2 county education board candidates broke campaign finance law

A previous version of this article incorrectly stated that Making Waves’ permission to operate was due to be reviewed in 2025.

County and state campaign finance records show that both winners of Contra Costa County’s Board of Education races violated state law by failing to report, or improperly reporting, $83,950 in combined campaign contributions from Charter Public Schools Political Action Committee.

Daniel Nathan-Heiss, a Richmond resident who won the Area 1 seat according to unofficial election results, didn’t report receiving $13,950 in contributions, which he received from Charter Public Schools PAC on Oct. 7. Yazmin Llamas, a Martinez resident who won the Area 3 seat, was given a $70,000 cash contribution from the PAC on Oct. 31 which she reported late. Both situations violate California’s political reform act.

According to state law, knowingly or willfully violating the political reform act is a misdemeanor. If someone is convicted, they could be barred from running for public office again for four years, but such charges are rarely pursued.

Civil liabilities and penalties are far more commonly assessed for political reform act violations. The California Fair Political Parties Commission is the entity that assesses these penalties most often, and they usually take action only after a member of the public files a complaint. Typically, the commission issues fines of $5,000 or less per violation, but occasionally it issues much higher fines. 

California Law allows the commission, or even a citizen, to seek up to the amount not properly reported in total penalties for violating the act. In 2013, the commission levied a $1 million fine against two nonprofits tied to billionaires Charles and David Koch for illegally contributing $11 million to defeat a tax measure. In 2019, the commision levied a $150,000 fine against former Contra Costa County Clerk/Recorder Joe Canciamilla for using campaign contributions for personal use.

The $13,950 Nathan-Heiss received was in-kind contributions. According to the Federal Election Commission, in-kind contributions are non-monetary contributions or expenditures made in cooperation with or at the request of a campaign. California law requires that both the payment and receipt of in-kind contributions be reported if they are worth $100 or more. Charter Public Schools PAC’s contributions consisted of mailers that encouraged people to vote for Nathan-Heiss along with a slate of other candidates. The PAC lobbies for policies that benefit charter schools, and the county board of education is due to review the operating permissions for a number of them.

Charter Public Schools PAC reported its contribution to Nathan-Heiss on Oct 9. Due to the timing and the amount, it qualified as a late contribution. Gregory McGinity, Chief Civic Affairs Officer for CCSA Advocates, which sponsors Charter Public Schools PAC, told Richmondside in an email that, as required by California law, the committee informed Nathan-Heiss immediately of its contribution. Nathan-Heiss should have reported the contribution to the county within 24 hours, which would have made it publicly accessible information, but he failed to do that.

Nathan-Heiss has not responded to multiple inquiries from Richmondside requesting comment for this article. 

As of Monday Nathan-Heiss had not reported the contribution. While he submitted pre-election statements to the county covering the year up to Oct. 19, the statements don’t list contributions from Charter Public Schools PAC, nor any contributions at all.

Nathan-Heiss’s opponent, Anthony Caro, got 40.68% of the vote to Nathan-Heiss’s 59.32% as of the latest election results. Caro told Richmondside in an email that he found out about his opponent’s unreported contributions shortly after the election and that he’s not sure how much of an effect they might have had on the results. Caro said that his loss by a “significant margin” might have simply been “the result of more voters actively preferring his candidacy over mine.”

But Caro also said he thinks “more people would have paid attention to this race if they knew where [Nathan-Heiss’s] unreported contributions came from.”

Charter schools in Contra Costa County

There are 24 charter schools operating in Contra Costa County, 10 of which are in Richmond. Charter schools, which are publicly funded but privately operated, have long been controversial statewide and nationwide. The county board of education plays a large role in deciding whether or not charters can continue to operate. 

Charter school supporters say charters offer opportunities not available in public schools and are beneficial for students. McGinity told Richmondside that charters help “ensure that every student and family in California, particularly those in marginalized and historically underserved communities, have access to a high-quality education.”

Charter school critics, which include public school unions, say charters siphon money away from public schools students — as both public schools and charter schools get funding based on their enrollment numbers — and aren’t accessible to all students in the way public schools are. According to the most recent data, public school students outnumber charter students by about seven times statewide, and by about 12 times in Contra Costa County. During teacher strikes in both Los Angeles and Oakland in 2019, teachers regularly claimed that charter schools negatively impacted public schools and rallied against their unregulated growth. Nathan-Heiss spoke out in support of charter schools during his campaign.

Caro’s biggest financial backer was United Teachers of Richmond. The teacher’s union contributed about $36,500, the majority of the about $49,000 that Caro raised. United Teachers of Richmond President Francisco Ortiz told Richmondside he also didn’t know about Charter Public Schools PAC contributions to Nathan-Heiss until after the election. Ortiz said if the teacher’s union had known about the contributions, it likely would have changed its campaign strategy.

“We probably would have spent more supporting Caro if we had known the opposition was spending so much money to support Nathan-Heiss,” Ortiz said.

In addition to supporting Nathan-Heiss, Charter Public Schools PAC also spent about $4.9 million in elections throughout the state, including the contribution to Llamas.

The PAC reported the contribution to the state, but Llamas did not report the contribution to the county within 24 hours, as she was required to do. Llamas eventually reported the contribution on the afternoon of Nov. 5, which was Election Day.

Llamas did not respond to multiple inquiries from Richmondside requesting comment for this article. She currently serves on the Martinez Unified School District school board, but after getting 63% of the vote to her opponent Vicki Gordon’s 36.9% in the county race, she’s scheduled to step down and join the county board in December. Gordon declined to answer questions from Richmondside on the record, saying she wants to move on from the election to focus on supporting teachers and students.

Like Caro, Gordon was endorsed by and received financial support from a teachers’ union. Pittsburg Education Association contributed $2,500 of the approximately $20,500 that Gordon raised for her campaign. Pittsburgh Education Association President Celia Medina Owens told Richmondside that the union supported Gordon because of her commitment to public schools and was open about that.

“We were very transparent by letting voters know that Gordon was endorsed by public school educators,” Owens said.

Owens said she learned of the contribution to Llamas on Nov. 5 and said Llamas wasn’t transparent about the fact that a charter school group was backing her. Owens described Llamas’s campaign finance disclosures as “alarming” both because Llamas did not report her contribution from Charter Public Schools PAC in a timely manner and because, before receiving the contribution, her campaign had been spending money it didn’t have. 

According to campaign finance filings, Llamas spent about $17,500 mostly on mailers before Oct. 19 while her campaign only had  $200 in contributions. After receiving the $70,000 contribution from Charter Public Schools PAC, Llamas was able to pay off more than $17,000 of her campaign’s debt and still have more than $52,000 left over. Llamas has not reported spending any of the remaining funds.

“She ran on a debt that was lower than the charter school group’s donation,” Owens said. “We want trustees to follow the democratic process. If a candidate is running for public office the least constituents deserve is transparency.”

Charter Public Schools PAC’s $70,000 contribution was, comparatively, a large contribution for a Contra Costa County Board of Education race. Richmondside reviewed the campaign filings for the last five county board of education elections and found that it was the largest contribution. There was only one campaign — Fatima Alleyne’s successful 2020 run when she raised about $84,000 — where a candidate raised more than $70,000 in combined contributions in a year’s period. Unlike other Contra Costa County elected offices, such as Board of Supervisors, Sheriff, and District Attorney, there are no campaign contribution limits for Contra Costa County Board of Education races. Individuals and organizations can spend as much as they’d like to support a candidate.

In response to an inquiry about why Charter Public Schools PAC made such a large contribution to Llamas, McGinity said that Llamas, along with Nathan-Heiss “exemplify grassroots advocacy and a belief that every student deserves the best education.” About Llamas specifically, McGinity said her values of “improving student achievement while fostering welcoming, inclusive school environments” align with the California Charter Schools Association. He also emphasized her life experience as a single mother of three and her “career dedicated to supporting at-risk youth.” According to her LinkedIn profile, Llamas has worked exclusively in the mortgage business since 2003.

County board of education to review multiple charter renewals

As leaders of local teachers’ unions are criticizing Nathan-Heiss and Llamas’s campaigns for errors in reporting or failure to report contributions from a charter school lobbying group, the duo are joining a board that’s due to determine whether at least seven charter schools can remain open.

Although privately managed, charters need permission from either the local district education board, the county board, or the state board of education to operate. If a local district school board denies them permission, a charter will usually then ask the county education board for approval. If the county also says no, charters then often ask the California Board of Education to allow them to operate. After being granted approval from any of these education boards, a charter must then renew their approval with the board that gave them permission to operate every two to seven years, depending on its performance level. 

For the first time in years, an unusually high number of charter schools in California will need to renew their permission to operate. That’s because petition permission deadlines were delayed multiple times due to the COVID pandemic.

Over the next four years the board is scheduled to renew petitions of seven county-approved charter schools in Contra Costa County. Additionally, 15 other

charters will be considered for renewal by local school districts countywide, including Leadership Public Schools Richmond and Amethod’s Richmond Charter Academy. If local district boards reject any of those schools’ renewal petitions, it’s likely the schools would appeal to the county board of education for permission to operate. In total: 22 of the 24 charters operating in Contra Costa County are scheduled to renew their charter permissions. 

The county could also play a role in determining whether a new charter school opens. If a newly formed charter school requests to open, the county board could end up determining whether or not it will be able to operate if the charter is initially denied permission to operate at the district level.

McGinity told Richmondside that California Charter Schools Association supported Nathan-Heiss and Llamas because they “share our commitment to fighting for kids, improving student performance, and expanding access to critically needed educational opportunities.”

But with a charter school lobbying group’s backing, Ortiz said he worries that Nathan-Heiss and Llamas might support a pro-charter agenda, which could “ultimately drain funding from our neighborhood public schools.”