Builders and Destroyers

Builders and Destroyers: Before April Verlato Points the Finger Again, Arcadia Should Read the Public Record

Opinion and Investigative Analysis

By Arcadia’s Best News Editorial Board

Sometimes the best way to evaluate a political accusation is not to answer it.

It is to pull the original records.

That is particularly useful after former Arcadia Mayor April Verlato’s latest mass email, which reaches back more than a decade to portray a 2016 Lunar New Year event involving EDI Media as part of today’s foreign-influence controversy.

Verlato tells recipients that former Councilmember Sho Tay brought EDI Media to Arcadia and writes that the City “sponsored the event with EDI Media at the suggestion of Sho Tay.” She goes further, claiming that the City was “giving them money to produce events in Arcadia because Sho Tay pushed for it.”

That is a serious characterization.

It is also where the public record begins raising questions not about Sho Tay, but about April Verlato’s version of the story.

The Part of the EDI Story Verlato Left Out

Contemporaneous Arcadia records establish something important about Verlato’s position in Downtown Arcadia during this same period.

In June 2015, Arcadia Planning Commission minutes identified April Verlato as President of the Downtown Arcadia Improvement Association, or DAIA.

That matters because, according to the contemporaneous City Council materials concerning the Lunar New Year event, the event applicant was the Downtown Arcadia Improvement Association, working in collaboration with EDI Media.

The City’s records concerning the arrangement also indicate that the event organizer was responsible for applicable Police, Fire and Public Works costs, while the City did not charge for use of a City parking area.

That is substantially more context than the impression created by telling residents, ten years later, that the City was simply “giving” EDI Media money because Sho Tay pushed for it.

And this is not some insignificant historical footnote.

If Verlato wants Arcadia residents in 2026 to scrutinize a decade-old relationship with EDI Media, then surely residents are entitled to know that the organization she herself led was part of that same history.

So perhaps the first questions belong to Verlato.

Why emphasize Sho Tay’s role without equally emphasizing DAIA’s role?

What did Verlato know, as DAIA president, about the organization’s collaboration with EDI Media?

Did she object to that collaboration at the time?

Did she warn City officials in 2015 or 2016 that she considered EDI Media a foreign-influence concern?

If she did, where is the contemporaneous record?

If she did not, when did the relationship become troubling enough to be resurrected a decade later as part of a political narrative about Chinese influence?

Those are not questions for Sho Tay.

They are not questions for current councilmembers.

They are questions for April Verlato.

If We Are Going Back Ten Years, Let’s Bring the Whole File

This is precisely why public records matter.

Investigative reporting starts with the record and follows it wherever it leads.

Political advocacy can work in reverse: begin with a target, search backward through history, highlight facts that support a narrative and give less attention to facts that complicate it.

Residents should decide for themselves which approach they are seeing here.

Verlato’s version is simple.

Sho Tay brought EDI Media to Arcadia.

Sho Tay pushed for the event.

The City supposedly gave EDI Media money.

EDI Media is now connected to a federal investigation.

Therefore, the reader is encouraged to look backward at that old event through the lens of today’s controversy.

But open the old records and another name enters the picture.

April Verlato.

Not as a journalist investigating the event.

Not as an outsider warning City Hall.

But as president of the Downtown Arcadia Improvement Association during that period. Arcadia’s own Planning Commission minutes document that title.

That does not establish wrongdoing by Verlato.

It establishes something more relevant to the argument she is now making:

Associations require context.

For everybody.

When DAIA Needed City Hall, Verlato Wasn't Merely an Observer. Her Lobbying Gave it  Direct Access to City Council While Other Organizations Were Rebuffed.  The history of Verlato and the Downtown Arcadia Improvement Association deserves closer examination for another reason.  DAIA was not simply an organization operating somewhere outside City Hall. Over the years, while April Verlato reigned on both boards, it repeatedly sought, and received, financial and in-kind support from the City of Arcadia.  City records show that Arcadia had already been providing DAIA nearly $15,000 annually through its assessment payments and in-kind event support. In 2023, DAIA's own financial statement records an additional $17,500 from the City for the Patriotic Festival. Months later, DAIA returned to City Hall seeking $35,000 for the following year's event. Every request that was made while April Verlato remained on City Council and on the DAIA board was granted.  That does not make the support improper. However, many community organizations routinely request municipal assistance, and City Councils have discretion to decide which events provide sufficient public benefit to warrant taxpayer support. Many requests were rejected while DAIA’s was not.   Since April Verlato has left, the City Council has opened up an application process and has begun supporting other community organizations that previously might not be able to outcompete DAIA’s close ties to City Council.

Verlato’s Own Email Demonstrates Why Guilt by Association Is Dangerous

The contradiction becomes more obvious later in Verlato’s own email.

She recounts attending a farewell reception for China’s Consul General after Eileen Wang invited her. Verlato explains that Wang was a new colleague, that she accepted the invitation and attended, and that Wang presented a City certificate while Verlato did not. She now says she wonders whether Wang was attempting to influence her perception of China.

But consider the standard fairly.

Does April Verlato’s attendance at a Chinese Consulate event establish that she acted on behalf of China?

No.

Does standing in a photograph establish foreign allegiance?

No.

Does accepting an invitation establish conspiracy?

No.

Context matters.

Verlato herself provides context explaining her presence.

That is reasonable.

But if context matters when April Verlato appears in the photograph, context must matter when somebody else does too.

You cannot construct an evidentiary standard that points only outward.

Then Comes: “WHO WILL BE RAIDED NEXT?”

After assembling those associations, Verlato’s email escalates dramatically.

Its opening headline asks:

“WHO WILL BE RAIDED NEXT?”

She tells recipients that she “anticipate[s] additional raids in Arcadia.”

That is an extraordinary suggestion for a former mayor and attorney to circulate.

So there is one straightforward journalistic question:

Based on what?

If Verlato possesses credible evidence that additional Arcadia officials are targets of federal law enforcement, she should identify the basis for making such a serious public prediction.

If she has evidence that someone knowingly acted for a foreign government, produce it.

If she has evidence connecting a campaign expenditure, advertisement, photograph or community event to unlawful foreign influence, publish it.

If she does not have such evidence, residents are entitled to ask why hypothetical FBI raids are being introduced into Arcadia’s political discourse at all.

No elected official is required to prove that an imaginary future raid will not happen.

No resident must prove a negative because somebody placed a question mark after an insinuation.

The burden remains where it belongs:

With the person making the suggestion.

An Email Blast Is Not a Search Warrant

This distinction matters because there is a familiar political technique at work in questions such as “Who will be raided next?” and “What if?”

A writer can place a frightening possibility in the reader’s mind without necessarily asserting that the event will occur.

Then the person being targeted is expected to respond.

That reverses the burden of proof.

It should not.

A question mark is not evidence.

A photograph is not an indictment.

A business relationship is not a conspiracy.

An advertisement is not espionage.

A community event is not proof of foreign allegiance.

And an email blast is not an FBI search warrant.

If Verlato has the evidence, she can publish it.

Until then, it is not the responsibility of everyone she names to disprove her hypotheticals.

When Does Foreign-Influence Rhetoric Become Guilt by Association?

There is a larger issue here that Arcadia cannot ignore.

Foreign interference in American government is serious.

It should be investigated aggressively, impartially and without regard to ethnicity or political affiliation.

But Verlato’s email eventually asks why Arcadia City Council members have “ties” to organizations she associates with the Chinese government.

That raises another question:

What exactly is a “tie”?

Buying advertising?

Attending a community event?

Receiving a lawful campaign contribution?

Knowing somebody?

Being photographed with somebody?

Working with a Chinese-language media outlet?

Participating in a Lunar New Year celebration?

Those definitions matter enormously in the San Gabriel Valley.

Especially in Arcadia.

National reporting following the Eileen Wang matter has already documented concern that a legitimate foreign-influence case could spill over into suspicion of the broader Asian-American community.

A responsible political leader should recognize that danger.

Chinese Americans Are Not Beijing

This publication will not casually label somebody racist.

That is a serious allegation and should require serious evidence.

But there is another serious question voters are entitled to ask:

When does repeatedly building political suspicion around Chinese names, Chinese-language media, Chinese organizations and Chinese-American public figures begin harming the Chinese-American community itself?

The Chinese Communist Party is not the Chinese-American community.

Beijing is not Arcadia.

Chinese Americans are Americans.

A Chinese-American businessperson is not presumptively an operative.

Readers of Chinese-language media are not presumptively foreign agents.

A Lunar New Year event is not a loyalty test.

An Asian-American elected official should not have to explain every Chinese person, business, organization or photograph encountered over years of public service.

That does not mean immunity from scrutiny.

It means equal scrutiny.

Evidence where evidence exists.

Accountability where wrongdoing occurs.

And fairness where it does not.

The standard cannot be association when examining somebody else and context when

examining April Verlato.

The Recall Is Worth Remembering  Consider one particularly revealing episode.  Verlato led the effort to recall Arcadia Councilmember David Fu.  It failed.  The March 2026 reporting on the failed effort identified Verlato as the leader of the recall campaign.  Her own archived email operation tells the story even more vividly.  There was an “UPDATE ON RECALL OF DAVID FU.”  Then another message.  Then a Thanksgiving message from the “RECALL DAVID FU TEAM,” announcing a third notice of intention to recall him after potential deficiencies with the first notice were identified.  Stop there for a moment.  Three notices.  A recall campaign.  Repeated email blasts.  Months of political attention.  And ultimately?  The recall failed.  That is not proof of improper motive.  But it is certainly evidence residents may consider when evaluating political judgment.  How much community energy was spent?  How much staff attention was generated?  How much division was created?  And what lasting improvement to Arcadia government came from it?  These are not questions Verlato can answer by pointing at somebody else.  They are questions about her own political choices.

Perhaps the Spotlight Belongs on the Person Holding the Flashlight

For years Verlato has positioned herself as a watchdog of Arcadia government.

Watchdogs are valuable.

They ask difficult questions.

They obtain records.

They challenge authority.

But watchdogs themselves must withstand scrutiny.

And perhaps Arcadia has spent too much time allowing every new Verlato email to dictate what everybody else must explain.

Turn the spotlight around.

How accurately does Verlato characterize the underlying City record?

Which facts receive emphasis?

Which facts receive less attention?

When she discusses somebody else’s involvement with an organization, does she disclose her own organization’s involvement?

When she treats an association as suspicious, does she apply the same logic to herself?

When she predicts another raid, what evidence supports the prediction?

And when the records complicate the narrative, does the narrative change?

Those are not personal attacks.

They are elementary credibility questions.

Public Records Work in Both Directions

Government records belong to the public.

Arcadia’s own website explains that City Council agendas and minutes are maintained for public review, and the City describes the Council as the policymaking body responsible for municipal policy and oversight.

Public-record laws are critical tools for journalists, residents, attorneys and political activists.

They should remain strong.

But transparency cannot be a one-way mirror.

Large records requests require staff searches, document review and sometimes legal analysis.

Residents therefore have every right to examine both sides of the equation:

What did a records campaign uncover?

Did it establish wrongdoing?

What public benefit resulted?

And how much government time was required to produce the material?

That does not make the request improper.

It means accountability applies to the accuser’s credibility too.

If the records prove something important, publish them.

If they do not, do not replace the missing evidence with insinuation.

Verlato Herself Once Reminded Arcadia That Litigation Costs Taxpayers

There is another interesting piece of the record.

In a prior mass communication about lawsuits involving Arcadia, Verlato herself emphasized the financial consequence of litigation, writing that the costs of those lawsuits were borne by Arcadia taxpayers and paid through City litigation resources.

On that principle, she was right.

Litigation is not free.

City attorneys spend time.

Outside lawyers may be required.

Staff responds to discovery and records demands.

Public officials spend time addressing legal disputes.

Taxpayers ultimately fund the defense of municipal government.

Sometimes litigation is necessary.

Sometimes litigation is justified.

Sometimes the government is wrong and deserves to lose.

But political actors who repeatedly invoke litigation, encourage legal confrontation or make lawsuits part of their political strategy should be willing to answer the same fiscal question they routinely ask of City Hall:

What did taxpayers receive for the expense?

That question should apply consistently.

Not simply when a lawsuit advances one’s political argument.

There Are Two Ways to Leave a Mark on a City

There are politicians who build.

And there are politicians who become remarkably skilled at tearing things down.

The builders rarely produce the most exciting newsletters.

They work on budgets.

They recruit businesses.

They negotiate.

They improve infrastructure.

They support public safety.

They attend boring meetings.

They compromise.

They sometimes accept 70 percent of what they wanted because they understand that democracy means other people get votes too.

Destroyers discover another formula.

Outrage is faster than accomplishment.

Conflict is easier than consensus.

Suspicion is easier than evidence.

Accusing is easier than governing.

And tearing down somebody else's credibility is much easier than building one's own legacy.

The problem with that political model is that eventually everyone becomes an enemy.

That isn't strength.

It's dysfunction.

Leadership Is Tested When Somebody Says “No”

There is an even simpler measure of political temperament.

Watch what happens when another elected official says no.

Not at a ribbon cutting.

Not during a proclamation.

Not while the cameras are pointed at everybody smiling.

When somebody says:

No, I disagree.

No, I will not vote with you.

No, I do not accept your interpretation.

No, I will not join this political fight.

No, I am not going to engage.

That is when temperament matters.

Leadership requires persuasion.

Leadership requires compromise.

Leadership sometimes requires losing.

Then it requires returning the next morning and working with the same colleagues who defeated you.

Grievance politics works differently.

Every disagreement becomes opposition.

Every opponent becomes another target.

Every target produces another campaign.

Eventually residents should ask whether the political fights are solving problems or merely perpetuating themselves.

Who Benefits From Permanent Political Warfare?

Nobody outside April Verlato can responsibly claim to know her private motives.

But residents can examine political conduct and ask legitimate questions.

Why does disagreement so often lead to another public confrontation?

Why does Arcadia continue receiving lengthy campaigns focused on political adversaries?

What measurable civic outcome results?

At what point does government oversight become permanent political warfare?

And at what point is the audience entitled to ask whether this is about serving Arcadia, or remaining indispensable to Arcadia’s political conversation?

Those are fair questions for any former officeholder maintaining an active political platform.

They become even more important if that person seeks public office again.

Political Ego or Public Service?

There is a fundamental difference.

Public service asks:

What does the community need?

Political ego asks:

Why isn’t everyone listening to me?

Public service accepts disagreement.

Political ego experiences disagreement as disrespect.

Public service knows when a fight has ended.

Political ego requires another fight.

Public service shares credit.

Political ego requires the spotlight.

Which description fits any politician is ultimately for voters to determine from the record.

But voters should make that determination before granting anybody more power.

What Has Arcadia Actually Gained?

Perhaps residents should stop keeping score by counting how many people appear in Verlato’s next email.

Keep a different scorecard.

Did residents become safer?

Did streets improve?

Did businesses prosper?

Did government become more efficient?

Did taxpayer costs decline?

Did neighbors trust one another more?

Did an actual problem get solved?

Then compare that record with the other ledger:

The accusations.

The records battles.

The litigation disputes.

The political enemies.

The email campaigns.

The speculation.

The division.

The public resources required to respond.

Then ask:

Which ledger is heavier?

That is a more useful measure of leadership than the ability to generate another alarming headline.

Higher Office Magnifies Temperament

Any politician seeking higher office asks voters for considerably more than another title.

Higher office brings more authority.

More staff.

More resources.

More visibility.

More consequential decisions.

And many more people who will inevitably disagree.

Before granting someone greater power, voters should examine what that individual did with the power already entrusted to her.

Temperament matters.

Judgment matters.

Restraint matters.

The ability to work with people one dislikes matters.

The ability to distinguish political disagreement from personal betrayal matters.

The ability to investigate without insinuating matters.

And in a region with a large Asian-American population, the ability to discuss Beijing and foreign influence without casting collateral suspicion over Chinese-American civic life matters tremendously.

Higher office does not cure political temperament.

It magnifies it.

So This Time, April, You Answer the Questions

April Verlato has spent considerable time asking questions about other people.

Fair enough.

Here are several the public record now raises about her.

Why did her latest email tell residents that the City sponsored the 2016 EDI event at Sho Tay’s suggestion without similarly emphasizing that the Downtown Arcadia Improvement Association was involved?

Why did it not prominently remind readers that contemporaneous Arcadia records identify April Verlato as president of DAIA in 2015?

What did she know about DAIA’s collaboration with EDI Media?

Did she object at the time?

If she considered EDI Media dangerous or improper then, where is the contemporaneous warning?

If she did not, when did her view change?

Why does her own attendance at a Chinese Consulate reception merit context while other people’s associations are assembled into a narrative of suspicion?

If she “anticipates additional raids in Arcadia,” what credible evidence supports that prediction?

If that evidence exists, why not publish it?

And after years in and around Arcadia politics, what should persuade voters that giving April Verlato greater public authority would produce more building and less destruction?

Those are her questions to answer.

Nobody else needs to prove a negative.

A City Cannot Live Forever at War With Itself

Arcadia does not need silence.

It needs scrutiny.

It does not need obedient elected officials.

It needs independent ones.

It does not need fewer public records.

It needs public records read carefully and presented completely.

It does not need immunity from lawsuits.

It needs leaders who understand that litigation carries public consequences.

And legitimate concerns about foreign interference should never be swept under the rug.

Investigate foreign influence.

Expose wrongdoing.

Protect American institutions.

But do not transform legitimate national-security concerns into an unlimited political license for guilt by association.

Do not ask Chinese Americans to repeatedly prove that being Chinese American is not evidence of allegiance to Beijing.

And do not demand context for yourself while denying it to everyone else.

Before Pointing Again, Read the Record

There is an old lesson in investigative reporting:

When somebody repeatedly points the public toward everyone else, eventually it becomes worthwhile to examine the person doing the pointing.

April Verlato’s latest email asks Arcadia to look suspiciously at a long list of relationships.

Perhaps residents should do something more useful.

Pull the original minutes.

Read the staff reports.

Compare what happened then with how it is characterized now.

Ask what was included.

Ask what was omitted.

Apply exactly the same evidentiary standard to everybody.

And then examine the larger political record.

There are politicians who build.

There are politicians who destroy.

Building requires patience, compromise, humility and measurable results.

Destruction requires considerably less.

Sometimes all it requires is another target.

So perhaps the most important question raised by April Verlato’s latest email is no longer:

“WHO WILL BE RAIDED NEXT?”

Perhaps it is this:

After all the accusations, political warfare, records battles, litigation and division, what has April Verlato actually built?

And if she intends to ask voters for greater public power someday, she, not the people she attacks, should have to answer that question.

Editor’s Note: This article is investigative commentary and analysis based on April Verlato’s August 2026 distributed communication, contemporaneous City of Arcadia records and publicly available materials. Questions raised in this editorial are not allegations of criminal conduct.