Hardy Bullock Backed Measure V Settlement Later Disputes FPPC Findings

NEVADA CITY — Nevada County Supervisor Hardy Bullock voted with the full Board of Supervisors in July to accept a state ethics settlement over failed Measure V, then told the public weeks later that he entirely disagreed with the findings in that same case.

Entire Board authorized settlement in closed session

Last week, in response to a Public Records Act request, County Counsel reported the closed-session vote. Counsel said the Board met in closed session on July 28, 2026, and voted 5-0 to authorize acceptance of a Stipulation, Decision and Order resolving Fair Political Practices Commission case No. 2023-00162, including a $31,500 administrative penalty.

Counsel said that was the only closed session in which the Board discussed the FPPC matter. Under the Brown Act, counsel wrote, required disclosure of a settlement that needs another party’s final approval occurs once the settlement becomes final and upon inquiry. The settlement became final when the FPPC approved it the week of August 20, 2026.

Bullock later rejects the findings

On August 25, during Board member announcements at the same meeting where a resident asked the Board to disclose the full taxpayer cost of Measure V, Bullock delivered prepared remarks about the enforcement action.

He said that “in my view,” the FPPC’s conclusions did not align with constitutional standards. He described Measure V as the product of “extensive work by this board, by senior staff, and by relevant community members,” characterized County communications as a good-faith effort to inform voters about wildfire risk, and said he “respectfully and entirely” disagreed with the FPPC’s findings.

He also said the effort “was solely intended to convey the magnitude of the issue and the proposed solution.” He added that voters rejected the measure and that he respected that decision. Bullock was a sitting supervisor when Measure V was placed on the ballot.

What the County stipulated

The stipulation the Board authorized on July 28, and that current Board Chair Lisa Swarthout later signed for the County, states that Nevada County violated the Political Reform Act in seven counts. The County agreed the document contained a “true and accurate summary of the facts” and agreed to the $31,500 penalty.

The stipulated record says two October 2022 County mailers, costing $34,614 in public funds, crossed the line from informational content into advocacy. The FPPC described promotional language, an emphasis on benefits while obscuring the half-cent sales-tax increase, and a presentation that was “unfair and fundamentally promotional.” The stipulation states that “the County supported the passage of a local measure using $34,614 in public funds.”

Court had already ordered ballot-language changes

Those FPPC conclusions were not the first official warning that Measure V language was being used in a way that could shape public opinion. On September 13, 2022, after the measure was placed on the ballot and before the mailers were sent, Nevada County Superior Court Judge Kent M. Kellegrew ordered changes to the official ballot materials.

The court kept Measure V on the ballot and held it was a general tax. It also found ballot language argumentative and ordered the phrase “to save lives” removed as dramatic and emotional rather than neutral. The court further required that a “½¢” symbol be replaced with a percentage description so voters would not be given a misleading impression of the size of the tax. The court awarded attorney’s fees to the petitioner.

County-funded materials issued after that ruling continued to describe the measure as designed “to save lives.” The October mailers listed wildfire prevention, evacuation routes, emergency communications, and aid for seniors and people with disabilities as community priorities, while carrying a disclaimer that the County did not advocate a yes or no vote. The FPPC later found the disclaimer insufficient.

Swarthout was not on the Board in 2022. She took office in January 2023. Her signature reflects the County’s acceptance of the 2026 resolution as Board chair.

On August 9, 2022, the Board voted 4-1 to put the proposed 0.5 percent, 10-year sales tax before voters. Supervisors Heidi Hall, Ed Scofield, Sue Hoek and Bullock voted yes. Then-Supervisor Dan Miller voted no.

Cost accounting still unanswered

Resident Michael James Taylor told the Board on August 25 that the mailer cost and penalty were only part of the bill. He asked supervisors to direct staff, with Auditor-Controller Gina Will’s office, to account for consulting, employee time, County Counsel and outside counsel, the 2022 ballot lawsuit, Public Records Act responses, the multi-year FPPC defense and the penalty.

Bullock’s August 25 comments did not state the July 28 vote or address that cost question.

Background

Measure V, titled the Wildfire Prevention, Emergency Services and Disaster Readiness Measure, was a general sales tax projected to raise about $12 million a year. It failed on Nov. 8, 2022, with 48.41 percent voting yes.

Public records compiled by local researchers show related spending began in 2021 with polling and consulting contracts, including work by Godbe Research and the Lew Edwards Group. Some costs were later associated with the Office of Emergency Services “Emergency Services Public Education” budget and Project Control Number 41400800. A City of Grass Valley August 9, 2022, council packet included a page titled “Measure V Campaign Committee (Western County).” It named officers, used Yes-on-V wording, and listed a meeting for 9 a.m. Monday, August 8, 2022, the day before the Board of Supervisors voted to place Measure V on the ballot. That packet shows an organized Yes campaign using the Measure V name was already public before the Board’s formal placement vote. It does not, by itself, show at this time that County officials created, ran, or paid for the committee.

The two October mailers went to about 33,351 and 33,101 recipients and cost $17,708 and $16,906. The County stipulated to those mailings as prohibited campaign-related mass mailings at public expense, plus disclosure and campaign-reporting violations.

Identifiable published cost tallies have been cited in the mid-$200,000 range before untracked staff and legal time. Those figures have not been independently certified by the Auditor-Controller. The complete taxpayer cost, including County Counsel, outside counsel in the ballot language case and the FPPC matter, the attorney-fee award, and employee time, has not been released as a single public accounting.