Huntington Beach’s approval of a three-year police labor agreement has brought two separate records into focus: campaign filings showing maximum contributions from the police union to two council members, and city warnings that the agreement will add millions of dollars in compensation costs while reserves are already being used to balance the budget.
The Huntington Beach Police Officer Assn. gave $5,900 each to Council Members Andrew Gruel and Gracey Van Der Mark, according to election records reported by the Los Angeles Times. Gruel received his contribution July 21 and reported it Aug. 19; Van Der Mark’s campaign reported its contribution Aug. 31. Both council members later voted for the contract, which passed 4-3 on Sept. 1.
What the council approved
The memorandum of understanding covers about 259 rank-and-file officers and provides an 8% increase retroactive to July 1, 2026, followed by 4% in 2027 and 5% in 2028—17% in total, according to the Orange County Tribune. The city estimates the additional compensation will cost roughly $9.8 million to $10 million through June 2029.
The vote divided the council along fiscal lines. Don Kennedy, Casey McKeon and Pat Burns opposed the agreement, while Gruel, Van Der Mark, Butch Twining and Chad Williams supported it. The Tribune reported that the city was facing a projected $15.6 million structural deficit, had already drawn $15 million from reserves to balance its broader 2026 budget and would need another $2.7 million from reserves for the police agreement.
Those figures do not establish that the campaign contributions caused either council member’s vote. They do establish the sequence that has prompted scrutiny: the union contributions were reported before the contract vote, and both recipients supported the agreement. Gruel is seeking reelection after being appointed to the council in 2025; Van Der Mark, a former mayor, is running for the state Assembly in District 72.
The campaign-finance question is narrower than a quid pro quo claim
California’s campaign-finance and disclosure laws apply to state and local candidates and committees, the Fair Political Practices Commission says. Its guidance on Section 84308 generally restricts contributions above $500 from parties seeking certain noncompetitively bid contracts and can limit an official’s participation in related proceedings.
The same FPPC guidance expressly exempts labor contracts, including collectively bargained project labor agreements, from Section 84308. That distinction is important here: the guidance describes the governing framework but does not determine whether the Huntington Beach agreement violated any other law, whether the contributions were permissible under local rules or whether either official should have recused themselves. The supplied records also do not show an agreement linking the donations to the vote.
Why the timing matters politically
The Police Officer Assn. endorsed Gruel in July 2026 and endorsed both Gruel and Van Der Mark before the contract vote, according to the Los Angeles Times. The contributions therefore function as both campaign support and evidence of a political alliance during an election season in which police pay and city finances are contested issues.
Van Der Mark has said the union endorsed her before the June primary and that she supports law enforcement. Gruel has described public safety as a central reason for joining the council and connected police and fire spending to tourism-related revenue, the Times reported. Those positions explain the political alignment but do not resolve the separate fiscal question raised by the contract’s cost.
The immediate record supports a limited conclusion: two council members received maximum contributions from a union whose contract they later approved, while the city acknowledged that the agreement will increase compensation costs during a period of projected structural deficits and reserve withdrawals. Whether that overlap reflects ordinary political support, an appearance problem or a legal violation requires campaign filings, local rules and the complete council and contract records—not an assumption that the vote was purchased.
