My Concerns

VOTERS WERE PROMISED A NINE-YEAR PENSION PAYOFF.

In 2016, La Palma voters approved Measure JJ, a permanent 1% transactions and use tax that took effect in 2017.

The campaign supporting Measure JJ promoted an ambitious financial plan that included paying off the City's existing pension debt within nine years and saving millions of dollars in interest.

Nitesh Patel was not on the City Council when Measure JJ was approved, but he was elected shortly after in 2018.

That means Patel has served on the City Council for most of the nine-year period during which residents were told the pension debt would be paid off.

SO WHAT HAPPENED?

The City's audited financial statements reported a Net Pension Liability of approximately $18.2 million for FY 2016–17.

By FY 2023–24, the City's audited Net Pension Liability was approximately $23.6 million.

That is approximately 29.8% higher than the FY 2016–17 figure.

Separately, CalPERS actuarial valuations use a different methodology to calculate the City's Unfunded Accrued Liability. Those figures should not be directly compared with the City's audited Net Pension Liability, but they likewise show that La Palma continues to carry substantial pension obligations.

The Yes on Measure JJ campaign projected that by FY 2025–26, La Palma would have an approximately $1.8 million surplus, potentially allowing the City to lower the Utility Users Tax for residents. That projection was tied to a financial plan that included paying off the City's pension debt within nine years. Instead, the pension debt was not paid off, and the City's audited Net Pension Liability increased by approximately 28% by FY 2023–24. With the nine-year plan over, residents deserve to know: What happened to the projected surplus and potential tax reduction, and where was the oversight to ensure the plan presented to taxpayers was actually being followed? 

The bottom line is much simpler:

The pension debt was not eliminated within the nine-year timeframe promoted to voters.

WHERE WAS THE OVERSIGHT?

Patel did not create Measure JJ.

But he was elected in 2018 and served on the City Council for most of the nine-year payoff period.

That matters.

City Council members approve budgets.

They receive financial reports.

They establish policy.

They can ask questions.

They can direct staff to bring information back publicly.

And when a major financial promise made to taxpayers is not being achieved, they can demand an explanation and a plan.

So where was that oversight?

Where was the public review of the nine-year pension plan?

Where was the regular accounting showing residents whether the City was on schedule?

When the pension liability remained substantial, where was the discussion about why the original plan wasn't working?

Why wasn't there a comprehensive public review comparing what residents were promised with what actually occurred?

RESIDENTS DESERVE ANSWERS.

Measure JJ continues generating tax revenue through purchases made by residents and shoppers within the City. Every vehicle purchase registered to a La Palma address, every online taxable order, costs us La Palma residents more. 

The pension debt remains.

The nine-year payoff promoted to voters was not achieved.

After nearly eight years on the City Council, where was Nitesh Patel's oversight during the years he was responsible for helping govern the City (including two terms as Mayor)?

Questions every resident should be asking: 

What happened to the nine-year plan?

How was Measure JJ revenue used?

Why wasn't greater attention given to whether the pension payoff was actually on track?

And what is the plan now?

MY ACCOUNTABILITY PLAN

If elected, I will push for:

1. An annual public report on the City's pension liability.

2. A clear accounting of how Measure JJ revenue is being used.

3. Written liability-reduction goals with measurable annual targets.

4. Regular public updates comparing actual results against those targets.

A tax measure shouldn't make a promise, collect the tax, and stop measuring whether the promised result was achieved.

Oversight requires follow-through.

PRIMARY SOURCES: City of La Palma adopted budgets and audited financial statements; CalPERS actuarial valuations; 2016 Measure JJ materials and public records.

WHEN GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT FAILS, TAXPAYERS CAN PAY THE PRICE.

On December 9, 2025, an Orange County jury returned an $8.4 million verdict against the City of La Palma in Byer v. City of La Palma.

The jury found the City liable for discrimination, retaliation, and failure to take reasonable steps to prevent discrimination and retaliation.

The damages totaled approximately $3.92 million in past noneconomic damages and $4.48 million in future noneconomic damages.

The City has appealed the verdict, and the litigation therefore remains ongoing.

But an $8.4 million jury verdict against a city the size of La Palma should cause every elected official to ask a fundamental question:

HOW DID IT GET THIS FAR?

The underlying matter involved more than one employee and one supervisor.

The evidence and testimony involved police supervision and leadership, Human Resources, and City management.

Ultimately, a jury concluded that the City itself failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent the discrimination and retaliation it found had occurred. (Source)

THAT IS AN ORGANIZATIONAL FAILURE.

A City Council does not conduct employee investigations itself.

Council members should not micromanage individual personnel matters.

But the City Council sits at the top of La Palma's governance structure.

It appoints and oversees the City Manager.

It retains the City Attorney.

It establishes policy.

It approves budgets.

It receives information and provides direction about significant legal exposure.

And it has the authority to ask questions when something is going wrong.

SO WHERE WAS THE OVERSIGHT?

How did problems involving multiple levels of the organization reach the point of an $8.4 million jury verdict?

Were complaints handled appropriately?

Were City policies followed?

Were warning signs missed?

Did Human Resources have the resources and authority it needed?

Did management systems work?

What information reached senior City leadership?

What information reached the City Council?

And most importantly:

WHAT HAS CHANGED?

Residents deserve more than an appeal.

They deserve to know what safeguards are being put in place to prevent another situation from reaching this point.

An $8.4 million verdict should trigger a serious examination of organizational practices, management systems, accountability and risk.

That is what oversight means.

ADDITIONAL LITIGATION

ONE MAJOR CASE SHOULD BE ENOUGH TO GET CITY HALL'S ATTENTION.

La Palma has also faced additional employment-related claims and litigation, as well as wrongful-death litigation.

Those cases must be distinguished from the Byer case.

The $8.4 million Byer verdict resulted from findings made by a jury.

Allegations in unresolved lawsuits remain allegations unless and until they are established in court.

But multiple significant legal matters involving a small city should still cause its elected leadership to examine whether there are broader issues involving management, personnel practices, risk management, training or organizational oversight.

A City Council cannot guarantee that nobody will ever sue the City.

It can make sure City Hall learns from problems instead of simply moving from one lawsuit to the next.

WHEN SERIOUS PROBLEMS KEEP OCCURRING, LEADERSHIP SHOULD QUESTION THE STATUS QUO.

An $8.4 million jury verdict does not happen in a vacuum.

The underlying case raised serious issues involving multiple levels of the organization, including Police Department leadership, Human Resources, and City management. La Palma has also faced leadership turnover and additional significant litigation and claims.

At some point, elected officials have to do more than approve staff recommendations and move on.

They have to ask whether the organization itself needs to change.

The City Council's job is not to manage individual employees. But it does have responsibility for the City's highest level of leadership. The Council appoints and oversees the City Manager, retains the City Attorney, approves budgets and policies, and has the ability to demand answers when serious organizational problems emerge.

That is why leadership decisions matter.

When a City has experienced major litigation, management turnover, employee claims, and an $8.4 million jury verdict, every major leadership transition should be an opportunity to ask difficult questions:

1. What went wrong?

2. Why wasn't it identified sooner?

3. Who was responsible for addressing it?

4. What has actually changed?

5. Do we need new leadership, new policies, or a different approach?

And most importantly:

Are we solving the underlying problems, or simply continuing the same system with different names and titles?

Internal promotions and appointments can absolutely be appropriate. Institutional knowledge has value. But institutional knowledge should never become an excuse for institutional complacency.

When an organization has experienced serious problems, elected officials should be willing to look both inside and outside the organization, compare qualified candidates, challenge existing practices, and choose leaders who are prepared to make changes when changes are needed.

THAT IS WHAT OVERSIGHT LOOKS LIKE.

It means not automatically accepting the easiest option.

It means not assuming that because something has always been done a certain way, it should continue that way.

It means asking whether the people, policies and systems already in place contributed to the problems the City is now facing.

And it means being willing to change direction when the evidence says the status quo isn't working.

After nearly eight years on the City Council, Nitesh Patel has had repeated opportunities to ask those questions.

Residents should examine whether he did.

Because maintaining the status quo isn't the absence of a decision.

MAINTAINING THE STATUS QUO IS A DECISION.

TRANSPARENCY SHOULD BE MORE THAN A CAMPAIGN PROMISE.

Candidates frequently promise transparency. Residents should compare those promises with the record.

Nitesh Patel's website sayss" Residents deserve a government that is transparent, accessible, and accountable"; however, this does not match his record. 

In February 2023, Patel voted with the Council majority against having staff research options for video streaming City Council meetings. He did not even want staff to research options. 

In 2024, La Palma received a “D” grade in a Chapman University/Voice of OC assessment of public-meeting accessibility.

In January 2025, another effort to video stream City Council meetings failed when he did not second a motion to implement such improvements. 

California subsequently enacted statewide requirements expanding remote public access to local government meetings, forcing the City to take action. 

WHY DID LA PALMA HAVE TO WAIT?

Residents have jobs.

Residents have children.

Some residents are elderly.

Some have disabilities.

Some simply cannot spend hours at City Hall on a Tuesday night.

Video streaming City Council meetings isn't a radical transparency initiative.

Cities throughout the region have been doing it for years.

Residents should be able to watch their elected officials make decisions.

They should be able to hear the discussion.

They should be able to go back later and see what was said.

THAT IS BASIC GOVERNMENT ACCESSIBILITY.

So when candidates talk about transparency today, residents should also examine what they did when they already had the opportunity to provide it.

PRIMARY SOURCES: La Palma City Council meeting records, February 2023 and January 2025; Chapman University/Voice of OC public-meeting accessibility assessment; applicable California legislation.

WHO CHANGED THE RULES...AND WHO BENEFITED?

La Palma already had term limits.

Council members were limited to eight consecutive years before being required to leave office for four years.

In 2019, Nitesh Patel raised the possibility of changing La Palma's term limits.

The proposal did not ultimately move forward due to residents not supporting this concept. 

Five years later, the issue returned with Patel being a main proponent of increased term limits.

In 2024, the City Council placed Measure W before La Palma voters.

Measure W changed the City's term limits from two consecutive four-year terms to three consecutive four-year terms.

The measure passed with approximately 58% support. (City of La Palma)

But there was another important part of the change that may residents were unaware of:

PRIOR SERVICE DIDN'T COUNT TOWARD THE NEW LIMIT.

That matters.

Rather than simply establishing a maximum of 12 consecutive years that included years already served, the new rules excluded service occurring before the measure's effective date when calculating the new three-term limit.

That created the possibility that some sitting council members could combine service under the old rules with as many as another 12 consecutive years under the new rules.

For someone who had already served eight years like Nitesh Patel, that could potentially mean:

UP TO 20 CONSECUTIVE YEARS.

WHY WAS THE CLOCK RESET?

If the policy objective was simply to increase La Palma's term limit from eight years to twelve years:

Why not establish a 12-year consecutive limit that included years already served?

Why exclude prior service?

Why give sitting council members a new clock?

Why should someone who already served eight consecutive years potentially be permitted to serve another twelve?

Those are legitimate questions about how the measure was structured.

The City publicly presented arguments for Measure W, including concerns about the smaller candidate pool created by district elections and the value of experienced council members serving in regional positions. Those were the arguments supporters presented to voters. (City of La Palma)

Residents can decide whether those arguments justified the change.

But residents should also understand exactly what changed.

Nitesh Patel was involved in the campaign supporting Measure W and contributed financially to it.

Campaign finance records show that Patel contributed $5,500 — the maximum contribution permitted at the time — to the Measure W campaign.

Campaign finance records also show that another individual, Niti Patel, reporting the same address as Patel contributed an additional $5,500 — also the maximum permitted contribution.

Together:

$11,000 CAME FROM TWO CONTRIBUTORS REPORTING THE SAME ADDRESS.

Patel was a sitting council member.

He supported changing the term-limit rules.

He helped finance the campaign.

And the new rules could potentially allow him to remain on the Council substantially longer than he could have under the previous system.

So residents can reasonably ask:

• Why did Patel personally contribute the maximum amount to a measure changing the term-limit rules applicable to his own office?

• Why did another contributor reporting his same address also contribute the maximum amount?

• Why was prior service specifically excluded?

• Why not simply establish a 12-year consecutive limit for everyone?

Campaign contributions do not establish an improper motive.

But when elected officials financially support changing the rules governing how long they themselves can remain in office, residents deserve complete transparency about the change and its consequences.

THE MONEY TRAIL DOESN'T END THERE.

Campaign finance records show that in 2024 the Orange County Professional Firefighters Association contributed:

$5,500 to Debbie Baker's campaign committee

and

$5,500 to Vikesh Patel's campaign committee.

Both candidates ran unopposed in their respective 2024 City Council races. The election results show Baker and Vikesh Patel each received 100% of the votes cast in their respective races. (Los Angeles Times)

Those campaign committees subsequently each contributed:

$5,500 to Yes on Measure W.

The documented sequence therefore shows:

$11,000 IN FIREFIGHTER-UNION CONTRIBUTIONS TO TWO CANDIDATE COMMITTEES.

Those two committees subsequently contributed a combined:

$11,000 TO YES ON MEASURE W.

That sequence is worth examining.

But residents can still look at the transactions and ask questions.

Why did two unopposed candidate committees receive substantial public-safety union contributions?

Why did those committees subsequently contribute the same combined amount to the Measure W campaign?

Why was so much political money being spent on changing La Palma's term-limit rules?

And who potentially benefited from those changes?

THE PUBLIC SHOULD BE ABLE TO FOLLOW THE MONEY.

That is what campaign finance disclosure is for.

Campaign finance records show that Nitesh Patel's 2026 campaign received $5,900 (the maximum amount allowed by law) from the Orange County Professional Firefighters Association, IAFF Local 3631.

This contribution deserves additional context.

Patel represents La Palma on the Orange County Fire Authority Board of Directors and currently serves as Vice Chairman. In that role, he participates in decisions involving OCFA's budget, policies, contracts, and other matters that directly affect the Fire Authority and its employees.

That includes labor matters involving the same firefighters' union that contributed $5,900 to his campaign. OCFA's Board considers and votes on matters involving employee compensation, benefits, labor agreements, and memoranda of understanding affecting Local 3631 members.

The organization contributing $5,900 to Patel's campaign represents employees whose compensation, benefits, and labor agreements can come before a Board on which Patel directly serves and votes.

Residents deserve to know about that relationship when evaluating campaign contributions and the decisions made by their elected representatives.

My campaign has accepted: 

$0 FROM PUBLIC-SAFETY LABOR UNIONS.

Public employee labor organizations can have matters that affect their members come before local governments.

That is why I believe independence matters.

My commitment is straightforward:

I answer to La Palma residents.

I'm not bought. Not paid for. 

A CANDIDATE'S PROFESSIONAL RECORD IS ALSO PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD.

Not every issue relevant to evaluating someone who seeks public office occurs inside City Hall.

Nitesh Patel served as President and Administrator of the American International School of Law.

The school was an online 

State Bar inspection records identified Patel as President and Administrator and stated that he was not licensed by the State Bar of California or another jurisdiction.

Those records also identify his legal education, including a J.D. from another unaccredited distance-learning law school and an LL.M. from Thomas Jefferson School of Law. (The State Bar of California)

The American International School of Law was subject to periodic oversight by the State Bar's Committee of Bar Examiners.

A 2016 periodic inspection resulted in mandatory and suggested actions, and State Bar minutes subsequently recorded the school's response and stated that the recommendations had been addressed and resolved. (The State Bar of California)

The State Bar later conducted another periodic inspection.

In 2023, the school sought voluntary termination of its registration.

The Committee of Bar Examiners accepted that request and terminated the school's registration and degree-granting authority effective November 15, 2023.

The Committee designated Nitesh Patel as custodian of the school's records. (The State Bar of California)

A FORMER STUDENT ALSO FILED A LAWSUIT.

A former student filed litigation in 2018 naming Patel and the school and alleging misconduct concerning the school's representations and business practices.

PUBLIC RECORDS EXTEND BEYOND CITY HALL.

A candidate's record isn't limited to votes taken at City Hall. Public corporate, court, and financial records can also provide residents with information about the people asking to manage taxpayer dollars and oversee a public organization.

One unusual example appears in California business, federal trademark records, and Nitesh Patel's 2018 Form 700 filing:

TRAVELPORN, INC.

California corporate records identify Travelporn, Inc. as a corporation formed in June 2018, the same year Nitesh Patel was first elected to the La Palma City Council.

Corporate filings identify Nitesh Patel as the company's Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary, Director, and Agent for Service of Process. 

Federal trademark records provide additional documentation.

Patel personally applied to register the name:

TRAVELPORN

as a federal trademark.

These aren't rumors or allegations. The corporation and trademark proceedings are matters of public record.

Residents can decide for themselves whether this business history matters when evaluating a candidate for public office.

My reason for including it is straightforward:

Transparency shouldn't stop at City Hall.

When candidates ask residents to trust them with public money, public policy, contracts, personnel decisions, and oversight of a city organization, residents have the right to examine their public, professional, business, and financial records.

I believe that standard should apply equally to my record.

2018 FRAUD LAWSUIT

Orange County Superior Court records show that Nitesh P. Patel was named as a defendant in a civil fraud case filed on July 10, 2018.

The case, Hector R. Esquivel v. Nitesh P. Patel, Case No. 30-2018-01004491-CU-FR-CJC, is classified by the court as an unlimited civil “FRAUD” case.

The court's classification establishes the nature of the lawsuit, but a lawsuit is an allegation—not a finding that fraud occurred.

I believe residents should be able to examine the complete public record of candidates seeking responsibility for public funds and government oversight.

What was alleged in this case, and how was it ultimately resolved?

AT SOME POINT, A RECORD BECOMES YOUR RECORD.

No individual council member controls everything that happens inside a city.

Nitesh Patel did not create Measure JJ.

He did not personally make every employment decision involved in the City's litigation.

He was one member of a five-member City Council.

Those distinctions matter.

But so does this one:

HE HAS BEEN ON THE CITY COUNCIL FOR NEARLY EIGHT YEARS.

At some point, elected officials have to be evaluated not only on what they say during an election, but on what happened while they governed.

During Patel's time on the Council:

The nine-year pension payoff promoted with Measure JJ was not achieved.

The City's pension obligations remained substantial.

Residents went years without video-streamed City Council meetings despite repeated inquiries about providing that access.

The City was hit with an $8.4 million jury verdict involving discrimination, retaliation and failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation, which the City is appealing.

The City faces additional significant litigation.

The City's term-limit rules were changed.

Prior service was excluded when calculating the new three-term limit.

Patel financially supported the Measure W campaign.

Another contributor reporting the same address also contributed the maximum permitted amount.

Campaign committees that had received firefighter-union contributions subsequently helped finance Measure W.

And Patel's current campaign has accepted public-safety labor money.

Those are pieces of a record.

Residents can decide what that record means to them.

WHERE WAS THE OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY THESE LAST EIGHT YEARS? 

ELECTED OFFICIALS SHOULD LEAD BY EXAMPLE.

Orange County Superior Court records show multiple traffic violations involving Nitesh P. Patel during his time on the La Palma City Council.

The records we reviewed show nine traffic violations during his time in office, including five violations in 2022 alone. The violations reflected in the court records include matters involving speeding, use of a handheld cellphone while driving, failure to stop at a red light, and improper use of a carpool lane.

These are based on only Orange County Traffic Court records, which resulted in a citation; it does not include traffic stops that resulted in warnings, or citations that may have been issued outside of Orange County. 

My concern is about the broader standard we expect from elected officials.

City Council members make decisions involving traffic safety, policing, enforcement, public safety programs, and the laws and policies residents are expected to follow.

I believe elected officials should hold themselves to the same standards they expect from the public.

Nine traffic court violations while serving on the City Council raise a fair question: Is this the example we expect from our elected leadership?

LEADERSHIP STARTS WITH LEADING BY EXAMPLE.

A DIFFERENT APPROACH TO CITY HALL

If elected, I will push for:

STRONGER FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT

Regular public reporting on pension liabilities, Measure JJ revenue, long-term liabilities and major financial risks.

GREATER TRANSPARENCY

Accessible public meetings, understandable financial information and better communication with residents.

ACTIVE MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT

Clear expectations for City leadership and a willingness to ask whether existing practices are producing results.

BETTER RISK MANAGEMENT

Serious review of major litigation, claims and organizational failures so the City can identify patterns and correct problems before they become multimillion-dollar liabilities.

INDEPENDENT DECISION-MAKING

My decisions will be based on what I believe best serves La Palma residents—not who funded my campaign.

MEASURABLE ACCOUNTABILITY

When City Hall establishes a goal, residents should be able to see whether that goal was achieved.

LA PALMA CAN DO BETTER.

I won't promise that City government will never make a mistake.

No responsible candidate can make that promise.

What I can promise is that I will ask questions.

I will read the reports.

I will examine the numbers.

I will challenge assumptions.

I will push for transparency.

I will expect measurable results.

And when something isn't working, I won't accept:

“That's how we've always done it.”

After nearly eight years, residents have a record to examine.

Read it.

Review the underlying documents.

Ask questions.

And make your own decision about the direction La Palma should take.

ACCOUNTABILITY REQUIRES OVERSIGHT.

OVERSIGHT REQUIRES QUESTIONS.

LEADERSHIP REQUIRES THE WILLINGNESS TO ACT ON THE ANSWERS.