City and County of San Francisco
Ethics Commission

English

1. Introduction

   This Audit Report summarizes the audit results of the Yes on Proposition C ballot measure committee, Identification Number 1269908 (“the Committee”), 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”) (San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code § 1.100, et seq)1.

2. 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 along with other relevant documents to determine whether a committee complied with applicable requirements of State and local law.  The Commission randomly selected the Committee for audit.

3. 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; and
   5. Compliance with all record-keeping requirements. 

   The Commission posts audit reports to its web site and, in cases of violations of law, forwards them to the appropriate enforcement agency.

4. Committee Information

   The Committee was formed in September 2004 to support Proposition C in the November 2, 2004 general election.  Ronald Jin served as the treasurer.  The Committee’s filing obligations were completed on June 30, 2005.

5. Audit Findings

   For the period covered by the audit, the Committee received $116,282 (including non-monetary contributions of $7,775) in contributions and incurred expenditures of $108,507.

   The Commission determined that there was one material finding with respect to the audit of the Committee.  The Committee did not include in its recorded telephone message, the statement: “paid for by _____ (insert name of person who paid for the recorded telephone message)”, in violation of San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code (S.F. C&GC Code) section 1.163.

   The committee spent $10,750 to send a recorded telephone message to about 100,000 households.  The above referenced disclosure statement was not included in the message.

   S.F. C&GC Code section 1.163 requires that any recorded telephone messages distributed to 500 or more individuals or households include the statement: “paid for by _____ (insert name of person who paid for the recorded telephone message).”  Statements required pursuant to this section must be audible and played at the same volume and speed as the rest of the recorded telephone message.  In addition, any person paying for a recorded telephone message must maintain a transcript of the message and a record of the number of distributed calls for each message.

6. Committee’s Response to Findings

   The Committee was provided with an opportunity to comment on this audit report.  The Committee did not provide any comments.