HomeMy WebLinkAboutFollow-Up on November 21 Notice Regarding Chamber Governance and Public Funding Oversight From: bob bobmaaee.net
To: Kathryn Vigil
Subject: [External]Fw: [External]Follow-Up on November 21 Notice Regarding Chamber Governance and Public Funding
Oversight
Date: Wednesday,December 17,2025 3:05:40 PM
Message from external sender. Use Caution.
Communication from Alex. I did not respond.
From: Robert Magee <rmagee@Lake-Elsinore.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2025 3:01 PM
To: bob bobmagee.net<bob@bobmagee.net>
Subject: Fw: [External]Follow-Up on November 21 Notice Regarding Chamber Governance and
Public Funding Oversight
Get Outlook for Android
From: Robert Magee <rmagee@Lake-Elsinore.org>
Sent: Monday, December 1, 2025 7:27:23 AM
To: Bob Magee<bob@bobmagee.net>
Subject: Fw: [External]Follow-Up on November 21 Notice Regarding Chamber Governance and
Public Funding Oversight
Get Outlook for Android
From: alex kowalkoski <alexkowalkoski@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, December 1, 2025 6:48:14 AM
To: Robert Magee <rmagee@Lake-Elsinore.org>; Timothy J. Sheridan <tsheridan@Lake-
Elsinore.org>; Brian Tisdale <btisdale@Lake-Elsinore.org>; Michael Carroll <mcarroll@lake-
elsinore.org>; Steve Manos<smanos@Lake-Elsinore.org>;Jason Simpson <jsimpson@Lake-
Elsinore.org>; Barbara Leibold CC<barbara@cega.com>; David Mann <david@cega.com>; Candice
Alvarez<ca Iva rez@Lake-Elsinore.org>
Subject: [External]Follow-Up on November 21 Notice Regarding Chamber Governance and Public
Funding Oversight
�Sessag: from external sender. Use Caution.
Dear City Attorney,City Manager,Mayor,and Members of the City Council,
I am writing as a follow-up to my November 21 correspondence regarding governance concerns,statutory
noncompliance,and potential retaliatory actions involving the Lake Elsinore Valley Chamber of Commerce—an
organization that receives public support and functions as a City-affiliated business partner.My original notice
included the full Writ of Mandate filed in Superior Court,which seeks no monetary relief and is limited solely to
statutory compliance under California nonprofit law.
As of today,I have not received confirmation that the City has reviewed or acknowledged this information.I
understand the City's workload is significant,and I want to emphasize that I am not requesting intervention in
litigation or any action against the Chamber.My intention is transparency,accountability,and risk mitigation—for
both the City and the community.
To provide helpful context,I want to highlight several legal principles that apply to any public agency partnering
with or supporting a nonprofit organization.These points are offered strictly as general awareness,not as
accusations or legal demands:
1. California Constitution,Article XVI,Section 6(Use of Public Funds)
Public funds,grants,and in-kind support may only be provided to organizations operating lawfully and in
good standing.This includes maintaining bylaws,holding elections,preserving financial transparency,and
complying with mandatory governance procedures.
2. Government Code§1222(Mandatory Duty Upon Notice)
Once a public agency is made aware of potential compliance concerns involving an organization receiving
public support,a duty may arise to conduct reasonable inquiry.My notice was provided solely to ensure the
City is informed.
3. Public-Facing Nonprofits May Trigger Heightened Transparency Expectations
Because the Chamber performs public-facing economic development functions on behalf of the City—
including business outreach,community representation,and City-supported activities—transparency
expectations may extend beyond those of a typical private entity.Courts have held that organizations
performing governmental-adjacent functions may be expected to uphold heightened standards of
accountability and documentation.
4. Partnership Liability and Verification of Governance Structures
In any municipal partnership,it is standard due diligence to verify that the nonprofit partner maintains lawful
governance structures—including confirming that board members were elected according to bylaws,that
term limits were followed,and that appointments were not made unilaterally.This protects public trust and
ensures City partnerships rest on legally compliant foundations.
5. Confirming the Chamber's"Good Standing"
If the City is able to confirm whether the Chamber is currently in good standing with its required governance
filings—including bylaws,election documentation,and board roster updates—that would help ensure the
organization is operating in compliance with California nonprofit law.
6. Conflict-of-Interest Policy and Governance Safeguards
As part of normal oversight in public—nonprofit partnerships,many municipalities request a nonprofit
partner's conflict-of-interest policy to ensure that board appointments,compensation decisions,and
executive actions are made in compliance with recognized governance standards.
7. Review of Any Existing City—Chamber Agreements
If the City maintains any formal or informal agreements,MOUs,or operating arrangements with the
Chamber,I trust those documents will guide your evaluation.Ensuring that the Chamber is fulfilling its
obligations under such agreements is an essential component of responsible partnership management.
8. Avoiding External Oversight Questions Down the Road
I am utilizing established transparency avenues—including statutory requests and public notice.My hope is
that the City conducts its own reasonable review as well,so that no external oversight body later questions
whether due diligence was performed once concerns were raised.This is not a threat of outside action;it is
simply an acknowledgment of how transparency processes typically function.
Specific Context Regarding Bylaws, Elections, and Term Limits
California nonprofit law requires not only a valid set of bylaws,but also documented proof that board elections were
held according to those bylaws,that term limits were observed,and that directors were elected—not appointed
outside the required processes.
The foundational governance materials typically reviewed when a nonprofit is partnered with or supported by a
municipality include:
• a current,legally adopted set of bylaws;
• documented election results for all board members;
• records showing membership voting(not unilateral appointment);
• documentation affirming term-limit compliance;
• internal governance and/or conflict-of-interest policies.
These materials are commonly requested by cities as part of basic due diligence when a nonprofit plays a public-
facing or City-affiliated role.
Additional Context—ABC Licensing,Nonprofit Representation, and City Involvement
I also want to note one area that may warrant the City's awareness strictly from a risk-mitigation standpoint.The
City has previously partnered or co-promoted events involving the Chamber of Commerce and/or Frias
Entertainment,such as the Duck Event.ABC regulations require that when a nonprofit organization is used as the
100%partner for an event permit,the nonprofit must maintain full knowledge of and control over the event's
operations and financial structure.
In an email exchange,Chamber President Kim Joseph Cousins stated that he was not aware of the arrangement
between the City and Frias Entertainment regarding that event.I am not alleging wrongdoing by any party,but
uncertainty over who exercised operational control is generally considered a key compliance factor for ABC
nonprofit event permits.
For that reason,it may be prudent for the City to confirm that any past or ongoing nonprofit partnerships involving
ABC licensing were administered in alignment with applicable requirements.This is offered solely as a transparency
and due-diligence consideration,not as an accusation.
Clarification of the City's Potential Financial or Operational Role
In reviewing the documents included in the Writ of Mandate,I noted references suggesting that the City of Lake
Elsinore may have considered administering or overseeing portions of the revenue and expense structure for the
Duck Event involving the Chamber and/or Frias Entertainment.I am not asserting any wrongdoing by the City;
however,when public funds,public staff time,or public administrative involvement intersect with nonprofit-
sponsored events—particularly those relying on an ABC nonprofit event license—it is advisable to clearly
confirm what role the City played,if any,in managing financial or operational components.
To avoid any uncertainty and to protect the City's interests,it may be helpful for the City to clarify internally
whether it exercised,or intended to exercise,any financial oversight responsibilities for that event.Understanding
the City's role in that context would ensure that all parties remain aligned with ABC requirements and nonprofit
governance obligations.
Additional Context—Statements from City Staff
I also want to mention,solely to support transparency and completeness,that during a 2024 public records request
related to the Duck Event,Jovanny Huerta stated in writing that the Duck Event was a Chamber event.I am not
asserting wrongdoing by Mr.Huerta or the Chamber;I am simply noting this because it appears to confirm that the
Chamber was represented as the organizer.
In a separate meeting unrelated to this matter,during a discussion regarding alcohol permitting rules for the
Riverside County Carnival,Assistant City Manager Shannon Buckley explained in general terms that when the City
sponsors an event—or when an event takes place on City-owned property—different permitting criteria may
apply than for a traditional private event applicant(including ABC permit conditions and requirements related to
private security and RSO support).My understanding of that conversation—which may be incomplete—was that
City-sponsored or City-facility events sometimes operate under a different set of expectations.I am not suggesting
any impropriety;I am simply trying to understand how those distinctions are defined and applied in practice.
However,because the Duck Event involved Chamber representation,City property,and ABC licensing,I felt it
appropriate to share these statements so the City can confirm with staff what role the City played—or intended to
play—in the financial or operational structure of that event.
Because this issue is already part of the evidentiary record in my pending Writ of Mandate,I want to be sure the
City is explicitly aware of two exhibits that appear to reflect different descriptions of the July 4,2024 Duck Event:
• October 23,2024—Email from Jovanny Huerta(Exhibit O,Writ of Mandate)
In response to a public records request,Mr.Huerta stated in writing that the Duck Event was a Chamber of
Commerce event.
• July 2,2024—Email from Chamber President Kim Joseph Cousins(Exhibit P,Writ of Mandate)
In a separate email,Mr.Cousins wrote: "I am unaware of what the agreement is between the City of Lake
Elsinore and Frias.We are expecting a donation to the Lake Elsinore Community Foundation at the
conclusion of the event."
I am not alleging wrongdoing by Mr.Huerta,Mr.Cousins,the City,the Chamber,or Frias Entertainment.However,
because these statements are now part of the court record and could reasonably be relied upon by any party
(including the Chamber itself),it seems important that the City have a clear internal understanding of how this event
was actually structured and represented.
From the perspective of an ordinary resident in Riverside County and event organizer inside Lake Elsinore,it is not
immediately clear how to reconcile an event described in one place as a Chamber event(with a nonprofit ABC
license)and,in another place,as an arrangement primarily between the City and Frias,with the Chamber expecting
a donation at the conclusion.If my understanding is incomplete or inaccurate,I welcome corrections.To avoid any
misunderstandings,I would appreciate clarification on the following points:
Event Characterization
For purposes of City records,ABC permitting,and public representation,was the July 4,2024 Duck Event treated
as:
• a City event,
• a Chamber event,
• a Frias Entertainment event,or
• a joint or hybrid event(and if so,how was that partnership formally defined)?
ABC License and Operational Control
Under whose name and nonprofit status was the ABC event permit obtained,and which entity was understood to
have operational and financial control for ABC-compliance purposes?
Profit and Loss Documentation
If the City was not the vendor of record and was instead serving as a sponsor or host,in what capacity did the City
prepare or maintain any profit-and-loss statements or similar financial summaries for the Duck Event?
Donation to the Lake Elsinore Community Foundation
Mr.Cousins'email indicates an expectation of a donation to the Lake Elsinore Community Foundation at the
conclusion of the event.If such a donation was made,I would be grateful for clarification as to:
• whether the donation occurred;
• the date and amount of the donation;and
• the documentation reflecting that transfer(for example,check request,payment record,or reconciliation
related to the event).
Additional Questions Regarding Exhibit N—Profit and Loss Statements and Event
Control
In addition,Exhibit N to my Writ of Mandate includes profit-and-loss statements that appear to reflect revenue,cost
of goods sold for alcohol,and operating expenses associated with the July 4,2024 Duck Event.As a layperson
reviewing those documents,it is not clear to me how these financial entries align with the Chamber's asserted role
as the nonprofit ABC license holder.If my reading of those statements is incomplete or mistaken,I welcome
clarification.
My understanding of an ABC nonprofit event permit is that the nonprofit identified on the license is expected to
maintain full control over—and full knowledge of—the event's alcohol-related revenues and expenses.For that
reason,I would appreciate clarification on the following points related specifically to Exhibit N:
Cost of Goods Sold for Alcohol
The profit-and-loss statements appear to show the City having an understanding of the cost of goods sold for alcohol
at the Duck Event.
• Which entity actually purchased the alcohol for this event—Frias Entertainment,the City of Lake Elsinore,
the Chamber of Commerce,or some combination thereof?
• In what capacity did the City obtain or track the cost of goods sold for that alcohol if the Chamber was the
nonprofit license holder?
Alcohol and Parking Revenue
If the Duck Event was treated as a Chamber event,or as a Chamber/Frias event under a nonprofit ABC license,I am
trying to understand why the City's profit-and-loss statements would reflect revenue associated with alcohol sales
and/or parking for that specific event.
• Was the City the entity that actually received alcohol revenue or parking revenue?
• If so,how was that structure reconciled with the Chamber's role as nonprofit license holder and public
representation as the event organizer?
Event Sponsorship vs.Operational/Financial Control
If the City was intended to serve primarily as a sponsor or host facility for a Chamber-driven event,I would
appreciate clarification as to:
• whether the profit-and-loss statements in Exhibit N reflect money that the City ultimately retained,or money
that was held or tracked on behalf of the Chamber and/or Frias;and
• whether there are written agreements,invoices,or reconciliations that explain how the revenue,cost of
goods sold,and event expenses were allocated among the parties.
Relationship Between the City and Frias Entertainment
Finally,Exhibit N appears to show operating expenses,cost of goods sold,and revenues related to the Duck Event.
To better understand the overall structure,could the City please clarify:
• whether Frias Entertainment was a co-sponsor,contractor,vendor,or some other type of partner for this
event;and
• how that relationship was documented in contracts,MOUs,or internal records,particularly as it relates to
financial responsibility and ABC compliance.
My intent in raising these questions is not to assign blame,but to resolve what appear to be conflicting descriptions
of the same event and to ensure that the City,the Chamber,and the public are all relying on a consistent and
accurate understanding of how the event was organized,administered,financially reconciled,and reported.
Request for Permit and Requirement History—July 4, 2024 Duck Event
To further support transparency and to avoid any misunderstandings,I respectfully request the historical record of
the permit(s)pulled for the Duck Event held on July 4,2024. Specifically,I am requesting:
• Copies of any special event permits,facility use permits,or related approvals for that event;
• Identification of the applicant(s)and/or organization(s)listed as responsible for the event;and
• Any documented conditions or requirements associated with the permit,including but not limited to security
staffing(private security and/or RSO),alcohol-related conditions,insurance requirements,and anticipated
attendance.
I will then verify later the RSO documentation of who was present at the event as RSO staff based on their own
systems.My goal in requesting this information is simply to understand whether,and how,the City's permitting
expectations for that event align with the standards applied to similarly situated events.
Separately,I would be grateful for clarification on how RSO staffing expectations are determined for different
categories of events.Based on my current understanding,there appear to be differences between(a)events that are
City-sponsored or held on City-owned property,and(b)events held on non-City property by private applicants.For
example,I have been informed that certain events at Lake Elsinore Storm Stadium where alcohol is served proceed
with private security and no RSO presence,whereas private applicants for non-City facilities have been advised that
RSO staffing is required at their expense for comparable or smaller events.I am not alleging misconduct;I am
simply trying to understand whether there is a written policy or objective criteria that explain these differences,and
how those criteria are applied to similarly situated events.
Clarifying the City's permitting history and standards for the July 4,2024 Duck Event,as well as the criteria applied
to City-sponsored versus private events more generally,will help ensure that all parties share a consistent
understanding of how these rules are applied and will support confidence in the City's approach to event governance
going forward.
Closing
My request is not for disciplinary action,intervention,or any public stance.My intent is simply to ensure that public
funds,public trust,and public partnerships remain aligned with California law and with the City's own expectations
for transparency.To the extent this request seeks access to existing writings,this letter is also intended to serve as a
request under the California Public Records Act(Gov. Code§7920.000 et seq.).
If the City requires clarification,dates,statutory citations,or additional documentation,I will gladly provide them.
Please confirm that my November 21 notice was received and forwarded to the appropriate personnel for internal
review.Thank you for your time and attention,and for the support the City has provided during the community
events I have hosted.
Respectfully,
Alex Kowalkoski
Email:alexkowalkoski&gmail.com
Phone: 847-907-0165