I. Introduction
This Audit Report summarizes the audit results of the committee, Hydra Mendoza for School Board, Identification Number 1290372 (“the Committee”), for the period from January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006. 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 section 1.100, et seq).
II. 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 laws. Section 1.150(a) of the CFRO requires the Commission to audit all candidates who receive public financing.
III. 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:
- 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.
The Commission posts audit reports to its web site and, in cases of apparent violations of law, forwards them to the appropriate enforcement agency.
IV. Committee Information
The Committee was formed in August 2006 to support the election of Hydra Mendoza to the Board of Education in the November 7, 2006 general election. John J. Bitterman served as the treasurer. The Committee was active as of December 31, 2006.
V. Audit Findings
For the period covered by the audit, the Committee received $58,963 in contributions and incurred $52,227 in expenditures.
The Commission determined that there was one material finding with respect to the audit of the Committee. The Committee did not report fifteen contributions of $100 or more and did not disclose full contributor information for three contributions of $100 or more, in violation of California Government Code section 84211(f) and San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code (S.F. C&GC Code) sections 1.106 and 1.114.
California Government Code section 84211(f) and San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code (S.F C&GC Code) section 1.106 provide 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.
Prior to depositing contributions totaling $100 or more, committees must obtain the contributor’s full name, street address, 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&GC Code 1.114(e)). A committee is 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 do not comply with the requirements of or that exceed the limits imposed by section 1.114 must be forfeited to the City (S.F. C&GC Code Section 1.114(f)).
The following contributions were not reported or not reported with complete contributor information on the first campaign statement in which the contributions were required to be reported:
|
Contributor |
Date of Contribution |
Reason for Forfeiture |
Amount |
|
Keene, Yvonne (Chris Keene on amendment) |
10/19/06 |
Incomplete employer or occupation information |
$250 |
|
Grossman, Daniel |
10/26/06 |
Incomplete employer or occupation information |
$100 |
|
Dooley, Majella |
11/2/06 |
Incomplete employer or occupation information |
$100 |
|
Bay Area Union Labor Party |
9/29/06 |
Not reported on Form 460 Recipient Committee Campaign Statement |
$250 |
|
J & G Enterprises |
10/21/06 |
Not reported on Form 460 Recipient Committee Campaign Statement |
$500 |
|
Holliday, Dawn |
10/30/06 |
Not reported on Form 460 Recipient Committee Campaign Statement |
$500 |
|
Keane, Christopher |
10/30/06 |
Not reported on Form 460 Recipient Committee Campaign Statement |
$500 |
|
Rose, Laura |
10/30/06 |
Not reported on Form 460 Recipient Committee Campaign Statement |
$500 |
|
Sutton, Jim |
10/30/06 |
Not reported on Form 460 Recipient Committee Campaign Statement |
$250 |
|
Ginsburg, Phil |
10/30/06 |
Not reported on Form 460 Recipient Committee Campaign Statement |
$200 |
|
Sunshine, Stuart |
10/30/06 |
Not reported on Form 460 Recipient Committee Campaign Statement |
$200 |
|
Fraser, Jean |
10/30/06 |
Not reported on Form 460 Recipient Committee Campaign Statement |
$150 |
|
Lee, Blitch |
10/30/06 |
Not reported on Form 460 Recipient Committee Campaign Statement |
$100 |
|
Corrigan, Robert |
10/30/06 |
Not reported on Form 460 Recipient Committee Campaign Statement |
$100 |
|
Halper, Kelly |
10/30/06 |
Not reported on Form 460 Recipient Committee Campaign Statement |
$100 |
|
Porth, Jason |
10/30/06 |
Not reported on Form 460 Recipient Committee Campaign Statement |
$100 |
|
Ragone, Peter |
10/30/06 |
Not reported on Form 460 Recipient Committee Campaign Statement |
$100 |
|
Sweet, Michael |
10/30/06 |
Not reported on Form 460 Recipient Committee Campaign Statement |
$100 |
|
Total |
$4,100 |
The Committee amended its campaign statements to report all of the above contributions after the filing deadlines.
VI. Committee’s Response to Finding
The Committee was provided with an opportunity to review and comment on this audit report. The Committee’s comments are as follows:
The fifteen contributions not originally disclosed came from a single fundraising event held in October 2006. As soon as the Committee discovered that it had not deposited or disclosed the checks, it immediately filed an amendment to the applicable pre-election report to disclose the contributions. The late disclosure of these fifteen contributions was completely inadvertent. The Committee also notes that these contributions total only five percent of total contributions received by the Committee.