The McAteer Record

How to read this page

Efforts to reach Mr. McAteer for comment before publication were unsuccessful. Any response he provides will be published here in full.

Two cases, two different answers

The same set of complaints produced two FPPC enforcement matters. They are constantly conflated. They should not be.

The record

Chronological. Each entry is labeled by what kind of evidence it rests on.

1. 25 FEB 2015

   A newspaper reports an Inyo County grand jury inquiry

   Contemporaneous reporting

   The Inyo Register reported that it had independently confirmed a grand jury inquiry into Mr. McAteer's use of roughly $700,000 a year in discretionary funds, money the Inyo County Office of Education earned by providing business services to Los Angeles charter schools. The paper also reported on a vehicle purchased with office funds, and on a 12 February board meeting at which it raised questions about hiring practices and spending. The board said it had never taken a formal approval vote before he spent.

   The Inyo Register was able to independently confirm that the grand jury had launched an investigation into McAteer's use of what he calls "discretionary" dollars that the Inyo County Office of Education earns by providing business services to charter schools in Los Angeles. Darcy Ellis, Inyo Register, 25 February 2015

   Yet the board acknowledged never taking a formal vote of approval on any of McAteer's proposals before he spends money on them. Darcy Ellis, Inyo Register, 25 February 2015. Mr. McAteer disputes this. See 3 March 2015 below.

   From the same article, the other side of the ledger. We are reproducing this because a page that used the accusations and dropped the context would not be worth reading.

   • The board authorized the vehicle purchase from the discretionary account in 2013
   • The office "undergoes an annual audit, which it passes with flying colors"
   • He grew the office budget from $2.8 million to $6.4 million
   • Discretionary funds paid for a program putting a device in the hands of every student in grades 1 through 12, $75,000 toward the downtown Bishop Wi-Fi project, and library renovations tied to longer hours for students
   Source Darcy Ellis, managing editor, Inyo Register. Carried by The Union, 25 February 2015
2. 26 FEB 2015

   Mr. McAteer answers

   Response on the record

   He gave a detailed account to The Sheet, disputing the framing of the investigation and addressing the trip that drew the most attention.

   In his own words

   He noted that he testified before the Inyo County Grand Jury a few months ago on just one issue, the trip for members of the County Child Care Program to attend a training in Reggio Emilia, Italy.

   The cost is $40,000 total (for the Italy trip), which comes to $4,000 per staff member. That includes airfare, food, lodging, etc. Terence McAteer, quoted in The Sheet, 26 February 2015

   Source "T Mac fires back," The Sheet, 26 Feb 2015 · The Union: McAteer disputes claims of investigation
3. 3 MAR 2015

   He disputes the premise, and the grand jury foreman will not confirm it

   Response on the record

   Mr. McAteer contacted The Union to dispute that any grand jury investigation of him existed. He said Larry Clark, foreman of the Inyo County grand jury, told him on 26 February that the grand jury was not investigating him, and authorized him to give out his contact information. Reached by the paper, Clark confirmed the visit, called it a "personal conference," and said he could not comment on the status of any investigation because such matters are confidential. Clark also said Mr. McAteer had been his wife's boss. Readers can weigh that in either direction.

   His account of the spending controls

   I can't spend dollars unless [the board] approves them. Terence McAteer, quoted in The Union, 3 March 2015

   He said he presents the board a list of projects and costs each quarter and that the board takes a formal vote on it. That directly contradicts the Inyo Register's account. Neither version has been tested by anyone with authority to test it.

   On the vehicle

   He said the board authorized the purchase, that he told his wife to shop for a car meeting his needs but made the final selection himself, and that she picked it up after he dropped her off at the dealership. He said she drives it once or twice a week for her work coordinating arts programs in area schools, on terms the board agreed to.

   The county board gave me exclusive authority over the car. That meant whoever needed to drive the car had the authority to drive the car. Terence McAteer, quoted in The Union, 3 March 2015

   He also said he was never re-contacted after a single call on 8 January and had no chance to respond before publication. Darcy Ellis said the paper scheduled the 12 February board meeting expecting him, that he did not attend, that he was then away two weeks, and that she contacted the assistant superintendent and emailed board members to arrange a meeting on his return. Ellis stands by the reporting. Mr. McAteer said he chose not to go back to the paper: "I don't trust them."

   Source Emily Lavin, Staff Writer, The Union, 3 March 2015
4. 5 MAR 2015

   His board asks for an investigation into the grand jury

   Contemporaneous reporting

   The Inyo County Board of Education formally requested an investigation into the grand jury itself, alleging that details had been leaked to the press in breach of secrecy rules.

   On behalf of the Inyo County Board of Education, we request that you launch an investigation into the Inyo County Grand Jury. Inyo County Board of Education, quoted in The Sheet, 5 March 2015

   Who brought this complaint. It came from the Inyo County Board of Education, on Mr. McAteer's side of the dispute, and it was directed at the grand jury. It has sometimes been described as a finding against him. It was not.
   Source "ICOE board outraged over Grand Jury breach," The Sheet, 5 Mar 2015
5. 2015 TO DATE

   No grand jury report has been produced

   Unresolved

   Eleven years on, we have not obtained any Inyo County grand jury report concerning Mr. McAteer, and we do not assert that one exists or state what one might contain. Claims have circulated locally about what such a report found. We are not repeating them, because we have not read it.

   What the 2015 episode actually amounts to. A newspaper reported an inquiry. Mr. McAteer publicly denied there was one, citing the grand jury foreman. The foreman confirmed meeting him but would not comment either way. The paper stands by its reporting. No findings have surfaced. That is a contested newspaper dispute. Describing it as a proven record of misconduct goes beyond what the documents support.
6. JAN 2020

   Nevada County asks him to lead the sales tax campaign

   Primary document

   According to the complaint record, Mr. McAteer was asked by the County in January 2020 to lead the effort to promote a revenue measure to the public, and held that role from then on. He became Proponent and Controlling Officer of the Yes on V Committee. Compensation terms, if any, are not known. Leading a ballot measure campaign is lawful and ordinary. It matters here only because of who asked him and who paid for what followed.

   Source Complaint summary and supplement, 30 Oct 2022, filed with the FPPC. KVMR radio interview, 24 Oct 2022.
7. 30 SEP 2022

   Yes on V files its Form 460

   Primary document

   The committee's campaign disclosure statement, with Schedule A and Schedule E, shows a small amount of cash donations and no in kind donations reported. The complaint turns on that gap: the County's own effort, the staff hours, the consultants and the mailers, appears nowhere on it.

   Verify independently Nevada County Elections Office, or the California Secretary of State Cal-Access database.
8. OCT 2022

   He calls the opposition "fake news" in a signed column

   His own published writing

   Writing under his own byline during the campaign, Mr. McAteer characterized Measure V's critics as a "far right contingent" producing "fake news," and set out to address what he called three prevailing myths about the measure. Four years later the Commission found that seven of the County's actions in that campaign violated the Political Reform Act.

   The same local "fake news" far right contingent is out after Measure V, the sales tax measure to combat wildfires. Terence K. McAteer, "Fake News Again on the Fire Tax"

9. NOV 2022

   Voters reject Measure V

   Election result

   The measure failed at the ballot. The enforcement questions about how it was promoted outlived it by nearly four years.

10. 1 JUN 2023

    A mining company accuses him of bias as a planning commissioner

    Allegation by an interested party

    Rise Grass Valley Inc., the applicant for the Idaho-Maryland Mine, wrote to the Nevada County Board of Supervisors alleging that Mr. McAteer, then a planning commissioner, had prejudged its application. The company was an adverse party whose project Mr. McAteer voted against, and no neutral body has adopted its allegations.

    Planning Commissioner Terry McAteer knowingly presented false and inaccurate evidence and testimony, waited to present evidence and additional testimony until after public comment was closed... Ben Mossman, President, Rise Grass Valley Inc., letter to the Board of Supervisors, 1 June 2023

    Sources The letter itself (PDF) · Sierra Thread coverage
11. 20 AUG 2026

    The FPPC fines Nevada County $31,500

    Adjudicated

    The Commission approved a stipulated settlement with Nevada County for seven violations of the Political Reform Act. The order records that the County spent $34,614 in public funds on two mass mailers that unambiguously urged support for Measure V. The first went out on or around 7 October 2022 to 33,351 residents at a cost of $17,708, the second on or around 26 October to 33,101 residents at $16,906. The Board of Supervisors paid for both. The seven counts are two prohibited mass mailings at public expense, two failures to carry the required disclosure, one late semi-annual campaign statement, and two late 24-hour independent expenditure reports. Maximum exposure was $35,000 at $5,000 a count. The settlement was $31,500.

    The order names one respondent. Nevada County is the sole respondent in this stipulation. Terry McAteer is not named anywhere in it, and neither are Cheryl Dell, Douglas Moon, Shirley Moon, or Yes on V. Nothing in the adjudicated document concerns his conduct.

    The California Fair Political Practices Commission on Thursday unanimously approved a $31,500 settlement against Nevada County for seven violations of the Political Reform Act. Sierra Thread, 20 August 2026

    Source "FPPC Fines Nevada County Over Measure V, Questions Whether the Law Is Tough Enough"
12. 26 AUG 2026

    The standard the Commission applied

    Contemporaneous reporting

    The Union reported the settlement and the rule behind it.

    a local government agency that spends $1,000 or more in public funds to advocate for or against a ballot measure qualifies as a campaign committee and must comply with all provisions of the Act Reported in The Union, 26 August 2026, by Jennifer Nobles

    Source "Nevada County fined $31,500 for Measure V political spending violations"
13. 21 SEP 2026

    The complainant asks the District Attorney to look at who was responsible

    Referral · no finding

    John "Mac" Young, the sworn complainant in both FPPC matters, filed a referral with the Nevada County District Attorney under Government Code section 8314, copied to the California Attorney General, asking for a civil enforcement investigation into which individuals were personally responsible for the spending the County has admitted. A referral is a request from a private citizen. It is not a charge, an investigation, or a finding, and no prosecutor has acted on it.

    The County's stipulation is a strong investigative foundation, but it did not adjudicate the identity, conduct, fault, defenses, or liability of any unnamed officer, appointee, employee, or consultant. John "Mac" Young, Government Code section 8314 referral, 21 September 2026

    It may already be too late. Young's own memorandum warns that section 8314 bars an action commenced more than four years after the violation, that the fourth anniversary of some September 2022 conduct has already passed, and that no particular date is a safe deadline. Whether any claim survives is for a prosecutor to decide, and one may never take it up.
    Source Government Code section 8314 referral to the Nevada County District Attorney, 21 September 2026, submitted by John "Mac" Young in an individual capacity.
14. TODAY

    Case No. 2023-00161 remains open

    No finding

    The companion matter naming Mr. McAteer has not been resolved. Voters going to the polls will not necessarily know its outcome first. That is the situation, stated plainly. It is not evidence of anything, and we will update this entry the day the Commission acts, whichever way it goes.

The underlying documents

We link to news coverage rather than reposting it, because those newsrooms did the reporting. Public records carry no such restriction and we will host them in full.

Have information?