Front Page  »  

Conflicts of interest, mismanagement at SLO County agency

February 17, 2025

SLO County Supervisor Jimmy Paulding and Kendra Paulding

Correction: The funds were sent to ECOSLO via direct deposit and not a check as initially reported.

By KAREN VELIE

Following with its history of conflicts of interest and financial mismanagement, San Luis Obispo County’s waste agency mistakenly sent $4,500 dollars to a nonprofit headed by the wife of one of its board members — SLO County Supervisor Jimmy Paulding.

Late last year, a SLO County Integrated Waste Management (IWMA) employee was tasked with sending $4,500 to Ecologistic, another nonprofit. However, the staffer erred and asked the county to send the funds to the Environmental Center of San Luis Obispo (ECOSLO), a nonprofit headed by Kendra Paulding.

The county then sent Kendra Paulding’s nonprofit the funds.

After IWMA staff discovered the error, they asked Kenra Paulding to return the money, which she did. The SLO County IWMA approved the repayment during its Jan. 8 meeting, according to the agenda.

Kendra Paulding seeks grant funding from IWMA board

With her husband on the board, late last year Kendra Paulding applied for a $10,000 IWMA grant to partially fund ECOSLO’s Green Business Program.

Breakdown of the ECOSLO’s plan for the grant:

  • $5,000 for ECOSLO staff salaries and benefits
  • $1,500 for ECOSLO administration costs
  • $3,500 for 14 $250 rebates to SLO County businesses to help offset the costs of purchasing reusable products for break rooms and kitchens.

On Nov. 13, 2024, the SLO County IWMA Board authorized its Executive Director Peter Cron to award ECOSLO $10,000, with Jimmy Paulding recusing himself.

On Dec. 31, 2024, the IWMA and ECOSLO entered into a contract agreeing to terms regarding the $10,000 grant. Kendra Paulding, who will personally receive a portion of the funding as staff, signed the contract which includes a conflict of interest clause.

The conflict of interest clause has raised concerns regarding Jimmy Paulding making board decisions regarding financially supporting nonprofits while his household is benefiting from the program.

“No officer, employee, or agent of IWMA who exercises any function or responsibility for planning and carrying out the services provided under this agreement will have any direct or indirect personal financial interest in the agreement,” according to the contract.

Because we believe the public needs the facts, the truth, CalCoastNews has not put up a paywall because it limits readership. However, we are seeking qualification as a paper of record, which will allow us to publish public notices, this requires 5,000 paid subscribers.

Your subscription will help us to continue investigating and reporting the news.

Support CalCoastNews, subscribe today, click here.

 


Loading...
Subjects:         
Related:


31 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

That’s not a smile. That’s a fear grimace.


2

Bottom line nothing has changed at IWMA since they were caught embezzling public funds.


7

Wow! ECOSLO must be enormously inefficient or a government agency in order to expend 65% of the donations to distribute the remaining 35% to their intended recipient. If IWMA has the same gross inefficiency rate, they spent $18,571.43 in salaries and administration costs just to give ECOSLO $10,000. Then we learn that their intended recipient is their “green business program”. Specifically providing reusable products for only fourteen private business break rooms and kitchens. To me, this means purchasing plastic cups and plates in lieu of paper. (I assume they are not talking about reusable paper towels and TP.) Supplies that are reusable at a business will last as long as it takes them to need to be washed. Then they will be discarded, particularly since they were provided free of cost. We do not need Elon Musk to point out the gross waste (read fraudulence) in this expenditure. 


10

Wow, just like the Federal Government but in tiny scale…


16

This is just ridiculous and a breach of trust. Mr. Paulding “recuses” himself, knowing it will pass without him. And benefit his family. Just like what he did for the battery plant in Nipomo. He votes “no” knowing full well his buddies on the board will vote “yes.” Thus, he can say “I didn’t vote for it,” while he actively promoted it with his Planning Commissioner and county staff. If you are adamantly opposed to a project in your district, certainly you can use your persuasion skills (he is an attorney, isn’t he and they do have the board majority) to convince the other Supervisors not in your district to join you in a “no” vote. The other supervisors really don’t care what happens in a district that is not theirs. So, these votes he makes are just for “appearance” sake. Following in footsteps of Adam Hill in trying to deceive and fool the public. On top of the impropriety…spending money with this organization is a waste of taxpayer dollars…if they can’t pay their own salaries without handouts…perhaps they should rethink their necessity or business purpose.


25

I can hardly wait for grants to be gone. Grants are very expensive to manage and have created essentially a beggar’s budget instead of good management. Mandates get funded first and the budgets accommodates the remaining long list. This is what we can afford, and conflicts are less likely.


19

“$3,500 for 14 $250 rebates to SLO County businesses to help offset the costs of purchasing reusable products for break rooms and kitchens.” What a complete waste of money. Think about it. So a business has a break room and they want to buy reusable plates and utensils instead of disposable products. Why do they need $250 to offset the cost? Walmart sells a 12-piece eco-friendly recycled plastic dinnerware set for $20. Further, if a company can’t come up with $250 on its own, then it has serious problems. Also, how do you even know they will spend the money on this? This is money we pay for from our garbage bills. More importantly, how the heck do you justify $5,000 for ECOSLO staff salaries and benefits and $1,500 for ECOSLO administrative costs to give away $3,500 in rebates? This is 65% of the grant going for something other than the direct subsidy. CharityWatch (https://www.charitywatch.org/) gives “highly efficient” ratings to organizations that spend less than 25% of their budget on overhead, while the Better Business Bureau uses 35% or less as a marker. The Integrated Waste Management (IWMA) could have just given out 40 $250 rebates directly, which would have almost tripled the number of beneficiaries.


42

There are several things going on here.



  1. ECOSLO cashed a check that wasn’t meant for them.

  2. The IWMA issued a check (through the County) to the wrong entity.


Both organizations should have two sets of eyes on every transaction. It should have been caught at the IWMA before that check was ever drafted.


Internal controls assure that you remain within compliance with your agency or organizations accounting principles. Both of these organizations are small, mistakes happen, but that the mistake at the IWMA was signed off by their Executive Director, passed through the County who issued the check, and then for ECOSLO staff to cash a check that they couldn’t have expected, where are the checks and balances? These are public funds!


And then there’s this; the Executive Director of ECOSLO is the wife of the County’s representative on the IWMA Board. The IWMA Board issues these little grants for various things. In this case, ECOSLO’s application for the grant admits that $5,000 of the $10,000 is to pay for staff to administer $3,500 for reusable breakroom supplies. (Don’t get me started on how ridiculous that whole thing is).


As ECOSLO’s ED, Mrs. Paulding will receive (albeit fractional) some of the grant money in her salary that Mr. Paulding, as an “officer of the district” has “responsibility for planning and carrying out the services provided under this agreement.” Resulting in him having, “direct or indirect personal financial interest in the agreement.”


IMO, to recuse himself from the vote did not absolve him of the conflict.


42

A trash company mistakenly writes check to non-profit that cleans up trash… shocker. Mistakes happen, it got cleaned up.


The fact that a $10k grant is raising any eyebrows here is crazy. Wait, here’s an less crazy idea idea. They use a golf course they own to raise money for a charity event to benefit some non-profit, like, I don’t know… St Jude’s children hospital. Then they pocket millions of the proceeds as overhead for using their own golf course…. Oh, or they can raise money from a bunch of charities and just use it for Jimmy’s campaign… Oh or Jimmy can launch a cryptocurrency or social media platform or trading cards, or clothing using his “public service” as a platform to grift his cult…. Or charge taxpayers $7.8 million for room and board in his hotels/resorts…


11

The fake outrage from the right would be comical if they weren’t allowed to keep voting and putting us in this position.


-23

“IMO, to recuse himself from the vote did not absolve him of the conflict.” What??? You think he has to quit becuase sometimes he has a conflict that he can recuse himself from? Should judges also quit if they have a conflict rather than just recusing themself fromt that case?

And you think accidentally cashing a check and then returning the money is some sort of fraud???

Get a grip on reality. If you think that is wasteful and corrupt, wait until you see how a guy receiving $billions in government subsidies is now in charge of all financial instituitions and overseeing NASA spending.


-23

Who said Jimmy should quit?


ECOSLO under Mrs. Paulding’s leadership should not have applied for the grant from the agency he serves on.


In this instance, recusal doesn’t prevent the conflict.


25
1 2