Hardy Bullock’s Faux Pas
In a closed session on July 28, 2026, the Board of Supervisors voted 5-0 to authorize acceptance of the proposed Stipulation, Decision and Order resolving the FPPC enforcement matter concerning the Measure V mailers, including the $31,500 administrative penalty.
All five Supervisors, including Hardy Bullock, agreed to the FPPC Stipulation, that Nevada County had, indeed, violated seven campaign regulations. Amazingly, four weeks later, on August 25 during the Supervisor’s meeting, Bullock contradicted his closed session vote, saying he “respectfully entirely” disagrees with the FPPC findings concerning two mailers sent by Nevada County ahead of the November 2022 election. Bullock was on the Board when it voted to place Measure V on the ballot in 2022.
Local Republican Party Calls for Bullock’s Resignation
Since that contradictory statement, the Nevada County Republican Party formally called on Bullock to resign, saying that “Bullocks public defense of the county’s actions conflicts with the county’s formal acceptance of the FPPC violations”.
“It is this level of arrogance and blatant disregard for California law that helped create the mess Nevada County finds itself in today,” said John Young, who filed the FPPC complaint in 2023. “The County admitted the violations, accepted the stipulated facts as true and accurate, and agreed to pay the penalty. Yet, Supervisor Bullock’s response was not accountability-it was to defend the conduct.”
Public Statements, Silence, and Unanswered Costs
On August 25, Bullock further stated: “I pride myself in asking tough questions: about our budget, our performance, our use of taxpayer dollars and how we can support the needs of our community. For my part, I will continue to do the hard work and make decisions that best serve our community.”
Not only are Bullock’s statements publicly duplicitous, they completely defy reason. He certainly didn’t ask the tough questions when taxpayer money was being spent to pay for Measure V campaign expenses in 2022. How does a Supervisor vote one way behind closed doors and then make a contradictory public statement four weeks later? The public deserves an explanation.
And, just to add to this weirdness, the other four Supervisors, (Heidi Hall, Sue Hoek , Lisa Swarthout and Robb Tucker), were present during Bullock’s statement and didn’t say a word to explain that they had voted four weeks earlier to approve the FPPC stipulation. Mum’s the word apparently.
Furthermore, during the August 25th meeting, when Michael Taylor pressed the Supervisors to investigate the complete taxpayer cost associated with Measure V, there was no commitment to provide a comprehensive accounting.
Leadership Accountability and What the Public Still Needs
There has been no mention of even a reprimand of CEO Alison Lehman who spearheaded the Measure V campaign from her office and was certainly aware of all the expenditures, including the illegal mailers. In 2022 no Supervisor, except for Dan Miller, cared to question the legality of and the use of taxpayer funds for the Measure V Campaign, including Hardy Bullock.
So, where does this leave us, the public? It leaves us still looking to our Supervisors for some kind of reasonable statement and commitment to explore just how the debacle of Measure V came about and what safeguards they will put in place so this doesn’t happen in the future.
After all this, one might ask why Executive Officer Alison Lehman still has a job. Lehman has cost the county dearly in terms of the incredible salary increases she has awarded herself and other department heads, and now hundreds of thousands for Measure V. How can Nevada County afford to have a CEO who’s rogue decisions are not in the interest of the public good?
