Following publication in my E-FORUM of August 12, 2026 (FPPC Resolved Butt Complaint Against Doria Robinson with Stipulated Sum),
the FPPC fine was covered by Richmonside, the
Grandview Independent and posted on Facebook with 48 comments.
Many commenters misunderstood the nature of the violation. It was not for voting for an item in which she had a conflict of interest (she recused and did not vote) but was for
a failure to disclose conflicts on which her recusal was based. To ensure transparency,
publicly naming the specific financial interest lets the community verify that officials are
not favoring personal investments or business ties.
From the starute:
(a) Public Meeting Decisions Involving Officials Specified in Section 87200. A public official in a position specified
in Section 87200 and disqualified from a decision relating to an agenda item noticed for consideration at a public meeting subject to either the Bagley-Keene Act (Section 11120 et seq.) or the Brown Act (Section 54950 et seq.) must not take part in the decision.
The official’s recusal from the decision shall meet all of the following requirements:
(1) Form and Content of Public Identification. The official must publicly identify each type of financial interest held by the official that gives rise to the conflict of interest (i.e.
business entity, real property, source of income, gift(s) or a personal financial effect).
(A) For each financial interest identified, the official must provide the following, as applicable:
(i) Name of the business entity, general description of the business’ activity, and any position held.
(ii) Real property address, assessor’s number, or identification that the property is the official’s personal residence.
(iii) Name of the source of income.
(iv) Name of the source of a gift.
(v) The nature of the expense, liability, asset, or income affected.
(B) Identification must be oral and made part of the public record.
On February 13, 2025, the FPPC wrote:
Robinson defended herself by posting on Facebook:
This investigation cited me because on one occasion in 2023 during my first year in office that although I recused myself and left the room not participating in the decision – I did
not explicitly state the source of the conflict, my employers name, this fining me for not clearing stating my employer. At the time I did not have clear legal guidance that informed me of the exact words I would need to say to be fully compliant. After that
instance I received legal advice and have clearly stated my conflict.
As I have always stated – I do all I can to
follow the law at all times.
Robinson’s excuse that she “did not have clear legal guidance that informed me of the exact
words I would need to say to be fully compliant” is lame.
First of all, it is not the duty of a city attorney to provide personal legal advice to a council member. A city attorney’s client is the
city entity and the
governing body as a collective unit, not individual council members.
Further, AB 1234 requires city council members to complete an ethics course every two years. The ethics course provided detailed information about conflicts of interest and recusals.
Newly elected city council members must take the training within six months of being elected. Doria was elected in November 2020 and was required to complete training by April 2023. The offense for which she was penalized occurred in October 2023.
While defenders of Robinson have focused on no finding a conflict of interest and trivialized the lack of full disclosure in the recusal, that lack of disclosure goes to the
heart of public transparency in the actions of elected officials. Had Robinson made the full disclosure required by law, she would have had to state that:
- She is not just an employee of Urban Tilth. She both executive director (with compensation of nearly $150,000 annually)
and board member. - One of the unincorporated associations that Urban Tilth both funds with millions of dollars and acts as fiscal agent for
is Rich City Rides, which is essentially Najari Smith. Najari Smith and Doria Robinson are co-owners of a home they share. Urban Tilth and Rich City Rides are involved in millions of dollars of real estate transactions.
Like Trump, Doria Robnson routinely comingles government and personal business.
The most recent published audit of Urban Tilth includes the following about the messy relationship of Urban Tilth, Rich City Rides and Rich City:
During 2023, the Organization purchased properties previously being leased to its fiscally sponsored project,
Rich City
Rides (RCR),
for a
total purchase
price of
$4,440,846. The
properties were
purchased with the intent to subsequently transfer them to Rich City, a new California nonprofit public benefit corporation formed to take over RCR from the Organization. The Organization purchased the building with cash, of which $2,224,180 was raised
through the RCR project.
On
October 18,
2023, the
properties were
transferred to
Rich City
in exchange
for a
promissory note
of $2,196,666. In January 2025, the note was amended to increase the promissory note total to $3,048,805. The promissory note matures on January 31, 2025, and bears an interest rate of 7%, which will begin to
accrue on any unpaid balance after the maturity date. Subsequent to
entering into the promissory note, RCR, still a fiscally sponsored project of the Organization at the time, raised an additional $500,000 on behalf
of Rich
City to
reduce the
balance of
the promissory
note. As
of December
31, 2024,
the remaining balance on the note receivable was $1,659,819.
The
Organization recognized
contribution expense
of $2,744,180
related to
the transfer
of properties
to Rich City
during the
year ended
December 31,
2023, which
represents the
portion of
cash used
to fund the initial purchase of the building in the amount of $2,224,180 and subsequent donations of $500,000 raised through the RCR project.
The
remaining programs
and operations
of RCR
will be
transferred to
Rich City
in phases
as Rich
City is able to set up critical administrative systems.
In
October 2022,
the State
of California’s
Strategic Growth
Council Awarded
the City
of Richmond
a $35,000,000 Transformative Climate Communities Grant. The Organization was one of six non-profit organizations
named as co-applicants
with the
City of Richmond
in this
grant. In
November 2022,
Urban Tilth’s executive
director was
elected to
the Richmond
City Council
and assumed
office in
January 2023, at which time the City of Richmond became a related party of the Organization. In August 2023, the Organization and RCR entered into grant agreements as a subgrantee of the Transformative Climate
Communities (TCC) grant,
for grants
amounting to $7,042,833
and $3,680,567,
respectively. The
grants terminate on December 31, 2028. The Organization expended and recognized $887,911 under these grants for the year ended December 31, 2024, of which $194,063 is outstanding
at December 31, 2024 and included in contributions and grants receivable on the statement of financial position.
|
FPPC Richmondside The violation stemmed from a complaint former Mayor
|
|||
|
FPPC Grandview Independent …
|
FPPC fines Richmond council member $400 for improper 2023 recusal
The commission ruled Doria Robinson failed to properly disclose a conflict of interest though it found “insufficient evidence” she influenced the city’s Urban Tilth
contract.
by Joel
UmanzorAug. 12, 2026, 7:00 p.m. Updated Aug. 12, 2026, 11:43 p.m.
The FPPC found insufficient evidence council member Doria Robinson had a financial stake in a governmental decision but ruled she failed
to properly disclose her Urban Tilth conflict before an October 2023 vote and fined her $400. Credit: Kelly Sullivan for
Richmondside
California’s Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) issued a $400 fine to Richmond city council member Doria Robinson for not properly citing a conflict of interest involving her
nonprofit Urban Tilth during a 2023 council meeting.
The violation stemmed from a complaint former Mayor Tom Butt filed in 2024 about an Oct. 3,
2023 council meeting Robinson attended during her first year on the dais.
During the portion of the meeting when council members state conflicts of interest, Robinson said she had a conflict related to an item on the consent agenda, Urban Tilth’s contract
with the city to be a part of the $35 million Transformative Communities Climate (TCC) grant, but she did not state her affiliation or what the conflict
of interest was financially.
Robinson stepped away from the dais and did not vote on the item, which was ultimately passed by the council.
However, the FPPC has found that she did not state her conflict of interest properly.
The ruling came on July 8, according to a letter Robinson posted on the “Everybody’s
Richmond California” Facebook page on Wednesday.
“The Enforcement Division has completed its investigation and found insufficient evidence that you made, participated in, or influenced a governmental decision in which you had a financial
interest,” the letter reads. “However, the investigation found that you failed to properly recuse yourself on October 3, 2023. Specifically, you were required to state, on the record, your financial interest in Urban
Tlth, in addition to leaving the room, when the City considered a contract between Urban Tilth and the City of Richmond.”
Robinson said in the post that the complaint by Butt, the third of its kind, ended in similar fashion to the others, with “insufficient evidence.”
“At the time I did not have clear legal guidance that informed me of the exact words I would need to say to be fully compliant,” Robinson wrote. “After that instance, I received legal
advice and have clearly stated my conflict. As I have always stated, I do all I can to
follow the law at all times. Over four years I made one error in the very beginning before I knew the exact words to say. I have been cited, (and) paid the fine.”
Robinson reiterated to
Richmondside on Wednesday evening that she was fined for a “technical error” in not being clear enough during her recusal and supported the insufficient evidence finding by the commission.
“This is the third appeal investigation instigated by Tom Butt, all investigations have found I have not illegally influenced a decision where I have a conflict of interest,” Robinson
said. “And I have recused and left the room but this particular time I did not say
all of the words needed to make. clear what my conflict was.”
The $400 fine is part of the FPPC’s Streamline Settlement Program, which does not entail holding a full, contested hearing. The fines depend on the violation and are issued for missteps
including anything from a late economic-interest disclosure and unreported lobbying to gift-limit violations. Each of the violations have
either a “tier one/tier two” severity level. In recusal violations, however, the FPPC sets a single fee range of $400 to $800 per incident.
Under FPPC regulations,
a recusal case can qualify for this streamlined track when an official did identify a conflict and step aside but failed to either publicly state the specific financial interests in enough detail for the public to understand it or properly leave the room until
the matter was finished.
doria-robinson-fppc-no.-2025-00236—stipulationdecisionandorderDownload
FPPC ruling is latest in
a number of disputes between Butt and Robinson
The ruling is the latest chapter in the ongoing public rift between Butt, who left office in 2022 after two terms as mayor, and Robinson, who has served as a council member in District
3 since her election in 2022 and reelection earlier this year during the city’s first primary.
On Wednesday morning, Butt sent out an email blast from his longstanding e-forum saying that his 2025 re-filed complaint against Robinson was “resolved.” The initial FPPC complaint
Butt had filed against Robinson in 2024 was rejected by the FPPC for lack of evidence to which Butt submitted 53 pages worth. The FPPC sent back a response in January 2025 to which Butt re-submitted the complaint.
Tom Butt was elected mayor in 2014 alongside Richmond Progressive Alliance candidates who ran against Chevron-endorsed opponents. He served
until 2022. Courtesy city of Richmond Credit: City of Richmond
“There will be a modest payment penalty, but that was never the point,” Butt wrote on Wednesday. “Robinson has held herself to be above the law for a long time, and she has been protected
by elected and appointed officials at all levels, but now the truth is clear. She broke the law, she agrees she broke the law, and she will be penalized for it.”
Butt’s 53-page complaint in 2024 that took aim at Robinson’s
role at Urban Tilth and the organization’s fiscal sponsorship of her partner, Najari Smith’s organization Rich City Rides.
In the nonprofit world, fiscal sponsorship is when an established 501(c)3 nonprofit organization agrees to let a smaller group or organization operate under it and, by doing so, the
smaller organization does not have to become its own registered 501(c)3. Fiscal sponsors are legally and financially responsible for the money that flows through the
sponsee’s organization.
Ultimately, Butt made a number of allegations against Robinson, Smith and the relationship between both their organizations including implying that their romantic relationship has led
to a co-mingling of funds between the organizations and that Robinson has received favorable treatment from county and state officials that have “shielded” her from scrutiny.
The relationship between Rich City Rides and Doria Robinson’s nonprofit Urban Tilth has been criticized by some. The bike shop’s Macdonald
Avenue location is now home to a new Latin market. Credit: Julia Haney for
Richmondside Credit: Julia Haney
Also, the former mayor’s son, Daniel Butt, was the attorney who represented Smith’s Rich City Rides bike shop business partner Roshni “Taye”
Felonte McGee, who filed a lawsuit in 2024 alleging multiple violations of
Richmond’s tenant laws after he was evicted from a commercial property on Marina Way South. The lawsuit named Robinson, Smith, Urban Tilth and Charles Patterson, who owned the rental property.
In 2025, McGee settled his case with Robinson,
Smith and Patterson for an unspecified amount due to a non-disclosure agreement, according to Daniel Butt.
Earlier this year, Rich City Rides sold the building on Macdonald Avenue, according to real estate records, and the building has been transformed into a new market, Casa
Latina Supermercado, that opened last week.
FPPC clears Robinson of financial conflict, issues $400 fine for not citing conflict
Aug 12, 2026 – 4
min read
Richmond City Councilmember Doria Robinson speaks at a Labor Day rally on Monday, September
1, 2025. Photo/ Soren Hemmila
Updated on August 12,
2026 12:35 p.m.
The California Fair Political Practices Commission found insufficient evidence that Richmond
City Councilmember Doria Robinson made, participated in, or influenced a government decision in which she had a financial interest, the central allegation in a complaint filed by former Mayor Tom Butt.
However, the commission proposed a $400 fine after finding Robinson failed to properly
recuse herself from a 2023 vote involving Urban Tilth, the Richmond nonprofit where she serves as executive director.
The finding is outlined in a July 8 stipulation letter in FPPC Case No. 2025-00236. Investigators
determined Robinson violated Government Code Section 87105 by failing to state on the record the nature of her financial interest in Urban Tilth before leaving the room during an October 3, 2023, vote on a city contract with the nonprofit.
State law requires public officials with a financial conflict to identify the conflict
on the record, in enough detail for the public to understand it, and then leave the room until the matter is resolved.
Robinson left the room, according to the FPPC letter, but did not identify Urban Tilth
as the source of her conflict.
"Though you stated that you had a conflict of interest and you left the room, by failing
to identify the financial interest that gave rise to the conflict, you were in violation of Government Code section 87105," Theresa Gilbertson, an FPPC enforcement division attorney supervisor, wrote.
The $400 penalty is part of the FPPC’s streamlined settlement program for lower-level
violations and covers a single count.
Butt, who has pursued complaints against Robinson over her dual roles as councilmember
and Urban Tilth executive director since 2024, described the stipulation as a vindication of his efforts in an email to his e-forum subscribers Wednesday morning.
He cited the document’s statement that Robinson "has violated the Political Reform Act"
and argued that the underlying conflict goes beyond the recusal violation identified by the FPPC.
"There are strict statutes that define how a recusal must be made, and Robinson did not
comply, thus depriving the public about the true nature of her conflict," Butt wrote.
Robinson posted her own response online Wednesday morning, along with photos of the FPPC
letter, and emphasized the narrower finding. She noted that investigators found no evidence she had improperly influenced a government decision and said the violation involved a single incident early in her first term.
"This investigation cited me because on one occasion in 2023 during my first year in office
that although I recused myself and left the room not participating in the decision, I did not explicitly state the source of the conflict, my employer’s name," Robinson wrote. "At the time, I did not have clear legal guidance that informed me of the exact
words I would need to say to be fully compliant. After that instance, I received legal advice and have clearly stated my conflict."
"Over four years, I made one error in the very beginning before I knew the exact words
to say," she wrote. "I have been cited, paid the fine."
In a follow-up post published after this story ran, Robinson described the finding as
"one instance of procedural violation due to a partial verbal recusal" and said she has since recused herself from all council discussions of the TCC grant and disconnected from its management and implementation.
The finding follows an earlier development in the same dispute. In January 2025, the FPPC
dismissed a complaint Butt filed against Robinson’s handling of the Transformative Climate Communities grant, finding insufficient evidence that she had failed to comply with the commission’s advice on the matter.
Robinson has said the TCC grant was applied for and awarded before she took office, calling
it normal practice for nonprofits to collaborate with the city on securing state grants.
Robinson has said the TCC grant was applied for and awarded before she took office, noting
that Urban Tilth was one of seven partners on the grant and that nonprofit-city collaboration on such grants is standard practice, and in some cases, a requirement of the grant itself.
FPPC
dismisses complaint against Richmond Councilmember Doria Robinson
Grandview
Independent Soren Hemmila
Butt sought reconsideration of that dismissal, which led to the recusal-specific finding
in the latest case.
Robinson has previously pointed to the FPPC complaints against her as evidence that the
state’s ethics enforcement system works as intended. She made the point during a Richmond City Council discussion this summer of the GATE
Act, a ballot measure that would have created an independent city ethics commission but failed to qualify.
Want to receive TOM BUTT E-FORUM delivered to your email address?
Click here to sign-up to receive the E-Forum. Tom Butt is the former
mayor of Richmond, CA, having served 27+ years until January of 2023, eight of those as elected mayor. Tom Butt is an architect and founder of the 50-year old Richmond architecture-engineering firm
Interactive Resources. He serves on the board of two Richmond nonprofits,
Rosie the Riveter Trust and
East Brother Light Station, Inc. Visit the
Tom
Butt website for additional information about Tom Butt’s activities and a digest of past E-FORUMS going back to 2000,
http://www.tombutt.com. Subscription to this service is at the personal discretion
of the recipient and may be terminated by selecting “unsubscribe from this list” at the bottom of this email. This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such
material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for
in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational
purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
|