“He’s not a perfect man’: SMCCCD corruption case heads to jury after two days of closing arguments

REDWOOD CITY — A jury is now considering whether the former chancellor of the San Mateo Community College District is guilty of a slew of corruption charges — with the prosecution focusing on what they called a pattern of purposeful fraud in both his public and private lives, while the defense argued that the case against him is built on half-truths and did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt any but one charge.

Ronald Galatolo faces 27 charges of embezzlement, tax code violations, conflict of interest, perjury and misuse of public funds for actions he allegedly took in both his private life and in his capacity as a public official. Prosecutors allege that he accepted a range of gifts — from Super Bowl tickets and a $350 pen, to helicopter trips in the Himalayas and first-class plane tickets to Dubai — and in exchange redirected lucrative district construction contracts to the firms of his friends.

The defense maintains that Galatolo reciprocated the gifts he received from friends — many of which fell under exceptions to the reporting rules — and that he had no role in giving the contracts to his friend’s firms.

Galatolo was indicted by a grand jury in 2024 following delays in a preliminary hearing, when the judge would consider whether evidence is strong enough to go forward. The trial, which began in October, is being overseen by San Mateo County Superior Court Judge Leland Davis III. Closing arguments began Tuesday and lasted through Wednesday morning, when the case was handed off to the jurors for deliberations.

Joseph Cannon, deputy district attorney for San Mateo County, emphasized to the jury that the former chancellor’s actions “established a pattern of fraud” that was conducted for his benefit and violated the expectation that public officials “be truthful in their statements.”

“ ’It’s good to be king’ — that’s the defendant’s catch phrase,” Cannon said. “This is a case about private corruption, public corruption, public integrity. We hold public officials to a high standard. … Why? Because they are entrusted with, among other things, public funds.”

Galatolo’s defense attorney, Charles J. Smith III, painted him as a loyal employee who transformed SMCCCD through successful construction projects and policies. He maintained that the prosecution created a “false narrative” against Galatolo by showing the jury “flashy pictures” and “consistently only presenting part of the truth.” He also asserted that a jury cannot convict a public figure on “less certain proof” than any other person.

“Our law protects all of us,” he said. The prosecutor can “preach all he wants about ethics and values,” but the remedy for a lack of ethics and values is “to get rid of them, not put them in jail and convict them of crimes.”

Galatolo worked as the district’s chancellor from 2001 to 2019, where he was paid more than $400,000 per year. He held the position of chancellor emeritus for two years before his termination. The investigation into his actions began after a whistleblower complaint in 2019.

The perjury charges primarily relate to Galatolo’s alleged failure to claim gifts given from construction firms on his mandated disclosures, which required any gifts over $50 to be declared and had annual limits of $400 to $490 from a single source, Cannon said.

“We’re talking about transparency here,” Cannon said. “The public has a right to know that public officials are free from outside influence.”

Smith maintained many of the gifts cited by Cannon fell under exceptions to the disclosure rules, including those governing charity event tickets and gifts for birthdays or holidays. Most others, he added, were reciprocated among friends — with the exception of around $200 per year, based on the defense’s calculations.

Cannon acknowledged that gifts can be reciprocated, but added that a single gift still cannot be over the annual limit.

Cannon also maintained that Galatolo redirected construction contracts for Cañada College’s solar project and Building 23 to the firms of his friends, citing, among other evidence, a congratulatory text message sent from Galatolo to a friend at one of the firms and maintaining that his receipt of gifts amounted to an “ongoing financial interest.” Galatolo allegedly instructed members of the selection committee to change their scores to rank his firm of choice highest.

Smith argued that gifts do not constitute a financial interest, and that there is “no evidence to prove that Ronald Galatolo ever had a proprietary interest” in or income from the two firms he is accused of giving contracts to. He also added that the firms had longstanding relationships with the district, and that only one person testified that Galatolo contacted them with a preference about the contract. Other testimony on that allegation was “secondhand heresay,” he said.

“Every penny authorized to be spent on Cañada Solar was spent on Cañada Solar,” Smith added.

Cannon added that there does not have to be loss or fraud in order for Galatolo to be convicted of the charges, but rather that “he had a financial interest and should not have been involved in this contract,” Cannon said.

Galatolo is also facing allegations that he used district money to pay his legal fees for a contract dispute with the district; Cannon said that after being told to hire his own legal counsel, he broke payments up to avoid a $10,000 limit for board approval. But Smith argued that the district “regularly and routinely” paid the legal fees of employees and Galatolo relied on that precedent.

Cannon maintained that Galatolo intentionally claimed a $10,000 donation by the district’s foundation on his own personal tax return. He also failed to claim the rental income from a Maui property, Cannon said, citing the testimony of a tax expert who said the lack of rental income is a common tax scheme.

“The defendant is a CPA,” Cannon said. “This is not a mistake. This is not an accident.”

Smith argued that all the income from the rental property would have gone toward the mortgage or other expenses on the house and thus would not legally need to be reported. Claiming the donation was a mistake “without criminal intent,” he added.

Galatolo is also accused of incorrectly reporting the purchase price of two expensive vehicles he purchased to the DMV, saving him about $10,000 in DMV registration fees, Cannon said. Smith said that Galatolo had misreported the purchase price of one of the vehicles, but that the other was correctly reported and that the seller testified to that fact.

“That was a crime,” he said. “He’s not a perfect man.”