This post is about transparency.

Mayor Nakamura's longtime partner, Greg Colley, is a convicted felon. He was charged with embezzling $3.9 million from a nonprofit, pleaded guilty, was sentenced to state prison, and was ordered to repay $3,534,440.37. Public records also show a $546,314 California state tax lien recorded against him in Contra Costa County in 2017, plus earlier state and federal tax liens totaling more than $3.3 million.

Colley was the CFO of the Music Concourse Community Partnership, the nonprofit that built the underground garage between the de Young Museum and the California Academy of Sciences. He didn't swindle wealthy investors. He stole from a nonprofit, taking donated money that had been set aside to cover construction costs. Along with embezzlement, he was charged with money laundering and identity theft.

When he was charged in 2008, then-San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris said that as the man in charge of the nonprofit's finances, he "had a responsibility to safeguard the interests of the not-for-profit that employed him."

He pleaded guilty to seven counts on November 6, 2008, and was sentenced on December 4, 2008. Anyone can verify this in San Francisco Superior Court case CRI-02379865. When I raised this on Nextdoor earlier this week, the mayor's own supporters confirmed it, writing that he served his time.

In an election, voters decide what matters, not the officials asking for their votes. Mayor Nakamura doesn't get to decide what Concord voters should or shouldn't know before Tuesday. You get the facts, and you make the call.

I'm not here to relitigate 2008. Here's the heart of it. Colley isn't on the ballot. He holds no office, and no Concord voter ever chose him. That's exactly why it matters if he's advising the mayor on city business. Voters have a right to know who has her ear when she votes. If he's advising her, she shouldn't be hiding it. If he isn't, she can say so.

He is close to her work. Her campaign lists him as an organizer. He's a regular at council meetings. He's the agent for service of process for the Concord Communities Alliance, a 501(c)(4) she co-founded.

On October 6, a California Public Records Act request was filed for the texts and emails Mayor Nakamura sent and received while on the dais. Three weeks later, the city released a partial response.

Her emails came back with the recipients visible. Her texts did not. Every text recipient is blacked out, and only her outgoing messages were produced. Not a single reply.

That's concerning, and it falls short of what state law requires. In 2017, the California Supreme Court ruled that texts about city business are public records, whether sent or received, even on a personal phone. Under that same ruling, cities can rely on officials to search their own phones, which often means the official decides what gets turned over. It looks like the mayor is hiding something.

Redacting a phone number to protect someone's privacy is one thing. Hiding whether the person on the other end was a fellow councilmember, a city staffer, or her own partner is another.

Here is some of what she sent from the dais:

"Do you see a path forward if I call for a reconsideration?" (September 10, 2024)

"What was the program that was suggested to use instead of PD?" (April 1, 2025)

"I'm flippin mad at Edi right now." "He's killing the Plan." (April 23, 2024)

"where is CCA?" (September 5, 2023)

That last one refers to the Concord Communities Alliance, the group she co-founded and Colley serves as agent for.

And this can't be everything. The city released 66 texts covering three years of council meetings. Plenty of people send more than that in a single day. The texts stop on June 9, 2026, but her released emails from the dais continue through September 22, 2026. Anyone who watches the meeting videos has seen her on her phone at the dais, meeting after meeting.

These texts also raise Brown Act questions. California's open meeting law bars a majority of the council from discussing or deliberating on city business outside a public meeting. That includes a chain of one-on-one messages and messages passed through go-betweens. A single text to one colleague isn't automatically a violation, but a chain that reaches three of our five councilmembers is. That's why Brown Act trainings tell officials not to text during meetings at all.

Some of her texts read like coordination on agenda items, such as "Are you pulling it? To thank staff? Or anything?" (June 13, 2023) and the reconsideration text above. If those went to fellow councilmembers, the public deserves to know. If they went to someone in the audience, the public deserves to know that too. With every name blacked out, nobody can tell.

This isn't about any one text. It's about a principle. When the mayor is texting from the dais in the middle of public business, the public deserves to know who's on the other end. And voters deserve to know whether it's a convicted felon who stole from a nonprofit and has millions of dollars in tax liens recorded against him.

Transparency isn't optional for an elected official. Mayor Nakamura can clear this up today. A follow-up records request is pending, but the city won't respond before Election Day, so her answer is the only one voters will get in time.

The same goes for homeless encampments in our parks. She has partly walked back her support, but she still hasn't committed to never allowing them in any Concord park.

This isn't personal, and I'm not telling anyone how to vote. That decision belongs to you, not to me and not to her. But it should be made with the full picture, not just the parts she chooses to share.

The public record deserves close examination. So do the limits of what that record can show.

Mayor Laura Nakamura texts during city council meetings. That much is now on paper. In response to a California Public Records Act request filed in early October, the City of Concord released roughly 65 text messages the mayor sent from the dais during meetings. What the city did not release is who she was texting.

Every recipient’s name is blacked out. And the response contains no incoming messages at all - none of the replies the mayor received while the council conducted the public’s business.

The law says these records are public

In 2017, the California Supreme Court ruled in City of San Jose v. Superior Court that public officials’ communications about public business are public records, even when they sit on private phones and personal accounts. Texts sent from the dais, about the meeting happening in front of the dais, are the public’s business.

The city’s response leans on redaction instead. A reader can see that messages were sent, and when. Who received them - a staff member, a colleague, a lobbyist, a campaign ally - is hidden.

One name did survive

The released set includes a February 4, 2025 email about a meeting, addressed to Greg Colley. Colley is Nakamura’s partner. He holds no city office and answers to no voter. Save Concord is reviewing the released documents and will report what they show about his role, if any, in city business.

Why now

On Tuesday, District 5 voters decide whether Nakamura keeps her seat. The question these records raise is simple: when the mayor texts through public meetings, who is she talking to? Concord’s answer, three days before the election, is a black marker.

The public record deserves close examination. So do the limits of what that record can show.

Mayor Laura Nakamura is seeking another term representing Concord’s District 5. City records list Aeysha Corio as the other qualified candidate. Nakamura was elected to the council in November 2022; her fellow councilmembers selected her to serve as mayor for 2026.

Sources: City candidate list · City biography

Rent control her district had already rejected

Opinion

In February 2024, Nakamura supported the council’s introduction of rent-stabilization and just-cause eviction rules. The city’s summary described a proposed annual rent-increase cap of 3% or 60% of the Consumer Price Index, whichever was lower, for covered older multifamily properties. Single-family homes were excluded from rent stabilization - but included in the proposed just-cause eviction rules, the part many homeowners only learned about later.

The Pioneer reported that Councilmember Carlyn Obringer heard from at least 100 residents who said they were only learning then that single-family homes would be included. Many residents opposed the proposal.

Her district had already voted on the idea. In November 2020, roughly 70% of voters in the precincts that make up District 5 voted against Proposition 21, the statewide measure to expand rent control, according to a Save Concord review of precinct-level results. Statewide, Prop 21 failed with 59.85% voting no. Nakamura backed rent stabilization anyway. And in April 2025, when the council voted 3-2 to scale the ordinance back, the California Apartment Association reported that Nakamura voted against the changes - to keep the stricter rules. The current cap is 5% under the ordinance as amended.

Our view: her district said no to rent control at the ballot box, and she delivered it from the dais instead. Voters can decide on Tuesday whose judgment she is there to carry - theirs or hers.

Sources: City summary, February 14, 2024 · The Pioneer, February 17, 2024 · Current ordinance · California Apartment Association, April 23, 2025 · Prop 21 statewide result