But the reasons I have held myself back until this point are fairly simple.

I wish I could explain things better. I wish that I knew something that I could share with you. But, the truth of the matter is, as far as situations go- this is pretty much as muddied as they come.

Here is what I feel, and I will share it with you and all who bother to scroll down and read. I understand your surprise. But the reasons I have held myself back until this point is fairly simple.

1. I did not wish to speculate on information I was unsure of.
2. I did not want to call out an individual who, in this country, is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
3. I did not want to add on to a very difficult year for this college-which has seen the death of a security officer, a trustee, an unwisely timed raise, and the outsourcing of what was essentially a limb of Ohlone College in the bookstore-especially if I was not 100% knowledgable about the assumption I was going to be making.

In a way all three points are one in the same. I did not want to put the cart before the horse because I have no authority whatsoever on making this call. The DA has opened an investigation, that much we now know. The DA will base the investigation, and possible subsequent litigation, upon whether or not she believes Trustee Nardolillo violated any of the main laws pertaining to residency status:

California Election Code Section 349 which says:

(a) “Residence” for voting purposes means a person’s domicile.
(b) The domicile of a person is that place in which his or her
habitation is fixed, wherein the person has the intention of
remaining, and to which, whenever he or she is absent, the person has
the intention of returning. At a given time, a person may have only
one domicile.
(c) The residence of a person is that place in which the person’s
habitation is fixed for some period of time, but wherein he or she
does not have the intention of remaining. At a given time, a person
may have more than one residence.

California Election Code 2031
If a person has more than one residence and that person
maintains a homeowner’s property tax exemption on the dwelling of one
of the residences pursuant to Section 218 of the Revenue and
Taxation Code, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the
residence subject to the homeowner’s property tax exemption is that
person’s domicile. However, this presumption shall not apply in the
event any other residence is listed as the person’s current residence
address on any driver’s license, identification card or vehicle
registration issued to that person by, and on file with, the
Department of Motor Vehicles.
If a person has more than one residence and that person claims a
renter’s tax credit for one of the residences pursuant to Section
17053.5 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, there shall be a rebuttable
presumption that the residence subject to the renter’s tax credit is
that person’s domicile. However, this presumption shall not apply in
the event any other residence is listed as the person’s current
residence address on any driver’s license, identification card, or
vehicle registration issued to that person by, and on file with, the
Department of Motor Vehicles.

California Election Code 72103
(a) Any person, regardless of sex, who is 18 years of age or
older, a citizen of the state, a resident of the community college
district, a registered voter, and who is not disqualified by the
Constitution or laws of the state from holding a civil office, is
eligible to be elected or appointed a member of a governing board of
a community college district without further qualifications.

349 is the most vague, and depending on wether or not the clear violations of 2031 and 72103 also contribute to 349 in the eyes of the DA will determine whether or not charges will be brought.

All that being said, with the evidence Matt has brought before us, I do believe there are grounds for investigation. As for who knew what, and when they knew, I can not/do not want to speculate. I honestly don’t know and don’t wish to mislead anybody with what are purely personal opinions. Box, I support this board because they, along with the administration, brought this college back from the brink. They deserve credit for that accomplishment, and have earned my respect and trust in that light. I ran because I felt that this was a great group of people who work well together, and I strongly felt my perspective would contribute to productive conversation in the board room. However, I hope Trustee Nardolillo is thoroughly thinking through the possible toll a long, and drawn out, legal battle will have on the image and students of this institution.

If you want an opinion, here it is: Mr. Nardolillo has the right to defend himself and plead his case. However, this time around, inaction is not an option, and I do believe it is time for this matter to be adressed and put to rest once and for all. It must be done for the sake of both the students and the public. Who adresses it, be it the college, the board, the DA, the FPPC, or the courts, doesn’t matter all that much to me. But, I will say that the DA’s office is an objective third party capable of making an educated and well researched decision. Time will tell how this unfolds. I find this situation very intriguing.

As one who has been so close to the Ohlone Board and happenings can you lend any voice of experience to our understanding of this situation ?

I’m very surprised you haven’t previously volunteered to help taxpayers understand why they should not be feeling, at the very least, that this Board has violated the public trust, and possibly, the law (?)

You’ve been a pretty vocal supporter of this Board in the past, is this all to do about nothing ?

Just kidding. Hein’s thesis is still dumb.