Ethics Commission
City and County of San Francisco

San Francisco Ethics Commission Audit Report: Eisenberg for City Attorney, FPPC ID #930886

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:

EISENBERG FOR CITY ATTORNEY

I.           Introduction

This Audit Report summarizes the results of the audit of the committee, Eisenberg for City Attorney, Identification Number 930886 (“the Committee”), for the period from January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2001.  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 $112,691.11 in contributions and incurred expenditures of $112,522.97.   There was one material finding with respect to this Audit: the Committee failed to obtain and disclose contributor information for 11 contributions in violation of San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code section 1.114(e).

II.         Committee Information

The Committee was formed in May 2001 to support the election of Neil Eisenberg for City Attorney, in the November 6, 2001  general election.  Calvin Y. Louie was the Committee’s treasurer. 

III.       Audit Authority

San Francisco Charter Section C3.699-11 authorizes the Ethics Commission to audit campaign statements that are filed with the Commission and other relevant documents to determine whether a committee complied with applicable requirements of State and local law.  The Ethics Commission, by a random process, selected the Committee for audit.

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

S. F. Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code Section 1.114(e): Requirement to Obtain and Disclose Contributor Information[1]

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 contribution to the City and County for deposit in the General Fund.

VI.        Material Findings

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

The Committee itemized 274 contributions.   Of the 274 itemized contribution entries, contributor information was not fully or properly disclosed for 11 contributions.  The missing information related to contributors’ street address and occupation and employer information. 

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.  With respect to the above-referenced 11 contributions, the Committee must forfeit $950.11.  Staff will send a forfeiture notice to the Committee.

VII.      Committee’s Response to Findings

The Committee was provided with an opportunity to review and comment on this audit report.   The Committee did not provide any comments with respect to the above-referenced finding.

VIII.     Conclusion

Through the examination of the Committee’s records and campaign disclosure statements, the Auditor found that the Committee failed to obtain and disclose contributor information for 11 contributions 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, in cases of a violation of law, to the appropriate enforcement agency.

 Date:  May 18, 2004


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

Was this page helpful?

Scan with a QR reader to access page:
QR Code to Access Page
https://sfethics.org/ethics/2004/05/san-francisco-ethics-commission-audit-report-eisenberg-for-city-attorney-fppc-id-930886.html