Carney’s Assistant City Manager : “I Am Not a Consultant” — But Lodi Still Inexplicably Pays Him As One

By Frank Gayaldo

LODI- One sentence may now define former Lodi City Manager Scott Carney’s controversial legacy:

“It is unknown to the City of Lodi why Mr. Carney did not require a contract for Mr. Magee’s employment.” — City of Lodi, June 16, 2025

Despite holding two of the most powerful financial positions in city government — Interim Assistant City Manager and City Treasurer — Bobby Magee was apparently hired with no contract, no job classification memo, no formal appointment resolution, and an internal payroll classification that lists him as a “Part-Time Consultant.”

Yet Magee receives W-2 employee paychecks — not 1099 contractor payments — while exercising executive authority. When asked directly by 209 Times whether he was functioning as a consultant or an employee, Magee stated:

“I am a temporary City employee. My classification for payroll purposes is ‘Part-Time Consultant.’ That is a classification for payroll purposes, but I am not a consultant to the City of Lodi.” — Bobby Magee, June 18, 2025

This admission highlights the core contradiction: Magee is classified as a consultant on paper, but paid and functioning as a full-fledged city executive. The structure raises serious legal questions about tax reporting, labor law compliance, CalPERS eligibility, and state transparency laws.

Mayor Cameron Bregman Weighs In

Lodi Mayor Cameron Bregman provided the following statement to 209 Times:

“The City of Lodi has not historically hired many part-time consultants.

When it comes to the State of California, employees, not the employers, hold all the rights.

We, the City of Lodi, are ramping up our delivery of information to the public as requested by the public.

If there is a vote taken, I will make the public promise of voting to approve the release of current confidential information once the investigation is complete.”

Magee and the City both confirm he is paid $150 per hour — which is $10 more per hour than his direct supervisor, Acting City Manager James Lindsay, who is being paid $140 per hour under a formally documented employment agreement adopted by the City Council. Magee’s pay rate also exceeds the official salary range for the Assistant City Manager position that he himself cites as his job description; the City’s most recent class specification translates to approximately $133 per hour at the highest authorized step — meaning Magee’s hourly rate exceeds that limit by roughly $17 per hour. Unlike Lindsay’s employment arrangement, no formal resolution, contract, or administrative record has been produced explaining how Magee’s elevated pay rate was established or authorized. City Manager Scott Carney — who originally hired Magee — has been on administrative leave since April 9, 2025.

Given that Magee now holds the additional office of City Treasurer — a role that carries direct fiduciary responsibility for financial compliance and oversight — the unresolved irregularities surrounding his classification, pay structure, and appointment process raise not only questions of personal accountability but potentially broader liability exposure for the City itself, should regulatory, tax, or pension system reviews occur. Even though his appointment was initially authorized under prior management, his ongoing classification and payroll status remain active matters of compliance under current leadership.

According to the City, when Bobby Magee was initially hired, he was brought in as an additional Assistant City Manager while Laurie Montez was still actively serving in that role. Although both reportedly carried the same working title at that time, the City acknowledged that its payroll system only allowed for one classification of “Part-Time Assistant City Manager.” As a result, Magee was assigned the alternate payroll classification of “Part-Time Consultant.” Despite Montez remaining employed until April 9, 2025, internal City records referred to Magee as “Interim Assistant City Manager” as early as January, raising further questions about who authorized Magee to begin assuming executive responsibilities prior to Montez’s departure and why no formal appointment resolution was ever issued.

Magee’s sworn Form 700 financial disclosures filed with the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) add further contradictions:

• On January 2, 2025, Magee filed as “PT Consultant.”

• On March 31, 2025, he filed as “City/Town Treasurer.”

• At no point has Magee disclosed his “Assistant City Manager” title on any official FPPC filing — even while using that title publicly and exercising those duties.

The timeline adds even more confusion. A January 28, 2025 staff report — prepared while Assistant City Manager Laurie Montez was still in office — already referred to Magee as “Interim Assistant City Manager” while recommending him for Treasurer. But Montez didn’t depart until April 9 — the same day Carney went on leave — raising questions about who authorized Magee to assume the ACM title prior to Montez’s departure. No resolution formally appointing Magee to ACM has ever been produced.

Public records requests uncovered the following City admissions:

“Mr. Magee does not have a contract… Therefore, the City does not have responsive records for Mr. Magee.” — PRA Response, June 14, 2025

“It is unknown to the City of Lodi why Mr. Carney did not require a contract for Mr. Magee’s employment.” — PRA Response, June 16, 2025

Magee’s name has surfaced in multiple prior jurisdictions involving questionable procurement patterns and recurring ties to Baker Tilly:

• In Incline Village, Nevada, a Baker Tilly forensic audit contract ballooned from $110,000 to $350,000. Separate financial records show Baker Tilly also received a $10,000 placement fee for directly recruiting and placing Bobby Magee as Interim Finance Director for Incline Village in 2023.

• In San Bruno, California, a whistleblower lawsuit alleges that Magee personally engaged Baker Tilly for consulting work, directed contracting activity, and misrepresented procurement needs — allegations Magee denies.

In his written response to 209 Times, Magee denies any wrongdoing. When asked about San Bruno, he stated that he “did not remember anything about that” and therefore directly contacted both the City of San Bruno and Baker Tilly. According to Magee, San Bruno verbally told him they had no record of entering into any contract with Baker Tilly during his employment. He further stated that Baker Tilly similarly informed him they had no record of entering into a contract with San Bruno during his tenure, nor any record of creating a proposal of any type for the City of San Bruno while he was employed there.

However, that account sharply conflicts with allegations contained in a whistleblower complaint filed in San Mateo County Superior Court by former San Bruno Accounting Manager Olesya Clark. The complaint directly names Bobby Magee and alleges that Magee personally engaged Baker Tilly for financial consulting work, falsely represented to Baker Tilly that the City’s staff could not complete necessary work, and directed Clark to approve a $75,000 contract with Baker Tilly — a contract she refused to authorize. The lawsuit further alleges that Magee pressured Clark after she raised objections, contributing to her eventual termination. These detailed allegations — including specific meetings, contract negotiations, and procurement violations — stand in stark contrast to Magee’s claim that he had no recollection of any such contracting activity during his San Bruno tenure.

Regarding Incline Village, Magee stated:

“I was not part of the RFP evaluation team… I was not involved in these decisions in any way, however I was in the room during contract negotiations between Trustee Tulloch, Mr. Nolet, and Rubin Brown.”

In Lodi, Magee acknowledged direct involvement in selecting Baker Tilly for interim accounting assistance. In his written response to 209 Times, Magee stated:

“Despite a significant backlog of day-to-day accounting and annual auditing work, combined with the recent resignations of the entire accounting staff, Mr. Carney and I decided to conduct an informal RFP process anyway. We reached out to 15 qualified agencies and individuals requesting proposals for accounting operational support, but only one response was received — from Baker Tilly.”

The unusually large number of solicitations — followed by only a single response — raises significant questions about the competitiveness and authenticity of the process. It remains unclear which firms were contacted, how they were selected, or why no other qualified agencies submitted proposals despite the acknowledged backlog of urgent work and recent resignations.

The governance failures now publicly acknowledged include:

• No employment contract

• No classification memo

• No formal appointment resolution

• Conflicting job titles (payroll vs. public vs. FPPC filings)

• Excessive pay

• Contradictory sworn financial disclosures

• No documented oversight

• Admitted confusion over whether Magee is reporting hours as a consultant or employee

At one point, a high-ranking City official told 209 Times:

“At this time, I do not have information to determine whether Bobby is reporting hours as a part-time consultant or as a City employee.”

With over $291 million in public funds flowing through Lodi city accounts, these irregularities raise not just administrative concerns, but potentially legal ones.

One central question now looms:

Why is the City of Lodi still paying Bobby Magee $150 per hour — under a classification it openly admits it cannot justify — with no contract, no formal appointment, and no clear legal authority for his compensation structure?

Compounding this contradiction is the fact that Magee himself claims to serve as a temporary employee, operating at-will under the job description of Interim Assistant City Manager. Meanwhile, both his payroll classification (“Part-Time Consultant”) and his Form 700 filings confirm no employment contract exists — further placing him squarely in an at-will status.

This begs a larger question:

If the City Treasurer — who in this case is the employee receiving these payments, which exceed the authorized salary range for the position he claims, and are higher than his own direct supervisor — is unwilling or unable to rectify this situation, then who within Lodi’s governance structure is ultimately responsible for correcting an arrangement the City itself cannot defend?

Other key questions remain:

• Who authorized Magee’s employment structure?

• Was City Council fully informed of his payroll classification of consultant when they appointed him treasurer?

• Why does the City still lack full documentation of who Magee reports to, or how his hours are classified?

These are questions that may ultimately extend beyond City Hall — into state or federal jurisdiction.

209 Times will continue investigating.