Follow the Money -The Transparency Test: Using Council Member Kwan’s Standard of Transparency

• Does Her Link to a Chinese Energy Company While She was on Council require More Disclosure?

• Why did Sharon Kwan not Support Fu’s Motion to Investigate her ties to a Failed Lawsuit Against the City of Arcadia?

• Is Sharon Kwan Twisting Facts on the Olympics Because she was not the Designated

• Representative to Work on the Olympics with Eileen Wang?

• What is the Difference Between Burton Brink and Sharon Kwan?

From an unexplained role inside the U.S. operations of a Chinese energy company to accusations against colleagues that an investigation did not substantiate, public records and social media admissions reveal a more complicated picture this election season.

~ By Arcadia’s Best News | Investigative Opinion

ARCADIA, Calif. — Follow the money. Investigate foreign connections. Demand accountability. Question City Hall.

Those principles have become recurring themes in Councilmember Sharon Kwan’s public

politics.

There is just one problem: the public record increasingly raises questions about whether Kwan applies those standards as aggressively to herself as she applies them to the people she opposes.

Behind the long-winded speeches during council meetings and social-media battles is a record that deserves closer examination.

Kwan has stated that elected officials that are connected in any way with China come out and be transparent. However, she fails to discuss that her relationship with China runs deeper than any other council member that she currently opposes.

In 2025, Kwan, while Mayor of Arcadia, became a director of U.S. subsidiaries controlled by a

major publicly traded Chinese energy company during an extraordinary corporate-control battle.

The Financial Question Kwan Has Not Disclosed to Residents – Her Close

Ties to a Chinese Energy Company.

On July 28, 2025, while Sharon was the Mayor of Arcadia, she became a director of Shandong Xinchao Energy Co., Ltd.

After former directors challenged their removals in Delaware Chancery Court, Kwan was

specifically named as a defendant alongside Zhejiang Benbao, Zhang and Qiao. Kwan demanded to remain as a Director of this Chinese company and subsequently sought a judicial declaration confirming that Kwan, Zhang and Qiao were the legitimate directors of Xinchao US Holdings, Surge Energy and Seewave Energy.

This places an Arcadia elected official directly inside the governance structure of American

companies connected to a major Chinese energy enterprise.

These questions take on greater significance now that Kwan herself is advocating heightened

scrutiny of foreign relationships.

Who asked Kwan to serve?

Why was she selected?

What was her relationship with the people making the appointments?

Was she compensated, and, if so, by whom and how much?

Did any compensation flow through SMK Insurance Agency or another Kwan-affiliated business?

Were all reportable economic interests disclosed?

Is Kwan now using her Director position for a Chinese energy company to influence or obtain bids with the City of Arcadia, other cities, or the U.S. Government?

Kwan’s Chinese Connection Runs Deep. Her Connections with China Also Involve the USC Hospital Foundation and Other Members.

According to an official securities disclosure from Shandong Xinchao Energy Co., Ltd. another

director that joined Sharon Kwan was Karen Dongyun Zhang.

Public records show Kwan and Karen Dongyun Zhang serving together on the USC Arcadia

Hospital Foundation Board by 2023, approximately two years before Kwan appeared in

Xinchao’s corporate structure, and while she was on the Arcadia City Council.

Did Sharon Kwan use her relationship on the USC Hospital Foundation and on City

Council to become a Director of a Chinese energy company?

Was she recruited to serve on a Chinese energy company through her relationship with Karen Dongyun Zhang?

The David Fu Allegations: The Accusation Was Explosive. The Finding Was

Different. Did the Censure of Kwan Occur Because of the Sexual Harassment

Allegation Against Fu and the City Manager? Why did Sharon Kwan not Vote

with Fu to Disclose Sharon Kwan’s relationship with the Underlying Lawsuit?

The discrepancy between political narrative and subsequent record becomes even clearer in

Kwan's conflict with Councilmember David Fu.

Kwan accused Fu and City Manager Dominic Lazzaretto of sexual harassment and

discrimination.

The allegations became part of an increasingly bitter political battle at City Hall.

The City commissioned an outside investigation by Reilly Workplace Investigations.

But according to published reporting on the outside investigation, the allegations were

unsubstantiated.

Kwan rejected that outcome, arguing that the investigation was incomplete or unfair.

Subsequently, a censure motion was passed by the City Council against Sharon Kwan. The City Council stated that the reasons for the censure motion was because Kwan refused to comply with the Brown Act, insulting veterans, accusing wrongdoing by Arcadia first responders, claiming there was fraud by city staff, and other issues. Sharon Kwan stated that the censure motion was in retaliation for filing claims against Fu and the City Manager.

Residents subsequently sued the City challenging the cenure.

The case was dismissed in July 2026 by the Court. The Court stated that the censure motion

against Sharon Kwan was valid. Published reporting placed Arcadia’s cost of defending the lawsuit at approximately $65,000 (this does not include the attorney’s fees if an appeal is filed).

Fu brought forth a motion that requested more investigation into Kwan’s ties to the lawsuit. It did not receive the requisite three votes to proceed. Sharon Kwan voted against it.

If Sharon Kwan wanted transparency why did she not vote for Fu’s motion?

Why has Sharon Kwan not wanted to disclose her ties to the failed lawsuit?

If Sharon Kwan was connected to the failed lawsuit, why did Sharon Kwan not recuse herself when discussion was made of the lawsuit in meetings with the City Attorney who was in charge of defending the lawsuit?

Will Sharon Kwan reimburse the City of Arcadia or the plaintiffs who will be liable for the legal fees of the City of Arcadia?

Oak Trees: How a Procedural Vote Became Political Ammunition

In 2023-2024, the City of Arcadia was designated to host an event for the Olympics. At that time, Sharon Kwan wanted to create a subcommittee and be the designated representative. She demanded Eileen Wang join her as both of them speak Chinese. The City Council chose Fu and Cao to be the designees to work with the Olympic committee on the event.

Recently, a firestorm has erupted. After multiple iterations of a plan that originally included

removal of over 200 trees, the newest proposal associated with preparations for the LA28 cross-country course involves removal of 34 trees.

Sharon Kwan made a motion asking the City of Arcadia to place an item on the agenda for the City Council to discuss the issue. Her motion did not receive the requisite votes. Kwan subsequently contended that Cheng, Fu, and Cao had refused to address the issue.

However, on August 27, 2026, a community meeting was held bringing together the City of Arcadia, Santa Anita Park, LA28, community stakeholders, council members, and residents to discuss the issue and hear directly from the parties involved.

Notably, despite publicly positioning herself as an advocate on the oak tree issue and calling for additional discussion, Kwan did not attend the August 27 community meeting. Her absence raises an obvious question: if the issue warranted another City Council discussion, why was she not present when residents, City representatives, Santa Anita Park, and LA28 came together specifically to address it?

Why did Sharon Kwan want to work with Eileen Wang although Kwan has contended that she knew that Eileen Wang was fraudulent for years?

Why did Sharon Kwan want a second meeting to occur when a community forum will already occur on August 27, 2026?

If the City Council has known for years that plans were in place to remove trees why has Sharon only spoken up about the tree issue now?

The Voters Will Decide in November. But is There a Real Difference?

The timing of these questions matters. District 2 is heading into a contested election between

incumbent Sharon Kwan and challenger Burton Brink.

Kwan has a record in office that voters can examine. Brink, as the challenger, should explain

specifically where he believes that record succeeded, where it failed, and what he would do

differently. Oddly, Brink recently admitted on social media that originally, he was not planning to run if Sharon Kwan was running and that he was “disappointed that Sharon chose to share our private conversation without context or the full story…In mid-July I offered to pull nomination papers purely as a strategic move to discourage other candidates from entering the race. I made it clear at that time that I had no intention of actually filing them unless Sharon decided not to run.

She thanked me, called it the best strategy, and expressed appreciation.”

But subsequently, he decided that if only Sharon and Burton were running that voters should

have a “choice on the ballot.”

If Brink agrees with Kwan on major controversies, residents deserve to know that. If he

disagrees, he should identify those differences clearly rather than allowing political personalities to substitute for policy.

District 2 voters should therefore press both candidates on specifics:

Where do they differ on City governance?

If Sharon Kwan did not want to seek re-election what changed?

If Burton Brink merely wanted to be a placeholder to scare off candidates, is he serious about serving or is his candidacy merely a political stunt to keep Sharon Kwan in office?

Does Burton Brink have any philosophical differences with Sharon Kwan?

What would Burton Brink do differently from Sharon Kwan?

Does Burton Brink stand by Sharon Kwan that stated that Michael Cao is not a real veteran?

Does he support Kwan advocating against Arcadia Police officers and Firefighters?

Does Burton Brink believe the censure motion was appropriate?

Does Burton Brink believe that Fu and the City Manager sexually harassed Sharon Kwan?

Should Sharon Kwan be responsible for defense of the lawsuit filed against the City of Arcadia regarding Sharon Kwan’s censure?

Should the City of Arcadia reject the plans by the Olympics for the city to represent America in 2028?

Should homeless shelters be built in the City of Arcadia?

Does Burton Brink believe that there has been a deficit in the City’s budget for the past 4 years?

How will Burton Brink deal with the acrimony he currently sees on the City Council?

Does Brink believe that the City Council should have discussed the Eileen Wang issue in March 2026 when Sharon Kwan brought up the motion although the FBI was already engaged in an active investigation?

An election should provide more than competing slogans. It should force competing candidates to explain their records, their judgment and their differences.

If Kwan and Brink want the same seat, District 2 residents deserve more than “we mostly agree.” They deserve to know where each candidate draws the line, and whether either is prepared to hold themselves to the same standards they demand from everyone else.