City and County of San Francisco
Ethics Commission

English

• Introduction

 

This Audit Report summarizes the
results of the
audit of the committee, Committee to Elect Eugene C. Wong for
Supervisor, Identification Number 1268849 (“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 § 81000, et seq.)
and San
Francisco’s Campaign Finance Reform Ordinance (“CFRO”) (San Francisco
Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code § 1.100, et
seq).[1]

 

• Audit authority

 

San Francisco Charter Section
C3.699-11 authorizes
the Ethics Commission (“the 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.

 

1. 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 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.

 

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

 

• Committee Information

 

The Committee was formed in
August, 2004
to support the election of Eugene C. Wong to Member, Board of
Supervisors District 3 in the November 2, 2004 general election.  Florence Kong served as the
Committee’s treasurer. 
The Committee received public funds for Eugene Wong’s 2004 supervisorial election campaign.

 

1. Audit Findings

 

For the period covered by the audit,
the Committee
received $38,540 in contributions and $31,864 in public funds, and
incurred expenditures of $76,220.26. 
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.  S.F.
C&GC Code

§ 1.148(d). 
The Commission
determined that the Committee does not have unexpended funds and
therefore is not required to return any money to the City for deposit
into the Election Campaign Fund.[2]

 

The Commission determined that
there were three material findings with respect to the audit of the
Committee, as follows: 

 

 

The Act requires that
committee treasurers
maintain detailed accounts, records, bills and receipts that are
necessary to prepare campaign statements and comply with the campaign
disclosure provisions of the Act. 
The detailed
accounts, records, bills and receipts must be retained by the filer for
a period of four years. (Government Code § 84104).

 

The Committee’s records did not
include
invoices/receipts for 17 payments totaling $8,908, which represents
more than 11 percent of the dollar amount of total expenses that the
Committee incurred. 

 

• The Committee failed to disclose
  full contributor
  information for eight contributions of $100 or more each, totaling
  $1,800, and failed to itemize 60 contributions of $100 or more each,
  totaling $9,300, in violation of Government Code section 84211(f) and
  S. F. C&GC Code sections 1.106 and 1.114(d)[3].

 

Government Code section 84211(f) and
S.F. C&GC
Code section 1.106 provides that if the cumulative amount of
contributions (including loans) received from a person is $100 or more,
the recipient’s campaign statements must provide the contributor’s full
name, street address, occupation, and the name of his/her employer
(name of business if self-employed); the date and amount of each
contribution received from the contributor during the reporting period;
and the cumulative amount of contributions received from the
contributor during the calendar year. 
S.F.
C&GC Code section 1.114(d) prohibits the deposit of any
contribution of $100 or more unless the contribution has the required
information.  A
committee will be deemed not to
have had the required contributor information at the time the
contribution was deposited if the required contributor information is
not reported on the first campaign statement on which the contribution
is required to be reported. 
Contributions that
are deposited without the required contributor information must be
forfeited to the City, in addition to any other penalties. 
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. 
S.F. C&GC Code § 1.114(d).

 

Contributor information was
not properly disclosed for eight contributions. 
In addition, the Committee failed to itemize 60 contributions of $100
or more totaling $9,300 on the originally filed campaign statements.  See Attachment 1 for a list
of contributions that the Committee failed to disclose properly and
that are subject to forfeiture. 
The Committee is required to forfeit $5,000.61 in contributions.

 

The Committee amended the
campaign statements to provide the required information. 
But section 1.114(e) provides that the committee will be deemed not to
have had the required contributor information at the time the
contribution was deposited if the required contributor information is
not reported on the first campaign statement on which the contribution
is required to be reported. 
Accordingly,
although the Committee amended the campaign statements to provide the
required information, the Committee is deemed under law to not have had
the required contributor information at the time of deposit.

 

• The Committee failed to file
  Itemized Disclosure
  Statements for one mass mailing, in violation of S.F. C&GC Code
  section 1.161.

 

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 not less than
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.

 

The Committee incurred costs for
mailing service
and postage for three mass mailings and the mailing of a second batch
of one of the three mailers. 
The Committee filed
the Itemized Disclosure Statements for the three mass mailings but
failed to file the Itemized Disclosure Statement for the second batch
of one of these three mailers. 
The second batch consisted of 10,000 pieces and its cost, $3,871,
represented 20 percent of the total cost of mailings.

 

1. Committee’s Response to Findings

 

The Committee did not provide comment
on this audit report.

 

 

 

_________________________________                                         
__________________

           
Grace Chau                                                                                        
Date

           
Campaign Finance Auditor

 

 

_________________________________      
                                  
__________________

           
John St. Croix                                                                                     
Date

Executive
Director                          

 

 

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

 

Attachement 1  List of
Contributions Subject to Forfeitures

 

Last Name	First Name	Forfeiture
Breall	William	$400.01
Fong	Harvey	$0.01
Jew	Edward	$400.01
Kong	Lam	$0.01
Law Offices of Suzan Yee & Associates		$0.01
Lee	Otto	$100.01
Louie	Arthur	$0.01
Mok	Wesley W.C.	$100.01
Chan	Sally	$50.01
Chin	Colin	$100.01
Chiu	Peter	$0.01
Dotcomsupport Inc		$400.01
Goldberg	Sue	$0.01
Hsieh	Michael	$150.01
Huang	John	$0.01
Huang's Brothers Printing		$0.01
Ip	Albert	$200.01
Lam	Daniel	$250.01
Lam	Kevin	$0.01
Lam	Kevin	$100.00
Lee	Catherine	$100.01
Lee	Catherine	$100.00
Lee	Chun Ying	$0.01
Lee	Chun Ying	$100.00
Lee	Kim	$400.01
Lee	Paul	$0.01
Liang	Juan An	$0.01
Louie	Clifford	$0.01
Lum	Theodore	$0.01
Lum	Theodore	$100.00
Mui	William	$0.01
NCW and Associates, Inc		$100.01
Peacock Cantonese Opera Association		$0.01
Perry	Chris	$0.01
Perry	Chris	$100.00
Pong	Annie	$0.01
Poon	Boniface	$0.01
Poon	Christopher	$0.01
Poon	Florence	$0.01
Poon	Rosa	$0.01
Sun	Yik-Ching	$150.01
Tong	Benjamin	$0.01
Tsai	Hsien Hsiang	$0.01
Tyner	Mark	$100.01
Valencia	Edward	$0.01
Wai	Joseph	$400.01
Wandell	Timothy	$100.01
Wing Hang Bank, Ltd		$0.01
Wong	Alexander	$0.01
Wong	Elizabeth	$0.01
Wong	Gerard	$0.01
Wong	Gerard	$100.00
Wong	Gerard	$200.00
Wong	Grace	$0.01
Wong	Kenneth	$0.01
Wong	Tony K	$0.01
Wong	Viviana Yao	$0.01
Wu	Yuk Sim	$0.01
Yao	Baoni King	$0.01
Yao	Maeva	$0.01
Young	Christine	$400.01
Yu	Raymond	$0.01
Yuen	Kwok Kin	$0.01
Zee	Yuan Chung	$0.01
Black Pearl Source, Corp		$100.01
Chu	Shui Ching	$0.01
Pacific Flooring Manufacture, Inc		$100.01
Political Action Committee of CCAA		$100.01
Total Forfeiture		$5,000.61

 

---

[3]
Former section 1.114(e), which was applicable during the period covered
by the audit, is now codified as section 1.114(d).