By Howard Mintz
hmintz@mercurynews.com
Posted: 05/18/2012 05:41:38 AM PDT
Updated: 05/18/2012 05:42:00 AM PDT

California’s judges will now have to post all their financial disclosure information in cyberspace.

In a unanimous decision, the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission on Thursday approved a rule that requires California’s more than 1,700 judges to post their disclosure forms on the Internet, despite objections from judicial leaders that it could jeopardize their privacy and security.

The FPPC decided to impose the 2-year-old rule on judges that already had been applied to the rest of the state’s elected officials.

To read entire story, click here.

Published: Friday, May. 4, 2012 – 12:00 am | Page 4A

The director of California’s political watchdog agency is shelving her proposal to require bloggers to disclose payments they receive from political campaigns.

Chairwoman Ann Ravel of the Fair Political Practices Commission said she remains committed to holding public debate on mandatory disclosure with the hope that a plan could emerge in the future.

Ravel said she wants to seek voluntary disclosure by bloggers for the November election, but conceded, “I don’t think there’s going to be a large amount.”

She said she may ask the FPPC to consider requiring political candidates to publicize any money they pay to bloggers and link to that information on their websites.

Candidates already are required to disclose payments to bloggers as a campaign expenditure, but the information typically is contained in a long list of expenses and is easily overlooked by voters.

To read entire story, click here.

James Ramos, former chairman of the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, with San Bernardino County District Attorney Mike Ramos, Wednesday evening at a campaign fundraiser at the National Orange Show Events Center in San Bernardino, Calif., May 2, 2012. (Redlands-Loma Linda Patch photo by Guy McCarthy.)

By Guy McCarthy
May 2, 2012

The campaign for James Ramos, candidate for county supervisor in the Third District that includes Redlands and Loma Linda, released part of a letter Wednesday from the Fair Political Practices Commission stating his disclosure of economic interests are appropriate.

Ramos supporters said the FPPC’s enforcement division chief “today dismissed a frivolous complaint from a Neil Derry supporter that alleged improper reporting of Form 700 disclosure forms.”

A press release from Ramos’ campaign quoted part of the letter from Gary Winuk:

“This letter concerns the Fair Political Practices Commission’s Enforcement Division’s review of your complaint alleging James Ramos’ inaccurate completion of his Statements of Economic Interests.

“After review by staff, it was determined that because his Statements of Economic Interests were filed for several agencies, they appropriately reflect the different disclosure requirements attached to each position he holds, which leads to a difference in the levels of disclosure on each statement.”

The portion of Winuck’s letter released by Ramos’ campaign did not mention current Third District Supervisor Neil Derry, who is running for re-election against Ramos.

“This is the type of political gaming voters have come to expect from Neil Derry,” Ramos campaign spokesman Andre Levesque said in a prepared statement. “We knew all along these reports were a desperate attempt by Neil Derry to divert attention from Derry’s criminal past.”

Reached Wednesday evening, Derry said the FPPC did not dig deep enough.

To read entire story, click here.

Wednesday, May 2, 2012 – 10:00 a.m.

The flap over the Form 700 – Statements of Economic Disclosure Forms filed by San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors candidate and former San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Chairman James Ramos in his various capacities as San Bernardino Community College District Trustee, State Board of Education Member and San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors candidate, raise really one main question.

Ramos currently functions in all three capacities and recently surrendered his Tribal Chairman title.

Yes! The term title hungry does comes to mind here.

After examining the forms, the only issue that really stands out, besides Ramos ducking and weaving his Tribal ties, is his small businesses.

Ramos operates two local restaurants in the San Bernardino and Highland area.

Those restaurants, Yum Yum Restaurant and Pepito’s, now reported under Diversity Investments have been in existence for years.

The most evident underlying question is whether or not these two businesses generate any profit distribution to Ramos as he states in his latest disclosure filing.

Ramos’s 2012 statement is the first a profit was ever disclosed.

Ramos, who recently shuttered two other businesses, GFE Coffee House’s, one near Cal-State San Bernardino, and the other in a Highland shopping center, reports he receives more than $100,000 in income from his two remaining restaurants.

A claim that could be suspect without Ramos producing his business and personal tax returns.

Ramos has been touting himself as a successful businessman.

As a matter of fact, Ramos, as a conerstone of his campaign, says he wants to bring jobs back to San Bernardino County.

With two previously failed businesses, Ramos can’t afford to have two more, exposed teetering on the brink before the June 5 primary election.

In other words, if Ramos is intentionally reporting a profit where there is none, then he could have a problem.

Former San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Chairman James Ramos

Joe Nelson, Staff Writer
Posted: 04/30/2012 05:26:19 PM PDT

View: Complaint

A complaint has been filed against San Bernardino County supervisor candidate and former San Manuel tribal chairman James Ramos, alleging that he failed to report his income and real property interests on state campaign disclosure forms.

The complaint, dated April 3 and received by the state Fair Political Practices Commission on April 12, alleges that Ramos failed to report on his form 700 Statement of Economic Interest a house he owns in Big Bear Lake and shares of stock in Pfizer Inc., a pharmaceutical company, and General Electric Co.

Ramos is also alleged to have failed to report his income as former chairman of the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians while serving on the San Bernardino Community College District’s board of trustees. In addition, he is alleged to have not reported any income from his monthly tribal stipend, any ownership interest in the tribe’s affiliated holdings and any income or losses from his businesses, Yum Yum Restaurant and Pepito’s Restaurant, both in San Bernardino.

The FPPC typically decides within 14 days of receiving a complaint if it will investigate. As of Monday, a decision had not yet been made, said Tara Stock, legislative coordinator for the FPPC.

Ramos’ attorney Diane Fishburn said Monday that she has submitted a response to the complaint and that the FPPC should reach its decision by the end of the week.

Ramos has served on the college district’s board of trustees since 2005. He was appointed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2008 to the state Native American Heritage Commission, and also serves on the state Board of Education.

He said he has always abided by the letter of the law when filing his 700 forms.

“We have been totally compliant with the law. I’m confident we did everything correctly,” Ramos said, adding that his attorney vets the forms before they are filed to ensure full disclosure. “This is just another way for my opponent to throw something out there to see if anything sticks.”

Ramos is vying for the county’s 3rd District supervisorial seat held since 2008 by Neil Derry, who says Ramos is subject to the same reporting requirements as everyone else.

“The 700 form is a very clear document, and it states very clearly what needs to be reported,” Derry. said. “I think the public deserves to know where politicians derive their income.”

To read entire story, click here.

Capitol Alert
The latest on California politics and government
April 20, 2012

Bracing for a flood of independent expenditures for candidates or causes in this year’s elections, California’s political watchdog agency is seeking to tighten state law to require more personal liability.

FPPC Chairwoman Ann Ravel said that legislation is being drafted, at the agency’s behest, to require that principal officers of independent expenditure committees be held personally responsible for violations of election law.

The bill would take effect immediately if passed by a two-thirds supermajority of each legislative house and signed by Gov. Jerry Brown.

Independent expenditure committees can spend unlimited sums in elections without coordinating their efforts with the campaigns of candidates or causes they support or oppose.

Two years ago, the FPPC released a report that concluded $127 million had been spent on independent expenditures since 2000. The money comes primarily from labor unions, business groups, political parties, wealthy individuals, and Indian tribes with casinos, the FPPC said.

To read entire story, click here.

By Jim Sanders
jsanders@sacbee.com
Published: Friday, Apr. 20, 2012 – 12:00 am | Page 3A

Paid political attack dogs always have found safe haven in the free-wheeling anonymity of the Internet, but California is set to challenge that.

The leader of the state’s political watchdog agency said Thursday that she wants bloggers to be required to disclose payments received from campaigns.

“The public should know about such a connection in the political arena so they can properly evaluate endorsements,” Chairwoman Ann Ravel said.

The proposal is sure to be watched closely nationwide for targeting a mass medium known as a bastion of anything-goes free speech.

FPPC officials said they believe California would be the first state to place strings on political commentary.

Critics contend that government could be overstepping its bounds.

“I think if people are blogging an opinion, they have a right to do it,” said Assemblyman Sandre Swanson, D-Alameda. “I just think a free press is fundamental, even if people are paid to (blog).”

Assemblyman Bill Berryhill, R-Ceres, countered that voters have a right to know who is getting paid to sway their opinions.

“Transparency is always good in government,” he said.

Ravel said she initially will ask the FPPC to adopt guidelines asking bloggers to disclose before the November presidential election.

Her goal for future elections is mandatory disclosure, Ravel said.

“I think this is one of those issues that’s extremely controversial, so it needs to be done incrementally,” Ravel said. “But my view is, it should ultimately be required.”

Payments to bloggers became a public issue in the 2010 gubernatorial election after a Placer County blogger, Aaron F. Park, was removed from a conservative website when it was learned that he was paid by a consultant for Steve Poizner.

Park said he did not hide his connection to Poizner’s consultant – in fact, he personally disclosed that to the operator of the website, which was receiving money from Meg Whitman’s campaign, he said.

“A lot of people out there that pilloried me and talked about what I dirtbag I was, they’ve all been on the take for years,” Park said.

A Rocklin resident, Park now operates a conservative Republican website, rightondaily.com, that discloses its consultants are paid by Les Baugh’s state Senate campaign.

“A lot of the bloggers out there are getting paid in one form or another,” Park said. “Some of them do it by selling advertisements on their website and some actually take direct payments from campaigns.”

Park said he opposes “government telling anybody to do anything, but if these idiots would start being ethical about what they’re doing there would be no reason for government to be stepping in with more regulations.”

To read entire story, click here.

BY JIM MILLER
jmiller@pe.com

Published: 17 April 2012 06:03 PM

SACRAMENTO — Scandal-scarred San Bernardino County wants to become the first local government in California to outsource an ethics program to the state Fair Political Practices Commission.

First, though, the county needs legislation allowing the state watchdog agency to provide the service, and a key deadline is in less than two weeks.

“Clearly San Bernardino has had issues with its ethics oversight over the years,” said Ann Ravel, chairwoman of the Fair Political Practices Commission. “We’ve been working with the county on this. I think it’s a really good idea,”

Procedural rules have stalled the bill’s progress, at least temporarily. The initial measure, by Assemblyman Paul Cook, R-Yucca Valley, was never referred to committee because it lacked detailed amendment language.

Cook said his office has identified another bill that already is in the appropriate committee and can be amended to include the San Bernardino County proposal. Time is tight, though: the last day for policy committees to pass bills with a fiscal impact is April 27.

“The rules will be the same as what I go through,” said Cook, referring to the state’s per-election limit on individual campaign contributions. “I think this would be a very positive step for the citizens of San Bernardino County.”

A handful of California cities and counties have their own ethics commissions, such as Los Angeles and San Diego. Neither Riverside County nor any of its cities have ethics panels.

San Bernardino County has a long history of transgressions by its leaders. Most recent are the charges at the center of the ongoing Colonies corruption inquiry involving $400,000 in alleged bribes — all in the form of donations to political action committees — to secure a $102 million lawsuit settlement.

To read entire story, click here.

California game official avoids fine from cougar hunt
The Associated Press
Created: 04/12/2012 03:49:36 PM PDT

California regulators on Thursday issued a warning letter to the president of the state Fish and Game Commission over a mountain lion hunting trip he took earlier this year, but they decided against issuing a fine.

The Fair Political Practices Commission took the action against Dan Richards, a Republican commercial real estate developer from Upland. It said he violated the state’s $420 gift limit when he accepted a hunting trip in January worth $6,800 from Flying B Ranch in Idaho.

Richards repaid the ranch, but he did so after the required 30-day window for repayment. He could have faced a $5,000 fine.

To read entire story, click here.

March 26th, 2012, 11:14 am
Posted by BRIAN JOSEPH, Sacramento Correspondent

Four years ago, the Enforcement Division of the state Fair Political Practices Commission had a sizable backlog of investigations.

The division, which enforces political ethics rules in areas like campaign finance and conflicts of interest, had 263 open cases that were more than two years old in 2008.

No wonder Capitol insiders dismissed the state’s top political watchdog as ineffective.

But things are changing at the FPPC. The Enforcement Division recently announced in its 2011 end-of-the-year report that the backlog of cases older than two years has been reduced to just 10 cases – virtually nothing.

The division eliminated its backlog through simple changes. Officials worked to standardize processes involving low-level cases, they stopped having investigators spend days transcribing their own interviews and they created a law clerk program, where minor cases are handled by clerks, not investigators.

The report also documents an increased focus by the Enforcement Division on more serious cases as well as a trend by the division of concluding cases faster. The commission recently resolved a money laundering case connected with the November 2011 San Francisco mayor’s race.

In the past, such a case would have taken the commission years to resolve. This time, the Enforcement Division did it in months.

The Enforcement Division also has made news for its involvement in the Kinde Durkee case. Durkee once was a high-profile treasurer for California Democrats, but was accused last year of taking money from her clients, a long list that included U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, U.S. Rep. Loretta Sanchez, State Sen. Lou Correa and Assemblyman Jose Solorio. The Enforcement Division worked with the FBI on the case.

To read entire story, click here.

Published: 15 March 2012 04:04 PM

A state commission has fined a member of the Canyon Lake City Council $6,000 for failing to disqualify himself from three governmental decisions in 2008 and 2009 relating to a proposed halt on hillside development in which he had a financial interest.

The California Fair Political practices Commission in Sacramento penalized Jordan Ehrenkranz, who is now mayor, for violating the Political Reform Act.

At the time, Ehrenkranz, a council member, voted against decisions that would prevent two business partners to whom he loaned money from building on the city’s last piece of viable commercial property, according to court documents.

The owners of Sky Blue Investments., Inc., a real estate investment firm, wanted to build an 85,000-square-foot commercial shopping center and a 16-home residential development on a 35-acre parcel known as Goetz Hill — more commonly called Goat Hill.

Sky Blue’s property was within 500 feet of the ridgelines which were at the center of the hillside preservation ordinances considered in 2008 and 2009 by the Canyon Lake City Council. The city eventually passed a rule in 2009 to restrict hillside development, which killed Sky Blue’s proposed project.

Reached at his Canyon Lake home Thursday, Ehrenkranz, 78, said: “I voted wrong, supposedly. I maintain my innocence because at the time I wasn’t aware I was doing anything wrong.

To read entire story, click here.

PolitiCal
On politics in the Golden State
March 15, 2012 | 4:31 pm

The state Fair Political Practices Commission decided Thursday to delay posting financial interest statements by 2,500 elected judges on the Internet after representatives said they feared the easy access to personal information would put them in danger.

The commission’s staff had proposed that the judges’ statements be posted on the Web, excluding information that might pose a security problem, such as the address of a condo owned by a judge and rented to the judge’s college-age daughter. The delay until at least May was approved to develop guidelines for determining which information should be excluded from posting on the commission’s website.

The California Judges Assn. requested that the statements detailing their investments, real estate holdings and gifts received be kept at state offices for public inspection to make it harder for people with ill intent to determine where judges and their family members live and work.

To read entire brief, click here.

Derry

Neil Derry has paid $15,000 in fines since pleading guilty in July
By Joe Nelson, The (San Bernardino County) Sun
Posted: 03/12/2012 12:31:14 PM PDT

The state’s Fair Political Practices Commission is poised to close its file on San Bernardino County Supervisor Neil Derry, who in July pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor count of failing to report a $5,000 campaign contribution.

The Commission is scheduled to consider the action at its Thursday board meeting.

Derry has paid a total of $15,000 in fines to the FPPC and San Bernardino Superior Court, where in July he pleaded guilty to the charge under a plea agreement with the state Attorney General’s Office. Judge Michael Dest ordered Derry to pay a $5,000 fine to the FPPC and a total of $4,180 to the court. Derry subsequently made an additional $5,000 disgorgement payment to the FPPC.

To read entire story, click here.

A formal complaint has been filed accusing the California Fish and Game Commission president who shot a cougar in Idaho of violating California law by accepting a free hunt, complete with dogs and a tracker.

Daniel Richards, a San Bernardino County Republican who has been a commissioner since 2008, killed the cat at a ranch that normally charges thousands for the privilege, according to the complaint filed with the California Fair Political Practices Commission.

Kathy Bowler, the former executive director of the California Democratic Party, filed the complaint, citing state law limiting gifts to elected officials and members of state boards and commissions to a maximum of $420 a year. Bowler also complained that Richards did not report the gift to the FPPC. Under state law, gifts must be reported within 30 days.

It is the latest development in a controversy that began when Richards sent a photo to the Western Outdoor News blog of himself lifting the dead cougar during a Jan. 20 expedition at the Flying B Ranch in northern Idaho. The blog quoted the giddy commissioner saying, “I’m glad it’s legal in Idaho.”

Richards, who has claimed in previous interviews that he is an avid hunter who got his first gun when he was 10, told the blog the eight-hour hunt was the fulfillment of a long-held goal.

Puma hunting was banned in California in 1971 and voters renewed the ban in 1990. Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, 40 Democratic Assembly members, animal rights groups and citizens have demanded that Richards resign from the commission, which oversees wildlife management in California. But Richards has been defiant, telling legislators to mind their own business, boasting that he dined on cougar the night of the hunt, and appearing on a conservative talk show and attacking his critics. Richards, who has refused to comment beyond his provocative statements on the radio, has never addressed the issue of whether he paid for the hunt.

Flying B Ranch charges $6,800 for seven days of cougar hunting with two guides. The price includes airport pickup, meals, drinks and a room in the lodge on the 14,000-acre ranch, according to Joseph Peterson, the ranch manager.

Bird hunting

Peterson said Friday that Richards went to the ranch in January to hunt for pheasant, partridge and other birds at a cost of $1,600 a day. He said Richards and a group of four or five others shot clay pigeons on the first afternoon and were planning to hunt birds the next couple of days. While they were hunting birds, he said, puma tracks were spotted by ranch workers, who then asked members of Richards’ group whether they wanted to participate in a puma hunt.

“He said he would love to because he’s never seen a mountain lion,” Peterson said of Richards.

Several members of Richards’ group were present, Peterson said, when three pumas were treed by hounds that day. Peterson said one of the cougars was shot by an employee and another was shot by a guest. The third was let go, Peterson said.

Puma exhausted

Richards knew Peterson was going out the next morning to look for more mountain lion tracks.

“He said if we found one of larger size he was interested in harvesting it,” said Peterson, who fetched Richards when he spotted new tracks. “He was there when we set the hounds loose.”

The hunt was grueling and dangerous, according to Peterson. The desperate puma raced through forests and scaled rocky, nearly inaccessible cliffs that the dogs couldn’t get through and had to be taken around. At one point the cougar circled back on his own tracks and tricked the dogs. On two occasions, the puma climbed trees to rest, but jumped back down and escaped before the hunters got there.

Finally, the big cat was too exhausted to go on and planted himself 40-feet up in a large Douglas fir tree.

To read entire story, click here.

Ethics panel member sends letters to council members who have voted themselves onto local boards that pay stipends up to $5,000.

By Patrick McGreevy, Los Angeles Times
February 20, 2012

Reporting from Sacramento— Dozens of city officials throughout California have voted to appoint themselves to local boards that pay stipends of up to $5,000 annually, a practice state watchdogs say violates conflict-of-interest laws.

e mayors and council members involved argue that the amounts are so small, and the votes so routine, that they deserve an exemption from those laws. Most of the appointments are made to sanitation, fire and water boards by votes of city councils.

Also
6 lawmakers recuse themselves in Rep. Waters inquiry 6 lawmakers recuse themselves in Rep. Waters inquiry
California’s political watchdog panel eases its approach to ethics issues California’s political watchdog panel eases its approach to ethics issues
L.A. ethics panel may raise campaign contribution limits L.A. ethics panel may raise campaign contribution limits
Romney tax returns detail funds not identified in ethics forms Romney tax returns detail funds not identified in ethics forms
Newt Gingrich, in Sunday victory lap, dismisses ethics worries Newt Gingrich, in Sunday victory lap, dismisses ethics worries

Ads by Google

Santa Monica Seafood50% off at Santa Monica Seafood in Costa Mesa. Save Today. www.OCRegister.com/DealoftheDay

Fair Political Practices Commission staff member Gary S. Winuk, chief of enforcement, has concluded that the votes violate state political law. Rather than fine the council members, he issued letters to 40 of them in Orange County, telling them to stop. He agreed that the money at issue is not significant enough to warrant prosecution and penalties — at least not yet.

Taxpayer advocate Lew Uhler called the warning letters a “slap on the wrist” and is urging that the officials be fined. They should know better, he said.

“That’s a clear conflict of interest, where members are voting on something from which they will derive a personal benefit in compensation,” said Uhler, president of the California-based National Tax Limitation Committee.

The full Fair Political Practices Commission will take up the matter March 15. It was brought to the panel’s attention in a number of sworn complaints filed by Matthew Delaney, a Tustin painting contractor who noticed that city council members throughout Orange County were regularly helping to vote themselves onto paid boards.

To read entire story, click here.

The Fair Political Practices Commission has eased restrictions on gifts to lawmakers, called fewer open meetings and stopped notifying the public of pending investigations. Some good-government advocates are angry.

By Patrick McGreevy, Los Angeles Times
February 13, 2012, 9:59 p.m.

Reporting from Sacramento — Three decades after Gov. Jerry Brown played a key role in creating a state political watchdog, the panel — now dominated by his appointees — has retreated from its aggressive approach to ethics enforcement.

As part of a top-to-bottom rewrite of regulations in the last year, the Fair Political Practices Commission has eased restrictions on gifts from lobbyists to lawmakers, scaled back its open meetings and stopped notifying the public of pending investigations. Its job is to enforce laws on election campaigns, lobbying and conflicts of interest involving public employees, including the governor.

Commission Chairwoman Ann Ravel, whom Brown appointed in February 2011, said she was trying to make rules fair, clearer and easier to comply with and to focus on the worst offenders rather than on those who make minor mistakes. But she has outraged some good-government advocates along the way.

“I think the agenda is to basically castrate the commission,” said fellow Commissioner Ronald Rotunda, a Chapman University law professor appointed by the state controller.

The panel prosecuted some big cases against politicians in the five years before Ravel took over, assessing them large fines, and tightened restrictions on the activity of public officials. Ravel, a veteran government attorney, said Brown gave her no marching orders when he appointed her.

“What we want to do is make sure that public officials use their positions for the good of the public and aren’t doing it for their own self-interest,” she said in an interview in her downtown Sacramento office.

The commission was born as part of the Political Reform Act, an initiative co-authored by Brown and approved by California voters in 1974 after a series of political scandals. So that no single official has undue influence over it, two members are appointed by the governor and one each by the attorney general, secretary of state and controller.

But because Brown was California’s attorney general before becoming governor a year ago, he has appointed the majority of commission members. He also made the body’s top attorney a political appointee rather than a civil servant, which allows the governor to replace the person who advises the commission and politicians on what’s allowable.

Brown declined to be interviewed. His spokesman, Gil Duran, said the governor has no specific agenda for the commission but supports what his chairwoman is doing.

“The governor believes Ann Ravel is doing an outstanding job and operating in the best traditions of an independent agency, advancing the public trust in a practical and intelligent way,” Duran said.

Brown’s first appointee to the commission, in 2009 when he was attorney general, was controversial. He tapped Lynn Montgomery, who had managed the gubernatorial run of former Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante six years before. The campaign paid one of the largest fines in FPPC history.

“To appoint somebody who had a history of being involved in a campaign that crossed the line in the most egregious way in ethics law violations is troubling,” said Kathay Feng, president of California Common Cause.

And the governor has had a sometimes contentious relationship with the commission.

In 1981, the FPPC called for a criminal investigation into whether key aides to then-Gov. Brown had perjured themselves, destroyed some records and withheld others to thwart a probe of possibly improper political activity in the governor’s office. State law bars government resources from being used for campaigns or other political purposes.

To read entire story, click here.

PolitiCal
On politics in the Golden State
February 3, 2012 | 2:46 pm

A veteran attorney for the state’s political watchdog agency has been named acting executive director, addressing concern by some good-government activists that the position had long been vacant.

John W. Wallace, who has been the state Fair Political Practices Commission’s assistant general counsel, was approved by the panel to serve as its top staffer on an interim basis without any increase in pay.

“He is someone who is very well respected and knows a lot about the Political Reform Act,” commission Chairwoman Ann Ravel said on Friday.

Ravel had been under pressure from groups including California Common Cause to fill the post, which is required by state statute, ever since former Executive Director Roman Porter left in October. Initially, Ravel divided up the duties of the post between herself and other senior staffers.

To read entire story, click here.

The California Fair Political Practices Commission loosens restrictions on expensive gifts in cases of lobbyists dating lawmakers and for ceremonial duties at entertainment and sporting events.

By Patrick McGreevy, Los Angeles Times
December 8, 2011, 9:39 p.m.

Reporting from Sacramento— State lawmakers and city council members can accept expensive gifts from lobbyists without disclosure if they are dating, and can receive meals and lodging in lobbyists’ homes without telling the public, under rules approved Thursday by the state ethics agency.

In addition, officials can accept tickets to Major League Baseball games and other sports and entertainment events if they are performing a “ceremonial duty,” such as throwing out the first pitch. They no longer have to report such gifts, although their government agency must do so, and now they can bring a guest. In another change, it doesn’t matter how much the gift is worth.

The rules overhaul by the Fair Political Practices Commission came in the wake of politicians’ complaints that they were confusing and overly intrusive.

“Gift regulations should apply only in situations when the public official receiving the gift makes governmental decisions that directly affect the person giving,” commission Chairwoman Ann Ravel said.

But groups such as Common Cause said some of the changes go too far, making it easier for lobbyists and others to influence elected officials by showering them with gifts, especially where romance is asserted.

“The problem with regulating corruption in this state’s political culture is that it is so prevalent that it even appears in the bedroom,” said Phillip Ung, policy advocate for California Common Cause.

State law currently bars public officials from accepting gifts valued at more than $420 from a single source or $10 from a registered lobbyist. Officials are required each year to disclose gifts worth more than $50 from many sources, including firms doing business with the state.

The new rules take effect Jan. 1.

Under one new rule, a public official would have to avoid voting on an issue benefiting a dating partner. But meals, concert tickets and other gifts provided by the partner as part of the relationship would not need to be disclosed or limited.

“To the extent that legislator/lobbyist dating is a problem, real or perceived, staff defers to the Legislature to police its own house,” wrote commission General Counsel Zackery P. Morazzini in a memo to the panel.

To read entire story, click here.

By Torey Van Oot |
tvanoot@sacbee.com
Published: Thursday, Nov. 24, 2011 – 12:00 am | Page 3A

The gift-giving season is always tricky for California legislators and other public officials, who must disclose the goodies they get to comply with the state’s Political Reform Act.

Now the state Fair Political Practices Commission is trying to rewrite the rules.

The revised regulations, which could receive final approval in coming weeks, include changes sparked by real-life situations that commission staff say have created cumbersome, confusing or unnecessary reporting requirements.

“The objective,” staff wrote in a memo, “is to fix what’s broke without breaking what’s fixed.”

Still, some of the proposed exceptions in the rules have been criticized by good-government advocates who say it’s better to err on the side of disclosure.

Here are a few of the situations the commission is tackling:

DATING RELATIONSHIPS

A legislator and a lobbyist go on a date. Should the lawmaker have to report the dinner tab if the lobbyist paid? What about the cost of a weekend getaway or anniversary gift exchanged in an ongoing relationship?

Rule: While gifts from spouses and other family members are already exempt from disclosure rules, situations involving boyfriends and girlfriends are not addressed. Staff has considered situations on a case-by-case basis, ultimately deeming the “gift” exempt in most cases.

Proposal: Gifts exchanged in a “dating relationship,” even a first and only date, would not count toward limits or require disclosure. But if the annual gifts exchanged exceed more than $420 in value, the official must recuse him or herself from actions on the job that would benefit his or her significant other.

FLYING FREE

A state constitutional officer accepts a lift on a chartered jet to travel from Sacramento to Washington, D.C., for a series of meetings.

Rule: The value of the gift to be reported could be considered the entire cost of chartering the flight if the recipient is the only “official” on board.

Proposal: The value of the flight would be either the cost of the charter divided by the number of people on board (as opposed to the number of lawmakers or other officials) or the price of a first-class ticket for a comparable trip. While some types of travel, such as trips to give a speech and those paid for by nonprofits, are not subject to gift limits, the official would have to pay the difference for flights in other cases worth more than $420.

WEDDING BELLS

A lobbyist invites a legislator to his or her wedding, but the value of the wedding cake and a glass of champagne for the toast alone exceeds the $10 limit for gifts the legislator can accept from the newlywed. Can the legislator attend the wedding reception and accept the food served?

Rule: Technically, the lawmaker would not be able to accept any food at the reception.

Proposal: Legislators and staff could attend weddings as a guest without reporting food, drink or other costs associated with the event. “Staff believes that guests are invited to weddings for reasons other than to be influenced,” a staff memo on the change reads.

GOLF BUDDIES

A legislator’s chief of staff is invited by an old college buddy to play a round of golf at the friend’s exclusive country club. The friend pays for the greens fees and the cart rental. Should the chief of staff report the gift?

To read entire story, click here.

November 20, 2011 | Will Evans

Ann Ravel, Gov. Jerry Brown’s pick to lead the state Fair Political Practices Commission, has been on the job less than a year but is moving quickly and provoking strong reactions.

Ravel’s supporters say she is boldly revamping ethics regulations for the better, making them simpler to understand and follow. Her detractors – which include an outspoken fellow commissioner and the previous chairman – say she is weakening oversight of the watchdog agency by siding with the politicians and lobbyists she is supposed to regulate.

Ravel, who took the gavel in February, said she has focused the agency’s enforcement on major cases like money laundering and conflicts of interest instead of minor filing violations.

“I have done more to (investigate) much more egregious violations of the Political Reform Act than anyone before me,” she said. “What they did before were lots and lots of small violations, and I think you found people who didn’t have respect for what the FPPC was doing.”

Ravel previously worked for the U.S. Department of Justice and was the county counsel for Santa Clara County from 1998 to 2009.

“My interest is to make the FPPC a really central player in the government and political structure of this state,” Ravel added. “I think most people saw it as a minor nuisance instead.”

Dan Schnur, who led the commission before Ravel, said she is steering the agency away from the aggressive stance he and his predecessor, Ross Johnson, took. Both Schnur and Johnson are Republicans who were appointed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Ravel “seems to have decided that the interests of the political attorneys and lobbyists should take priority over those of the voters,” Schnur said.

Phillip Ung, policy advocate for California Common Cause, agreed that Ravel has been less strict than Schnur on those she regulates.

“With Schnur, you had someone who was generally disgusted with the culture and the influence of special interests, and with Ravel, she seems more willing to work with the parties,” Ung said.

Ung said Common Cause also had a “a real champion” in Roman Porter, the commission’s former executive director, who left over differences with Ravel.

Ravel said the commission cannot afford a new executive director because of the large payout Porter received for unused vacation time. Ravel said she had to take away staff perks like cell phones and reimbursed parking. With only $12,000 more than rent and existing salaries for the rest of the fiscal year, Ravel said, “we are barely squeaking by.”

Porter said the budgetary problems cannot be blamed solely on his departure because the commission “has been historically underfunded for the responsibility that it has.”

Commissioner Ronald Rotunda accused Ravel of ramming through her agenda and dismantling ethics regulations. Rotunda is a Republican law professor appointed by Democratic state Controller John Chiang.

“If you think of all these campaign disclosure rules as a kind of a wall protecting people from politicians who may not act in our best interests, I think she’s taking down this wall brick by brick,” Rotunda said.

Rotunda was incensed that Ravel refused to post online a strongly worded letter he wrote objecting to a staff memo on how to handle the Kinde Durkee fraud scandal. The staff counsel’s opinion [PDF] held that in certain cases, Democratic candidates who lost campaign money due to fraud could go back to maxed-out donors for more money. Rotunda contends the memo used “sophistry” to circumvent campaign contribution limits.

By not posting his letter, Rotunda said, Ravel is trying to “muzzle the commissioners.”

Ravel called the letter “an inflammatory document, which impugned the credibility and professionalism of a member of the staff.” She decided not to post it because, she said, “I felt that it crossed the line.”

Ravel said the staff opinion does not represent official policy until the commission votes on it. Significantly, she said, the commission will not resolve the issue in time to affect fundraising for the 2012 elections. In effect, the politicians affected by the scandal will not be able to raise money from maxed-out donors.

To read entire story, click here.

Ravel

By Torey Van Oot
tvanoot@sacbee.com
Published: Saturday, Nov. 12, 2011 – 12:00 am | Page 3A

The new chairwoman of the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission has come under fire from a fellow appointee to the five-member panel, who said she is working to “help politicians who don’t like the FPPC regulations.”

Commissioner Ronald Rotunda blasted Chairwoman Ann Ravel’s handling of several major issues that the commission has considered in recent months, including a revamp of gift regulations and whether to aid politicians whose accounts have been affected by the case of a prominent Democratic campaign treasurer accused of fraud.

“They say that not even the devil knoweth the mind of man, so I don’t presume to know what is her intent … (but) I know she acts like someone who wants to deconstruct a good chunk of the FPPC,” Rotunda said in an interview Friday evening.

The Chapman University law professor, a Republican appointed to the commission in 2009 by state Controller John Chiang, called Ravel’s effort Thursday to win approval of a sweeping overhaul of the rules governing gifts to officials “mind-boggling,” considering he first saw the latest version that morning.

He also accused Ravel, a Democrat appointed to the post in February by Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown, of allowing agency staff members and its new general counsel, also a Brown appointee, to take actions that he said should be left up to the commission.

“Under her theories, there isn’t much role for the commission except to be a little window dressing,” he said.

To read entire story, click here.

Capitol Alert
The latest on California politics and government
November 10, 2011

By Laurel Rosenhall and Torey Van Oot

The Fair Political Practices Commission decided today to levy a $30,000 fine against lobbyist Frank Molina , scrapping an earlier proposal to increase his penalty to $50,000.

Molina, a former legislative staffer who opened his own lobbying firm in 2007, is being punished for failing to report $840,000 in lobbying income between 2007 and 2009 when he was representing several Indian tribes and the Deloitte Consulting firm. State law requires that lobbyists file quarterly reports disclosing their clients, income and issues lobbied.

FPPC staff originally recommended that the commission fine Molina $30,000 — or $2,500 for each of the 12 quarterly reports he failed to file as the sole lobbyist at Strategic Solutions Advisors. But at the watchdog agency’s meeting in February, commissioners rejected the $30,000 fine and instead said Molina deserved a stiffer penalty of $50,000.

To read entire story, click here.

BY JIM MILLER
STAFF WRITER
jmiller@pe.com

Published: 04 November 2011 12:25 PM

The San Bernardino Community College District has agreed to pay $2,000 as punishment for sending a newsletter that violated state political reform laws.

The Fair Political Practices Commission is scheduled to consider the $2,000 fine when it meets next Thursday.

In mid-March, the college district spent $24,025 to send a Spring 2011 newsletter to 202,000 households in San Bernardino and Riverside counties, according to the FPPC.

The newsletter, however, violated state rules on taxpayer-funded mass mail because its front page featured the names and photographs of the district’s seven-member Board of Trustees and there also was a letter and photograph from the board president.

PolitiCal
On politics in the Golden State
November 4, 2011 | 4:37 pm

The state’s ethics watchdog panel is considering what its chairwoman calls “a complete overhaul” of regulations on gifts to public officials, and some of the proposals drew objections Friday from open-government advocates.

California Common Cause welcomed many of the changes for making the rules clearer but worries that others could create loopholes allowing special interests to try to exert undue influence through gifts.

“Unfortunately, in some cases, more specificity can potentially open up more opportunities for special interests to ‘game the system,’”wrote Phillip Ung, the group’s policy advocate, in a letter to the state Fair Political Practices Commission on Friday. The panel is set to vote on the changes Thursday.

Commission Chairwoman Ann Ravel said Friday the changes proposed by the staff are aimed at making the gift rules “more clear” and more reflective of the law and advice the agency has provided to public officials over the years.

Currently, public officials are prevented from accepting gifts worth more than $420 from a single source or $10 from a registered lobbyist, and must publicly disclose gifts. The new rules would clarify that gifts from family members, longtime friends and someone the official is dating are not subject to reporting requirements.

To read entire story, click here.

Capital Notes — From KQED’s John Myers

October 31, 2011, 4:30 pm • Posted by John Myers
Email Share Twitter Facebook Add your comment

KQED/John Myers
A legal analysis by the state’s campaign finance watchdog agency says that donations never deposited into candidate accounts by accused treasurer Kinde Durkee can be solicited a second time.

But now, the multi-million dollar question in the allegations of embezzlement against Durkee: which donations were actually deposited… and thus are now final… and which were not?

With the criminal investigation into Durkee’s activities still ongoing, the many Democratic candidates and groups that used her accounting services are wondering how to make up the dollars that are now missing from their political bank accounts.

This afternoon, the state Fair Political Practices Commission released an analysis from its staff attorney that says some donors may, in fact, be able to write another check — even if they assumed they had maxed out under campaign contribution limits.

Those limits do “not apply where a contribution for an upcoming election was delivered to Durkee, but the contribution was never deposited,” writes FPPC attorney Zackery Morazzini in his 11 page report (PDF) in advance of the commission’s November meeting.

This is exactly the point several Democrats made at the commission’s most recent two meetings to assess the potential impact from the Durkee scandal. Law enforcement records indicate that the long-time professional treasurer had access or control to some 400 campaign accounts, ranging from local Democratic clubs to the campaign cash for high-profile Dems like U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein.

Writes Morazzini:

The wide spread pattern and practice of fraud alleged to have been employed by Durkee indicates that, in instances where she never deposited the contributions into her clients’ accounts, she was committing fraud at the outset and thus did not “receive” these contributions as an agent for the candidate or committee… Absent acceptance or receipt by the candidate, committee, or proper agent, the transaction has not been completed and there has been no contribution that would be subject to the contribution limit.”

To read entire story, click here.

PolitiCal
On politics in the Golden State
October 13, 2011 | 1:15 pm

The ability to contribute to your favorite California political candidates will soon be just a text message away, after the state’s ethics agency took a step Thursday to bring campaigning into the 21st century.

The state Fair Political Practices Commission voted to allow contributions by text message as long as the candidates report the identity and address of those giving more than $100. The new regulation will take effect in about 30 days, and then campaigns and phone-plan carriers will have to take action to set up the contributing-by-texting systems.

Commission Chairwoman Ann Ravel envisions Californians using text messaging mostly to give small contributions; those under $25 do not require detailed information to be recorded on the giver.

To read entire story, click here.

The state Fair Political Practices Commission continued to weigh whether to allow candidates and committees to ask their donors to give more to replace millions of dollars that is probably lost in what the chairwoman called “the greatest campaign treasurer fraud in the history of the country.”

Three of the five commissioners met in Los Angeles on Thursday hoping to hear from some of the scores of mostly Democratic politicians and organizations in the region who used Burbank-based campaign treasurer Kinde Durkee.

Durkee was arrested last month and charged with mail fraud. She is under federal investigation for allegedly embezzling millions of dollars from her clients.

No politicians spoke, but several lawyers representing them did, suggesting the commission find a way to allow them to replace donations lost to fraud or tied up in legal proceedings.

But Robert Stern, president of the Los Angeles-based Center for Governmental Studies, warned against letting political donors contribute more than the limits under state law. “They got what they wanted. They got access to the public official,” he said. “Access is really important, and that’s why they’re giving this campaign money. If you let them give again, you double their access.”

Stern said, however, that he might make an exception if Durkee received contributions intended for candidates, but failed to report them to the candidates.

Limits on campaign contributions vary depending on the office and whether the donor is a person, a political committee or a political party. For example, an individual can give $500 per election to a Los Angeles City Council candidate, $3,900 to a state legislative candidate and $2,500 to a congressional candidate.

Stephen Kaufman, a lawyer who represents half a dozen of Durkee’s former clients, pressed the commission to devise a “narrowly tailored” approach to allow committees to replace donations. He said his examination of bank records indicates some large contributions never made it to the candidates.

“I think that we have only begun to uncover the criminal activity that’s at play here,” he said. “I have to say it’s shocking to look at those bank records and to see what went on with those accounts.”

Dan Jacobson, who is the board chairman of the Democratic Foundation of Orange County and described himself as “not a political lawyer, just a simple suburban lawyer,” suggested that the donors did not “make” the donations under the definition that he found in a dictionary his brother got for his bar mitzvah. That dictionary, he said, says the word means “to bring into being.”

To read entire story, click here.

By John Howard | 10/13/11 12:00 AM PST

For years, lawmakers have battered the Fair Political Practices Commission, the state’s campaign law enforcer spawned by the Watergate scandals.

Its budget has been slashed and limits have been sought on its authority. It’s been smacked and audited on the orders of legislators over whom the FPPC wields investigative authority. Its location on J Street eight blocks from the Capitol is not accidental: Lawmakers really don’t like the FPPC.

But as complaints intensify about the role of Democratic fiscal operative Kinde Durkee and a federal probe widens, a major irony has emerged: It was the FPPC that got the ball rolling two years ago. In fact, ultimately it may wind up that the FPPC’s action will have saved lawmakers and candidates hundreds of thousands of dollars, or even more.

If so, the FPPC probably shouldn’t expect any pats on the back.

“The legislators are getting really upset because they (the FPPC) waited for so long. A couple of years. Now they let people know they have a problem. I’m not sure the FPPC will be thanked by the legislators,” said Bob Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies in Los Angeles and a former top official at the FPPC.

“The real thing that is bothersome is that the FPPC is considering waiving the contribution limits,” he added. “What it means is that incumbents – it’s mostly incumbents, maybe only two or three challengers – can go back to those same donors and double their contributions. That doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.”

Stern and others plan to appear Thursday before the FPPC at an unusual hearing in Los Angeles, at which the five-member commission will take testimony on the Durkee case and from anyone who has suffered losses. A number already have come forward, such as Rep. Loretta Sanchez, D-Garden Grove, who said her campaign fund was wiped out, and the L.A. County Democratic Party, which said it lost $200,000. State Sen. Christine Kehoe fired Durkee in 2009, following an audit by the Franchise Tax Board, and Sen. Lou Correa, D-Santa Ana, said hundreds of thousands of dollars may be missing from his campaign accounts.

FPPC investigators found something suspicious in the finances of a campaign involving Durkee during routine checks in 2009 and began a detailed inquiry. The FPPC alerted the FBI, which triggered a federal probe that culminated Sept. 2 in the arrest of Durkee in Southern California for investigation of mail fraud stemming from the alleged looting of $677,000 from the campaign account of Assemblyman Jose Solorio, an Orange County Democrat.

She is scheduled to appear in federal court in Sacramento on Oct. 19.

By one count, Durkee has had connections to nearly 400 state, federal and local campaigns over the years. Early on, U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein filed a fraud and breach-of-contract lawsuit against Durkee and First California Bank, which handled Feinstein’s campaign funds, and other court actions are likely.

The FPPC’s chief enforcement officer, Gary Winuk, said an FPPC staff auditor noticed peculiar transfers of funds in and out of the campaign account of Jerome Horton, a former lawmaker who now is chairman of the state Board of Equalization. The campaign transactions “raised red flags to him as an auditor,” Winuk said. Transaction issues also appeared in the campaign of Sen. Carol Liu, which Durkee also served as treasurer.

To read entire story, click here.

Rutherford

Joe Nelson, Staff Writer
Posted: 10/11/2011 07:00:22 PM PDT

A potentially illegal campaign contribution to San Bernardino County Supervisor Janice Rutherford has prompted her to require all donors to her campaign to acknowledge that the money they are contributing is their own.

Rutherford, who recently proposed campaign finance reforms in the county, said she received a telephone call about a month ago from someone informing her that a $1,000 contribution to her campaign, given on July 29, 2010, by Rancho Cucamonga hair stylist Hank Beffre, may have been a pass-through contribution from Upland contractor Raul Madrid.

A pass-through contribution, a potential felony offense and punishable by a fine of up to $5,000 by the state Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC), is when a donor, wishing to conceal their identity on campaign finance records, has a third party contribute on their behalf. The true donor either reimburses the third party for the contribution or provides the money up front.

The caller, whom Rutherford would not name, had seen something written on a local blog about the questionable contribution and contacted her, Rutherford said Tuesday. She said she contacted the District Attorney’s Office and reported it, but was unaware of the status of the investigation.

District Attorney spokesman Christopher Lee declined to comment.

“The fact that this sort of thing happened just speaks to our need for campaign finance reform in this county,” Rutherford said.

Rutherford said she will now require all donors to her campaign to sign a form acknowledging that the money they are contributing is their own.

Neither Madrid nor Beffre could be reached for comment on Monday and Tuesday.

Prosecutors have taken an aggressive approach to such transgressions in recent years. In April, the state Attorney General’s Office charged Supervisor Neil Derry with three felonies for failing to report a $5,000 campaign contribution from a Highland developer.

Prosecutors alleged that Derry laundered the contribution through a political action committee controlled by former county Assessor Bill Postmus.

In July, Derry, under a plea bargain, pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor count of failing to report a campaign contribution and was ordered to pay a total of $10,000 in fines to the Fair Political Practices Commission and the court. He was also sentenced to three years probation, but will be able to remain in his elected position.

To read entire story, click here.

By Torey Van Oot
tvanoot@sacbee.com
Published: Wednesday, Oct. 12, 2011 – 12:00 am | Page 3A

The state political watchdog agency is set to consider next month adopting substantial changes to rules governing gifts to public officials and staff, including exemptions from disclosure for presents received from former spouses, dating partners and longtime friends.

The proposed regulations drafted by Fair Political Practices Commission staffers affect what must be disclosed and count toward the $420 annual cap on gifts from an individual source. Registered lobbyists, who are prohibited from giving gifts worth more than $10, and firms or interests that hire lobbyists would not qualify for the exemptions.

In addition to establishing relationship categories to exempt, the proposed amendments would let lawmakers receive without public scrutiny gifts considered “acts of neighborliness” and “acts of human compassion” and update language related to bereavement, birthdays and weddings.

Tickets or event admission received in connection with a “ceremonial role,” such as throwing out the first pitch at a baseball game, would not be considered a gift.

FPPC Chair Ann Ravel said the changes are simply meant to clarify the rules and put into regulation current enforcement practices, saying most of the language comes from advice letters generated by the agency.

“The real problem is it’s as if there are underground regulations that some people know about, that is political attorneys … but other people, such as local officials that have to comply,” don’t, she said.

Ravel said the proposed regulations strive to strike a “balance of the privacy interests vs. where the public needs to know for the purpose of determining whether there is a conflict” when it comes to mandating disclosure.

“There has to be a nexus,” she said. “I think that in some of the cases, that nexus can’t be shown if it’s just total absolute disclosure over every single possible relationship and interest you have.”

One good-government group responded to the regulations by saying while clarifying rules already in place is a worthy goal, FPPC officials must be mindful of any changes that would give interest groups more opportunities to exert influence over officials.

To read entire story, click here.