ABSTRACT: Warning letters, dated April 14, 2010, were sent to Mayor Sue McCloud, ReElect Mayor McCloud Treasurer Richard Stewart and ReElect Mayor McCloud Assistant Treasurer Clayton Berling by the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). “Warning letters are issued when the Enforcement Division has enough evidence to prove a violation, but determines it is not in the best interest of the People of California to issue a fine. Individuals who receive warning letters are put on notice that future violations will result in a fine.” The Warning letters were the result of mayoral candidate Adam Moniz filing a complaint with the FPPC alleging that Mayor Sue McCloud failed to report “potentially thousands of dollars in advertising expenses” for ads appearing in The Carmel Pine Cone and Monterey County Weekly between February 28, 2010 and March 27, 2010. After the complaint was filed and prior to the issuance of the Warning letter, Mayor Sue McCloud accused Adam Moniz of being “dead wrong,” engaged in “character assassination” and “negative campaigning” and owed her an apology. McCloud further stated that she had reported her campaign finances "exactly the same way I've done every year." The Warning letters are reproduced in their entirety and COMMENTS are made regarding the vindication of Adam Moniz and the inappropriate, incorrect and unprofessional comments of Mayor Sue McCloud.
April 2010 Enforcement Closure Letter
Case Number 20100257
Name Susan McCloud
Warning
FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION
428 J Street Suite 620 Sacramento, CA. 95814-2329
(916) 322-5660 Fax (916) 322-0886
April 14, 2010
Ms. Susan McCloud
ReElect Mayor McCloud
REDACTED
Warning Letter Re: FPPC No. 10/257: Susan McCloud. ReElect Mavor McCloud. Richard Stewart, Treasurer, and Clayton Berling, Assistant Treasurer
Dear Ms. McCloud:
The Fair Political Practices Commission (the "FPPC") enforces the provisions of the Political Reform Act (the "Act") found in Government Code section 81000, et seq. This letter is in response to a complaint filed against you that alleged you failed to disclose expenditures in connection with newspaper advertisements. We are closing this matter with a warning letter.
The FPPC has completed its investigation of the facts in this case. Specifically, the FPPC found that you failed to disclose on your pre-election campaign statement Form 460, expenditures associated with the purchase of political ads that ran in the Monterey County Weekly and the Carmel Pine Cone newspapers.
Section 84211, subd. (b) requires candidates to disclose the use of their campaign funds. Specifically, subdivision (k) requires the itemization of any expenditure of $100 or more. An expenditure is made on the date the payment is made or the date the committee receives the goods or services, whichever is earlier. (Section 82025.) When amounts owed by the committee for goods or services that are received but are not paid for by the end of the reporting period, Schedule F of the Form 460 is used to disclose this information. If the exact amount is unknown, an estimate may be reported. (Regulation 18421.6.)
Your actions violated the Act because you failed to disclose the expenditures for the newspaper advertisements as accrued expenses. However you filed an amendment to disclose this information and the information was available to the public prior to the election. Therefore we are closing this case with a warning letter.
This letter serves as a written warning. The information in this matter will be retained and may be considered should an enforcement action become necessary based on newly discovered information or future conduct. Failure to comply with the provisions of the Act in the future will result in monetary penalties of up to $5,000 for each violation.
A warning letter is an FPPC case resolution without administrative prosecution or fine. However the warning letter resolution does not provide you with the opportunity for a probable cause hearing or hearing before an Administrative Law Judge or the Fair Political Practices Commission. If you wish to avail yourself of these proceedings by requesting that your case proceed with prosecution rather than a warning) please notify us within ten (10) days from the date of this letter. Upon this notification} the FPPC will rescind this warning letter and proceed with administrative prosecution of this case, If we do not receive such notification} this warning letter will be posted on the FPPC's website ten (10) days from the date of this letter.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions you may have regarding this letter.
Sincerely,
REDACTED
Gary S. Winuk, Chief
Enforcement Division
GSW/tr
cc: Adam Moniz
1 The Political Reform Act is contained in Government Code sections 81000 through 91014. All statutory references are to the Government Code, unless otherwise indicated. The regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission are contained in sections 18110 through 18997 of Title 2 of the California Code of Regulations. All regulatory references are to Title 2, Division 6 of the California Code of Regulations, unless otherwise indicated.
COMMENTS:
• Mayor Sue McCloud’s statement that she had reported her campaign finances "exactly the same way I've done every year" implies that she violated the law in 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006 and 2008. Moreover, her claim that she has reported her campaign finances exactly the same way does not absolve her of being in violation of the law.
• Mayoral Candidate Adam Moniz was right to file a complaint with the Fair Political Practices Commission. As he stated, "a candidate's obligations under the law are not a joke, and she needs to take them seriously. This is about transparency and following the rules."
• Mayor Sue McCloud’s deflection away from the merits of the complaint to accusing Adam Moniz of engaging in “character assassination” and “negative campaigning” is a typical tactic of Sue McCloud. Instead of Sue McCloud demanding an apology from Adam Moniz, she owes Adam Moniz and the people of Carmel-by-the-Sea an apology.
ADDENDUM:
Political Reform Act 2010
Fair Political Practices Commission
California Government Code sections 81000 – 91014
TITLE 9. POLITICAL REFORM
CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS
TITLE 2. ADMINISTRATION
DIVISION 6. FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION
Sections 18110 through 18997
April 2010 Enforcement Closure Letter
Case Number 20100257
Name Clayton Berling
Name Richard Stewart
Warning
FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION
428 J Street Suite 620 Sacramento, CA. 95814-2329
(916) 322-5660 Fax (916) 322-0886
April 14, 2010
Mr. Richard Stewart
ReElect Mayor McCloud
REDACTED
Mr. CIayton Berling
ReElect Mayor McCloud
REDACTED
Warning letter Re: FPPC No. 10/257: Susan McCloud. ReElect Mayor McCloud, Richard Stewart, Treasurer and Clayton Berling, Assistant Treasurer
Dear Messrs. Stewart and Berling:
The Fair Political Practices Commission (the "FPPC") enforces the provisions of the Political Reform Act (the “Act”),1 found in Government Code section 81000, et seq. This letter is in response to a complaint filed against you that alleged you failed to disclose expenditures in connection with newspaper advertisements. We are dosing this matter with a warning letter.
The FPPC has completed its investigation of the facts in this case. Specifically, the FPPC found that you failed to disclose on your pre-election campaign statement, Form 460, expenditures associated with the purchase of political ads that ran in the Monterey County Weekly and the Carmel Pine Cone newspapers.
Section 84211, subd. (b) requires candidates to disclose the use of their campaign funds. Specifically, subdivision (k) requires the itemization of any expenditure of $100 or more. An expenditure is made on the date the payment is made or the date the committee receives the goods or services, whichever is earlier. (Section 82025.) When amounts owed by the committee for goods or services that are received but are not paid for by the end of the reporting period, Schedule F of the Form 460 is used to disclose this information. If the exact amount is unknown, an estimate may be reported. (Regulation 18421.6.)
Your actions violated the Act because you failed to disclose the expenditures for the newspaper advertisements as accrued expenses, However, you filed an amendment to disclose this information, and the information was available to the public prior to the election. Therefore we are closing this case with a warning letter.
This letter serves as a written warning. The information in this matter will be retained and may be considered should an enforcement action become necessary based on newly discovered information or future conduct. Failure to comply with the provisions of the Act in the future will result in monetary penalties of up to $5,000 for each violation.
A warning letter is an FPPC case resolution without administrative prosecution or fine. However, the warning letter resolution does not provide you with the opportunity for a probable cause hearing or hearing before an Administrative Law Judge or the Fair Political Practices Commission. If you wish to avail yourself of these proceedings by requesting that your case proceed with prosecution rather than a warning, please notify us within ten (10) days from the date of this letter. Upon this notification, the FPPC will rescind this warning letter and proceed with administrative prosecution of this case. If we do not receive such notification, this warning letter will be posted on the FPPCs website ten (10) days from the date of this letter.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions you may have regarding this letter.
Sincerely,
REDACTED
Gary S. Winuk, Chief
Enforcement Division
GSW/tr
cc: Adam Moniz
1 The Political Reform Act is contained in Government Code sections 81000 through 91014. All statutory references are to the Government Code, unless otherwise indicated. The regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission are contained in sections 18110 through 18997 of Title 2 of the California Code of Regulations. All regulatory references are to Title 2, Division 6 of the California Code of Regulations, unless otherwise indicated.
3 comments:
So the “dead wrong” person is the mayor, not Adam. The mayor cannot seem to follow the most basis laws. I guess her years in the CIA taught her she is above the laws of the land. In hindsight, the media should have seen red flags when a former CIA officer was running for public office and given her extra scrutiny, not the benefit of the doubt time and time again. Even the Weekly seems to not get she is playing them, unless they think a peace settlement is an appeal on Flanders, for example.
Anyway, Adam has been proven right on campaign laws and more concerned with his responsibilities to the public than “dead wrong” Sue McCloud ever has.
O.K. I get it. Negative campaigning is going public with Sue McCloud's violations and daring to file a compliant against her. She has run for mayor six times and she continues to violate campaign laws with her sixth run for mayor. She cannot abide by campaign laws. No wonder there are four lawsuits against the city and mayor and council now.
We did not have enough votes to defeat her this time, but perhaps the negative publicity of these lawsuits will prevent her from running for another term.
The mayor thinks everyone not friends or supporters of hers needs to apologize to her and she never needs to apologize to anyone. Think John Hanson. If ever there was a time to make a formal public and written apology, then it is with John Hanson and his family. Come to think of it, Adam said he would write a letter of apology to Hanson as his first order of business if elected and he wasn't even part of city government at the time. He showed real leadership, something we have not seen from Sue McCloud in 10 years.
Post a Comment