Skip to content

San Francisco Ethics Commission Audit Report: Matt Tuchow for Supervisor, FPPC ID #1264412

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 audit results of the committee, Richmond Neighbors for Tuchow for Supervisor 2004, Identification Number 1264412 (“the Committee”), from

January 1, 2004 through December 31, 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”) (S.F. Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code Sections 1.100, et seq).[1]

II. Audit Findings

For the period covered by the audit, the Committee received $59,943 in contributions and $41,067 in public funds, and incurred expenditures of $96,921.  The CFRO provides that any candidate who receives public funds must return unexpended campaign funds to the Election Campaign Fund.  The Commission has determined that the Committee had unexpended funds of $1,342.[2]

The Commission has determined that there were no material findings with respect to the audit of the Committee.   The Committee substantially complied with the disclosure and record-keeping provisions of the Act and CFRO.

III. Committee Information

The Committee was formed in February 2004 to support the election of Matt Tuchow for Member, Board of Supervisors, District 1 in the

November 2, 2004 general election.  The Committee received public funds.  David Glickman served as the treasurer and Karen Cleek served as the assistant treasurer.

IV. 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.

V. Audit Scope and Procedures

This audit was performed in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards.  The audit involved a review of the Committee’s records for the period covered by the audit.  This review was conducted to determine:

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

VI. Disclosures

Audit reports are posted to the Ethics Commission’s web site and, in cases of a violation of law, are forwarded to the appropriate enforcement agency.


[1] During the period covered by the audit, Article 1, Chapter 3 of the San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code (SF C&GC) codified the Electronic Filing Ordinance.  As a result of recent amendments to CFRO, the provisions of the Electronic Filing Ordinance are now combined in SF C&GC Code section 1.112

[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 the 30th day following the date of the election.

Was this page helpful?

Contact us to provide feedback on this page.