RSM Council, with City Attorney Simonian & City Manager Cervantez

Public Service & Fiscal Conservatism Cast Aside in Favor of Ego, Pride, and Evasion

For more than two years, Rancho Santa Margarita has been dragged into a downward spiral by those elected to serve the public. What should be a model of small-city transparency and fiscal restraint has instead devolved into a showcase of ego-driven politics, questionable decision-making, and an unmistakable disdain for resident input.

Once under the shadow of former Mayor Carl Gamble—whose perjury conviction cast an embarrassing pall over the city—RSM is now led by Mayor Tony Beall, a man whom critics argue has demonstrated the same troubling tendencies toward secrecy, control, and obfuscation; and in fact currently Is being investigated for perjury. Whether or not every allegation holds up under legal scrutiny, one thing is certain: public trust in the City Council has never been lower.

And they have no one to blame but themselves.

A City That Fears Transparency

RSM has long treated transparency as an inconvenience rather than an obligation, but recent events have pushed that attitude into something far more alarming.

The Boys & Girls Club Debacle

One of the most heartbreaking examples was the City’s quiet attempt to oust the Boys & Girls Club of America from the Bell Tower building. For decades, the BGCA provided a safe, supportive, and enriching space for local youth. Yet the City moved behind closed doors to push them out—without public discussion, without meaningful community input, and without regard for the hundreds of families who relied on their services.

Although their effort was eventually exposed, it happened too late to save the organization. RSM residents were left to watch the Council’s cold, bureaucratic maneuvering dismantle a beloved community institution. The “mafia-like” tactics may be hyperbolic—but many residents who witnessed the process in real time say the description doesn’t feel far off.

Manipulating the Districting Process

Next came the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA) challenge. To avoid litigation and control escalating legal fees, the Council initially voted—correctly—to use the CVRA’s safe harbor provisions and adopt by-district elections. This was a straightforward path: comply with state law, avoid massive legal expenses, and ensure fair representation.

But instead of following through responsibly, the Council veered sharply off course.

Despite paying approximately $70,000 for a professional demographer—whose guidance was all but ignored—the Council introduced a last-minute district map that had never been part of the public process. Residents and observers widely believe the map was engineered behind closed doors, with the goal of protecting incumbent seats rather than representing neighborhoods equitably.

Rather than listening to the public or honoring the purpose of the CVRA, RSM’s leadership opted for self-preservation.

A Financial Disaster Entirely of the Council’s Own Making

The most astonishing act of fiscal recklessness came when the Council chose to ignore the CVRA safe harbor altogether.

The Cost the City Could Have Paid: $30,000

The Cost the City Will Likely Pay: Hundreds of Thousands—if not Millions

Instead of paying the approximately $30,000 required under the statute—a routine and predictable cost—City leadership decided to:

• Refuse to pay
• Vilify the attorney who issued the CVRA notice
• Hire an extremely expensive law firm from Northern California
• Trigger escalating legal bills that residents will ultimately cover

Today, the attorney’s fees under the CVRA demand have reportedly skyrocketed to roughly $500,000, driven largely by the City’s decision to engage in drawn-out, unnecessary procedural combat.

Add to that:

• $70,000 for a demographer whose recommendations were discarded
• Hundreds of thousands for outside counsel
• Additional fees paid to City Attorney Greg Simonian
• Staff time, administrative overhead, and opportunity costs

All because the Council refused to spend $30,000 they were legally required to pay.

This is not fiscal conservatism.
This is ideological vanity masquerading as governance.

Lessons from Other Cities: RSM Is Driving Toward a Cliff

Every city that has fought the CVRA has lost. Every single one.

• Santa Monica now owes more than $60 million in CVRA litigation.
• Whittier settled for $800,000.
• Cities up and down the state have faced crushing financial consequences for refusing to comply with a law that courts have consistently upheld.

RSM is not special.
It is not exempt.
It is not going to win in the end.     

They might scrape out a win in the first round, but the City has already taken a financial beating—and they will lose on appeal if this continues. So how much is RSM prepared to burn just to preserve the City Council’s vanity?

The City Council knows this—or should know it. Yet they continue barreling toward a financial disaster that the residents will be forced to absorb.

Where Is Accountability?

Residents are asking the obvious questions:

• Can City Council members be held personally liable for gross mismanagement of public funds?
• Is there any legal recourse for residents harmed by their negligence?
• Are there mechanisms beyond elections to stop a Council that repeatedly acts in bad faith?

Voting them out is necessary—but not sufficient.
Rancho Santa Margarita deserves more than delayed consequences. It deserves leadership that respects transparency laws, honors its fiduciary responsibilities, and prioritizes residents over political ego.

If leadership no longer respects the public it serves, then the public must reclaim its voice. Sunshine is not only a disinfectant—it is a warning flare. And in RSM, the flare has been burning for far too long.