General (10)
Susana Barrios
From:ACT Anaheim <actanaheim@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, September 29, 2026 6:14 PM
To:Public Comment
Subject:\[EXTERNAL\] On Behalf of Stephanie Mercadante, District 4, Councilmember Norma
Campos Kurtz
You don't often get email from actanaheim@gmail.com. Learn why this is important
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open
attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
For public comment on September 29, 2026:
Anaheim has a long history of trying to contain scandals before they further damage the City’s
reputation.
That ship has sailed.
Today, Mayor Aitken faces serious questions involving ethics, transparency, foreign-sponsored travel,
gift compliance, discrimination, harassment, retaliation, accountability, and public trust. At this point,
it’s difficult for residents to keep track of all the scandals unfolding in Anaheim.
We appreciate that Councilmember Meeks called for an investigation into the allegations against
Mayor Aitken. But, it did not go unnoticed that every other member of this Council remained silent last
week. That silence was deeply concerning.
And while we agree that an urgent investigation is warranted, we must ask:
Where was this urgency when residents came to you about our drinking water?
Since March, residents and whistleblowers have raised serious concerns about Anaheim's water
operations.
Did this Council demand an immediate, independent investigation?
NO.
Instead, you requested a presentation, one that failed to answer the fundamental questions we have
been asking for months.
1
Craig Parker told the Public Utilities Board that the State had investigated these allegations and found
nothing. But how can the City call that a “complete investigation” when the whistleblowers who raised
the concerns were never interviewed? And where are the results of this alleged investigation?
Which brings us to today.
How can the public trust this City’s investigative process when some allegations trigger immediate
demands for an independent investigation, while others are minimized, handled internally, or declared
resolved before the people who raised the concerns are even interviewed?
This leaves residents with the troubling impression that politics determine what gets investigated,
while ethics take a back seat.
Transparency isn’t selective. Truth isn’t selective.
And frankly, if the City did its job properly in the first place, taxpayers wouldn’t have to keep paying for
costly investigations just to figure out how City Hall failed yet again.
2