources weren’t free.
Taxpayers deserve answers to some basic questions:
How much County Counsel time was devoted to Measure V and the FPPC investigation?
How much County executive, management and employee time was consumed?
What did the County spend responding to Measure V-related Public Records Act requests?
What outside counsel, consultants, contractors, communications professionals or other vendors were paid in connection with Measure V?
What was the total cost of preparing, negotiating and resolving the FPPC matter before adding the $31,500 penalty?
These are not partisan questions. They are basic questions of public accounting.
That is also why I found Bullock’s defense particularly difficult to understand in light of what Nevada County itself agreed to.
Nevada County entered into a Stipulation, Decision and Order with the FPPC. This was not merely an accusation made against the County.
In the stipulation, Nevada County agreed that it violated the Political Reform Act as described in seven separate counts and agreed that the document contained a “true and accurate summary of the facts” in the matter. The County also agreed to the $31,500 administrative penalty.
Those stipulated facts are difficult to reconcile with Bullock’s sweeping public disagreement with the FPPC’s findings.
The FPPC document states that the first mailer “crossed the line from informational content into advocacy.” It describes promotional and emotionally charged language, the emphasis on benefits while obscuring the half-cent sales-tax increase and concludes that the presentation was “unfair and fundamentally promotional.”
The stipulated resolution reaches similar conclusions regarding the second mailer.
Most importantly, the stipulation states plainly that “the County supported the passage of a local measure using $34,614 in public funds.”
That is not my characterization of what happened. It is contained in the stipulated resolution Nevada County agreed to, signed on behalf of the County by current Board Chair Lisa Swarthout.
The History is Important
It is important, however, to put Swarthout’s signature in its proper historical context. She was not a sitting supervisor when Measure V was developed and placed on the ballot. Nevada County’s own records show that Dan Miller represented District 3 in 2022. On August 9, 2022, the Board voted 4–1 to place Measure V on the November ballot: Supervisors Heidi Hall, Ed Scofield, Sue Hoek and Hardy Bullock voted yes; Miller cast the sole no vote.
Swarthout was elected later that November and did not take office until January 2023, replacing Miller. Her signature on the 2026 FPPC stipulation therefore represents Nevada County’s acceptance of the negotiated resolution as Board Chair; it should not be interpreted as suggesting that she participated in the original 2022 decisions surrounding Measure V.
Bullock, by contrast, was a sitting supervisor when Measure V was placed on the ballot. He voted to put it before the voters. Four years later, after Nevada County entered into a stipulated FPPC resolution concerning its Measure V activities, Bullock publicly stated that he “respectfully and entirely” disagreed with the FPPC’s findings.
That history is important when evaluating his August 25 comments.
The agreement further states that the County consulted with its attorney, Christopher Pisano, knowingly and voluntarily waived specified procedural rights, agreed to issuance of the decision and order, and agreed to the $31,500 penalty.
Against that record, Bullock told the public that Measure V represented an effort, in his opinion, to help the community address the catastrophic effects of wildfire. He then said: “It was solely intended to convey the magnitude of the issue and the proposed solution.”
He is certainly entitled to that opinion.
But when an elected supervisor publicly disagrees with the findings underlying a stipulated enforcement resolution his own County has entered into after years of investigation and legal representation, I believe taxpayers are entitled to ask what, specifically, he believes was wrong:
Does he dispute the stipulated facts?
Does he believe the County should not have entered into the settlement?
Does he dispute that the mailers crossed the line into advocacy?
Does he believe Nevada County agreed to violations that it did not actually commit?
Those would be important questions for Bullock to answer publicly.
To his credit, Bullock also acknowledged that voters ultimately rejected Measure V and said he respected their decision. His actual words were: “And ultimately the voters chose not to support it and I respect the voters in that move.”
I appreciate that acknowledgment. Measure V received 48.41% support and therefore failed to obtain the majority necessary for passage.
But respecting that election result should also include respecting taxpayers enough to tell them what this entire undertaking ultimately cost.
I personally believe that if the complete factual record ultimately establishes that particular individuals were responsible for improper expenditures of taxpayer resources, those individuals should be held personally accountable to whatever extent the law provides.
But accountability should follow evidence
The first step is a complete accounting.
That means looking beyond the two mailers. It means accounting for employee and management time; County Counsel; outside counsel; consultants; polling and surveys; communications and outreach; graphic design; printing and postage; Board reports and presentations; election coordination; Measure V-related public-information work; Public Records Act responses; the FPPC investigation and defense; settlement negotiations; and the $31,500 penalty.
There may be historical staff hours that cannot now be reconstructed precisely. If so, the County should simply say that and develop a reasonable methodology for estimating those costs.
Government employee time doesn’t become free simply because no separate check was written for each hour.
Nor should the County’s accounting stop with the FPPC’s $34,614 figure. The FPPC’s own stipulation explains that campaign-related public expenditures can include direct and indirect costs associated with designing, producing or formulating communications, along with polling, research, computer services and the salaries or fees of agency staff, consultants or vendors.
Measure V failed at the ballot box. Years later, taxpayers are still dealing with its financial and legal consequences.
Supervisor Bullock is entitled to defend the intentions behind Measure V. He is entitled to believe the effort was undertaken in good faith. And he is entitled to disagree with the FPPC.
But good intentions do not erase stipulated facts, and disagreement does not pay the bill.
Before Nevada County’s elected officials defend Measure V yet again, taxpayers deserve an answer to the question I asked at the beginning of the August 25 Board meeting:
What did Measure V actually cost Nevada County taxpayers?
I am again asking the Board of Supervisors to direct County staff, with the involvement of Auditor-Controller Gina Will’s office, to determine that number and present a comprehensive accounting publicly.
Before Nevada County closes the book on Measure V, taxpayers deserve to see the entire bill.
