Nevada County’s Measure V Scandal: How Officials Illegally Diverted Taxpayer Funds to Run a Yes Campaign
On August 20, 2026, the Fair Political Practices Commission handed down a Stipulation, Decision, and Order for Case No. 2023-00162, saying Nevada County Violated 6 rules of FPPC guidelines. “Respondent violated the Act by distributing two campaign-related mailings (the “Mailers”) at public expense, failing to include disclosure statements on the mailers, and failing to timely file a semiannual campaign statement and two 24-Hour Independent Expenditure Reports.”
Count 1: Prohibited Campaign-Related Mass Mailing Sent at Public Expense.
October 7, 2022. Cost of mailer, $17,708.
Count 2: Prohibited Campaign-Related Mass Mailing Sent at Public Expense.
October 26, 2022. Cost of mailer $16,906.
Count 3: Failure to Include Proper Disclosure on Campaign Advertisements.
Count 4: Failure to Include Proper Disclosure on Campaign Advertisements.
Count 5: Failure to Timely File Semi-annual Campaign Statement.
Count 6: Failure to Timely File 24-Hour Independent Expenditure Report.
Count 7: Failure to Timely File 24-Hour Independent Expenditure Report.
“This matter consists of seven proposed counts. The maximum penalty that may be imposed is $5,000 per count. Thus, the maximum penalty that may be imposed for the counts charged here is $35,000.” These fines will go into the State of California General Fund, not back to the County, another hit for Nevada County taxpayers.
The story doesn’t end there
In December 2021 the County Executive Office budgeted over $262,000 to pay for planned (they were already planning) expenses related to placing Measure V on the November 2022 ballot. However, assistant CEO, Caleb Dardick, did not budget for the massive amount of staff time for Measure V campaign related activities.
In the case of Measure V, it was the County Executive Office, not the Board of Supervisors, that planned and authorized taxpayer funds to campaign for a Yes vote for Measure V. This was done outside of public view at BOS meetings.
December 23, 2021, Caleb sent a memo (copied to Martin Polt, Barry Anderson, & Taylor Wolfe), recommending the budgets for FY 21/22 ($122,700) & FY22/23 ($129,900) for funds for the ‘Emergency Services Public Education’ budget. However, the funds were actually spent on the Measure V campaign, sales tax initiative.
a. Godbe Public Opinion research to determine viability of a Yes outcome. $76,000 subtotal.
b. Lew Edwards Group, project manager for Measure V. $77,500 subtotal.
c. Public information, direct mail (mailers) $60,000, subtotal.
d. Public information, digital. $20,000, subtotal.
e. Writer, $10,000, subtotal.
Above ‘Estimated’ Budget for Measure V tax initiative, which had not been voted on by the Board of Supervisors, nor presented as such to the Budget committees for those years. Godbe Invoices began to be paid 1/19/2022. Invoices were being paid without budget approvals by the Board of Supervisors.
January 2022, Board Workshop, “the Board of Supervisors directed staff to engage stakeholders in a “needs assessment” and identify a sustainable funding strategy”. There was no directive for a sales tax measure.
Early February 2022, In emails obtained by public records request, Caleb and Alison designated Terry McAtteer to chair the Yes on V Committee, and began to schedule meetings. The committee members were Terry McAteer, (Chair), Cheryl Dell, (Vice Chair) Douglass Moon, (Treasurer) and Shirley Moon. Caleb and Alison worked specifically with Terry McAteer to create the Yes on V Committee and coordinate committee meetings, also using county staff to park cars and assist with cleanup.
The CEO's office was totally involved in choosing, guiding, and supporting the Yes on V Committee, representing a definite conflict of interest.
June 28, 2022, the Budget Committee approved the OES “Emergency Services Public Education” budget, not a budget for a tax measure. In the published budget, County Executive Officer, Alison Lehman praised supervisors Hoek and Scofield for their dedication, saying “We also honor the work of Board of Supervisors' Budget Subcommittee, Chair Sue Hoek and Vice-Chair Ed Scofield, for their generous commitment of time reviewing budgets with serious scrutiny, careful analysis, and deep caring for the community.” Were they aware the OES “education” budget was going to be used for another purpose?
July 2022, Lehman moved Craig Greisbach from the Building Department to be the Director of Office of Emergency Services, presumably to oversee the Measure V invoicing and staffing for the Measure V Campaign activities.
August 9, 2022, the Board of Supervisors, after a lengthy presentation, passed a Resolution and voted 4 to1 (Dan Miller voting no) to place Measure V, (a one-half cent Nevada County Wildfire Prevention, Emergency Services, and Disaster Readiness Transactions and Use Tax for critical emergency services and other general government use) on the November ballot.
f. Emails
August 11, 2022, the CEO’s office began a full-scale political campaign, titled, ‘Ready Nevada County: Preparing for the Future’, as outlined in Caleb Dardick’s agenda review, In an email, Dardick states: Emily to put a plan in place for up to 3 mailers. 3 weeks in a row in October. Caleb to get direction for 2 or 3 pieces from Alison.
August 27, 2022, County Executive Officer wrote Alison Lehman wrote:
“Hi Ed; (Ed Scofield, vice chair of the Board of Supervisors)
I see Terry is using your work email for Measure V. Can you please send him your personal email for campaign work?”
Thanks, Alison
This directive by Alison Lehman reflects a deliberate attempt to conceal public business using personal emails. It is an example of the way Measure V activity was deceptively concealed by the CEO’s office. It would be unethical for Supervisor Scofield to agree to using his personal contact information for “the people’s” business.
October 15, 2022, Dan Miller emailed Alison. “You gave me a $14K cost for the mailer. Is that for the printing, mailing and staff time? Also, you said another mailer would be sent. Are these County costs to be repaid to the County from Measure V if it passes and if it doesn’t how is it paid for? It shouldn’t be that hard to answer my questions. I want an answer by Tuesday. – Dan
Supervisor Dan Miller had also complained to County Counsel, Kit Elliot, regarding his concerns about the legality of the County spending public funds to promote the sales tax initiative. Elliot supported the illegal Yes on V campaign expenses despite Dan’s concerns.
Many hours of Caleb Dardick’s salary, and staff time of multiple county employees, were involved in coordinating meetings with consultants, chambers of commerce, public presentations, and the Fire Safe Councils. For example:
October 17, 2022
To: Caleb Dardick
From: Marcia Salter
Subject: Tracking Direct Time and Expenses on Measure V info
Hi Caleb,
Was a PCN (s) established for tracking all costs related to the Measure V? I am hoping so, but wanted to confirm.
Thank you, Marcia
October 11, 2022
From Tricia Tillotson
To: Caleb Dardick, Alicia Chaturvedula
Hello Alicia and Caleb,
Is there an established PCN for Measure V work? We have some staff spending quite a bit of time on the measure.
Thanks, Trisha, Nevada County Community Development Agency
October 20, 2022
From: Caleb Dardick
To: Tricia Tillotson
Cc: Kit Elliott; Alicia Chaturvedula; Martin Polt; Elise Strickler; Steve Monaghan; Craig Griesbach
RE: Measure V PCN
Trish, To my knowledge, there was no plan to bill staff time to the pre- and post-placement work around Measure V. No one in the CEO's office is tracking time to it, for example. All of the expenses for the public education have been paid through OES.
Elise/OES created a PCN ["the org code is: 0101-20702-414-1000 and the Project Control Number (PCN) is: 41400800... The Org Code is the OES Budget. The PCN title is: Prepare for the Future... Craig and Alex have tracked time to the PCN on their timesheets.]
I think if CDA has other resources to cover staff time, then let’s limit the use of the PCN to OES. - Thanks Caleb
Wednesday, October 19, 2022: email from Caleb Dardick to LEG (Lew Edwards Group)
“Hello LEG, I just approved the July invoice so you should have that payment soon-thanks for resending. We realize, though, that we will need to amend our contract with you to cover the September invoice and October invoice for a total of $15,000. Elise will send you a draft contract amendment for your review this week. Unfortunately, we’ve missed the deadline for the October 25th board meeting and this year we have no board meetings in November. Therefore, the contract will come to the Board’s December 6th meeting, and once approved, payments can be rushed for the following week. Contact me with any questions or concerns”-Best, Caleb
The amended contract never made it to the board on December 6th. An amended contract, (Resolution 23-049), was approved on the consent calendar on January 24th, paying all LEG invoices, “in arrears”, for the consulting contract which then totaled $70,000.
Measure V Defeated
November 8, 2022, Measure V was defeated with only 48.41% (24,144) voting “yes.”It seems everyone misread the tea leaves. According to Godbe, a 60% voter win was expected. The outcome was disappointing to say the least.
No one in this story can claim plausible deniability because there are too many more emails with everyone’s names on them. It took a lot of hubris to pull off the ruse that Office of Emergency Services was only conducting ‘Emergency Services Public Education’and not financing the illegal Measure V campaign.
What’s astonishing is the Board of Supervisors, except for Dan Miller, ignored over 50% of their constituency that did not want to pay an additional ½ cent sales tax on purchases. There was also a lack of trust as to how the revenue would be accounted for once it was in the General Fund… and for good reason, given the fact that Alison, Caleb and Craig Greisbach were busy concealing the expenditures and staff time related to their de facto Measure V political committee. If they could easily do it this time, what’s stopping them in the future?
There has to be consequences for what was “allowed” to happen. County Supervisors did not do their due diligence, and never questioned the legalities of what they were doing, or how the County was going to pay for the over quarter million dollars of illegally reappropriated Measure V campaign expenses. There certainly were no guardrails in place. The Supervisors were not only negligent in protecting taxpayer funds, they actually participated in supporting the Yes on V campaign. Did it dawn on Ed, Heidi, Sue, and Hardy to even ask the hard questions? Apparently not!
How did the CEO’s office, led by Alison Lehman, initiate a sales tax initiative campaign of this magnitude without explicit, and public, Board direction, budget approvals, or oversight of spending? Everything the CEO’s office, the Board of Supervisors and staff were doing for almost a year was to secure a Yes vote on Measure V.
Residents Deserve Accountability
Nevada County residents who care about fiscal responsibility and accountability demand justice. The current Supervisors must remove Alison Lehman and Craig Greisbach from employment with Nevada County considering their unethical activities which brought shame and lack of trust to our local government. If they do not remove them, then they are continuing to condone their gross misconduct. Perhaps Alison, Craig, and Caleb should all pay restitution for the taxpayer’s money which they so liberally used without permission.
State laws, such as California Government Code Section 8314, explicitly make it unlawful for local officials, appointees, and employees to use public resources (including funds, facilities, equipment, and paid work time) for campaign activities.
Government Code Section 54964 specifically prohibits officers and employees of local agencies from spending public money to advocate for or against candidates or ballot measures.
Under California law, Penal Code 424, unauthorized reappropriation or misuse of public funds by a public officer or person charged with the receipt, transfer, or disbursement of public money is a felony.
