Skip to content

San Francisco Ethics Commission Audit Report: Eileen Hansen For Supervisor 8, FPPC ID #1244850


San Francisco Ethics Commission                           
30 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 3900
San Francisco CA  94102       
Phone 581-2300 Fax 581-2317



I.           Introduction

This Audit Report summarizes the results of the audit of the committee, Eileen Hansen for Supervisor 8, Identification Number 1244850 (“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 $61,723 in contributions and $35,951 in public funds, and incurred expenditures of $94,185.  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 unexpended funds of $3,336.73, which it must return to the Election Campaign Fund.[1]

There was one material finding with respect to this Audit: the Committee failed to obtain and disclose street addresses for five contributors, in violation of San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code Section 1.114(e).

II.         Committee Information

The Committee was formed in May 2002 to support the election of Eileen Hansen to Member, Board of Supervisors, District 8, in the November 5, 2002  general election.  Barry Hermanson served as the Committee’s treasurer from May 2002 to July 2002.  On July 14, 2002, Debbie Gordon assumed the responsibility of treasurer.  As stated above, the Committee received public funds for Ms. Hansen’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(e): Requirement to Obtain and Disclose Contributor Information[2]

S. F. Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code (“S.F. C&GCC”) Section 1.114(e) states that if the cumulative amount of contributions received from a contributor is $100 or more, the committee treasurer must not deposit the contribution unless the committee treasurer has the following information: the contributor’s full name; the contributor's street 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.  S.F. C&GCC Section 1.114(e) states that each treasurer who receives a contribution that does not comply with the requirements of this Section must forfeit the contributions to the City and County for deposit in the General Fund.

VI.        Material Findings

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

A review of the Committee’s campaign statements indicated that the Committee itemized 334 contributions.   Of the 334 itemized contributions, the Committee provided P.O. Box addresses instead of street addresses for five contributors.   

As explained above, under S.F. C&GCC §1.114(e) contributions that are deposited without the required contributor information must be forfeited to the City.  The amount that is subject to forfeiture is the amount that exceeds the first $99.99 of a contributor’s contribution; i.e., on a $100 contribution that lacks the required contributor information, the amount subject to forfeiture is one cent.  Of the above-referenced five contributors whose street addresses were not provided, four contributed $100 each and one contributed $250.  Thus the amount subject to forfeiture in regards to the four contributors who contributed $100, is one cent.  With respect to the contributor who gave $250, the amount subject to forfeiture under local law is $150.01.

VII.      Conclusion

Through the examination of the Committee’s records and campaign disclosure statements, the auditor identified one material finding: the Committee failed to obtain and disclose street addresses for five contributors, in violation of San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code Section 1.114(e).

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:  December 29, 2003

[1] Unexpended funds are calculated by subtracting any unpaid bills, qualified campaign expenditures and forfeitures from the amount of cash that the Committee had on hand on the 30th day following the election in which the candidate was elected or defeated.  Please note that although the candidate was eligible to receive public financing for both the general and run-off elections, the candidate informed the Ethics Commission that she did not want to receive public financing for the run-off election because she intended to limit her expenditures to the run-off voluntary expenditure ceiling of $20,000 (the limit was lifted by the Ethics Commission as a result of independent spending in district 8), for which she had raised sufficient funds from private contributors.  For this reason, shortly after the date of the general election, Ms. Hansen returned $2,753 in unexpended funds.  The auditor determined that after the run-off election, there was an additional $583.73 in unexpended funds.

[2] During the period covered by the audit, what is currently section 1.114(e) was codified as section 1.114(d).

We are continuously increasing the number of translated pages on this site. Materials on this website that are not currently translated may be translated upon request. Contact us to provide feedback on this page.

Estamos aumentando continuamente el número de páginas traducidas en este sitio. Los materiales de este sitio web que no están traducidos actualmente pueden traducirse previa solicitud. Contáctenos para proporcionar comentarios sobre esta página o solicitar traducciones.


Patuloy naming dinaragdagan ang bilang ng mga isinalin na pahina sa site na ito. Ang mga materyal sa website na ito na hindi kasalukuyang isinasalin ay maaaring isalin kapag hiniling. Makipag-ugnayan sa amin para magbigay ng feedback sa page na ito o humiling ng mga pagsasalin.