On April 6, 2021, Santa Ana Councilmember Jessie Lopez voted to approve a $184,544 city agreement with the Orange County United Way. Also in 2021, the Orange County United Way paid her as a contractor.
Lopez’s Statement of Economic Interests (Form 700) for calendar year 2021 reports that she received between $500 and $1,000 from the Orange County United Way as a contractor (although she didn’t disclose this income until 2024 when she filed an amendment to her 2021 Form 700). Actually, Lopez didn’t disclose that income until an amendment she filed more than a year later in March of 2023.
California’s Political Reform Act bars local officials from voting on decisions that materially affect anyone who paid them $500 or more in the 12 months before the vote.
Whether Lopez broke that law turns on whether United Way paid or promised her the money before she cast her vote. Neither Lopez nor United Way has answered our requests to confirm when and how much she was paid.
Lopez is running for the 68th Assembly District seat in the Nov. 3 general election against fellow Santa Ana Councilmember David Penaloza.
The Vote
Item 23 on the council’s April 6, 2021 agenda authorized the city manager to sign an agreement with the Orange County United Way. It used up to $184,544.29 in state Homeless Emergency Aid Program (HEAP) funds for United Way’s WelcomeHomeOC program.
The money paid landlord incentives to house about 14 young adults leaving foster care who held Foster Youth to Independence housing vouchers. United Way would be reimbursed for costs such as signing bonuses, security deposits and moving expenses, estimated at about $15,000 per voucher holder.
The item was on the consent calendar. The vote was 6-0-1, with Councilmember Thai Viet Phan abstaining due to a stated conflict of interest because her employer, Rutan and Tucker, represent the Orange County United Way. The minutes do not name her employer. Lopez made no such disclosure and is recorded as voting yes.
The Income
Lopez reported the United Way payment as income on her Form 700 covering Jan. 1 through Dec. 31, 2021. The form lists the amount in a range of $500 to $1,000 and describes her as a contractor. It does not say when the work was arranged or when she was paid.
The HEAP agreement was not United Way’s only business with the city that year. Santa Ana also hired United Way to pay landlords under its CARES for Tenants rental assistance program:
| Agreement | Funding | Council action | Lopez’s vote |
|---|---|---|---|
| A-2021-021-04 | Federal rental assistance, round 1; up to $9.09 million, including $197,608 for United Way’s administration | Feb. 16, 2021, Item 17 | Yes (7-0) |
| A-2021-107-03 | Federal rental assistance, round 2 | July 6, 2021, Item 9 | Yes (7-0) |
| A-2021-238-03 | State rental assistance, round 2 | Dec. 7, 2021, Item 18 (consent) | Yes (7-0) |
Those three votes differ from the HEAP item in that they are not directly with United Way. Each approved a spending plan and authorized the city manager to sign agreements with unnamed “service providers, contractors, and sub-recipients.” City staff then signed contracts with United Way and several other nonprofits.
What The Law Says
The Political Reform Act prohibits a public official from making or participating in a governmental decision in which she has a financial interest (Government Code Section 87100). Under Section 87103(c), a financial interest includes any source of income of $500 or more “received by or promised to” the official within 12 months before the decision.
Section 82030 defines income broadly. Its only nonprofit exception covers travel and per diem reimbursements, not payment for work.
The decision’s effect must also be “material.” Under the Fair Political Practices Commission’s Regulation 18702.3, the effect on a source of income is material when the source is a named party to the decision, including a contracting party. No dollar threshold applies. United Way was the named contracting party in Item 23.
That leaves timing:
- If United Way paid or promised Lopez $500 or more on or before April 6, 2021, she had a disqualifying financial interest when she voted. The law required her to recuse herself, as Phan did.
- If the work was arranged and paid after April 6, no conflict existed for that vote. The payment would then fall within 12 months before the Dec. 7, 2021 rental assistance vote, though that item did not name United Way.
Disclosure does not cure a conflict. The Form 700 and the recusal rule are separate duties. Reporting the income satisfies the first but not the second.
A second law, Government Code Section 1090, bars officials from being financially interested in contracts they approve. Whether a small contractor relationship with a party amounts to an interest in the contract itself is a separate question with its own exceptions.
OC Independent has reached out multiple times to both Lopez and Orange County United Way to address this matter, especially the specifics of when their agreement was made, the duration of Lopez’s contract work and when she was paid.
We have received no responses.
Part Of A Pattern
The United Way vote is not the only ethics question Lopez faces. The Fair Political Practices Commission is investigating her for apparently exceeding the state’s limit on gifts from a single source, OC Independent reported on Oct. 26.
READ: Santa Ana Councilmember Jessie Lopez Being Investigated By State For Violating Gift Limit
Lopez’s own 2024 Form 700 reports $1,580 in tickets from the Orange County Soccer Club. The 2024 gift limit was $590 per source, putting her $990 over. FPPC staff flagged the filing and sent Lopez a letter on May 8, 2025, asking her to respond by May 22 and warning that “the fact that you might not have been aware of the gift limitation does not relieve you of your legal obligations.”
The available record shows no response, reimbursement to the soccer club or amended filing in the 13 months that followed. In an Aug. 20, 2026 letter, the FPPC advised her to begin gathering documents for its investigation, FPPC Case No. 2026-00719. The agency has made no finding. Penalties can reach $5,000 per violation.
Officials who catch such problems early can usually resolve them by repaying the donor and amending their Form 700. Riverside Councilman Steven Robillard did that in 2025 after receiving a similar warning letter, and the FPPC took no further action.
The United Way income itself was not on Lopez’s original 2021 Form 700. According to OC Independent, she added it by amendment more than a year after the original filing.
No Answers
OC Independent has contacted Lopez and the Orange County United Way, asking when the work was arranged, when she was paid and what services she provided. Neither responded. Their responses will be added if they reply.
The unanswered questions are straightforward:
- When did United Way first engage or promise to pay Lopez?
- When was she paid?
- What work did she perform?
- Did she seek advice from the city attorney or the FPPC before voting on items involving United Way?
