This embattled consumer agency went 2 years without a director. Newsom finally appointed one 45%

By Byrhonda Lyons16%

7/31/2026, 5:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 17 faulty reasoning types, including Anecdotal, Optimism Bias, and Appeal to Emotion, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 54.4% saturation with 255 hits. Analysis detected 669 faulty-reasoning hits from 469 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 41.7% and a BS Rank of 45% (14,743 of 26,789 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 55.00% of the article peer group.

CalMatters’ reporting found the Professional Fiduciaries Bureau hasn’t stopped conflicts prohibited by its own code of conduct. 
Gov. 
Gavin Newsom has appointed a new chief to lead the Professional Fiduciaries Bureau, two years after the position opened and months after a CalMatters investigation exposed how the agency has failed to curb abuse in the industry. 
Nicole Dragoo of Fair Oaks comes to the bureau after serving as the licensing chief at the agency that oversees California’s private postsecondary educational institutions. 
Dragoo’s new position requires Senate confirmation. 
She’s set to make $118,824 . 
Carole Herman, an elder advocate who helped start the bureau, was relieved to learn that the bureau had a new leader. 
“It’s about time,” Herman said. 
“I hope she does better than everybody in the past, which doesn’t take much for her to do.” 
The bureau was created two decades ago after a Los Angeles Times investigation showed that local judges weren’t preventing fiduciary abuses. 
The state Legislature gave the bureau the authority to license fiduciaries and ensure they uphold ethical standards. 
However, CalMatters’ reporting found the bureau hasn’t stopped conflicts prohibited by its own code of conduct or outrageous behavior by California fiduciaries, frustrating desperate families trying to protect their loved ones and hold on to their family wealth. 
The bureau operates on an honor system in which fiduciaries are expected to report their own misconduct. 
In turn, some of the bureau’s own information on its fiduciaries is inaccurate and incomplete, CalMatters found . 
In addition, our reporting showed that the state agency shares limited information with the public, by design. 
The bureau got the Legislature to significantly restrict its public records requirements . 
For the series, CalMatters spoke with families and victims across the state who’d spent years filing complaints with the bureau only for little to change. 
For example, fiduciary Angelique Friend directed $2.7 million of her client’s money to her husband’s companies for years in Ventura County, court records show. 
Even though the bureau’s code of conduct explicitly forbids real or perceived conflicts of interest, there’s no record of the bureau acting on the complaints it received. 
A bureau spokesperson told CalMatters it relies on judges to monitor the arrangements. 
In Los Angeles, Vinyasi, who goes by one name, filed his first complaint against his fiduciary, Donna Bogdanovich, in 2019. 
Years later, Bogdanovich pleaded no contest to taking more than $160,000 from Vinyasi and over $1 million from her other clients, court records show. 
The bureau had received complaints against Bogdanovich for years before her license was revoked in 2024 . 
The agency had been without a chief since August 2024. 
Izzy Gardon, a spokesperson for the governor’s office, had previously said it was actively recruiting a new leader. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Byrhonda Lyons: 1.0%CalMatters: 2.2%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Byrhonda Lyons: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 5.3%Byrhonda Lyons: 1.5%CalMatters: 2.3%Availability Heuristic5.3%This article: 0.0%Byrhonda Lyons: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 7.9%Byrhonda Lyons: 0.5%CalMatters: 0.4%Hindsight Bias7.9%This article: 0.0%Byrhonda Lyons: 0.4%CalMatters: 0.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 4.9%Byrhonda Lyons: 2.7%CalMatters: 4.6%Framing Effect4.9%This article: 0.0%Byrhonda Lyons: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Byrhonda Lyons: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 2.1%Byrhonda Lyons: 0.1%CalMatters: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect2.1%This article: 8.3%Byrhonda Lyons: 0.5%CalMatters: 1.5%Optimism Bias8.3%This article: 1.1%Byrhonda Lyons: 0.4%CalMatters: 1.7%Pessimism Bias1.1%This article: 54.4%Byrhonda Lyons: 7.8%CalMatters: 7.0%Negativity Bias54.4%This article: 0.0%Byrhonda Lyons: 0.4%CalMatters: 1.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 5.8%Byrhonda Lyons: 0.3%CalMatters: 0.8%Fundamental Attribution Error5.8%This article: 2.8%Byrhonda Lyons: 0.2%CalMatters: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias2.8%This article: 0.0%Byrhonda Lyons: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Byrhonda Lyons: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Byrhonda Lyons: 0.0%CalMatters: 1.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Byrhonda Lyons: 0.5%CalMatters: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Byrhonda Lyons: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.9%Byrhonda Lyons: 0.6%CalMatters: 0.9%Recency Bias0.9%This article: 0.0%Byrhonda Lyons: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Byrhonda Lyons: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Byrhonda Lyons: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Byrhonda Lyons: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 4.5%Byrhonda Lyons: 1.1%CalMatters: 2.8%Appeal to Authority4.5%This article: 0.0%Byrhonda Lyons: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.8%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Byrhonda Lyons: 0.0%CalMatters: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Byrhonda Lyons: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.8%Byrhonda Lyons: 1.5%CalMatters: 2.9%Hasty Generalization3.8%This article: 0.0%Byrhonda Lyons: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Byrhonda Lyons: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 8.1%Byrhonda Lyons: 1.9%CalMatters: 4.2%Appeal to Emotion8.1%This article: 0.0%Byrhonda Lyons: 0.6%CalMatters: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 7.9%Byrhonda Lyons: 0.5%CalMatters: 2.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)7.9%This article: 0.0%Byrhonda Lyons: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 5.8%Byrhonda Lyons: 0.5%CalMatters: 0.3%Burden of Proof5.8%This article: 0.0%Byrhonda Lyons: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Byrhonda Lyons: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 15.6%Byrhonda Lyons: 1.6%CalMatters: 1.7%Anecdotal15.6%This article: 0.0%Byrhonda Lyons: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Byrhonda Lyons: 0.0%CalMatters: 1.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Byrhonda Lyons: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Byrhonda Lyons: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Byrhonda Lyons: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Byrhonda Lyons: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Byrhonda Lyons: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Byrhonda Lyons: 0.8%CalMatters: 0.7%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Byrhonda Lyons: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 3.6%Byrhonda Lyons: 2.3%CalMatters: 2.4%Biased Writer Voice3.6%This article: 0.0%Byrhonda Lyons: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Byrhonda Lyons: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Byrhonda Lyons: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Byrhonda Lyons: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

469 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers23%attributed speech362writer words
Selected voice

Carole Herman

100%flagged-word coverage
44 attributed words41% of attributed speech85% writer coverage
0%2.5%5.0%Biased Writer Voice-4.7 ptsWriter: 4.7%Carole Herman: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.