San Francisco Ethics Commission
30 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 3900
San Francisco CA 94102
Phone 581-2300 Fax 581-2317
SAN FRANCISCO ETHICS COMMISSION AUDIT REPORT:
THE COMMITTEE TO RE-ELECT AMOS C. BROWN
This Audit Report contains information pertaining to the audit of the Committee to Re-Elect Amos C. Brown, Identification Number 1223802 (“the Committee”), for the period from January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2000. The audit was conducted to determine whether the Committee materially complied with the requirements and prohibitions imposed by the Political Reform Act (“the Act”) (California Government Code Section 81000, et seq.) and San Francisco’s Campaign Finance Reform Ordinance (“CFRO”) and Electronic Filing Ordinance (S.F. Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code Sections 1.100, et seq., and 1.300, et seq., formerly S.F. Administrative Code Sections 16.501, et seq., and 16.535, et seq.).
For the period covered by the audit, the Committee received total contributions of $254,953 and incurred expenditures of $234,650. There was one material finding with respect to this Audit: the Committee failed to file an electronic campaign statement in violation of Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code § 1.310.
II. Committee Information
The Committee was formed to support the election of Rev. Amos C. Brown for Member, Board of Supervisors, District 11, in the November 7, 2000 general election. The Committee filed its Statement of Organization on May 23, 2000, indicating that it had not yet qualified as a committee. The Committee qualified on June 26, 2000. After the November 7, 2000 election, the Committee continued to exist to support Rev. Brown’s candidacy in the December 12, 2000 run-off election. The final campaign statement that was filed by the Committee covered the reporting period ending April 4, 2003. The Committee’s treasurer during the period covered by the audit was Henry C. Levy.
III. Audit Authority
San Francisco Charter Section C3.699-11(4) mandates that the Commission audit campaign statements and other relevant documents to determine whether campaign committees comply with applicable requirements and prohibitions imposed by State and local law.
IV. Audit Scope and Procedures
This audit was performed in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards. The audit involved a thorough review of the Committee’s records for the time period covered by the audit. This review was conducted to determine:
- Compliance with all disclosure requirements pertaining to contributions, expenditures, accrued expenditures, and loans, including itemization when required;
- Compliance with applicable filing deadlines;
- Compliance with restrictions on contributions, loans and expenditures;
- Accuracy of total reported receipts, disbursements and cash balances as compared to bank records; and
- Compliance with all record-keeping requirements.
V. Summary of Applicable Law
Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code Section 1.310: Filing of Electronic Campaign Statements
The Electronic Filing Ordinance requires that whenever an elected City and County officer, candidate or committee is required by the Act to file campaign statements with the Ethics Commission, such elected officer, candidate or committee must file at the same time a copy of the report on a computer diskette, or other electronic media, in a format prescribed by the Ethics Commission if such committee receives contributions or makes independent expenditures totaling $5,000 or more in a calendar year. (Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code § 1.310).
VI. Material Findings
Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code Section 1.310: Failure to File an Electronic Campaign Statement
For the reporting period ending June 30, 2000, the Committee received more than $5,000 in contributions. Per the Electronic Filing Ordinance, the Committee was required to file its campaign statement in electronic form for the period ending June 30, 2000, by July 31, 2000. However, the Committee did not file its electronic campaign statement for this period. Please note that the Committee filed electronic campaign statements for the other reporting periods that are covered by this audit.
In explaining the circumstances under which the above-referenced events transpired, Rev. Brown stated the following:
Mr. Hank Levy was the sole accountant and treasurer of the campaign in the 2000 election. I was assured by him that all of the documents, electronically and hard copies were turned in for all of the reporting periods. Even though I was responsible as the candidate for all of the campaign activities, I hope that you can appreciate that throughout the campaign I was being treated at U.C. Medical Center for prostate cancer.
Through the examination of the Committee’s records and campaign disclosure statements, the Auditor found one material finding: the Committee failed to file an electronic campaign statement in violation of Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code § 1.310.
Audit reports are posted to the Commission’s web site and are forwarded to the Members of the Ethics Commission and, in cases of a violation of law, to the appropriate enforcement agency.
Shaista Shaikh Date
Ginny Vida Date
S:\AUDIT\2000 Committees\Amos Brown\Report-A. Brown.doc
 During part of the period covered by the audit, the sections of law were codified in the Administrative Code at Sections 16.501, et seq., and 16.535, et seq. However, the sections have since been recodified in the Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code at Sections 1.100, et seq., and 1.300, et seq.