'DinnerGate" - City Pays Hubby's Expenses

“I have no excuse because the truth is the light.”

Kathryn McCullough, June 3, 2014

Last time we looked at the volatile discussion at the City Council meeting of June 3 in which Councilwoman McCullough claimed she wasn’t a crook when Mayor Pro Tem Adam Nick was urging the Council to revise the City’s policies in order to eliminate unacceptable practices. Bear in mind that Mr. Nick is an accountant by profession, and accustomed to taking a hard look at expenses. Moreover, he’s been a strong advocate for reform, and unlike some of his colleagues on the dais, he’s tried to follow through on his campaign promises and enact positive change.

Nick never named names, but Mrs. McCullough nonetheless took his remarks personally, and went into a long detailed discussion about how she handled her travel expenses. Bear in mind that the Council’s budget is $150,000 per year, with $27,000+ going to “travel, conferences, meetings”, so the way they spend the public’s money is not a minor matter.

FWIW - McCullough is the biggest user of the travel budget. In 2013 she devoured 75% of the total spent and in 2012 it was 62%. Scott Voigts uses up the rest of the money. As far as I can tell, Nick, Robinson, and Bass never asked for reimbursement. Peter Herzog, when he was on the Council, rarely asked for reimbursement.

During her discussion, Mrs. McCullough made a number of assertions that are subject to verification. Readers of my column will know that I’ve had to reprimand Mrs. McCullough in the past for her blatant lies, so I decided to compare what she said in this case with what she did.

I went to the City Clerk’s office and examined the last 7 travel expense documents submitted by Mrs. McCullough. They went as far back as January 2012 and involved trips to Sacramento, San Diego and Pasadena.

So – we are comparing the claims made by Councilwoman McCullough on June 3 at the City Council meeting with the 7 documents she submitted over the past few years. The number in parentheses following each claim is the place on the video where McCullough makes her claim. The discussion is broken down into 4 parts – (1) her husband’s expenses, (2) reimbursement, (3) McCullough’s personal habits, and (4) miscellaneous.

HER HUSBAND’S EXPENSES

Claim – Reimbursing Her Husband For Buying Her Water and Snacks

McCullough claimed that when she and her husband are away and she is attending a conference and they share meals, she makes the City pay his share of the taxes (1.53:11) as a way of repaying him for the fact that he buys her bottled water and “some bananas, grapes, or apples” (1.49:24). She does this because he is “too proud” to accept payment for the bottled water and snacks, so this is her way of compensating him – “he’s not a freeloader” (1.49:52) she adds.

Truth

McCullough claims her husband buys the bottled water and snacks, but she charges the City for her water and snacks! She charged the City for bottled water and snacks on nearly every trip. It adds up to more than $100 for her 7 trips that I examined.

• 01/2012 - $35.16

• 06/2012 - $19.96

• 09/2012 - $32.00

• 01/2013 – $22.95

Over 20 years who knows how much the City spent? No one would object to paying McCullough for the bottled water and snacks she consumes on trips to conduct City business, but it can’t be used as the excuse for making the City pay for her husband’s share of the taxes since the City is already reimbursing her for the bottled water and snacks.

Claim – She Only Pays Her Husband’s Share of the Taxes

McCullough claims that the only personal expenses she makes the City pay for are her husband’s share of the taxes (1.49:03).

Truth

Not only does McCullough pay her husband’s share of the taxes with City money, it looks like she pays for his share of the tips and service fees, and well as his limousine and taxi trips. Here are dates when it looks like she paid his share of the tip and/or service fee and/or gave him a ride in a limousine or a taxi at the taxpayer’s expense.

• 1/18/2012 - limo ride ($17.43), tip ($3.50)

• 1/19/2012 – tip ($3.00)

• 1/20/2012 – limo ride ($17.43)

Overtime it comes to hundreds of dollars.

Apart from this it appears that she may pay for his food on occasions. For example, on 1/17/2013 McCullough charged the City for $85.43 for a single meal that consisted of

• A Salmon dinner

• A side order of Salmon

• 1 side salad

That’s a heck of a lot of food for one person (2 entries, 3 side dishes, and dessert), especially a person who assures us that she “eats very very healthy” (1.49:27). Of course, no one can prove that McCullough didn’t share this meal with one other person, but it certainly looks like the fixings for a meal for two people.

There are more examples where it appears that McCullough is paying for far more food that she can eat. For example, on 6/12/2013 McCullough’s City-paid bill included Crab Louie, 2 side orders of Salmon, and an order of fried calamari. Once again, it’s possible she ate all the 4 orders of fish, but it certainly looks suspicious. For example -Why would someone order 2 side orders of Salmon, unless one was for her husband?

No one but Mrs. McCullough knows whether or not these extra large meals are consumed by her alone, or shared with her husband, but for a woman who claims to eat “very very healthy” these large portions do seem out of character.

Bottom line – When they dine together, which is often, McCullough appears to be making the City pay for her husband’s share of the tips, taxes, and delivery and service charges, and she may even have the City pay for his food on occasion. When they travel together, she makes the City pay for his share of the taxi or limousine. The point of this article is not to establish whether or not McCullough is breaking the law, but rather to determine whether or not she is telling the truth. With regard to her comments on handling her husband's expenses, McCullough's claims appear to be false.