_____________________
_____________________
By Brian Hews
Publisher | Follow X
January 16, 2026
Six weeks ago, Los Cerritos Community News launched High Stakes, Dirty Water, Red Flags, a multi-part investigative series revealing that for years Central Basin District Four Director Juan Garza quietly operated the California Cities for Self-Reliance Joint Powers Authority [JPA], a taxpayer-funded agency, through Bellflower-based Six Heron, his privately owned public-relations and government-relations firm.
Garza’s decision to personally run a publicly funded joint powers authority through his private firm — which for years was not licensed with the City of Bellflower — raised immediate red flags under California law governing procurement, transparency, and conflicts of interest.
By controlling the JPA’s operations, receiving bids, and managing public business through his own private infrastructure, Garza blurred — and in some cases erased — the legal separation required between a public agency and a private enterprise.
That private control, combined with Garza’s renewal of his contract as the JPA’s executive director while simultaneously serving as an elected water official for Central Basin, placed his seat on the Central Basin Municipal Water District in legal peril.
Part One documented how Garza used his personal Six Heron email, company cellphone, and Bellflower P.O. Box as the JPA’s operational and procurement pipeline, effectively turning a public agency into a one-man operation.
_______________________
______________________
Part Two exposed how that private control collided directly with Garza’s elected authority at the Central Basin Municipal Water District, where he votes on water rates, infrastructure, and other decisions affecting the very cities that fund his JPA executive-director salary — including Hawaiian Gardens, a JPA member city located within his own Central Basin division.
________________
________________
Part Three moved from conflicts to consequences. It examined the legal trigger created by Garza’s JPA arrangement and his contract renewal. Garza has served as Executive Director of the California Cities for Self-Reliance Joint Powers Authority since March 2020 and joined the Central Basin Municipal Water District board in December 2020. Since taking office, he renewed his paid JPA employment contract while continuing to vote as a Central Basin director and as Central Basin’s delegate to the Metropolitan Water District.
___________________
__________________
Part Four shifted the focus from Garza’s conduct to Central Basin’s response — or lack of one. Despite extensive reporting, public notice, and repeated questions, Central Basin leadership took no action to determine whether Government Code 1099 had been triggered, requested no independent legal review, and made no referral to an enforcement authority. Instead, the board continued operating as if the issue did not exist, even as votes, contracts, and major personnel decisions moved forward.
______________________
______________________
Now comes the final installment, which focuses on what changes once the conflict is exposed, the board is on notice, and decisions continue to be made.
Under California law, once a board member has notice of an incompatible office and knowingly allows it to continue, the issue stops being a governance problem and becomes a matter of personal liability. Actions taken during that period can be challenged as legally void, and courts have treated those votes as unlawful exercises of authority.
Every subsequent vote, contract, or decision made during that period becomes a potential exhibit in court. What begins as a single conflict can quickly expand into a broader governance failure, with personal consequences attached to each director who chose not to intervene.
There is clear precedent under California law holding that when an official unlawfully holds office, actions taken during that period may be invalid and legal protections can fall away.
In People ex rel. Bagshaw v. Thompson (1938) 24 Cal.App.2d 445, the court held that an official who unlawfully holds office has no legal authority to act, and that actions taken after forfeiture of office may be challenged as invalid.
In Eldridge v. Sierra View Local Hospital District (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 311, the court emphasized the importance of notice, explaining that once a governing body is aware of a legal disqualification, continued participation is no longer protected as a good-faith mistake, and actions taken after notice are subject to challenge because the official lacks lawful authority.
The California Supreme Court addressed personal exposure in Stigall v. City of Taft (1962) 58 Cal.2d 565, holding that public officials do not enjoy immunity for acts taken in excess of their legal authority, particularly where they knowingly proceed despite clear legal constraints.
The practical consequences are significant. Contracts approved, public funds spent, and personnel decisions made during an incompatible period can be invalidated or unwound. When that happens, board members who knowingly allowed the conflict to persist can be named personally in civil actions and sued for monetary damages or the recovery of public funds.
Public officials often assume they are automatically protected from liability simply because they are performing their official duties. That assumption is incorrect. Legal immunity generally applies only when officials are exercising discretion in good faith, such as choosing between policy options when the law is unclear.
Once a director is clearly informed that a legal incompatibility exists and chooses to do nothing, that protection begins to erode. At that point, the decision is no longer a good-faith judgment call. It becomes a knowing choice to ignore a clear legal rule.
Time does not cure the problem — it worsens it. Each meeting, vote, or decision taken after notice makes it increasingly difficult to claim lawful discretion rather than knowing violation of the law.
A second consequence is exposure to taxpayer litigation. California law expressly authorizes taxpayers to sue to stop illegal government action and recover misspent funds. When evidence of incompatibility is public and documented, continued inaction strengthens the legal conclusion that directors acted knowingly rather than negligently.
Even if damages are ultimately paid by the district, individual directors can still be responsible for attorneys’ fees and court costs, which routinely reach significant sums.
The third consequence is enforcement scrutiny. The Attorney General has authority to initiate quo warranto proceedings to determine whether an official unlawfully holds office. When a board knowingly enables an incompatible office, that scrutiny does not necessarily stop with the conflicted director. The conduct of directors who permitted the situation to continue can also be examined.
Separately, the Fair Political Practices Commission retains authority to pursue civil penalties for conflict-related violations, including fines assessed personally rather than against the agency.
This is why director-initiated investigations matter. Calling for an investigation is not an accusation; it is a legal firewall. A director who acts after notice can credibly show an effort to protect the district and comply with the law. A director who blocks, delays, or ignores the issue forfeits that protection.
At Central Basin, that divide is now clear. The board majority, consisting of President Nem Ochoa, Vice President Gary Mendez, Director Joanna Moreno, and Director Juan Garza have taken no action following LCCN’s reporting, despite public notice and repeated warnings about the legal consequences of inaction.
By contrast, Directors Art Chacon, Jim Crawford, and Leticia Vasquez have openly raised concerns and called for the issue to be addressed. That distinction matters. Under California law, liability follows notice and inaction.
The record now reflects who acted after notice and who did not. That difference is not political. It is legal.
This investigation remains ongoing. Los Cerritos Community News will continue reporting as enforcement authorities, courts, or the district itself respond to the issues now firmly on the public record.
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login