A routine audit of the Santa Ana Police Officers Association’s (SAPOA) health benefits trust has escalated into a public confrontation between Mayor Pro Tem/Ward 2 City Councilmember Benjamin Vazquez and the police union, with accusations of financial mismanagement on one side and charges of political grandstanding on the other.
On Sept. 30th, Vazquez issued a letter to the California Attorney General Rob Bonta, alleging that the City had overpaid the police union by $3,426,054 in a single year, yet the fund still ran a $608,894 deficit.
He urged the Attorney General to conduct a 10-year forensic audit of SAPOA’s accounts and investigate whether public money had been improperly spent. He also referenced past controversies within the union, including a failed attempt by a former SAPOA president Gerry Serrano to inflate pension payments, to underscore his case for oversight.
"Santa Ana families work hard and pay their taxes, they should never have to worry about their money being mismanaged. A $3 million overpayment and a deficit raise serious red flags that demand answers. The Attorney General’s independent oversight is necessary to determine whether there has been mismanagement or misuse of funds by SAPOA," Vazquez said in a press release.
If you got this far, consider donating to our GoFundMe so more stories like this can come about :)
In a statement to The Santanero issued late Sept. 30th, Kachirisky said:
“This is an attempt to reduce benefits to the individuals who sacrifice their lives on a daily basis to keep the public safe. The audit will reveal that the Trust assets have not been used for anything other than providing health benefits for our active and retired members. Mayor Pro Tem Vazquez should be ashamed of himself and should learn the facts before spouting out incorrect and distorted information. We expect more from our elected officials and demand an apology.”
SAPOA responded sharply in a letter to the City Council the following day. Union president John Kachirisky dismissed Vazquez’s claims as “untrue and defamatory,” accusing him of misunderstanding both the audit and how health benefit trusts work.
The union argued that no overpayment had occurred, adding that the $3.4 million was longstanding reserves built through prudent investment over 40 years.
According to Kachirisky, the $608,894 shortfall reflects the gap between City contributions and actual medical costs. To cover it, the trust taps its reserves so that officers don’t have to pay out-of-pocket. SAPOA estimates each officer would otherwise owe $1,300 annually for coverage.
Through several Memorandums of Understandings (MOUs) documents received via public records request, the City currently contributes $1,575 per officer per month, while actual healthcare costs average $1,900. SAPOA argues that the City’s contributions are lower than those made for other employee groups.
Administrative costs were below the $50,000 annual cap, and auditors — selected by the City — confirmed no funds were spent outside of health, dental, or disability plans. Kachirisky additionally mentioned the unions' investments, particularly to help expand reserves.
"While the contributions are held to be paid out for health care premiums, the contributions have been prudently invested. As is a best practice for a health care trust fund, the Trust has invested all amounts not used for health care benefits, and through the years have grown reserves which are held in investment accounts," Karirisky wrote.
At the end of the stern letter, SAPOA accused Vazquez of “union busting” and disrupting attempts at cooperation between the union and City staff.
Vazquez has not responded to initial requests for comment. The Santanero has reached out once again to all Councilmembers and Mayor for comment [10/6/25 1:55 PM].
Initial vs. revised audit
The City’s independent auditors first reported in July 2025 that the police union’s health trust fund held an excess balance of $3.4 million—funds they said exceeded the limit set in the City’s agreement with SAPOA. At the same time, the audit showed the trust operating at a $608,894 deficit for 2023, meaning it paid out more in health costs than it received in contributions, which would have granted a grain of sustainment to Vazquez' allegations.
But then a revised audit was issued the same day Vazquez requested an investigation.
Auditors explained that the initial report had mistakenly counted a "Charles Schwab brokerage account" as part of the trust’s assets. With that account excluded, the revised report found no excess fund balance, effectively erasing the $3.4 million figure.
"[N]ew circumstances and information were made known to us that were not disclosed at the time of our initial engagement; specifically, that the brokerage account was erroneously included as part of the trust fund balance," auditors wrote in the revised report.
As for the $608,894 debt, it was paid using the union's reserves.
In responses to our questions, the union described Vazquez' actions as "reckless" and blames him for "misleading and inaccurate[ly]" using the term "overpayment."
When asked if the union were to commit to publishing an annual report on the health fund’s balance, investments, and expenditures, the union responded by saying:
"There is nothing to hide, however, it is apparent that some of our City officials do not understand how trust funds work and have inappropriately used the audit to make misrepresentations and distort the facts. The bottom line is that the City is underfunding our Trust fund and certain Councilmembers are seeking to reach into our members’ pockets."
Responses to our questions
The Santanero asked all Councilmembers and Mayor Valerie Amezcua similar questions on Wednesday and again on Friday. Separate questions were asked towards the police union.
Police union's responses
Q: Has the union ever used funds from the health trust, or any union-controlled account that receives City (i.e. taxpayer) contributions, to support political campaigns, pay for candidate endorsements, or run campaign operations? "NO. If you want to review our PAC and related committees, you can actually review them at the city website. We have 13 years of filing per the Sunshine Ordinance that is available online. You will see that nearly all donations come from the membership, which is how most unions operate. https://public.netfile.com/pub2/?aid=CSA"
Q: How can you explain a $608,000 deficit when the city overpaid by $3.4 million? "There is no overpayment by the City. If you review the audit, you will see that the City contributions are much less than the cost to provide coverage for our public safety officers. The deficit refers to the difference between the contributions to the Benefits Trust and the cost to provide medical benefits. The Health Trust covers that difference by drawing on its reserves. If it did not, the cost would fall to individual employees. We estimate that on average individual officers would need to pay over $1300 to make up that gap. There is also no $3.4 overpayment. That is a misleading and inaccurate term used by Mayor Pro Tem Vasquez, and refers to amounts in our reserves. These reserves are Trust assets that have been held and invested over the course of more than 40 years. These are not the result of overpayments by the City, they are the product of prudent and sound investment and management. If you review the audit, it specifically advises that for health care trusts of our nature it is advisable to hold reserves of $3 to $5.5. million."
Q: What investments were made with reserves? "Investments were made into typical investment vehicles such as stocks and bonds."
Q: How have the $50,000 in allowable administrative costs been used? "If you review the audit report you will see that approximately half that amount was used on administrative expenses."
- Follow-up: Can you provide receipts or invoices for those expenses? "The audit has already confirmed the amount of administrative expenses."
Q: Have any trust dollars been used for items outside of health, dental, or disability plans? "No, as already conformed by the auditors. These auditors were selected by the City."
- Follow-up: If you say “no,” will you commit to a third-party audit that verifies it? "The audit was done by a third party vendor. The city selected and the union paid for it, which was agreed upon in the most recent MOU that was approved in 2024. It should be noted Mayor Pro Tem Vazquez voted against this MOU and therefore against conducting this audit."
Q: If you claim there is no deficit, are you saying the city’s independent audit is wrong? "If you read the revised version just submitted to the city, they found the accounting error based on further review."
- Follow-up: If so, will you publish your own audited numbers side by side with the city’s? "There is no need to publish our own audit, although we welcome another independent review if certain haters still don’t want to believe the truth. This audit is done and it is accurate after a simple correction. The 2024 audit will also be completed soon and will be out for the public to review."
Q: Why has the union resisted claw-backs of excess contributions? "Because the initial claim of overpayment was wrong. Why should the union pay back to the city what is not owed. But we did not try to stop the first payment back to the city, we were taking steps to amicably work with the city to address the primary issue of “how can you have an overpayment and a deficit.” Unfortunately it all was thrown into chaos by the reckless actions of Mayor Pro Tem Vazquez."
- Follow-up: If the money truly belongs to health benefits, why not welcome a claw-back to stabilize the fund? "There is no reason for a “claw-back.” The city did not overpay and are not owed any money."
Q: Will you commit to publishing a public annual report on the health fund’s balance, investments, and expenditures? "There is nothing to hide, however, it is apparent that some of our City officials do not understand how trust funds work and have inappropriately used the audit to make misrepresentations and distort the facts. The bottom line is that the City is underfunding our Trust fund and certain Councilmembers are seeking to reach into our members’ pockets."
City leadership responses
Pending.
Correction: A typo in our byline read the city said otherwise when the line should've read "Vazquez."
