Skip to content

The incumbent’s record

Why is Malia Cohen’s record under scrutiny?

Cohen ran on financial oversight. Her first term has brought questions about missing homelessness audits, disrupted property claims and managers whose work-location records did not match where they lived. The reporting below explains what happened and how her office responded.

Homelessness spending

She promised scrutiny. Why were no homelessness audits completed?

In 2022, Cohen identified homelessness spending, EDD and DMV as subjects she wanted to scrutinize as Controller. By October 2026, her office reported no homelessness audits. Nearly a full term later, the priority she highlighted had not produced a homelessness audit from her office. [CalMatters][Los Angeles Times]

The commitment · 2022

What did she tell voters?

In her 2022 CalMatters interview, Cohen identified homelessness spending, EDD and DMV as areas she wanted to scrutinize. She was describing how she intended to use the office she was asking voters to give her. [CalMatters]

The explanation · 2026

Why did her office say the audits did not happen?

Cohen cited denied funding. Her office clarified that the request concerned high-risk audits generally and did not specifically name homelessness. Her explanation leaves a question unanswered: why did the request omit the spending area she had singled out? [Los Angeles Times]

Why was this spending important enough to audit?

California allocated roughly $24 billion for housing and homelessness across fiscal 2018–19 through 2022–23. Those five years began before Cohen became Controller. The April 2024 State Auditor review found gaps in tracking costs and outcomes: two of five programs appeared likely to be cost-effective, while three lacked enough outcome data for that assessment. CalMatters explained how that weak recordkeeping left policymakers funding programs without a dependable account of the results. [CalMatters][California State Auditor]

The separate State Auditor did that work. It does not fulfill a commitment to scrutiny by Cohen’s own office. People needing housing and taxpayers funding the response have the same practical interest: money should support help that works.

What about the EDD and DMV commitments?

California Globe reported lawmakers’ criticism that Cohen left those reviews to other bodies. In September 2026, Assembly Republicans demanded records of the Controller’s audits and payment reviews, including work on homelessness, EDD and DMV. Their request challenged her to produce the evidence behind the office’s oversight claims. [California Globe]

If the promised scrutiny did not arrive in her first term, why should voters expect another four years to be different?

Los Angeles Times: Cohen’s record and explanation ↗Read the full promise-and-response chronology →

Unclaimed property

Why is getting your own money back so difficult?

Unclaimed property can be an old bank account, an investment or money owed to an estate. The Controller’s Office holds it for the owner. Finding an account does not get the money home. The owner still has to prove the claim and wait for the office to approve it.

What delays and disruptions have owners faced?

The office’s guidance allows up to 180 days after receipt of a complete claim package to review it. More work may be needed for securities. During the 2025 system replacement, claim evaluations paused July 21–September 3, and the public website shut down August 20–September 3. Owners had to absorb those interruptions while trying to recover property that was already theirs. [State Controller’s Office][State Controller’s Office]

CBS has investigated the claims system and how California compares with states that return money automatically. A new website or outreach campaign offers little relief to someone who has found an account but still cannot get a claim resolved. [CBS News]

What does the New York Post lawsuit report allege?

The October 8 report names Cohen, Kroll LLC and Kelmar Associates LLC as defendants. Plaintiffs allege foreign addresses were changed to California entries before their shares were taken and sold without adequate notice. These are the plaintiffs’ allegations; the court has not established them as findings. [New York Post][New York Post · AOL syndication]

One reported example is Karl Whitty’s Cardiff, United Kingdom address becoming “CARDIFF, CA 00000.” The filing says he recovered nearly $4,750 after 17 months, while the sold shares would have been worth about $15,222. [New York Post][New York Post · AOL syndication]

Why is this more serious than a slow payment?

An address affects whether an owner receives notice and has an opportunity to respond. A sale changes what the owner may recover: cash proceeds can be worth less than an investment the owner intended to keep. The lawsuit challenges the records and actions behind the transfer itself.

The Controller is supposed to safeguard property and maintain dependable accounts. Allegations that the records were changed to justify taking assets go directly to that responsibility. They deserve a clear answer, as do the documented disruptions and long review process owners already face.

New York Post: the allegations against Cohen and contractors ↗CBS News: the claims investigation ↗Read the detailed property coverage →

Failures inside the Controller’s Office

How did managers work from other states while their forms said California?

The State Auditor’s October 2026 investigation found two Controller’s Office managers worked outside California in violation of state law. One began living and working in Idaho in November 2020, before Cohen took office. His signed plans for 2023, 2024 and 2025 continued to list California. The Los Angeles Times covered the investigation and the office’s response. [Los Angeles Times][California State Auditor]

Were there warning signs?

Yes. IT had flagged possible out-of-state work, but HR took limited action. A form saying California was not enough when other evidence pointed elsewhere. The failure was allowing that contradiction to remain unresolved. [California State Auditor]

The office said both managers had separated and promised better location monitoring. That response addresses what happened afterward. Voters can still ask why the controls did not work during Cohen’s term and who was responsible for acting on the warnings. [California State Auditor]

What went wrong with more than $33,000 in payroll overpayments?

In another case, officials delayed collecting money overpaid to two employees for more than a year. Investigators found that the handling of one employee’s repayment violated state law. The office later reported that one debt had been satisfied and payroll deductions would begin for the other. [Los Angeles Times][California State Auditor]

Officials had already identified the overpayments. The collection process then stalled for more than a year. An office responsible for state payroll should be able to correct its own overpayments promptly.

Why is Cohen accountable for these failures?

Employees are responsible for their own conduct, and the investigation does not establish that Cohen personally ordered the violations. She does lead the agency responsible for checking its records and enforcing its controls. Voters are entitled to judge whether those operations worked under her leadership.

Los Angeles Times: telework and payroll failures ↗Read the investigation and agency response ↗

Transparency and independent scrutiny

Why did the State Auditor accuse Cohen’s office of resisting review?

The dispute concerned an independent examination of California’s delayed financial reporting. The State Auditor’s December 2025 assessment said the Controller’s Office had resisted examination for more than a year, nearly prompting legal action to compel participation. It said the office consented in October 2025. Cohen’s office disputed the criticism. The Los Angeles Times included the clash in its reporting on her first term. [Los Angeles Times][California State Auditor]

Why should voters care about a dispute over the state’s books?

Financial reports let readers examine what the state received, spent and owes. Late reporting means the public is evaluating an older picture. Independent review is a way to establish why the process is failing and which officials must correct it.

The Controller asks other agencies to accept financial scrutiny. A dispute about outside access to her own office’s work raises a credibility problem for that watchdog role. Cooperation with independent examination is part of accountability, especially when the reporting process has already fallen behind.

Did the process improve?

The July 2026 performance audit acknowledged progress in timeliness and quality. It still called for improvements in coordination, guidance and departmental submissions. The later progress is part of the record. So are the remaining problems that must be resolved before timely reporting becomes routine. [California State Auditor]

Los Angeles Times: the first-term record ↗Read the independent-review dispute ↗

The choice in November

What would change under Herb Morgan’s approach?

Morgan proposes publishing individual spending transactions sooner and using an ongoing monitoring operation to flag problems for human review. Staff would investigate unusual payments while the records are current and the responsible agencies can explain them. [Herb Morgan campaign]

The current Open FI$Cal website publishes monthly data with a lag of at least 60 days and limits in some vendor information. Faster disclosure and a defined review process would give taxpayers more useful ways to follow spending. [Department of FI$Cal][Herb Morgan campaign]

What should voters demand from the next Controller?

Completed audits, dependable financial reports and a claims service owners can navigate. A recovery total should represent money collected, rather than simply an amount questioned. A spending dashboard should disclose usable transactions promptly, with someone responsible for following up on problems.

Cohen has had a term to demonstrate how she handles this work. Morgan offers investment-management experience and a different oversight proposal. Voters can weigh his financial experience and proposal against what Cohen’s office delivered during her first term.

Compare Morgan’s financial background with Cohen’s career and record →

More questions about audits and spending

Did Cohen’s office conduct audits of other agencies?

Yes. Cohen’s office has published audits of other agencies. Its inventory includes Caltrans in November 2023, San Diego State payroll in February 2025 and Department of General Services payroll in May 2026. It would be inaccurate to say the office performed no audits at all.

The criticism concerns the work she specifically highlighted while seeking office: scrutiny of homelessness spending, EDD and DMV. A report about an unrelated agency does not settle whether those commitments were delivered.

That is the fair comparison for voters: the audits she put forward as priorities, the reports her office actually produced and her explanations for the gaps. [California Globe][State Controller’s Office][CalMatters]

Was the entire $24 billion homelessness allocation proven stolen?

No. Roughly $24 billion was allocated to housing and homelessness over five fiscal years, including years before Cohen became Controller. The 2024 review did not establish that the entire amount was stolen.

The documented failure was inadequate tracking of costs and outcomes. California was funding major programs without enough reliable information to assess several of them. That is serious even without a finding of theft: it leaves policymakers unable to confidently distinguish effective help from spending that needs to change.

Cohen’s responsibility in this discussion comes from her promise to scrutinize homelessness spending and the work her own office delivered afterward. The failure to track results and the absence of audits from her office are the documented concerns. [CalMatters][California State Auditor][CalMatters]

What is Morgan’s $312 billion to $425 billion spending estimate?

The $312 billion to $425 billion range comes from Morgan’s campaign analysis of potential spending exposure over five years. It combines different categories, including fraud, waste, improper payments and inefficiency across several programs. It is a campaign estimate of problems he wants examined, not an audited finding that the whole amount was stolen.

The meaning of the range depends on how each component was calculated. An amount at risk, an actual loss and a payment that needs further documentation are different things. Morgan uses the estimate to argue for closer scrutiny. Investigations would have to establish individual losses, and collection records would have to show what was recovered. [Herb Morgan campaign]

Read all questions and full answers →