So, what’s the Lompoc scandal in question?
City Councilmember Steve Bridge faces “20 felonies and five misdemeanors. The charges include allegations of forgery, grand theft, fraudulent claims, identity theft, misappropriation of public funds, and fraudulent use of a contractor’s license number,” (Santa Maria Times, Aug. 13).
During the Aug. 18 meeting, City Council members discussed five disciplinary-type options for Councilmember Bridge. In his staff report the city attorney made it clear that “the City Council cannot simply vote to remove one of its members who is legally eligible to be a council member and was elected by the people of his or her district.”
But why was this long-brewing issue on the council agenda?
Last December, the Sun reported that Councilmember Jeremy Ball said, “It is not appropriate to have someone with this cloud of charges representing the city of Lompoc in any sort of manner from my perspective. We are elected officials. We are held to a higher standard. We are the fiduciary overseers of the city budget, and it is up to us to make sure we are staying aboveboard and not bringing reproach upon this city,” (“Lompoc City Councilmember Steve Bridge pleads not guilty to felony charges,” Dec. 11).
The Sun reported on Aug. 27, “When [Councilmember Steve Bridge]—who pled not guilty to forgery, identity theft, and misusing city funds—showed no sign of resigning, Councilmember Jeremy Ball motioned for the council to consider taking disciplinary action in December 2025. But he failed to get a second.
“Nine months later, the council changed its tune, and Ball finally got his second, followed swiftly by a third in a 3-1 vote that set the stage for an upcoming censure hearing,” (“Damage control: In light of Steve Bridge’s felony charges, Lompoc considers censuring him”).
Since this issue has existed for several months, why did two council members who have previously remained silent suddenly want to discuss it now?
Maybe they’re talking about it now is because there is an election coming up, and one or more current council members seeking election have discovered that the public might not support so-called “political leaders” who condone serious felony allegations concerning one of their fellow elected members?
The argument against taking any disciplinary measures seemed to be that the censure discussion might be setting a precedent. Maybe in Lompoc, but if you want examples of precedent, look at thousands of times across this nation where local and national officeholders resigned upon being charged with felonies so that they could formulate their defense in trial without having to answer questions about their guilt in a local discussion among their colleagues.
The only “precedent” here is that a Lompoc council member has been charged with 20 felonies and five misdemeanors.
Does this sudden interest constitute electioneering from the council dais by Mayor Jim Mosby, who is being challenged for his seat by Councilmember Ball, and Councilmember Victor Vega, who is being challenged for his seat, after both Mosby and Vega previously ignored the subject?
With Councilmember Ball having already taken the high ground on this issue, the only way Mosby and Vega could gain any credibility would be to support taking multiple actions. First adopt a written resolution of reprimand, second remove Bridge from outside committees, and lastly remove all his appointees to all commissions and committees.
Anything less would make it obvious that this would only mean they were tossing performative political barn dust in the air.
One thing is certain, unlike politicians of the past with a solid history of resignation under similar circumstances, Councilmember Steve Bridge doesn’t seem to have the same ethical principles that other politicians have had and has repeatedly said that he will remain on the council until the case is resolved in court.
Ron Fink writes to the Sun from Lompoc. Send a letter for publication to letters@santamariasun.com.
This article appears in September 3 – September 10, 2026.
