Two Rossmoor seats are up in November. Neither incumbent has filed.

Two of the five seats on the Rossmoor Community Services District board are up on November 3. They are the seats held by Jo Shade and Michael Maynard, who won them together in 2022.

Whether either of them defends that seat is not yet settled. County filing closes at 5 p.m. Friday, August 7, and as of the Registrar of Voters' candidate log printed at 5:54 p.m. on August 3, neither incumbent had filed and no challenger had either.¹

What is settled is the record. Rossmoor's directors are elected at large and run a budget of roughly $2.2 million covering the parks, the street lights, the parkway trees and the street sweeping.² Over the past two years that board replaced its general manager after a year of 3-2 votes, adopted a budget neither incumbent would support, banned e-bikes from the parks, and lost a fourth member to resignation.

What the filing log actually shows

The Registrar's log lists the Rossmoor contest as two seats with one candidate and zero qualified candidates.¹

Shade took out papers on July 28. The log records her declaration of candidacy, candidate statement and ballot designation worksheet as issued that day, and her online application as submitted, with every corresponding filed field blank.¹ Taking out papers is not the same as filing them. Maynard did not appear as a candidate at all, only as a listed incumbent.

The log also flags this contest as one that goes into extension. That applies where an eligible incumbent does not file, and it reopens filing for five more days, until Wednesday, August 12, for candidates other than that incumbent.¹ Whether it applies here depends on what Shade and Maynard do before Friday.

Neither has raised money in any meaningful sense. Shade's only campaign finance record in Orange County's system is a short-form Form 470 from her 2022 race, the filing used by candidates who certify they will not raise or spend $2,000. Maynard filed the same short form in 2012 and 2016. Neither has a campaign committee, and neither had filed anything for 2026 when we checked.

How the two seats were won in 2022

The certified statement of vote for November 8, 2022 gives Maynard 2,058 votes, Shade 1,741, sitting director Jeffrey Rips 1,707 and Carol Churchill 1,580. Two seats were open and 5,540 of 7,956 registered voters returned a ballot, a turnout of 69.6 percent.³

The gap between Shade and Rips was 34 votes. That is the margin that removed an incumbent.

Maynard's history on the board is longer and less linear. He served through most of the 2010s, including several terms as president, then lost his seat in November 2020 with 2,647 votes, finishing fourth in a three-seat race.⁴ He returned two years later as the top vote-getter.

The three directors elected in 2024 are not affected by this year's contest: Nathan Searles with 3,741 votes, Tony DeMarco with 3,059 and Mary Ann Remnet with 2,885, ahead of Konya Vivanti's 2,029. Turnout that November was 87.6 percent.⁵

The general manager, and a year of 3-2 votes

Longtime general manager Joe Mendoza told the board privately in the fall of 2024 that he intended to step down. It did not become public until around November 1, and the delay drew written complaints from residents who said the board had kept a significant staffing change to itself.

What followed took most of a year. In March 2025 the board voted 3-2 to convert Mendoza to an hourly interim arrangement at $55 an hour with no fixed end date, with Shade and Remnet opposed. In April it voted 3-2 to bring in Sharon Landers, the former Carson city manager, as interim general manager, with Shade in the majority and Maynard not. In May it hired Landers permanently, 3-2, at a base salary of about $140,000.⁶ The district's own salary schedule had carried the general manager position at $92,500 in the 2024-25 budget.²

Residents objected, and so did Orange County Supervisor Janet Nguyen. Shade defended the decision, and was reported saying that finding someone of that caliber to work for Mendoza's salary was a fantasy.⁶

The argument returned that November, when the board took up the length of Landers' contract. Landers had been offered two years and countered asking for five. DeMarco moved to waive attorney-client privilege so the terms could be argued in open session rather than behind closed doors; Maynard seconded him, and the board agreed 5-0.⁷

Then the positions separated. DeMarco said the district cannot afford a city manager's salary and that the general manager's pay was already substantial. Remnet objected that the comparison was unfair and argued the district needed both a fiscal plan and what the minutes call visionary leadership. Shade said she fully supported Remnet's remarks.⁷

Maynard's position was more particular than a straight no. He proposed replacing the five-year term with an evergreen clause, which is what ended up in the agreement. The minutes record that the value of the executive package exceeded his comfort level, but that he described Landers as smart and professional and emphasized the value she brings. Remnet then moved to approve the contract with Maynard's evergreen change in it, Shade seconded, and it passed 3-2 with Maynard and DeMarco voting no.⁷

The same meeting produced a clean audit. Auditors reported an unmodified opinion on the 2024-25 books with no significant material weaknesses, and the board accepted it 5-0.⁷

The budget both incumbents declined to back

The clearest record of how these two directors treat money is the August 12, 2025 meeting, where the board adopted the 2025-26 budget.⁸

The draft in front of them projected a surplus of about $10,500 on roughly $2.27 million in revenue. DeMarco said he was uncomfortable with a fund balance that thin and wanted the district to be more conservative. Maynard agreed and said the district should be budgeting for needs, not necessarily wants. He proposed removing the Shakespeare program, opposed spending on a salary survey, and said he wanted the budget brought down by $10,000 to $15,000 to hold a bigger buffer. Shade agreed with DeMarco's assessment and asked him what he would cut.⁸

Shade then moved to cut the community events line from $108,000 to $98,000. No one seconded it. The motion died.⁸

DeMarco moved instead to cut that line to $90,000, a reduction of $18,000. Maynard seconded. It carried 3-1-1: Remnet, DeMarco and Searles in favor, Shade opposed, Maynard abstaining. The budget resolution itself then passed on the identical split.⁸

So the board approved a deeper cut than the one Shade proposed, and Shade voted against it. Maynard, who had asked for a cut in that range, declined to vote either way.

The fight was also narrower than it sounded. The adopted budget shows community events at $90,000 against $76,650 the year before.² The cut trimmed a proposed increase; the line still went up.

None of it was a solvency argument. The district's reserve policy sets a floor of $500,000,² and the audited general fund balance stood at $2,174,450 on June 30, 2025, of which $2,122,870 was unassigned.⁹ What the board was arguing about was the size of the annual cushion.

January's officer vote

The annual reorganization on January 13, 2026 is the plainest available measure of where each director stands with the others.¹⁰

DeMarco nominated Maynard for president. The nomination died for lack of a second. Remnet nominated Shade, Searles seconded. Maynard nominated DeMarco. That nomination also died for lack of a second. Shade was elected president 4-1, with Maynard the only vote against.¹⁰

For first vice president, Shade nominated Searles and Remnet seconded. DeMarco nominated Maynard again, and again no one seconded. Searles was elected 4-1, Maynard again voting no. For second vice president, Remnet nominated DeMarco and Shade seconded him. DeMarco was elected 5-0, Maynard included.¹⁰

They do agree on some things. Both voted for the ordinance restricting e-bikes in district parks, introduced 5-0 in November 2025, with Maynard saying he completely agreed on prohibiting e-bikes while favoring conventional bicycles and push scooters.⁷

What the district does not control

Voters should know what is not on this board's ledger.

Rossmoor is unincorporated county territory, so it does not buy its own policing. There is no line for the Sheriff's Department, patrol services or law enforcement anywhere in the adopted budgets for 2024-25 or 2025-26.² Deputies come from the county's North Patrol as a general county service. The board hears presentations from Sheriff's captains and from the CHP, and directors ask about crime statistics, e-bike enforcement and patrol coverage, but they are not voting on a policing contract and cannot buy more of it by adjusting the district budget.

What the district does control is smaller and more concrete. It levies a street lighting assessment, budgeted to rise from $468,300 in 2024-25 to $486,500 in 2025-26.² It runs Rush Park and Rossmoor Park, where a long-delayed shade canopy was finished with a ribbon-cutting in February 2026. It maintains the parkway trees, though the county owns them and the district can only recommend removal. In March 2026 the board reviewed its first rolling five-year capital plan, about $975,900 of work, to be paid from a newly created capital reserve plus grants.

Sewers belong to a separate agency with its own elected board, the Rossmoor/Los Alamitos Area Sewer District, which has its own two seats on this year's ballot.

The seat filled without an election

Mary Ann Remnet resigned effective July 12, 2026. Her term runs to December 2028, so the seat is not before voters. The board took letters of interest through July 31 and is scheduled to interview candidates at its August 11 meeting.¹¹

Whoever wins in November will join a board whose fifth member was chosen by the four sitting directors rather than by an election, and the 3-2 alignment that decided the general manager's contract no longer exists in the same form.

The district's own board page had not been updated to reflect either the resignation or the January officer election when we checked on August 4. It still lists Searles as president and Shade as second vice president.¹²

A county review is coming

Orange County LAFCO has scheduled a municipal service review covering Rossmoor for the 2026-27 fiscal year, grouped with Los Alamitos, Seal Beach and neighboring agencies. It would be the first such review of the district since 2005. The published scope includes shared services, economies of scale and, in LAFCO's phrasing, impediments involving consolidation of agencies.¹³

That is a routine periodic review and not a proposal to do anything. It is also the venue where questions about whether Rossmoor's governing arrangement still makes sense would surface first. Rossmoor voters last considered cityhood in November 2008 and rejected it, 72 percent to 28 percent.

Disclosure: the publisher of The Los Al Ledger also operates incorporaterossmoor.com, a site that advocates for Rossmoor to incorporate as a city. That is a position, and it is disclosed here because this section touches it. See our ownership page.

How we checked this

Vote totals come from the Registrar of Voters' certified statements of vote, read directly rather than from news summaries. Filing status comes from the Registrar's candidate log, which is a running snapshot and was current to the evening of August 3, with four days of filing still to run. We will publish the final field once filing closes and the Registrar certifies who qualified.

Votes and quotations from board meetings come from the district's approved minutes. Where published accounts and the minutes disagree, we used the minutes. One case matters: local coverage reported the 2025-26 budget passing 4-1-0 and credited the proposal to cut community events to $98,000 to President Searles. The minutes record the resolution passing 3-1-1, and record the $98,000 motion as Shade's, dying for want of a second.

Three things remain open. We have asked the Registrar whether the extension applies to this contest and under what condition. We have asked the district for the adopted 2026-27 budget totals, which its minutes do not reproduce. And we have asked Jo Shade and Michael Maynard whether they intend to file, what they would change about the budget, and how they would describe the board's divisions. This story will be updated with their answers, and will say so if either declines.

Sources

1. Orange County Registrar of Voters, "Contest/Candidate Proof List," General Election 11/3/2026, contest 6021, printed 8/3/2026 5:54 p.m. ocvote.gov ↩
2. Rossmoor Community Services District, adopted budget, fiscal year 2025-2026, summary schedule, salary plan and department detail. ↩
3. Orange County Registrar of Voters, certified statement of vote, November 8, 2022, Rossmoor Community Services District Director, pp. 1862-1864. ↩
4. Orange County Registrar of Voters, certified statement of vote, November 3, 2020, p. 1173. ↩
5. Orange County Registrar of Voters, certified statement of vote, November 5, 2024, pp. 1249-1252. ↩
6. The Event News Enterprise, "Rossmoor hires Sharon Landers as replacement for longtime general manager," May 22, 2025. ↩
7. Rossmoor Community Services District, board minutes, November 13, 2025, items G-1, G-2 and G-4. ↩
8. Rossmoor Community Services District, board minutes, August 12, 2025, public hearing on the 2025-2026 final budget and Resolution No. 25-08-12-01. ↩
9. Rossmoor Community Services District, auditor's report for the year ended June 30, 2025, governmental funds balance sheet. ↩
10. Rossmoor Community Services District, board minutes, January 13, 2026, election of officers. ↩
11. Sun Newspapers, "Rossmoor dir. resigns, applications being accepted to fill vacancy," July 23, 2026. ↩
12. Rossmoor Community Services District, board of directors, retrieved August 4, 2026. ↩
13. Orange County LAFCO, municipal service review and sphere of influence schedule, June 2026. ↩