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.

Monday, October 3, 2011 – 05;30 a.m.

You’ve gotta hand it to the San Bernardino County Board  of Supervisors for their campaign finance reform proposals.

The biggest idea is a cap on contributions to the candidates or officials themselves.

The possibility exists that the board may move to cap contributions at the same levels set for state legislators.

The current limits per election cycle is $3,900, or $7,800 for small contributor committees.

Yep. What a cure for the county’s political and corruption ills.

But what none of the proposals can legally address is expenditures by independent committees.

Federal law and U.S. Supreme Court decisions bar any imposition of limits on political action committees, commonly known as PAC’s.

What groups in the county enjoy tons of cash and can spend unlimited amounts supporting and opposing candidates?

The answer? County’s employee unions.

Currently county unions collectively command more than $2 million in PAC funds.

Also, what would prevent business owners or developers from creating PAC’s and pooling their resources to engage in independent expenditures?

The answer? Nothing!

Secondly, the county wants to pay the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) to enforce the rules. Can you say laugh out loud?

Like the FPPC has nothing better to do than babysit San Bernardino County.

Why not spend the money to enact a county ethics commission?

Just a thought.

The move comes in response to a federal investigation of Kinde Durkee, who was arrested in a campaign-embezzlement case.

By Patrick McGreevy, Los Angeles Times
October 1, 2011

Reporting from Sacramento— The head of the state’s ethics agency Friday proposed new measures to prevent fraud in the handling of political funds in response to a federal investigation of Kinde Durkee, who is suspected of embezzling from campaign accounts she controlled.

In addition, Fair Political Practices Commission Chairwoman Ann Ravel said politicians affected by the investigation would receive some leeway in meeting financial reporting requirements. Attorneys for politicians told Ravel at a hearing near the Capitol on Friday that financial records needed to make those reports have been withheld by banks, and they expressed concern that other needed documents possessed by Durkee have been subpoenaed by a federal grand jury.

Durkee was arrested Sept. 2 and is accused of taking $677,181 from the campaign of Assemblyman Jose Solorio (D-Santa Ana). Investigators are also reviewing Durkee’s handling of other accounts. She was treasurer for about 400 political committees, including those of U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

Ravel proposed that all campaign treasurers undergo training in the handling of campaign money and the state laws that govern it.

“Mandating training would … serve as a tool to eliminate fraud,” Ravel told the campaign representatives.

To read entire story, click here.

Joe Nelson, Staff Writer
Created: 09/28/2011 06:48:04 PM PDT

A proposal for campaign finance reform in San Bernardino County has raised the eyebrows of government ethics advocates and experts, who question its reliance on the state to enforce campaign finance limits.

On Tuesday, the Board of Supervisors, for the first time in its history, directed the County Administrative Office and County Counsel to begin drafting an ordinance that would limit campaign contributions to candidates seeking elected office in the county.

Supervisor Janice Rutherford has also proposed that the state Fair Political Practices Commission enforce the local ordinance, which would require passage of special legislation. The FPPC currently does not have the authority to enforce local ordinances, said Tara Stock, the FPPC’s legislative coordinator.

Rutherford has proposed that campaign contribution limits in the county be modeled after limits established for state legislators: $3,900 from individuals and $7,800 from small committees per election cycle.

Political reform experts and advocates are critical of the proposal, saying it would likely be more cost effective and efficient to enforce campaign contribution limits at the local level.

“If they can hire the state to enforce this, why can’t they spend that money to set up an ethics committee?” asked Burrel Woodring, foreman of the county’s 2008-2009 civil Grand Jury. “In my opinion, we should keep it local and set up our own ethics committee.”

The 2008-2009 Grand Jury reviewed campaign contributions made to elected and appointed officials over a five-year period and found that in 2007, more than $2.3 million was contributed to the five county supervisors. Contributions ranged from $200 to $400,000 and were made by individuals, special interest groups, land developers, businesses, employee associations and others.

County officials have long maintained that it is too expensive to have an ethics committee in place, despite the reported success of ethics committees in Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego and San Jose counties, among others.

Bob Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies in Los Angeles, said the county can just as easily police its own ordinance, or hire a law firm to enforce it. Another option, he said, would be to include language in the ordinance allowing county officials or citizens to take legal action if an individual violates the ordinance.

The bottom line, he said, is that there is no need for the county to take such extensive measures to implement campaign finance reform in the county.

To read entire story, click here.

Joe Nelson, Staff Writer
Created: 09/27/2011 12:42:57 PM PDT

A proposal to limit how much money groups can give to candidates seeking county elected office was unanimously approved Tuesday by the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors.

The vote gives staff the go-ahead to prepare an ordinance placing a cap on campaign contributions.

Should the ordinance pass, Supervisor Janice Rutherford is suggesting that the county consider contracting with the state Fair Political Practices Commission to investigate and enforce any violation.

The public, she contends, may have trust issues with a local board or commission enforcing the ordinance.

For years, the county has shied away from suggested campaign-finance reforms, arguing it drives money underground and creates less transparency, not more.

Corruption scandals tied to quid pro quo agreements and campaign contributions prompted county officials, including Rutherford and District Attorney Michael A. Ramos, to suggest campaign finance reform be mandatory in the county to restore trust with constituents.

“Large campaign contributions give the impression that donors can have undue influence on elected officials,” Rutherford said in a statement Tuesday. “And limiting those contributions can help restore public trust in San Bernardino County government, which has been beset with political scandals.”

The board will review the draft ordinance and proposed legislation at a future meeting, and discuss changes that may be necessary before voting.

Supervisor Neil Derry doesn’t see much promise in Rutherford’s proposal, which is being co-sponsored by Supervisor Brad Mitzelfelt. He says it is overly broad and goes against the grain of the current political and economic climate.

To read entire story, click here.

Joe Nelson, Staff Writer
Posted: 09/26/2011 06:05:23 PM PDT

The San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors today is expected to take its first step in having an ordinance drafted that would establish campaign-contribution limits for candidates seeking elected office in the county.

Supervisor Janice Rutherford proposed the ordinance last month as a way to help restore the county’s image after more than a decade of continual scandals involving elected and appointed officials.

The proposed ordinance would be modeled after campaign-contribution limits for state legislators, placing caps at $3,700 from individuals per election cycle and $7,800 from small contributor committees. It would apply to individuals, political-action committees and businesses contributing to all candidates for county elected offices.

To read entire story, click here.

PolitiCal
On politics in the Golden State
September 19, 2011 | 1:53 pm

The state’s ethics watchdog agency has set a meeting next week to consider whether campaign finance limits and spending report deadlines should be temporarily waived for politicians affected by the alleged misuse of funds by campaign treasurer Kinde Durkee.

Ann Ravel, chairwoman of the state Fair Political Practices Commission, said she and the staff will hold the public meeting Sept. 30 to hear from campaigns concerning whether a federal investigation of Durkee, which has resulted in many bank accounts being frozen, requires flexibility in complying with rules regarding funding of campaigns.

Durkee is accused of taking thousands of dollars from the campaign accounts of numerous elected officials, including Assemblyman Jose Solorio (D-Santa Ana). “This is mainly in response to the massive impact of the Durkee situation,” Ravel said of the FPPC staff meeting. “There are so many questions that people have raised, and I think it’s fair for people to come to us with other issues they have.”

To read entire story, click here.

It could have been worse. A lot worse.

Next week, a state watchdog committee will take up 16 cases involving current and former employees and board members of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System who failed to report gifts they had received from business associates.

The Fair Political Practices Commission hearing next Thursday will likely close the book on another embarrassing chapter for CalPERS. The fund has been working to rehab its image for the last couple of years after an influence-peddling scandal implicated former high-level employees and board members.

A CalPERS investigation revealed that promises of jobs, free gifts and travel greased its deal-making machinery. There’s a criminal investigation and a multimillion-dollar lawsuit pending.

The 16 CalPERS-related cases coming before the FPPC next week are tiny by comparison. Investment staffers, board members and a few other fund employees didn’t correctly report they had received freebies like clothing, meals, Cirque du Soleil and Rose Bowl tickets, luggage and wine, according to FPPC investigators who examined records going back to 2006.

The law says anything worth more than $50 is supposed to be publicly disclosed on a state-issued form. A bill on Gov. Jerry Brown’s desk lowers the annual limit on gifts from $420 to $50.

Nearly two years ago, CalPERS banned virtually all gifts to its investment staff.

The fines in the CalPERS cases range from $200 to $3,600 for failing to properly report gifts received before the ban from companies that do business with the fund and, in some instances, wanted to do more.

The individuals have agreed to pay the fines, assuming the FPPC’s commissioners sign off on them next week. They usually do.

To read entire story, click here.

September 13th, 2011, 11:30 am · posted by BRIAN JOSEPH, Sacramento Correspondent

State and federal campaign finance laws may prevent some of Kinde Durkee‘s clients from replacing the money they’ve allegedly lost, the Orange County Register has learned.

The problem for those clients is that state and federal laws limit how much money an individual person can give to a candidate ($2,500 per election at the federal level; $3,900 per election for state lawmakers). So, if a donor has maxed out to a particular candidate, that donor is prohibited from giving any more money to that politician – even if that money was stolen from the politician.

That means in their moment of financial need, when they’ve lost their campaign funds and desperately need more money, Durkee’s clients are prohibited from raising more money from the very people who support them the most, their previous donors.

“It is really a difficult situation they’re in,” said Ann Ravel, chairwoman of the California Fair Political Practices Commission. “There’s no doubt about it. It’s very concerning.”

Indeed, neither state nor federal law anticipates a situation like Durkee’s, where a campaign treasurer stands accused of taking money from her clients. Julia Queen, a spokeswoman for the Federal Election Commission said there are no regulations dealing with such a scenario. Ravel said the same is true at the state level.

There are potential solutions, however. At the federal level, Queen said someone could formally ask the Federal Elections Commission if candidates who have had their campaign funds stolen could raise money from donors above the limit. The commission could respond with an decision that would allow additional fundraising above the limit, Queen said. But then again, that’s no slam dunk.

At the state level, Ravel said legislation would have to be passed in order to allow candidates to take money from donors above the limit. There has been lots of talk at the state Capitol that candidates may request an exemption from the Fair Political Practices Commission allowing them to take more money from maxed out donors, but Ravel said Tuesday that that the FPPC has no authority to grant such exemptions.

The only way for a candidate to raise money above the fundraising limit would be through legislation, Ravel said. She said that she thought such legislation may have a chance, given that other lawmakers would be sympathetic to the plight of Durkee’s clients. Ravel also said that she didn’t think legislation crafted to reflect this kind of situation would conflict with the role of the FPPC.

“I don’t see why that would be problematic for the FPPC,” she said, although she noted the entire commission would have to endorse it and that hasn’t happened.

To read entire story, click here.

Tuesday, September 13, 2011 – 06:00 a.m.

The state’s political watchdog is set to levy a fine against a local consultant for improperly formatting a voter guide.

Political consultant Paul Fickas is slated to be fined $1,500 by the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) for his failure to comply with voter guide disclosure requirements.

Fickas, by stipulation, admitted to forming and directing the operation of the “Decline to State Voter Guide” and violating state law by failing to properly disclose whether or not candidates paid to appear on the publication.

Fickas is also a close friend and political advisor to San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors candidate James Ramos, and was instrumental in Ramos’ initial election to the San Bernardino Community College District Board of Trustees.

The $350,000 Ramos spent was also a big help.

Ramos has retained the political consulting firm Gilliard Blanning & Associates for his previously announced supervisorial run.

A state commission proposes thousands of dollars’ worth of fines be levied on CalPERS board members and officers who didn’t properly report gifts they got from investment firms.

By Marc Lifsher, Los Angeles Times
September 13, 2011

Reporting from Sacramento— Board members and officers of the long-troubled California Public Employees’ Retirement System, the nation’s largest pension fund, could be fined thousands of dollars for not properly reporting gifts received from investment firms.

The staff of California’s political ethics watchdog agency, the Fair Political Practices Commission, proposed the fines that will be considered by the full commission Sept. 22.

Though the proposed fines are relatively small, they were a sign that a 2-year-old influence-peddling and corruption scandal at CalPERS has yet to run its course.

The commission said Monday that most of the proposed fines were for not disclosing, as required by state law, the receipt of free meals and gifts, such as bottles of wine, Rose Bowl tickets, jackets and backpacks.

CalPERS, which covers 1.3 million government workers, retirees and their families, said it cooperated with the commission’s inquiry.

“We have strengthened our reporting policies and increased training to all staff required to file to ensure our complete compliance in the future,” CalPERS spokesman Brad Pacheco said.

By law, if state government employees receive gifts worth more than a combined $50 from a single source in a year, they must report all those gifts. The maximum total value of gifts allowed in a year from a single source is $420.

To read entire story, click here.

Saturday, September 10, 2011 – 01:35 p.m.
Republished from Sunday, September 4, 2011

InlandPolitics.com has learned that a contribution to the campaign of San Bernardino County Second District Supervisor Janice Rutherford may be the focus of an investigation by the California Fair Political Practices Commission and possibly the San Bernardino County District Attorney.

The blog has also learned that the District Attorney has been made aware of the matter.

State investigators have been asking questions related to a single $1,000 contribution to Rutherford on July 29, 2010.

The seemingly mundane donation came from a hair stylist, who has both Rutherford and local businessman Raul Madrid as clients.

(Click image to enlarge)

Sources tell InlandPolitics.com that Madrid is alleged to have passed the money through aRancho Cucamonga-based hair stylist to the Rutherford campaign in violation of state law.

An illegality probably unknown to the stylist, but not Rutherford or Madrid.

It is still uncertain as to the level of Rutherford’s knowledge as to specifics of the contribution. But in politics nothing is ever a secret for long.

What’s more interesting here is whether or not any criminal action, if warranted, will be taken against Rutherford by the District Attorney.

It is also unclear is how the issue came to the attention of officials.

By David Siders
dsiders@sacbee.com
Published: Thursday, Jul. 21, 2011 – 12:00 am | Page 3A

Gov. Jerry Brown has seized uncommon influence over the political watchdog agency he helped create almost four decades ago as an independent body.

The Democratic governor’s appointees control the five-member Fair Political Practices Commission because of a quirk in the law. And Brown recently shifted the high-level position of general counsel from a civil service post outside his purview to a political appointment he has now made.

The appointment of Department of Justice lawyer Zackery Morazzini to be the commission’s chief lawyer, announced Monday, was met by criticism that it could further politicize the agency.

“The FPPC is designed to be more of an independent watchdog,” said Derek Cressman, Western regional director of Common Cause, the government watchdog group. “That’s not necessarily something where you want to see someone putting their allies.”

Commission Chairwoman Ann Ravel said Wednesday that Brown only confirmed her selection of Morazzini, a Republican. She said Brown, the former attorney general, neither suggested Morazzini nor advocated for him, and she said she – not Brown – asked the administration to reclassify the open position so she could interview candidates from outside state employment.

“I had no candidate in mind,” Ravel said. “But I wanted to make sure that there was broad recruitment done.”

Ravel said of Brown’s involvement with the FPPC, “In my tenure, and with respect to this governor, there is no indication whatsoever of any influence, either to me or to the general counsel.”

Brown helped create the Fair Political Practices Commission when he was governor before, from 1975 to 1983. The commission, which oversees campaign finance and ethics laws, became increasingly aggressive in recent years, and in returning to the Capitol for a third term Brown recast it. Ravel, his appointee, criticized what she called “unprofessional” practices, removing from the commission website a list of open investigations, among other measures.

By law, the commission includes two members appointed by the governor, currently Ravel and lawyer Sean Eskovitz. But Brown also made an appointment before becoming governor, when he was attorney general. That commissioner, Lynn Montgomery, is not scheduled to go off the commission until January 2013.

Robert Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies in Los Angeles and a former co-author of the state’s Political Reform Act, said the commission was meant to be composed of a diverse group of appointees and that Brown’s three allows the governor too much influence.

“I think we probably made a mistake on that, and that should not be permitted,” Stern said.

Brown’s appointment of Morazzini did not concern Stern, however. As long as the commission recruited and selected Morazzini, Stern said, his appointment was appropriate.

State law allows governors to exempt positions from civil service in some cases, and the action is not without precedent at the FPPC. Brown’s predecessor, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, in 2007 reclassified two lower-level civil service positions within the agency, appointing a communications director, now-Executive Director Roman Porter, and an assistant chief counsel of the agency’s enforcement division, Porter said.

The positions went vacant and were left unfilled during budget reductions last year, he said.

To read entire story, click here.

California Watch
A Project of the Center for Investigative Reporting
Money and Politics
June 9, 2011 | Chase Davis

Last week was a busy one for state legislators, who scrambled to act on hundreds of bills before the midterm deadline to pare back their list of legislation to act on this summer.

It was also a busy week for campaign finance and government ethics watchdogs. Buried amid the flurry of votes cast last week were at least five bills that could change the state’s ethics and disclosure requirements in subtle but meaningful ways.

If the bills ultimately are approved by the Legislature, they could lead to clearer and more robust rules for lobbying disclosure and enforce clarity and transparency in the murky world of slate mailers. They also could raise the giving limits required for campaign donors to disclose their activities and exempt elected officials from certain conflict-of-interest requirements.

Below are each of the bills that passed last week, along with their sponsors, and what they could mean for California government going forward:

Bill number: AB 1146

Sponsor: Assemblyman Chris Norby, R-Fullerton

Sponsor contact information: 916-319-2072 (Capitol office)

What it would do: This bill would raise the threshold required for disclosure of a campaign contribution from the current $100 to $200.

Rationale: From the bill analysis: “According to the author, ‘AB 1146 seeks to amend the Political Reform Act of 1974 to raise the minimum campaign contribution and expenditure reporting threshold from $100 to $200 conforming it to federal election law. The current state threshold of $100 was established more than 30 years ago. By 2010 estimates, $100 indexed to reflect inflation is approximately $440. AB 1146 is a common-sense measure which eliminates confusion and will garner greater participation by small donors in future elections.’”

Bill number: AB 1241

Sponsor: Assemblyman Chris Norby, R-Fullerton

Sponsor contact information: 916-319-2072 (Capitol office)

What it would do: From the bill analysis: “Exempts officials who are elected to local and state agencies from provisions of state law limiting contributions to those officials from entities with business before the agency involving a license, permit or other entitlement for use.”

Rationale: From the bill analysis: “According to the author, ‘This bill would amend the Levine Act of 1982, to clarify that officers directly elected to local agencies are not held to two standards if the agency includes appointed members. By striking the words ‘elected or’ from the Code, it would ensure that additional campaign contribution disclosure and conflict of interest requirements originally intended for appointed members of local agencies do not extend to directly elected members. For example, under current law, if a local water district is made up of both directly elected members and appointed members, the entire membership is subject to the Levine Act. AB 1241 would clarify that if a person is a directly elected member of the water district, they are exempt from the Levine Act (but still subject to the many other provisions of the Political Reform Act of 1974), but if a person is appointed to the water district, they are not. This would further the intent of the Political Reform Act of 1974 (which targeted elected officials) and the intent of the Levine Act of 1982 (which targeted appointed officials).’”

A similar but competing bill, sponsored by West Covina Democrat Roger Hernandez, would prohibit officials from voting on any issue in which they have a financial interest. Norby was the only Assembly member to vote against the bill.

Bill number: SB 415

Sponsor: Sen. Roderick Wright, D-Inglewood

Sponsor contact information: 916-651-4025 (Capitol office)

What it would do: The bill would require the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission to notify the subject of an investigation at least one day before making the investigation public.

Rationale: According to the Sacramento Bee, the stated purpose of the bill is to provide fair due process to anyone accused of Political Reform Act violations. Consistent with the bill, the commission itself is considering whether to wait five days before notifying the public about investigations or enforcement actions.

Bill Number: AB 71

Sponsor: Assemblywoman Alyson Huber, D-El Dorado Hills

Sponsor contact information: 916-319-2010 (Capitol office)

What it would do: This bill would require the secretary of state to produce reports each quarter showing the specific bills lobbied by any given lobbyist. Current disclosure laws require similar information to be listed in lobbying reports, but requirements are somewhat unclear and the formats in which that information is disclosed are inconsistent. The bill also would require lobbyists to disclose a position for or against a bill, which is not currently required.

Rationale: From the bill analysis: “During the 2007-2008 Legislative Session, special interests spent $558 million to influence the legislative process. While existing law requires disclosure, the way the state provides this information makes it difficult for the public to identify what legislation lobbyists are trying to influence. Currently, lobbying records listed online are not linked to an issue. The only way to determine which lobbyists are working for or against specific legislation is to spend hours viewing or photocopying hundreds of lobbying disclosure reports, search each report and build a list cross-referenced with over 3,000 to 4,000 bills introduced in the Legislature every two years. AB 71 would require the Secretary of State to create an issue-by-issue list that details online all lobbying interests that tried to influence the decisions made on a specific piece of legislation.”

To read entire story, click here.

PolitiCal
On politics in the Golden State
June 6, 2011 | 6:12 pm

The state’s ethics agency has rejected a request by the Los Angeles County Democratic Party to investigate whether former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger violated any state laws during an affair with a housekeeper that resulted in his fathering a child.

A complaint that did not allege any specific wrongdoing was filed with the state Fair Political Practices Commission, which enforces the state Political Reform Act regulating campaign finances.

“The Fair Political Practices Commission will not open an investigation into this matter,” wrote Executive Director Roman Porter in a letter to party attorneys. “After review of your complaint, the information you provided is insufficient to establish a violation of the act.”

To read entire story, click here.

Cabriales

May 29, 2011 9:38 PM
Brooke Edwards

VICTORVILLE • City records show Mayor Pro Tem Rudy Cabriales voted to approve $55,000 in sponsorships over the last eight years to the High Desert Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, a nonprofit headed up by his wife.

Per Vickie Cabriales’ contract as executive director of the HDHCC, she receives a 10 percent commission for each sponsorship she brings in. She also receives an annual bonus equal to 10 percent of the chamber’s net operating income, on top of her base salary of $50,000.

Neither Rudy nor Vickie Cabriales responded to multiple requests over the last several days to discuss the potential conflict of interest.

However, the couple’s connection has raised concerns for Councilwoman Angela Valles, who has asked the San Bernardino County grand jury and district attorney to join the state and U.S. attorney general’s offices in looking into the issue.

State law dictates that elected officials generally have a conflict of interest if they participate in a vote that benefits them financially by at least $500.

Since Vickie Cabriales receives a 10 percent commission, and half of what she brings in would be counted as income for her husband, a sponsorship would need to total $10,000 to meet the state’s minimum threshold for a conflict.

Three times in the last six years, records provided by City Clerk Carolee Bates show Rudy Cabriales voted on sponsorships to the HDHCC in excess of $10,000.

Read the full story in Sunday’s Daily Press. Get complete stories every day with the “exactly as printed” Daily Press E-edition, only $5 per month! Click here to try it free for 7 days. To subscribe to the Daily Press in print or online, call (760) 241-7755, 1-800-553-2006 or click here.

Staff writer Carmen V. Gutierrez contributed to this report. Gutierrez previously served on the HDHCC’s board of directors.

Stone

By PE Politics
May 26, 2011 4:42 PM

Riverside County Supervisor Jeff Stone has agreed to pay $16,000 for failing to properly report $84,052 in contributions to his 2010 campaign for state Senate.

The state Fair Political Practices Commission will consider the fine at its June 9 meeting.

Stone, of Temecula, unsuccessfully sought the Republican nomination in the 36th state Senate District, which includes southwest Riverside County. He finished second in the June 2010 election to then-Assemblyman Joel Anderson, R-Alpine, who went on to win the general election.

To read entire brief, click here.