An Orange County education official who was accused of hiding a large fortune from the public has now been found by a judge to have broken the state's financial disclosure law, in a case that turned on a form nearly every California official must file.

What the judge found

In a proposed decision issued July 15, Orange County Superior Court Judge H. Shaina Colover found that Mari Barke, a member of the county Board of Education, recklessly violated California's Political Reform Act by failing to disclose income and assets on the annual statements, known as Form 700, that public officials use to reveal potential conflicts of interest. The judge found that Barke left off more than $1 million in reportable interests and community-property assets each year from 2018 through 2021.

The ruling counts 16 separate violations and would impose $81,800 in civil penalties, calculated at $5,000 per violation, offset by a prior settlement and with an added penalty for failing to correct her 2018 statement, according to the Fullerton Observer. The judge also found Barke liable for the plaintiff's legal costs.

The case

The lawsuit was brought not by a government agency but by a private citizen, Lynne Riddle, a retired U.S. bankruptcy judge, who sued under a provision of the Political Reform Act that lets members of the public enforce the disclosure rules. The complaint followed reporting that Barke, in a set of amended filings, disclosed holdings far larger than she had originally reported. When she first ran, as Voice of OC reported, the suit alleged she had failed to disclose millions of dollars in income and assets, a figure the plaintiff put in the range of $14 million across the years in question.

Barke had earlier settled a related matter with the state's Fair Political Practices Commission, paying $3,200. The judge concluded that outcome did not fully account for the scope of the violations.

The response

Barke's attorney, Mark Rosen, said he could not immediately comment because he had not yet had a chance to consult with his client, according to the Fullerton Observer. In earlier statements, Rosen had characterized the omissions as technical errors by a first-time candidate and cast the lawsuit as politically motivated.

What happens next

The July 15 decision is a proposed statement of decision, not a final judgment. Both sides have 15 days to file objections before the judge enters a final ruling, so the penalty and findings could still change. For now, the case stands as an unusually pointed finding against a sitting Orange County official, and a reminder that the routine-looking Form 700 carries real legal weight.