On April 3, 2008, two and a half years after the November 3, 2005 election, the campaign filed three amended statements using the Fair Political Practice Commission (FPPC) California Form 460 were filed with the Davis City Clerk, two and a half years after the termination of campaign papers were filed on January 31, 2006 claiming a zero balance and a final expenditure of 385,274.75 dollars for the campaign that lasted from July 28, 2005 until December 31, 2005.
These three filing show the following additional expenses:
1. Additional salaries of $76,644.26
2. Additional literature expenses of $25,874 and $72,908.96
3. Cable TV production and air time expenses of $22,000
4. Call Center expenses of $18,136.66
5. and some miscellaneous expenses
What the Vanguard did not report at that time was who the salaries went to. In light of current controversies over paid staffers, the issue was actually mentioned in a comment thread a few weeks ago and a few asked that the list be provided.
One thing we do not know, is over how long a period these people were paid for. This is not an insignificant point because a certain consultant on the current campaign has been alleged to have received $15,000 per month, in fact, that was a three month payment and the individual is actually being paid one-third of that figure.
Late salary recipients from Yes on X campaign:
It should be noted that these figures, totaling over $76 thousand represent those filed in April of 2008 and do not reflect the salaries reported prior to that. The Covell Village campaign has now acknowledged spending over $600 thousand during the 2005 election, the best estimates suggest however that is probably still an understatement. It is unclear why it took the Covell Village campaign so long to file this information.
The Vanguard was interested to learn what the city had done about this and asked a series of questions of the city. Following our June 4, 2009 story we received the following responses from the City Clerk Zoe Mirabile:
Who was aware of the late filing by the Covell Village campaign?
We are not aware of any late filings by the Covell Village campaign (committee name: Smart Planning – Yes on X, terminated on 01/31/2006). In 2008, the campaign did file amendments to original filings (the originals were filed on time). Amendments are not considered “late” filings. The Political Reform Act imposes no deadlines for the filing of amendments to campaign statements. According to Section 81004.5, reports and statements filed under the Act may be amended at any time and amending an incorrect or incomplete filing may be considered as evidence of good faith.
What are reporting duties by the city if any?
The City is not required to report out filing information; however, if we believe a violation of some sort has taken place in regards to campaign disclosures, the City is able to file an enforcement referral to the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) and they may choose to investigate.
Was council aware of this?
We do not bring campaign filing information to Council.
Does the city have any sort of policy for dealing with this? Or can someone simply file amended disclosures several years later and do so quietly?
If a campaign misses a filing deadline, the City Clerk’s office will contact the campaign with a reminder. We do have the ability to fine campaigns; however, we would rather have the correct and complete information than fine, so we try to work with the campaign as much as possible to have them submit the necessary filings. If a campaign is non-responsive, we will impose fines and/or file an enforcement referral to the FPPC as needed. The City does not have a specific policy to address amended campaign statement filings.
Apparently the current laws allow for amendments to be filed at any time and such an amendment is considered evidence of good faith. In this case, the underreporting of campaign expenditures was by nearly 50%. In fact, during the campaign, it was even worse than that. It was not until January 31, 2006 that we learned the actual figure was $385,274.75. The campaign reported receiving an additional $140,000.00 in late contributions using Form 497 as well as an additional $113,984.43 using their final Form 460. Thus on election day, the public was told roughly $240,000 was spent on the campaign, when the actual reported number is now over $600,000.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David:
Wasn’t Maynard Skinner the treasurer for Yes on X campaign? The same Maynard Skinner is now working with Bill Ritter on Yes on P?
Is is not the job of the treasurer to ensure that all expenditures, contributions are submitted in a timely and truthful manner?
Also, yesterday you made the point that political campaigns hire folks to work for them (like Denise Hoffner hired by Yes on P to write campaign literature for them, and her “salary” to this point of 2,000 was not that significant to you,as compared to 20,000), so are these late reported salaries for past Yes on X workers ranging from 2-8,000 now significant?
The slick Yes on P mailers that I have received in the past few days, by my reckoning, cost about $40 grand in printing,handling and postage to all Davis households. Given the ethical “lapses” that we have seen in this Yes on P campaign, we can be fairly certain that they will be filing late financial campaign reports and amendments well AFTER November 3.
Call it senior housing, call it “smart growth”, call it low-income housing or anything else you want to call it, the current owners of Covell Village will never see their property developed while they are involved with it.
Greg:
As I understand it, Maynard Skinner is not a paid worker on the campaign. He is a supporter and volunteer. He was a paid consultant for Parlin in getting it placed on the ballot.
In terms of his involvement in this, Maynard Skinner was the treasurer and did sign his name to it. As I understand it, that was a huge error in judgment on his part because he took Whitcombe’s (who also signed the statement) word and did not verify it himself. How that relates to P is anybody’s guess.
In terms of comparisons to P, you tell me if an unreported $76K in paid staff is significant or not.
And Davisite, there is no way those mailers cost $40 grand. We were able to print 16,000 so-called slick fliers for the Vanguard for $1500 and it would have cost an additional $3500 to mail.
David…. that’s about right although I think that you probably got a good deal on the printing and handling because of Cecilia’s “connections”. The Yes on P mailers appear to be going to individual voters rather than ome maileer/address. In my case, this is often 3 mailers to my address for each Yes on P mailing. I think that we have received about 8 mailers(I’m guessing now as they were immediately recycled,unopened and unread, with the other trash mail)in the past week. This comes to about $40,000,even with your “low-ball” figures.
I have generally used the same people as Bill, as far as I know we got no discount, I know a standard mailer last year cost between $5 and $10K depending on the piece. So I think $20K is more reasonable an approximation. Also as I understand they did a total of six mailers, so you can probably do the math there as well.
“As I understand it, Maynard Skinner is not a paid worker on the campaign. He is a supporter and volunteer. He was a paid consultant for Parlin in getting it placed on the ballot.”
Interesting David, can you please expand on what he was paid for “getting it placed on the ballot”; I thought that was the job of the City Council; was this for lobbying costs to Saylor, Asmundson and Heystek?
Maynard Skinner is not listed on any of the Yes on P campaign public expenditure reports, so how did you know he was paid to “place it on the ballot”; and if so, can you disclose to readers, what that amount was?
Greg: I can explain it doesn’t mean what you imply. But beyond that I should not have said anything because all I know is that he is not a paid campaign worker and therefore has not showed up on the ballot statements. He was a paid consultant guiding the process up until July 28.
“$5 and $10K depending on the piece. “
I agree with this figure but your $20,000 figure would be per address. If you use individual voter(multiple mailers to an address), I believe you come up with a much higher figure just in past 10 days.
“He was a paid consultant guiding the process up until July 28.”
So there was local paid “political consultants guiding” Parlin well before the 7/28 Council vote; how long before the vote?
Wasn’t this type of developer-paid political influence of local government which angered you and many others (like myself) in the past (and soon to be the next)Covell Village process? What has changed with this Parlin/Yes on P camp?
Who said he was a political consultant?
“Wasn’t this type of developer-paid political influence of local government which angered you and many others (like myself) in the past (and soon to be the next)Covell Village process?”
I don’t have a problem with the hiring of professional people to guide a project through the process. Cannery did it with Jeanne Jones and Ken Topper, I see a legitimate role to be played there and have never once criticized that part of the process.
Paid consultant or not, Maynard Skinner’s role in “lobbying” for putting this measure on the ballot for Nov. 3 suggests that he, or anyone else performing a similar function, should register as a “lobbyist.” Is this just trading on long-term friendships with certain City Council members or does it go beyond that? Given the money reported above by Whitcombe on Covell Village, whether that’s all of it or not, and Parlin now on Measure P, it seems evident we need new campaign finance laws for Davis that put in place effective reporting rules, deadlines and caps, so corporate spending does not drown out the voice of the people.
Nancy Price
Agree with Nancy. It seemed the city clerk’s explanation said nothing and the city did and will fo nothing until they have to. I was treasurer of the library parcel tax campaign and we took our job and accuracy/timeliness very seriously.
With respect to the Covell Village underreporting on-time and then amending much later, it seems like it would be a much better process to modify our code in a few respects:
1. Require that the last statement filed before an election include a maximum amount spent estimate that cannot be off over or under by more than 15%*;
2. If it turns out the actual amount spent incorrect by more than 15% either way, the City should establish a fine, payable by the treasurer of the campaign who signs on to the accuracy of the submitted statement;
3. The last statement filed before a vote takes place must include a list of all person’s or businesses who were paid by or received money from the campaign and all persons or businesses who are still owed money by the campaign;
4. Establish a final reporting date one month after the election and allow no further amendments beyond that date;
5. If it is determined that a campaign’s final statement before the vote was wrong by more than 15%, report them automatically to the FPPC; and
6. If a campaign fails to file a corrected final statement one month or less after the vote, fine the treasurer of the campaign and report them to the FPPC.
———–
*This is similar to what late-IRS filers do. They estimate their taxes owed (based on a high-side number) and pay all of their taxes up front. They then file a late amended return with the precise numbers. If they underreported income on their estimate, they have to pay a late-payment penalty.
The reason you need to have a restriction on the “under” side is because you don’t want to give a campaign (which say spent somewhere around $40,000) an incentive to report in its last statement a wildly high number, like $4 million, in order to avoid a fine. The purpose of these statements is lost if the public cannot believe what is in them.
Rich:
The current system builds a lot of that in. There is a final reporting period, this year it was October 28. After that, any additional $1000 has to be filed within 24 hrs. Anything spent or brought in after the election gets reported at the time of closing and the final reporting period on January 31. I fail to see that your system really improves upon that other than establishing some penalties for failures to properly report.
David
if current system provides for all, how did your Measure X story today happen?
There appears to be two big flaws in the system. First, it is self-reporting with no audit. And keep in mind, the No on X campaign actually filed a complaint with FPPC because they suspected they severely underreported their spending.
Second, there does not appear to be sufficient penalty for such conduct.
So even if they did get slapped on the wrist for violations, it was not sufficient to prevent what happened.
ps- it is totally relevant to the Measure P vote.
Bob Dunning has done a great job of calling peoples attention to the paid door knockers from the measure and the laughable “Sierra Club Endorsement” that have been employed as tactics thus far. When the final expenditure report has been filed, that last excuse offered and the final “I didn’t really read all of the reports before signing them” has been offered, I wonder how many current Measure P supporters would still have supported it?
Interesting, no one notices that the editor of the “other blog” was a paid campaign worker for Covell Village (and he criticized paying workers this time)
[quote]Interesting, no one notices that the editor of the “other blog” was a paid campaign worker for Covell Village (and he criticized paying workers this time)[/quote]
Desperado – I assume that you mean me. I’ve neglected to respond to any of the other anonymous accusations against me on this site in the past. I don’t normally read the Vanguard, but people sometimes tell me when I’m being bashed.
So, lets set the record straight. It’s not a secret that I worked for Capitol Campaigns on behalf of Measure P. In fact, I was shocked to realize that such a serious environmentalist as myself could be truly enthusiastic about a $12/hr job shilling for a development. But as it turned out, Covell Village was designed by Mike Corbett (the designer of Village Homes) and had more environmentally friendly features than a guy born in Texas could dream was possible.
I have NEVER criticized the Paid Parlin Porch Pals… never. Not on my blog, [url]www.davisvoice.com[/url], not at the Farmers Market and not in private. Where could you possibly have gotten that idea? Or did you just make it up?
Also, David, I must say that I’m surprised that on the eve of a Measure J election, neither the Vanguard nor the Enterprise chose to report on the financial statements regarding Measure P that were just filed last Thursday… “Yes” outspending “No” by at least 100:1 is news.
Kemble
did you mean you worked for yes on X, not P?
And can you provide more info on the P financials since they haven’t been covered here?
Thanks.
I should learn not to joke in comments… sarcasm rarely comes across.
@ Rich Rifkin – I think that the term “shill” does have a derogatory connotation. All of the other definitions of that term that you did not list cite some sort of secrecy, or acting as a decoy, or hoodwinking/hustling other people.
I like to think of myself as an advocate. I work for people and projects that I believe in and I make no secret of it… in fact, its public record.
SODA, go to his blog. It’s there.
If you’re interested in my take on the Anthony Sowell case, you can read my blog, here ([url]http://lexicondaily.blogspot.com/2009/11/rapists-should-never-be-released-from.html[/url]).
SODA – yes, sorry, I worked for Measure X. I have absolutely no affiliation with anyone or any organization regarding Measure P.
[quote]I think that the term “shill” does have a derogatory connotation. [/quote]It only does if you want it to.
[i]Also, David, I must say that I’m surprised that on the eve of a Measure J election, neither the Vanguard nor the Enterprise chose to report on the financial statements regarding Measure P that were just filed last Thursday… “Yes” outspending “No” by at least 100:1 is news.[/i]
Not necessarily. My vague recollection is that yes outspent no on the Richards Boulevard widening project by an infinite factor — there wasn’t even a no organization to spend any money — and it still failed.
Add to that point by Greg, if Measure P does have news in the financials it is on the No on side, not spending hardly anything. Measure P spending is roughly going to be $375,000 in 2009 dollars versus $600,000 (reported) in 2005 dollars for X. That’s hardly ground breaking. Target spent about the same in 2006 dollars. Perhaps Greg can convert those into comparable terms.
Kemble:
“I have NEVER criticized the Paid Parlin Porch Pals… never.”
Yeah well, that line says about it all and belies your feelings whether you stated it or not. Given that you yourself were a paid Covell whatever, you might want to be a bit more subdued in your sarcasm. I’d add to that you criticizing Parlin’s spending when Covell paid so much more kind of rings as either hollow or sour grapes.
I don’t know you from Adam, so don’t take this as a personal attack, I just find your post a bit disingenuous given the fact that you worked for Covell four years ago.
my last post has been mysteriously deleted…
basically I said,
Vincente: I know what its like to be a “Paid Parlin Porch Pal” because I’ve been a paid and unpaid porch pal for environmental issues, Measure X, John Kerry, Barack Obama and numerous other candidates for political office. It is a challenging job that requires a tough skin and open mind. If you can walk, knock, and talk for something that you believe in… FANTASTIC. Kudos to everyone who is paid to increase civic engagement.
I won’t be monitoring this site regularly, but for anyone in the future who has got a question/accusation for me, how about asking me directly? I’ll respond quickly if you email me: kemble@davisvoice.com
Kemble’s post was not deleted, so I have no idea what happened.