Direct links in this web page
Rio Linda Elverta News article October 24, 2002
Harris & Hood Form 470 as faxed to opponents
Hood Form 470 as sent to Secretary of State
Hood Form 470 as received by Registrar of Voters
Harris & Hood Form 460 Cover Page
Harris & Hood Form 460 Summary Page
Harris & Hood Form 460 Monetary Contributions Received
Harris & Hood Form 460 Accrued Expenses (unpaid bills)
Preface:
I am an elected Director on the Rio Linda/Elverta Community Water District
Board of Directors. I opted to retire after one four-year term, as I find
that I cannot deal with constituents who tell lies about me. I deal with
facts and truth, and I cannot tolerate such attacks. However, I enjoyed my
participation on the Board, my interface with our competent and dedicated
employees and I especially enjoyed my part in creating the Regional Water
Authority (RWA), a joint powers authority of the water purveyors in the region.
I served as the first Chair of the RWA in 2001. The RWA is concerned about
all of the groundwater and surface water issues in the Sacramento area, including
in-lieu recharge, tracking and control of contaminants, water conservation
programs, and all issues that affect the entire region, not just our Water
District.
When I learned that two Water Board candidates who would replace me as a
Director had opted to accept outside campaign funding, I reviewed the campaign
disclosure documents the candidates are required by State law to file for
public review and analysis. I found that they had not complied with the notification
requirements in the State law, taking eight days instead of 48 hours to notify
their opponents of their change in status. I found that their disclosure
statements were a total mess, not even disclosing all of their received contributions
and misstating many items.
It was of great concern to me that candidates who won't follow the law, can't
fill in a form, and who seem to have trouble with simple addition and subtraction
would aspire to accept responsibility for Water District financial statements,
budgets, and even more critical, the impending and very complex refinancing
of the District's existing debt.
To verify my conclusions and identify my options, I met with the Enforcement
Division of the California Fair Political Practices Commission, the agency
tasked with enforcing the applicable government code. The FPPC can levy fines
of up to $5000 for each infraction and a $10/day fee for each late notification.
After discussion with the FPPC, I decided to instead file a complaint with
the Sacramento County Voter Registration and Elections, asking them to require
the candidates to file amendments to their disclosures. I don't believe the
candidates intended to defraud; instead I feel that they have demonstrated
an egregious incompetence for tasks similar to those they would be expected
to perform as elected directors.
The Rio Linda News Article below reports on the filing of the complaint.
Following the article are copies of representative documents that provide
the facts to back up my complaints.
Jay O'Brien
October 23, 2002
All documents
included in this web page are public documents that were obtained from the
recipients of the documents, per government code §81008(a). The documents
are presented here without any edit, correction or modification.
Water Board race: Irregularities cited
A complaint was filed Monday with the Sacramento County Registrar of Voters,
citing multiple irregularities in campaign disclosures made by Water Board
candidates Mary Harris and Cathy Hood. The candidates missed notification
requirements, did not disclose the source of received contributions, and
did not follow the instructions on the financial disclosure forms they were
required by law to file.
The Political Reform Act of 1974, enforced by the Fair Political Practices
Commission (FPPC), requires detailed campaign disclosures from political
candidates whose campaigns receive or spend more than $1000. The disclosures
provide the public with contribution and expense information.
The Act permits candidates to agree to stay under $1000 and avoid the requirement
for detailed disclosure. If candidates change their mind and exceed the $1000
limit, the law requires that the opposing candidates be notified within 48
hours. This notification provides opponents a timely opportunity to also
decide to obtain outside funding, leveling the playing field.
After receiving $1000, the candidates waited eight days before faxing the
required 48 hour notification to their opponents. Opposing candidate Joe
Gluvers, who received the late notification, said "Timing is critical --
You can't get signs made overnight, especially when it gets close to the
election!" The late notices were sent to Gluvers and to candidate Doug Cater
from Mary Harris' fax machine. The law also requires notification to both
the Secretary of State and the County; those agencies received their copies
15 days after the candidates exceeded $1000.
The notifications sent by candidate Hood to the Secretary of State and to
the County are different and different from that faxed to her opponents.
Hood may have not successfully changed her original intent to stay below
the $1000 limit, based on the inconsistencies between the three required
notices.
State law requires candidates handling over $1000 to establish a campaign
committee and a committee bank account. All contributions must be deposited
into the account and all campaign expenditures must be paid from the account.
Even the candidates must deposit their personal funds into the campaign account
in the same manner as contributors. Contributions of less than $100 each
are added together and reported as "unitemized" and contributors of $100
or more must be identified by name and address.
The campaign committee disclosure statement, signed by Treasurer Mary Harris,
does not identify who made over one quarter of the hundred-dollar and larger
contributions for which State law requires disclosure. The disclosure reports
receipt of $600 from one contributor, and $100 each from four contributors,
for a total of $1000. However, the disclosure reports a total of $1400 in
contributions of $100 or more. The source of the remaining $400 is not identified
in the filing, even though required by State law. In addition, a total of
$300 in unitemized smaller contributions was reported.
Outstanding debts must be disclosed in detail. An outstanding debt of $460
was disclosed by the treasurer, owed to a sign company. However, the filing
reports a total debt of $560, without identifying the other $100 as required
by State law.
The treasurer disclosed a zero current cash balance, ignoring direct instructions
on the face of the form; cash receipts and cash payments were not copied
to the "Current Cash Statement" section of the disclosure form as required.
Instead, following the instructions on the form results in an "Ending Cash
Balance" of $92.35, not zero.
The disclosure form was signed by campaign committee Treasurer Mary Harris.
The FPPC instructions require all controlling candidates to also sign the
form under penalty of perjury; Harris is the only one who signed the form.
Violations of the Political Reform Act are subject to fines of up to $5,000
per violation as established by Proposition 34 in November 2000. In addition,
a $10/day liability may be levied for each day of delay for each required
notification.
Retiring Director Jay O'Brien, who researched and documented the campaign
irregularities and filed the complaint, said "These are people who want to
run the finances of our water district. If they can't even fill out a simple
form disclosing their campaign activity, how can they fathom the complex
finances they must understand as elected directors? I don't know how they
could make so many errors. The instructions are very simple and easy to understand;
public officials file them on a regular basis without any trouble."
Water Board Directors are responsible for the approval of Water District
expenses, the Water District budget, and for the ongoing review of detailed
Water District financial statements. As refinancing of the outstanding pipeline
bonds (COPs) is now under way, complex and esoteric financial formulas and
concepts need also be understood.
Ed note: Water Board Directors must follow the law, follow instructions, and understand
finances. O'Brien's documentation on these and other campaign irregularities are on line at http://obri.net .
Below is the California Form 470
Supplement that was faxed from Mary Harris' fax to her opponents. Note that
"and Cathy Hood" follows "Mary Harris" in section 1. The explanation of the
amendment is "Recieved [sic] $1,000 in contributions".
The date Contributions of $1,000 or more were received, as entered in section
3, is shown as 9-5-02. The fax was sent 8 days later, according to the
date entered by Harris' fax, even though §84206(c) requires it to be sent within 48 hours.
Below is the California Form
470 Supplement that was received by the Secretary of State from Cathy Hood.
Note that it is different than the form faxed to her opponents. The explanation of the amendment is "plan to spend $1,000 or more." The date Contributions of $1,000 or more were received, as entered
in section 3, is blank, even though it is required by the FPPC instructions for this form..
The form was received by the Secretary of State on September 20. It is not
clear whether this form meets the requirements of required notification,
as the form itself states "This
form is written notification that the officeholder/candidate listed below
has received contributions totalling $1,000 or more or has made expenditures
of $1,000 or more during the calendar year."
Below
is the California Form 470 Supplement that was received by Sacramento County
Registrar of Voters & Elections from Cathy Hood. Note that it is different
than the other forms above. The explanation of the amendment is blank, even though it is required by the FPPC instructions for this form. The date Contributions of $1,000 or more were received, as entered
in section 3, is also blank. The form was received by the Registrar of Voters on September 20.
Below
is the California Form 460 Cover page, covering the period 1/1/02 through
9/30/02. Form 460 must be filed by candidates handling over $1000,
and is filed to disclose the finances of the campaign committee. FPPC instructions
state that this form must be signed by the treasurer and by all candidates
who control the committee. Only the treasurer signed this form.
Below
is the California Form 460 Summary Page. The "Current Cash Statement", lines
12-16, are incorrect. The instructions on this form for line 13 state to
obtain the amount from "Column A, Line 3 above", or $1700.00. Instead,
"0" is entered. Line 15, which should be $1607.65 as copied from "Column
A, Line 8 above", is also shown incorrectly as "0". Line 16, the ending cash
balance, shown as "0", should be $92.35 if the correct amounts are entered
in lines 13 and 15. These figures include the bank balances.
Below is the California
Form 460 Schedule A, Monetary Contributions Received. A second page of Schedule
A was filed as page 5 of 17 that has no entries for contributions or amounts;
like the first page, subtotals are not entered as required. Line 1 is the
summation of all schedule A subtotals, but instead of the $1000 in identified
contributions, $1400 is entered. The source of the remaining $400 in contributions
is not identified as required by §84211(f).
.
The continuation page is blank and also has no subtotal. 
Below
is the California Form 460 Schedule F, Accrued Expenses (Unpaid Bills). This
schedule makes no sense at all. Accrued expenses outstanding as of Jan 1
are to be entered in column (a); $460 is entered, even though the committee
did not exist on that date. This form says that no additional amount was
incurred between Jan 1 and Sep 30 (col b), yet $1000 is shown as paid to
this creditor between Jan 1 and Sep 30. After making this payment, the form
says that $460 is still owed to this creditor on Sep 30. Lines 1 and
2 are supposed to be summations of (col b) and (col c) subtotals; the figures
entered are the same as lines 6 and 11 on the summary page, expenditures
(not accrued expenses). The amount of accrued expenses carried to the summary
page, Column A, line 9 is $560, not the $460 shown on schedule F as owed
to the one identified creditor.
jump to top of page
Click here to advance to part 2
Click here for the summary
