Skip to content

San Francisco Ethics Commission Audit Report: Re-Elect Supervisor Jake McGoldrick, FPPC ID #1263103


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, Re-Elect Supervisor Jake McGoldrick, Identification Number 1263103 (“the Committee”), for the period from January 1, 2004 through June 30, 2005.  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 $195,693 in contributions and $43,750 in public funds, and incurred qualified campaign expenditures of $230,613[1].  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 Commission staff determined that the Committee does not have unexpended funds and therefore is not required to return any money to the Election Campaign Fund.[2]  There were no material findings with respect to this audit.

II.        Committee Information

The Committee was formed in February 2004 to support the election of Jake McGoldrick for Member, Board of Supervisors District 1 for the November 2, 2004 election.  David Looman served as the Committee’s initial treasurer until Ron Jin assumed the treasurer’s position in July 2004.  The Committee received public funds for Jake McGoldrick’s 2004 supervisorial election 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:

  1. Compliance with applicable filing deadlines;
  2. Compliance with restrictions on contributions, loans and expenditures;
  3. Accuracy of total reported receipts, disbursements and cash balances as compared to bank records;
  4. Compliance with all record-keeping requirements; and
  5. Compliance with all provisions related to the Commission’s public financing program.

V.        Conclusion

Through the examination of the Committee’s records and campaign disclosure statements, the Auditor verified that the Committee accurately and timely disclosed contributions received and expenditures made and that the Committee maintained the necessary documentation regarding contributions and expenditures.  As a result, the Auditor determined that there were no material findings.  The Committee substantially complied with the disclosure and record-keeping provisions of the Act and the CFRO.

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 2, 2005

S:\AUDIT\2004 Public Finance Candidates\Report-McGoldrick.doc


[1] The $83,000 spending cap in District 1 was lifted by the Ethics Commission on August 6, 2004.  As of this date, the Committee’s spending totaled less than $83,000.  After August 6, 2004, candidates who were involved in the District 1 supervisorial race were free to spend beyond $83,000.

[2] Unexpended funds are calculated by subtracting any unpaid bills, on-going 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.

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.