Ethics Commission
City and County of San Francisco

San Francisco Ethics Commission Audit Report: Re-Elect London Breed for Supervisor 2016, FPPC ID #1379920

I. Introduction

This Audit Report summarizes the audit results of the Re-Elect London Breed for Supervisor 2016 Committee, Identification Number 1379920 (“the Committee”), for the period from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2016. The audit was conducted by Ethics Commission staff following the 2016 City election as part of the Commission’s 2016 audit cycle to determine whether the Committee materially complied with applicable 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 to audit campaign statements that are filed with the Commission along with other relevant documents to determine whether a committee materially 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 and authorizes other audits to be initiated of other committees irrespective of whether the committee received any public funds.

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:

A. Compliance with all disclosure requirements pertaining to contributions, expenditures, accrued expenditures, and loans, including itemization when required;
B. Compliance with applicable filing deadlines;
C. Compliance with restrictions on contributions, loans, and expenditures;
D. Accuracy of total reported receipts, disbursements, and cash balances as compared to bank records; and
E. 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 qualified as a committee on October 27, 2015 to support the re-election of London Breed for Supervisor in District 5 in the November 8, 2016 general election. For the period covered by the audit, Stacy Owens served as the treasurer and Marissa Quaranta served as an assistant treasurer. The candidate opted not to participate in the public matching funds program and did not receive public funds in connection with this campaign. At the time this report was issued, the Committee remains active.

V. Audit Findings

For the period covered by the audit, the Committee received $374,793 in contributions, including non-monetary contributions of $150, and incurred $387,545 in qualified campaign expenditures.

Auditors concluded that there was one material finding with respect to the Committee.

Finding 1 – – The Committee received contributions from a contractor doing business with the City and County of San Francisco that were prohibited under San Francisco C&GC Code Section 1.126.

Section 1.126 provides the following:

City elective officers and committees controlled by City elective officers may not solicit or accept contributions from persons who are seeking or recently entered certain government contracts. The ban applies when (1) the City and County of San Francisco, a state agency on whose board an appointee of a City elective officer serves, the San Francisco Unified School District, or the San Francisco Community College District is a party to the Contract, (2) the contract or series of contracts in the same fiscal year has total anticipated or actual value of $50,000 or more in a fiscal year, and (3) the City elective officer, a board on which that officer serves, or the board of a state agency on which the officer’s appointee series must approve that contract or series of contracts.

The ban goes into effect when the contract is submitted to the City elective officer or a board on which the officer serves. The ban ends when either the parties terminate contract negotiations or six months have elapsed form the date the contract is approved.

During this period, the City elective officer, or any committee controlled by the City elective officer, may not solicit or accept a contribution form the following persons:

  • any party or prospective party to the contract,
  • the contracting party’s board of directors, its chairperson, chief executive officer, chief financial officer, chief operating officer,
  • any person with an ownership interest of more than 20 percent in the contracting party,
  • any subcontractor listed in the contract, and
  • any committee that is sponsored or controlled by the contracting party.

Auditors determined that the Committee received contributions from the CEO of a City contractor with a contract valued at more than $50,000 or more in a fiscal year before six months had elapsed from the date the contract was approved by the Board of Supervisors:

Name of Contributor Name of Employer Contributor’s Position Amt of Contrib. Date of Contrib. Made Date of Contract Approval Date of Ban Expired Contrib. Made before 6 mons elapsed?
Wayne Perry Cornerstone Consulting & Technology Chief Executive Officer $100 4/21/16 6/14/16 12/14/16 Yes
Wayne Perry Cornerstone Consulting & Technology Chief Executive Officer $150 6/30/16 6/14/16 12/14/16 Yes
Wayne Perry Cornerstone Consulting & Technology Chief Executive Officer $250 10/23/16 6/14/16 12/14/16 Yes
Total $500

VI. Committee’s Response to the Finding

In response to the Audit Finding, the Committee provided the following response:

“Acceptance of any non-allowable contribution by the Re-Elect London Breed for Supervisor 2016 committee was entirely unintentional. The committee will return the relevant contribution now that it has been made aware of the situation. The committee’s intention was not to accept a contribution that was not allowable under law, and acceptance of any such contribution was an oversight.”

Was this page helpful?

:

*Required fields

Scan with a QR reader to access page:
QR Code to Access Page
https://sfethics.org/ethics/2018/01/san-francisco-ethics-commission-audit-report-re-elect-london-breed-for-supervisor-2016-fppc-id-1379920.html