Home Contra Costa County Contra Costa Community College District Trustee Accused of Living Outside His District

Contra Costa Community College District Trustee Accused of Living Outside His District

by ECT

The Contra Costa County Community College District confirmed this week that one of its trustees, John T. Nejedly, was living outside of not only his District, but outside county limits.

Nejedly, who is currently being labeled as “in-transit” has been accused of living outside Contra Costa County since the late spring of 2015 in the area of Johnsville, CA, which is north of Lake Tahoe. He moved after the sale of his home and cited personal reasons.

Nejedly called the issue of his residence “erroneous” and “politically motivated” after he endorsed a candidate for county supervisor.

“For personal reasons, I have sold my house and have been staying with friends and in hotels,” explained Nejedly. “In hindsight, I should have leased a place because its cost me a lot of money, but I am in the District during the week.”

He further explained that his resources were currently tied up but that he is looking for a place to buy or lease noting he nearly bought a home in Walnut Creek before he realized it was outside his District and killed the purchase.

“I am in a holding pattern right now. I have a place up north that I enjoy on weekends, but I can’t live up there and making a living, so I am down here all week working,” explained Nejedly.

Citing that this was a “Board Issue”, Chancellor Helen Benjamin directed all questions to Board President Vicki Gordon. Gordon confirmed she spoke to Nejedly who stated he had been living outside his district and collecting his mail in Walnut Creek at his office.

According to Gordon, she has looked through their board policies and have found nothing that would apply to this special circumstance.

“Community college board members do need to legally reside in the trustee area in which they are elected.  As the Board President and one of John’s colleagues on the Board, I am aware that he is currently physically residing outside the District,” said Gordon. “My understanding is that the law allows a board member to maintain his former legal residence until he acquires a new permanent legal residence.”

Gordon further explained that Nejedly indicated to her that his current living situation is temporary and that he fully intends to relocate within his trustee area as soon as possible and make that his new permanent home and legal residence–which makes this technically legal under the rules of State.

Board Vice President Greg Enholm, who represents most of East Contra Costa in the District stated he has been aware of the residency issue of Nejedly for nearly six-months but they are not a law enforcement agency and could not take any action. Instead, that was up to the County District Attorney or State Attorney General to determine.

“There is no clear violation of the state law or board policy,” stated Enholm. “My hope that individuals or other appropriate legal authorities would rectify the situation and make it clear on the amount of time someone can be in-transit. Or, try and make this a test case.”

Enholm stated that he has read the Attorney General decision and under the decision, Nejedly is not breaking the law, but noted the only thing that was missing to make the law more clear was a “timeline” someone can be in-transit.

“If an elected official is clearly in transition from one domicile to another, that is fine. That is what Nejedly says he is doing. He is going through a divorce and sold his home. So he is covered by that Attorney General opinion. But we as a board could approve a different policy, a stricter policy,” explained Enholm.

Enholm highlighted that he would be in favor of the Board considering a stricter policy of board residency in the future but still noted they would need a legal decision of some sort to make a policy stick.

When asked if the Board will take action under these circumstances, Gordon stated that would fall on the courts or the attorney generals office only after a complaint by someone residing in his district.

“This is not an issue which has been considered at the Board level.  My understanding is that the Board doesn’t have the authority to make a determination one way or the other on this kind of issue and that it is a matter left to the courts,” said Gordon.

Contra Costa Community College Trustees make $700 per month in stipends, but cover their own health insurance.

John T. Nejedly’s represents District IV which covers portions of Antioch, Brentwood along with Clayton Danville, San Ramon.

You may also like

27 comments

Jack Jan 21, 2016 - 12:24 pm

Something stinks here. You either live in the district or you don’t. If he doesn’t, he should be out of a seat. Staying in hotels and with friends, sounds like he is homeless.

Shame on Enholm for not reporting this or bringing ti to the attention of others 6 months ago. He is just as guilty.

Julio Jan 21, 2016 - 12:36 pm

But they say in the article it is not a requirement to live in the district. Believe me Mary Piepho would be the first one to report him. He is her brother and they don’t get along at all.

Jennifer Jan 21, 2016 - 2:03 pm

I’m happily married (and have never been divorced), but if he’s going through a divorce, cut the guy some slack. If he had to sell his home, he had to sell his home. People’s lives change. And if it’s not a requirement to live in the district, these complainers need to get a life. We don’t live in a perfect world. Rigid busybodies are annoying. Focus on your own life, and stay out of the personal lives of others.

EastCountyToday Jan 21, 2016 - 2:05 pm

Just to clarify… it IS a requirement to live in ones district.

Transition Jan 21, 2016 - 5:25 pm

He lived in the district when he was elected. Now he is in transition. It doesn’t sound nefarious to me. Let the man get through this transition in his life and serve his duly elected duty as he goes.

Jennifer Jan 21, 2016 - 2:55 pm

Thank you for the clarification. “If the law allows a board member to maintain his former legal residence until he acquires a new permanent legal residence,” it doesn’t sound like he’s breaking the law. That was my point. Buying a new house takes time.

Common Sense Jan 21, 2016 - 4:08 pm

@Jennifer, use your head. The law requires them to live in the District. He is skirting the law on a technicality because the AG never gave a timeline. This would be like me being elected to office and then moving out of the area but staying with friends & living in motels. You either live there or you do not. Seems to me the law should be fixed and Greg Enholm is correct that this should be the test case. Sad that people like Nejedly and Belle are elected to office.

Libby Jan 22, 2016 - 1:40 pm

Thanks common sense! Wish there was more of you to go around.

How utterly embarrassing for the college district.

Yes it's a regular thing Jan 21, 2016 - 5:23 pm

Typical Nejedly move. They are all the same.

Jennifer Jan 21, 2016 - 5:44 pm

I’m not saying I agree with what he’s doing. He is skirting the law on a technicality. But if he’s not breaking the law, he’s not breaking the law. It’s time to re-write the law, or leave the guy alone. I agree you either live there or you don’t. Which means you should understand he’s either breaking the law or he isn’t. AND HE ISN’T! What part of he’s not breaking the law don’t you understand? Until you fix the law, you don’t have a valid argument. You’re arguing illogically. Fix the law (with a timeline), or leave him alone. As far as who we elect… they’re politicians.

legal beagle Jan 21, 2016 - 8:24 pm

Jennifer, you obviously don’t understand the law. You cannot live outside the district and hold a seat. It’s really clear. Just because the district members and chan c Eller don’t know the law the AG and the DA do. There is No exceptions for what they are calling “transition”. Expect more to come.

Tom Jan 22, 2016 - 7:51 am

I agree with Jennifer and Transition. They’re correct. Unless there is a time limit, he’s within the law.

Another Jan 22, 2016 - 3:12 pm

A Google search turned up all kinds of interesting information on John JT Nejedly. Wow, what an eye opener. It says his family and late father distanced themselves from this character.

He is going by John instead of JT to appear to ride on his father’s good name.

It’s hard to believe that anyone voted for him wherever he lives.

Jennifer Jan 22, 2016 - 4:13 pm

He’s a criminal defense lawyer and President of the Board. Who knows if the board is protecting him. Until the law is changed, they’re not going to do anything to him. Do you really think they’re going to take this to court?

As far as his family, he was disinherited. He had alcohol and drug problems.

Yes, I understand you have to live in the district (when elected), and no, I don’t care where he’s currently living. Let the board worry about it.

If you’re that worried about it personally… file a complaint.

TJ Jan 22, 2016 - 7:33 pm

Consider it filed.

Carolyn Phinney Jan 22, 2016 - 6:18 pm

It seems that John Nejedly may be legally “homeless” and could choose the street corner near where he spends most nights as his legal address for voting and residence, like other homeless citizens may do.

Another Jan 22, 2016 - 8:05 pm

Jennifer I’m not quite sure where your comments are coming from. Did you not read the article?

Citing that this was a “Board Issue”, Chancellor Helen Benjamin directed all questions to Board President Vicki Gordon. Gordon confirmed she spoke to Nejedly who stated he had been living outside his district and collecting his mail in Walnut Creek at his office.

Nejedly is not the board President, not even the Vice President. Seems to me that by reading the article this is very much a board issue. They are voted in to serve the community they live in are they not?

The lawyer thing has me scratching my head. The Google search took me to a website for his business. Not so convincing……

Jennifer Jan 22, 2016 - 9:06 pm

Google “Law Offices of John T. Nejedly…Pleasanton CA.” If you’re not aware of the lawyers in the Nejedly family, you don’t know the family history. I think he was the President of the Board at one time… not currently.

This is a board issue… and I’m not a member of the board.

Yes, I did read the article. For the last time, here’s the quote I agree with.

“There is no clear violation of the state law or board policy,” stated Enholm. If people here (or anywhere else) can’t understand that, you’re not very bright. A few people here seem to understand this, but we’re in the minority. Perhaps well educated people.

Have a nice evening.

Another Jan 22, 2016 - 11:24 pm

Jennifer it states that Nejedly has been picking up his mail at his office in Walnut Creek. Not exactly Pleasanton and not even in the same County! You should get your story straight. I did Google his law practice and read the very few and extremely dated reviews. Are you sure you meant to direct attention to that?

None of what you say makes any sense, it just raises more issues. And speaking of attorneys, JT is nothing like his father the late senator and district attorney. His reputation is well known.

You wouldn’t be JT Nejedly would you? You seem to think you know a lot about him. Your not doing great him any favors you know.

Oh and by the way, it wasn’t all that bright for Mr. Enholm to suggest that concerned constituents or the media may not be that bright. Thanks for reposting and reminding us that he is in the minority.

Jennifer Jan 23, 2016 - 8:22 am

His listing online is “John T. Nejedly Pleasanton, CA.” You can google it. It’s on Stoneridge Rd. The article states his office in Walnut Creek, but you don’t seem to believe he’s an attorney. I was giving you a reference you could VERIFY ONLINE.

I don’t know him, but my husband does. My name is Jennifer, not John.

Mr. Enholm didn’t suggest people weren’t very bright. I did. And I was referring to my opinion (and the few who agree with me) as the minority opinion on ECT. It has nothing to do with Mr. Enholm. The quote “there is no clear violation of the state law or board policy” is Enholm’s statement.

If you can’t comprehend this, you need to go back to school.

Have a great weekend.

Another Jan 24, 2016 - 2:13 pm

Jen, following your direction I landed on a yelp page.

7 reviews in total. Not many for a practicing lawyer.

2 of them show up as “not recommended”.

What stood out were 2 others, which supposedly were written by two different people at 2 different times…months apart…but are exactly the same word for word.

What are the odds?

Tom Jan 23, 2016 - 11:42 am

Why do people care so much about what he is doing? Like the article states, “If an elected official is clearly in transition from one domicile to another, that is fine. That is what Nejedly says he is doing. He is going through a divorce and sold his home. So he is covered by that Attorney General opinion.”

What Nejedly is doing is 100% fine since no timeline is laid out in the law.

And all you saying the man is homeless, did you not read where he has a place up North?

You all need to worry about your own lives a little bit more.

Tom Jan 23, 2016 - 11:57 am

Why you all care so much? The article clearly states, “If an elected official is clearly in transition from one domicile to another, that is fine. That is what Nejedly says he is doing. He is going through a divorce and sold his home. So he is covered by that Attorney General opinion.”

What Nejedly is doing is 100% fine as there is no timeline is laid out in the law.

And you people saying he is homeless, did you not read that he owns up a home up North?

You all need to worry about your own lives a little bit more. Arguing about someone’s $700 a month job on your Friday night is seriously sad.

Another Jan 23, 2016 - 12:22 pm

Jeninifer actually Mr. Enholm was quoted in this very article as saying it. For whatever reason (possibly embarrasement) it has now been removed.

You repeatedly demonstrate a serious problem with reading comprehension. There are plenty of adult courses available within the community clege district that offer remedial education. I do think it is something you should consider. If you sign up quickly, your friend JT Nejedly might still be able to pull some strings for you.

Jennifer Jan 23, 2016 - 1:45 pm

Tom, I totally agree. The only reason I left my opinions is because he’s a friend of my husband’s. Thank goodness I’m not the only one who can read the article correctly. I will keep in mind the difference in education levels. Not everybody is well educated. There are a few of us who understand the article correctly.

Lisa Jan 24, 2016 - 1:26 am

Nejedly’s elder son sues for share of inheritance

By Lisa Vorderbrueggen, MEDIANEWS STAFF

Saturday, July 21, 2007 – 11:38 p.m.

One of Contra Costa County’s most prominent political families is embroiled in an ugly dispute over the estate of its patriarch, the late state Sen. John A. Nejedly, as the elder son blames his siblings for his disinheritance and details emerge of the son’s struggles with drug addiction.

In court documents, the senator’s elder son, John T. Nejedly, an elected trustee of the Contra Costa Community College District, alleges that his father disinherited him under the influence of painkillers and hostile siblings.

John T. points the blame at his sister, Contra Costa Supervisor Mary Nejedly Piepho, and his brother, Central Contra Costa Sanitary District member James Nejedly. He claims his siblings intentionally isolated him from his father, who died at 91 on Sept. 19, 2006, and “conducted a campaign of poisoning” his father’s views against him starting in 2002.

He alleges that his father, at age 90, was suffering memory problems and delusional episodes at the time of his most recent amendment to the trust, a document that spells out how the senator wished to distribute his property after his death. John T. also maintains that the senator was addicted to painkillers, the result of a lifetime battle with backpain.

“As a result of (the) medication and physical and mental infirmities, (he) was easily influenced and controlled by (Jim and Mary) and was substantially unable to resist fraud and undue influence,” John T. wrote in court documents filed in Contra Costa Superior Court in Martinez.

Mary Piepho and Jim Nejedly declined to comment on the allegations, citing ongoing litigation.

But they both emphasized that they will vigorously protect their father’s wishes.

“We will try our best to protect his name and his legacy, which was to do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” Piepho said. “He died a man of honor, and we will fight to protect that.”

While John T. paints a picture of conniving siblings and a feeble father, he had no first-hand knowledge of his father’s state because the two had not spoken in the two years prior to the senator’s death. Indeed, others dispute the notion that the senator was mentally incapacitated or easily manipulated.

The senator “knew precisely what he was doing,” said longtime family friend JoAnn Hanna, who has known the Nejedly children all their lives.

Hanna recalled the senator confiding in her often about his problems with John T., describing her friend as heartbroken and disillusioned by his son’s behavior. She recently watched a videotape the senator made before his death, in which he explained in painful detail his rationale behind the disinheritance.

“He knew this (legal challenge) was coming and he knew how to fix it by making this tape and explaining what (John T.) had done, which was outrageous behavior,” she said. “(John T.) should be grateful for what his father gave him over the years.”

Others outside the family close to Nejedly say he remained mentally alert into the final days before his death, appearing at community events, giving speeches and sending letters on state water issues.

“His body was failing him and he had issues with pain, but he was definitely not infirm,” said Seth Adams with Save Mount Diablo.

Legal wrangling over a patriarch’s estate often exposes hidden rifts, and the Nejedly lawsuit offers a glimpse into a family’s strained relationships and its elder son’s fall from his father’s grace.

The late senator, who spent most of his adult life in public service, had only one major asset to give to his children after his death.

In 1951 he purchased 13 acres on Montecillo Drive, a wooded, Walnut Creek enclave near Tice Valley Boulevard. He would later build a house and a two-bedroom cottage on the property.

The initial 1998 trust specified that Jim would receive the house and most of the land while the other two siblings would each receive 11/2-acre parcels or $75,000 each. If Jim sold the land, the proceeds would be divided equally among them.

Nejedly amended the trust in 2003 and increased the payments to John T. and Mary to $250,000 and $300,000, respectively. Nejedly sought to maintain the rural nature of his property and stipulated that his heirs could not carve it into more than three parcels.

Then, the relationship between John T. and his family spiraled downward, and the senator, known for his dedication to his children, cut his elder son out of the trust in a November 2004 amendment, which he reaffirmed in February 2005.

The senator shifted John T.’s share to his grandchildren, of which there were eight by the time of his death, including John T.’s three children.

In addition to what the senator characterized as John T’s irresponsible acts, such as his failure to pay his debts, the senator wrote that he wanted to reward Mary, who had not received as many gifts as her brothers.

And he sought to repay Jim and his wife, Jaine, whom the senator said maintained the estate and provided personal services so that the aging man could stay in his home rather than in a nursing facility.

He also wrote that Jim had demonstrated a willingness to preserve the senator’s beloved Montecillo property.

Perhaps in anticipation of a legal challenge, the late senator and former district attorney addressed his decision to disinherit his eldest child in the trust.

“John has not acted responsibly and has not met the conditions regarding the gifts he previously received, nor has he participated to any significant degree in maintaining the (Montecillo) property nor demonstrated the willingness or ability to further (my) intentions concerning the property,” the senator wrote.

In his court challenge, John T. called his father’s characterizations false.

Rather, John T. said, the rift between him and his father began widening in late 2002 when Jim and Mary “made repeated false assertions” to their father that his elder son was using “alcohol and drugs, that he could not be trusted, that he was a danger to himself, and that he had abandoned his wife and children.”

Until that point, he and his father were close, John T. wrote. Earlier in 2002, the senator expressed joy that his son had stopped drinking and was enrolled in law school.

But in late September 2004, John T. wrote, his father had become “increasingly hostile” and told his son one evening that “he and his family were no longer welcome at his home.”

While John T. accused his siblings of making false accusations of his drug use and family problems, John T. admitted during an interview Friday that he has struggled with addiction since high school and has had marital problems.

John T. said his drug use had escalated in 2000, resulting in a drunken-driving conviction and separation from his wife, Kathleen.

In documents filed in Superior Court in December 2000, Kathleen sought to bar unsupervised visitation between her husband and their three young children.

The couple has reconciled. But, at the time, Kathleen provided the court written details of several disturbing incidents, including her husband’s cocaine and methamphetamine habits dating to 1994, the year he was elected to the Community College Board.

She also referenced an incident in which he allegedly pinned down a college student and kissed her in a Washington, D.C., hotel room, according to a police report.

The young woman filed the report two weeks after the incident but no criminal charges were pursued. She also filed a complaint with the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office, which resulted in a requirement that John T. attend a sexual harassment training class.

John T. conceded Friday that some of what the court documents from the divorce case detail was true, but he also said some of it was the product of “an attorney’s embellishment.”

Kathleen called it “the hardest time of my life,” but John T. and his wife say he has been sober for six years now.

“J.T. (John T.) has turned himself around,” his wife said Friday. “You would think that the family would be so proud of their brother and be grateful that he is here to raise his kids.”

Instead, John T. says, his siblings leveraged his personal troubles in their quest to discredit him, an effort he said began when he questioned the 1998 trust, which awarded Jim control of the property.

John T. said he tried to talk to his father about the trust.

“He didn’t know what people were doing with his money and how they were taking advantage of him,” John T. said. “But it’s not something that I thought my dad, who was my best friend, needed to deal with in the last couple of years of his life.”

John T. said he still hopes for an amicable out-of-court settlement with his siblings, although he said he knows it would result in the sale of the property, something his father opposed.

“I’m trying to give my siblings every opportunity to make it right,” John T. said.

A hearing is set for Aug. 9 in Superior Court in Martinez on the question of whether John T.’s challenge to the validity of his father’s trust amendments constitute a violation of its no-contest clause.

The clause states that those who challenge the terms of the trust forfeit their shares and those of their children.

Reporter Sandy Kleffman contributed to this story.

Contact Lisa Vorderbrueggen at (925) 945-4773 [email protected].

observation Jan 24, 2016 - 11:51 am

Wow, that’s the guy Tom & Jennifer are trying to defend? Good luck with that you two.

I haven’t seen anyone including the college district produce a legal document which grants any elected official a variance or allows a transition period. There has been only opinions stated by unqualified individuals trying to provide cover.

It’s time to fish or cut bait.

Comments are closed.