City and County of San Francisco
Ethics Commission

English

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:

DUDUM FOR SUPERVISOR 2002

I.           Introduction

This Audit Report summarizes the results of the audit of the committee, Dudum for Supervisor 2002, Identification Number 1242101 (“the Committee”), for the period from January 1, 2002 through January 31, 2003.  The audit was conducted to determine whether the Committee materially complied with the requirements of 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., respectively).

For the period covered by the audit, the Committee received $109,401 in contributions and $58,760 in public funds, and incurred expenditures of $179,714.  The CFRO provides that any candidate who receives public funds must return unexpended campaign funds to the Election Campaign Fund up to the amount of public funds received by the candidate.  The auditor determined that the Committee had no unexpended funds to return to the Election Campaign Fund.[1]

There were two material findings with respect to this Audit: 1) the Committee failed to obtain and disclose contributor information for some contributions in violation of San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code section 1.114(d); and 2) the Committee failed to file itemized disclosure statements for 15 mass mailings in violation of S.F. Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code section 1.161.

II.         Committee Information

The Committee was formed in December 2001 to support the election of Ronald Dudum to Member, Board of Supervisors, District 4, in the November 5, 2002  general election and December 10, 2002 run-off election.  Mr. Dudum himself was the Committee’s treasurer.  As stated above, the Committee received public funds for Mr. Dudum’s 2002 supervisorial campaign. 

III.       Audit Authority

San Francisco Charter Section C3.699-11 authorizes the Ethics Commission to audit campaign statements that are filed with the Commission.  Section 1.150(a) of the CFRO requires the Commission to audit all candidates who receive public financing.  Audits of publicly financed candidates include a review of campaign statements and other relevant documents to determine whether the candidate complied with applicable requirements of 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;
• Compliance with all record-keeping requirements; and
• Compliance with all provisions related to the Commission’s public financing program.

V.         Summary of Applicable Law

S. F. Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code Section 1.114(d): Requirement to Obtain and Disclose Contributor Information

Section 1.114(d) of the CFRO provides that if the cumulative amount of contributions received from a contributor is $100 or more, the committee treasurer may not deposit the contribution unless the committee treasurer has the following information: the contributor’s full name; the contributor's address; the contributor’s occupation, and the name of the contributor’s employer or, if the contributor is self-employed, the name of the contributor’s business.  Section 1.114(e) provides that each treasurer who receives a contribution that does not comply with the requirements of section 1.114 must pay promptly, from available campaign funds if any, the amount received in excess of the amount permitted for deposit in the General Fund of the City and County.

S.F. Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code Section 1.161: Filing of Itemized Disclosure Statement for Mass Mailings

The Political Reform Act defines mass mailings as 200 substantially similar pieces of mail sent within a calendar month.   Section 1.161 of the CFRO requires any candidate for City elective office who pays for a mass mailing that advocates for or against candidates for City elective office to include on the mailing the statement “paid for by ______(insert candidate’s name and street address)” in at least 14-point type and in a color or print which contrasts with the background so as to be easily legible.  The candidate must also file with the Ethics Commission a clearly legible original or copy of the mass mailing and an itemized disclosure statement within five working days after the date of the mailing.

VI.        Material Findings

S. F. Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code Section 1.114(d): Failure to Obtain and Disclose Contributor Information

The Committee reported 451 contributions of $100 or more on its campaign statements.  Complete contributor information was not provided for 16 of the 451 contributions.  The missing information pertained to employer information.  Section 1.114(d) of the CFRO provides that if the contributor is self-employed, the name of the contributor’s business is required. With respect to the 16 contributions, the Committee listed “self” rather than the contributors’ business names in the employer column.  Section 1.114(e) of the CFRO requires that a contribution deposited without the required contributor information be forfeited to the City.  The amount of the Committee’s contributions that is subject to forfeiture is $2,200.09.  (The first $99.99 of each forfeitable contribution is exempt from forfeiture.)

In regard to this finding, Mr. Dudum stated that even though the business names of the sole proprietors were not identified for the 16 contributions, the contributors’ names, addresses and occupation information were provided.  Most of the 16 contributors are the candidate’s extended family members whom he has known for many years.  Mr. Dudum stated that at the time the campaign statements were submitted, he was aware of the business name requirement, but took a short-cut and indicated “self” or “same.”

The Committee has provided the auditor a list of the business names related to the above- referenced 16 contributions.

S.F. Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code Section 1.161: Failure to File Itemized Disclosure Statements for Mass Mailings

The Committee failed to file the itemized disclosure statements for 15 mass mailings.

Mr. Dudum stated that he was unaware of this filing requirement.   He explained that his campaign was “bare bones” and did not hire a professional treasurer who may have been aware of this requirement.  Mr. Dudum stated that he did his best to comply with all the requirements by regularly visiting the Ethics Commission for help in learning what needed to be filed, but he has no recollection of ever being told about this requirement.  Once informed by the auditor of the Committee’s failure to file the required statements, Mr. Dudum gathered together the information requested and filed the statements immediately.  

VII.      Conclusion

Through the examination of the Committee’s records and campaign disclosure statements, the auditor identified two material findings: 1) the Committee failed to obtain and disclose contributor information for some contributions in violation of San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code section 1.114(d); and 2) the Committee failed to file itemized disclosure statements for 15 mass mailings in violation of S.F. Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code section 1.161.

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.

Date:  November 20, 2003

---