“It ain’t over ‘til it’s over.” – Yogi Berra

In what is for San Bernardino County a rare effort, one that is considered by the community’s social and political establishment hopelessly quixotic, the incumbent county treasurer/auditor is contesting the outcome of last month’s primary election in which he was defeated.
At issue in the challenge is not the accuracy of the tally of votes received by Rancho Cucamonga Councilman Ryan Hutchison or current San Bernardino County Treasurer-Tax Collector/Auditor-Controller Ensen Mason in the balloting that corresponded to and concluded with the June 2, 2026 California Primary Election. Rather, Mason is seeking exacting scrutiny of Hutchison’s qualifications and bona fides as a financial professional whose skill in number crunching and money management would ensure that he can carry out the heavy load of assignments demanded by the four separate assignments with which the voters entrusted him over the upcoming four years from January 2027 until January 2031.
Mason has brought the matter foursquare into public consciousness through a lawsuit, the second one he has filed relating to Hutchison’s ability to perform in the capacities he is now otherwise due to take on as of January 2, 2027. In the previous proceeding, Mason raised the same issues at play in the current legal battle, which provoked arguments that sufficed in convincing Superior Court Judge Stephanie Tañada, who heard the case in April, to leave Hutchison’s name on the ballot and to allow the voters to make the decision as to who will oversee disbursements from and through the county’s annual $10.9 billion budget and the management of its $15 billion investment pool. Judge Tañada’s decision more than three months ago, however, was made during a time-compressed window in which the court was seeking to meet a pressing deadline imposed by the San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters Office so it could meet its target date by which it was to finalize the form of the ballots that had to be printed for the June 2 election.
“It is the petitioner’s burden to establish Hutchison does not satisfy the educational and experiential aspects of [qualifying to serve as treasurer-tax collector/auditor-controller], which the petitioner fails to do,” Judge Tañada wrote in her decision handed down on April 2, 2026.
In this way, Judge Tañada did not require Hutchison or his attorney, Katherine Jenkins, to produce the documentation Jenkins said supported the assertion that the Rancho Cucamonga Councilman met all of the technical requirements specified to function in the separate treasurer, tax collector, auditor and controller posts and she accepted the Registrar of Voters’ determination that Hutchison had met the filing requirements for candidacy, which involved merely and primarily being registered to vote, living in the county, completing candidacy application paperwork properly and on time and securing a sufficient number of valid signatures of county residents who are registered voters endorsing his appearance on the ballot and did not extend to the qualifications that an individual had to have to hold any or all of the four positions that are specified in the California Government Code and the California Elections Code or meet the standards applied by the California Board of Accountancy, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation and the Institute of Chartered Financial Analysts.
Mason and his attorney, Chad Morgan, appealed Judge Tañada’s decision in April to let the election proceed with both candidates on the ballot. Morgan and Mason’s argument in that appeal was that Judge Tañada erred in deciding to not engage in a full analysis of Hutchison’s qualifications, which she had ruled Mason, in the abbreviated time allotted to him prior to the hearing, had not met the burden of discrediting. That appeal, on one level, proved to be moot, as the election was held and Mason lost. On another level, with the filing of Mason’s second suit with regard to the issue, that assertion is of some moment.
The kernel of Mason’s argument in the earlier suit – that Hutchison should be removed from the June 2 ballot because he was not then, and will not be in January 2027, qualified to serve in the capacity of treasurer-tax collector/auditor controller – is identical to that at issue in the current lawsuit. Mason contends that Hutchison has neither the work or educational experience required by California law nor certifications from relevant accrediting agencies for the licensure required to perform in the role of or serve as treasurer-tax collector/auditor controller. In response to the first suit, Hutchison and Jenkins claimed his coursework in college where he had earned a degree in economics, his position as a city councilman and his functioning in the capacity of a chief financial officer with a private sector company he founded and owned met the requirements applicable to the role of being a treasurer-tax collector/auditor controller in the public sector.
In the immediate aftermath of Judge Tañada’s April 2 ruling, Hutchison claimed that “the court recognized my qualifications.” In actuality, Judge Tañada’s was more nuanced then the Rancho Cucamonga councilman claimed. Judge Tañada’s determination was that Morgan and Mason, in the rush before the April 2 hearing, had not documented, precisely, how it was that the educational and experiential contents of Hutchison’s resume did not match with what the technical requirements to hold the four offices are. That Morgan and Mason had not proven, in April, Hutchison did not meet the qualifications required of those holding the four titles he would subsequently, on June 2, be elected to assume did not translate to Hutchison having established that he, in fact, met those qualifications. In filing Mason’s second suit, which is not subject to a strict temporal deadline and which will allow adequate time for each of the lines in Hutchison’s resume to be examined and verified, Morgan has reversed the circumstance that existed in April. Rather than Mason having to establish that Hutchison is not qualified to serve as treasurer-tax collector/auditor-controller, Hutchison will have to positively prove that he meets those requirements.
According to the current lawsuit filed by Morgan on Mason’s behalf, Hutchison does not measure up to that standard.
“The office in contest is the San Bernardino County auditor-controller/treasurer/tax collector,”according to Mason’s lawsuit, filed by Morgan on July 1. “San Bernardino County has consolidated the offices of county auditor (and controller) with the office of county treasurer-tax collector into a single elective office. A candidate for, and the person serving in, that consolidated office must therefore satisfy the qualifications the law imposes for county auditor and the qualifications the law imposes for county treasurer-tax collector. This contest is brought under Elections Code section 16100, subdivision (b), which authorizes an elector to contest an election on the ground ‘[t]hat the person who has been declared elected to an office was not, at the time of the election, eligible to that office.’ At the time of the June 2, 2026 election, Defendant Hutchison was not eligible for the office of San Bernardino County auditor-controller/treasurer/tax collector because he did not, and does not, satisfy the statutory qualifications for that office set forth in Government Code sections 26945 and 27000.7.”
Referencing Elections Code section 13.5, which establishes minimum qualifications for candidates for the relevant offices, the lawsuit states, “To be eligible for the office of county auditor, a person must satisfy Government Code section 26945. (Elec. Code § 13.5(b)(1).) To be eligible for the office of county treasurer-tax collector, a person must satisfy Government Code section 27000.7. (Elec.Code § 13.5(b)(6).) Because San Bernardino County has combined these offices, the person elected must satisfy both section 26945 and section 27000.7.13. The qualifications set forth in Government Code sections 26945 and 27000.7 are not merely the qualifications necessary to appear on the ballot. A person who does not meet them is not eligible to the office within the meaning of Elections Code section 16100, subdivision (b). Because an individual elected to that consolidated auditor-controller/treasurer/tax-collector office must independently satisfy the qualifications of both Government Code section 26945 and Government Code section 27000.7, the failure to satisfy either statute renders that person ineligible for the office.”
With regard to Hutchison’s failure to meet specific requirements of the offices, the lawsuit propounds, “Government Code section 26945 provides three paths to qualification for county auditor:(1) the person is a certified public accountant; (2) the person has served three continuous years as a county auditor, chief deputy county auditor, or assistant county auditor, or in an equivalent position; or (3) the person possesses a baccalaureate degree in accounting or a business-related field with at least 24 semester units in accounting-related subjects, including, but not limited to, accounting, financial reporting, auditing, and taxation, and, in addition, has served within the last five years for a continuous period of not less than three years in a senior fiscal management position in a county, city, or other public agency, or a nonprofit organization, dealing with similar fiscal responsibilities, including, but not limited to, public accounting or auditing responsibilities.(Gov. Code § 26945(a), (b).) Government Code section 27000.7 imposes (mostly) parallel requirements for county treasurer-tax collector, including that the person be a (1) certified public accountant; or (2) have served three years in a senior financial management position in a county, city, or other public agency dealing with similar financial responsibilities; or (3) possess a qualifying baccalaureate degree together with a minimum of 16 college semester units, or their equivalent, in accounting, auditing, or finance; or (4) possess a valid charter issued by the Institute of Chartered Financial Analysts, with a minimum of 16 college semester units, or their equivalent, in accounting, auditing, or finance.”
In the suit, Morgan states, “The position of county auditor is fundamentally an accounting position. Therefore, the education portion of the education and experience requirement in section 26945 (applicable to county auditors) requires technical accounting courses and tracks closely with the education requirements necessary to become a CPA [certified public accountant]. Persons with the education of a CPA (but who are not CPAs) can serve as county auditor if they have the education of a certified public accountant and the requisite experience. The requirements for treasurer-tax collector are different because that position is fundamentally about finance, not accounting. Therefore, the education requirements applicable to the office of treasurer-tax collector are less stringent and allow for finance course work in addition to accounting course work.”
Nevertheless, according to the lawsuit, Hutchison does not meet the lesser requirements for the position of county treasurer, either.
Winning election to the four offices and being qualified to fill the offices are two different things, according to the lawsuit.
“Although Hutchison was certified by the registrar [of voters] and declared elected, the statutory qualifications required for the office were not, in fact, satisfied as of the date of the election,” the lawsuit states. “Defendant Hutchison does not satisfy any of the statutory paths to eligibility for either office consolidated in the position.”
Hutchison does not have public sector experience to qualify him for the positions he was elected to and his experience in both the public and privates sectors does not qualify him for the posts either, according to the suit.
With regard to Hutchison’s shortcomings in qualifying to serve as auditor-controller, the suit maintains, “Hutchison is not, and at the time of the election was not, a certified public accountant. He therefore cannot qualify under Government Code section 26945,subdivision (a), or under the CPA path of Government Code section 27000.7, subdivision (a)(3). He similarly does not possess a valid charter issued by the Institute of Chartered Financial Analysts (a path available under section 27000.7, subdivision (a)(4), but not section 26945). Hutchison has never served as a county auditor, chief deputy county auditor, or assistant county auditor, or in any equivalent position, and has never held a senior fiscal management or senior financial management position in a county, city, other public agency, or nonprofit organization dealing with public accounting or auditing responsibilities. He therefore cannot qualify under the experience paths of section 26945, subdivision (a), or section 27000.7, subdivision (a)(1).21.”
The suit further asserts that “Hutchison’s occupational history is as a real estate agent and broker (since 2004) and as the self-described ‘chief financial officer’ of Highway Construction, Inc., a for-profit entity he formed in 2021. His only public service is as an elected member of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council (since 2018). None of these positions satisfies the senior-fiscal-management experience requirement of section 26945, subdivision (b), or the corresponding requirement of section 27000.7, subdivision (a)(1).22. A city council seat is not a senior fiscal management position. Service as an elected city council member is a legislative office. A council member does not perform the day-to-day fiscal management, public accounting, or auditing functions the statute requires; indeed, section 2.08.200 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, among other provisions, bars council members from performing administrative and fiscal-management functions of the kind section 26945, subdivision (b), demands. Hutchison’s council service therefore does not satisfy the experience requirement.”
According to the suit, “Private-sector ‘CFO’ [chief financial officer] service cannot qualify and is illusory in any event. First, the experience paths of section 26945, subdivision (b), are limited to service in a county, city, other public agency, or nonprofit organization; service at a for-profit private firm does not count. Indeed, in 2023, the Legislature enacted Assembly Bill 910, which removed ‘a private firm’ from the categories of qualifying experience, precisely to foreclose reliance on private-sector service. (See former Gov. Code § 26945(b).) Second, and independently, Hutchison’s ‘CFO’ title is illusory: he is simultaneously the chief executive officer, secretary, chief financial officer, and sole director of Highway Construction, Inc., whose principal address is his home. He is a CFO in name only and has not performed the public-accounting or auditing-type fiscal responsibilities the statute requires.”
According to Morgan, “Because Hutchison cannot satisfy the experience component of section 26945, subdivision (b), or section 27000.7, he cannot qualify under the education-plus-experience path, regardless of his coursework. Separately, Hutchison’s baccalaureate degree in economics from Claremont McKenna College (2009) does not, standing alone, establish the 24 semester units in accounting-related subjects required for auditor under section 26945, subdivision (b), or the 16 college semester units in accounting, auditing, or finance required for treasurer-tax collector under section 27000.7, subdivision (a)(2). Contestant is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Hutchison did not complete the required units, and Hutchison has not produced the academic transcripts that would establish otherwise. To date, Hutchison has not produced his academic transcripts to the registrar, to contestant, or in any proceeding; his claimed qualifications rest entirely on his own self-declaration. The coursework Hutchison submitted in the prior proceeding confirms the shortfall as to the treasurer-tax collector qualification: it reflects only three courses in accounting or finance—Accounting for Decision Making, Intermediate Accounting I, and Corporate Finance—totaling as Hutchison is expected to contend, as he did before the election, that his remaining coursework (including general economics, statistics, ethics, and policy courses) should be counted toward the requirement. That broader body of coursework does not fall within the narrow categories of ‘accounting, auditing, or finance’ that section 27000.7 specifies, and it cannot supply units the statute does not recognize. The regulations of the California Board of Accountancy confirm this narrower meaning, defining qualifying ‘accounting subjects’ as ‘accounting, auditing, financial reporting, external or internal reporting, financial statement analysis, or taxation.’ (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 16, § 9.2.) General economics, statistics, mathematics, ethics, and policy courses are not among them.”
Morgan, in the suit, further asserts “The same shortfall defeats the auditor qualification. Section 26945, subdivision (b),requires 24 semester units in ‘accounting-related subjects.’ Applying the California Board of Accountancy’s definition of qualifying accounting subjects (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 16,§ 9.2), that category does not include general economics, statistics, mathematics, ethics, or policy coursework, and—unlike section 27000.7—it does not include ‘finance.’ On that record, Hutchison’s qualifying coursework consists of, at most, his two accounting courses, totaling approximately eight semester units. Because ‘finance’ is not among the accounting subjects section 26945 recognizes, even his corporate-finance course does not count toward the 24-unit requirement. The board’s regulations confirm the distinction. For licensure, the board separately requires 24 semester units of ‘accounting subjects’ and 24 semester units of ‘business-related subjects,’ and it expressly classifies economics, finance, statistics, mathematics, and business management as business-related subjects—not accounting subjects. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 16,§ 9.2, subds. (b), (c).) Because the Legislature’s phrase ‘accounting-related subjects’ in section 26945 tracks the board’s ‘accounting subjects’ terminology, the same line applies here: Hutchison’s economics and finance coursework counts, if at all, as business-related study, not as the accounting-related units the office requires. Hutchison therefore falls short of the 24 units required to serve as auditor, just as he falls short of the 16 units required to serve as treasurer-tax collector.”
Bending the rules and allowing Hutchison to become treasurer-tax collector/auditor-controller would put the county’s finances at risk, according to the lawsuit.
“The breadth and technical nature of the office’s statutory duties underscore why the Legislature imposed the qualifications described above,” the lawsuit states. “The San Bernardino County auditor-controller/treasurer/tax collector directs management of a multibillion-dollar county investment pool, directs the county’s internal audit function, manages a professional staff across multiple divisions, collects and distributes billions of dollars in tax revenue to hundreds of taxing agencies, administers countywide accounts payable and payroll, and produces the county’s financial statements and annual audit. Hutchison has no comparable public accounting, auditing, or senior fiscal management experience.”
With no certified public accountant’s license, no qualifying governmental auditing or fiscal-management service, no career relating to the qualifying fields, his failure to satisfy the education-plus-experience path, Hutchison, according to Morgan, “was not eligible to [hold] the office at the time of the election, and his election must be annulled and set aside.”
Anticipating that Hutchison or Jenkins on his behalf will assert that Judge Tañada’s April 2 ruling allowing the election to proceed bars the current lawsuit from proceeding, which is under the court’s parlance referred to as “collateral estoppel,” Morgan asserted, “First, the burdens of proof in the two proceedings are not the same, and the pre-election ruling resolved only a question of failure of proof. The prior matter was a traditional mandamus proceeding under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085 and Elections Code section 13314, in which the petitioner bore the burden of proving, on an expedited record, that Hutchison was not qualified to appear on the ballot. On April 2, 2026, the court ruled only that the petitioner had not carried that burden on that record; it did not, and on that posture could not, affirmatively adjudicate that Hutchison possesses the qualifications required by Government Code sections 26945 and 27000.7. A determination that a party failed to carry its burden of proof is not an affirmative finding of the contrary fact. Therefore, the issue of Hutchison’s eligibility was neither actually litigated nor necessarily decided. Because the operation of the burden of proof differs as between an expedited pre-election mandamus proceeding and this statutory contest, collateral estoppel does not apply. C]ollateral estoppel bars relitigation only of an issue that was actually litigated and necessarily decided in the prior proceeding.”
Somewhat ironically, Mason’s contention that Hutchison is not qualified to serve in the capacity of treasurer-tax collector/auditor-controller is the converse of the major argument made by Hutchison and his supporters during the 2026 election campaign, which was that Mason was overly qualified in one element of the job, and therefore should not to be entrusted with the four offices. That argument took the form of repeated accusations that Mason’s ownership of Mason Financial Service, which was in existence well before his election to the treasurer-tax collector/auditor-controller’s post and which engages in providing advice relating to stock market investing strategies, presented a conflict of interest because of the potential Mason would move the county’s investments into financial instruments in a way that was calculated to benefit his company’s clients.
The Sentinel’s efforts, through both phone calls and an email to obtain Jenkins’ response to the lawsuit were not successful by press time.
The suit asks that the court determine that Hutchison’s lack of qualifications bar him from becoming treasurer-tax collector/auditor-controller and that Mason, having received the next-highest number of votes in the June 2 Primary be declared the winner or, in the alternative, that Mason, as the incumbent, remain in the post until his successor is named by the board of supervisors or is elected in a special election. The suit further requests that the court enter an order “that no person who does not satisfy the qualifications of Government Code sections 26945 and 270000.7, including Defendant Ryan Hutchison, may be appointed to fill the office.”