Ontario Councilman Wapner Faces Scrutiny After $185,000 in Airport Travel Reimbursements

For residents and taxpayers in Ontario, California, the recent release of public records reveals a significant shift in how local travel budgets are managed. The Ontario International Airport Authority has implemented new rules that limit conference attendance and ban reimbursement for spouses, directly addressing the high costs associated with one board member. These changes aim to tighten oversight on how revenue funds are spent on executive travel.

The financial data indicates a substantial expenditure by public bodies. Alan Wapner, an Ontario City Council member who recently served on the airport board, was reimbursed $184,997 for 72 trips between March 2021 and June 2026. Across five different agencies where he held seats, the total travel reimbursement reached $283,630. This averages to roughly 26 trips per year. The airport authority spent the bulk of that money, while the other four boards paid a combined $98,632.

The disparity in spending is stark when compared to his colleagues. The airport authority’s reimbursement to Wapner was 64 times higher than the total travel costs claimed by the other four board members combined. Board president Ron Loveridge received just $2,865 for his travel over the same five-year period. The remaining three board members did not request any reimbursement for their trips, highlighting Wapner’s unique position within the group.

Wapner’s travel itinerary included international destinations such as Hong Kong, Rio de Janeiro, Istanbul, and Amsterdam, as well as the Bahamas and repeated visits to Hawaii. One notable expense was a $8,939.40 charge for a 17-day conference trip to Maui in January 2023. This bill included a $7,000 rental for a three-bedroom house in Lahaina. His wife accompanied him on several journeys, including a trip to Rio de Janeiro in April 2026 that cost $14,325. A September 2025 trip to Hong Kong totaled $12,701, with airfare accounting for $7,437 of that amount.

Wapner defended the expenses in an email, stating that the travel was necessary for him to be effective in his position. He insisted that none of the trips were junkets and that they provided access to airline executives, concession operators, and federal officials whose decisions impact airport growth. Loveridge noted that the spending complied with rules in place at the time but that commissioners were unaware of the frequency or cumulative cost because Wapner did not report back to the full board. Loveridge also emphasized that the funds came from airport revenue rather than tax dollars.

The situation has become more complex due to a recent FBI search of Wapner’s home on July 28. Agents also searched the residences or offices of Supervisor Curt Hagman, attorney Frank Lizarraga, and others linked to businessman James Su. Subpoenas were issued to the airport and city hall, though no charges have been filed as of October 22. In response, the City Council removed Wapner from all committee appointments, including the airport board. He has dropped his planned mayoral run and is seeking another term on the council, where he has served since 1994.

In an effort to curb future costs, the airport board approved bylaw changes on September 24. These rules cap monthly stipends at $1,000 and limit members to one domestic conference per year and one international conference every other year. Each trip now requires advance approval, and spouses can no longer be reimbursed for travel. Additionally, the board voted on October 19 to create an internal auditing program staffed by a full-time auditor. Wapner described the board’s actions as scapegoating, arguing that travel was a budget line item that other members could have questioned.

Wapner’s travel costs at other agencies included $62,855 from the City of Ontario, $17,578 from Omnitrans, $12,574 from the Southern California Association of Governments, and $5,625 from the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority. Catherine Lhamon of UC Berkeley’s Edley Center on Law and Democracy commented on the situation, stating that personal profit from public service defines corruption. She called for clearer rules and greater public scrutiny of officials to ensure accountability in local government.