[{"_1":2,"_123":-5,"_124":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100,111],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6330723,"mediaKeyId","2313631-44e37b4d748a82a24bdfea2bc20401be","parentId",2313631,"title","Votes at a glance: FPPC actions Feb. 13, 2025","audioSeconds",8998,"startMs",3141000,"endMs",12139000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2313631-44e37b4d748a82a24bdfea2bc20401be&start=3141&end=12139","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2313631-44e37b4d748a82a24bdfea2bc20401be/thumbnail_3141000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6330723/California/Votes-at-a-glance-FPPC-actions-Feb-13-2025","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6330723-3887feb0b30a9069a7d83434201278c2/orig.mp4?Expires=1775460399&Signature=mH5WyMk-XRHkjgMwduk6GJm2SFvdQZxkWfSzos6ux6UVz6nROn4KsJA74Wn6qeF-smDUJb-zaRdFu6QtWHnpFCft8EugC8t-927jpzvfpia2n5TByAfvsACgsA-fy8bo-lOARjxxhz-7tx~RTEg-8moAc-g0VF3NbeEqhWPt2jJnkXesOSx3bXvipDdRbROGBXTT~Ch5kIVW85XKEbTJL9JeK~CW3FOZj3qHmpc2M32Yc5RxcQ3t3Jtfr~b1qERo8FWv1ch7g5mYc-Q31iNbwUNNsVf7SIJOJeTuyioZ9bhW5eeNG5bJdhk0kwgAuXxX5AC6loo8RDhSw8vh9bXhIw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","California Exposition and State Fair","date","2025-02-14T08:53:08.5Z","article","The Fair Political Practices Commission took a number of formal actions during its Feb. 13, 2025, meeting. This roundup lists each recorded vote, the motion text, and the roll‑call tally as recorded in the meeting transcript.

Approval of the January 2025 minutes
Motion: Approve minutes of January 2025 meeting.
Vote: Passed. Baker: aye; Brandt: abstain; Ortiz: yes; Wilson: aye; Chair Silver: aye. Tally: 4 yes, 0 no, 1 abstain.

Consent calendar (items 5 and 6)
Motion: Approve consent calendar (default proceedings remaining on consent for items 5 and 6).
Vote: Passed. Baker: aye; Brandt: aye; Ortiz: yes; Wilson: aye; Chair Silver: aye. Tally: 5 yes, 0 no.

Approval of enforcement stipulation (item 4)
Motion: Approve stipulated settlement in enforcement matter as presented.
Vote: Passed unanimously. Baker: aye; Brandt: aye; Ortiz: yes; Wilson: aye; Chair Silver: aye. Tally: 5 yes.

Motion to deny motion to vacate default (item 8)
Motion: Deny the motion to vacate the default decision in the matter of Sandy Genas (FPPC case 181359).
Vote: Passed. Baker: aye; Brandt: aye; Ortiz: yes; Wilson: aye; Chair Silver: aye. Tally: 5 yes.

Adoption of revised expenditure codes (item 10)
Motion: Adopt revised expenditure codes and descriptions with one revision: remove postage from “office expenses” (postage to be its own code).
Vote: Passed. Baker: aye; Brandt: aye; Ortiz: yes; Wilson: aye; Chair Silver: aye. Tally: 5 yes.

Commission positions on legislation (item 15)
Motion: Support AB 359 (renew contracting authority with local agencies).
Vote: Passed. Baker: aye; Brandt: aye; Ortiz: yes; Wilson: aye; Chair Silver: aye. Tally: 5 yes.

Motion: Support SB 280 (prohibit receiving/delivering contributions in state and local government office buildings and remove district‑office exception).
Vote: Passed. Baker: aye; Brandt: aye; Ortiz: yes; Wilson: aye; Chair Silver: aye. Tally: 5 yes.

Adjournment
Motion: Adjourn meeting.
Vote: Passed. Baker: aye; Brandt: aye; Ortiz: yes; Wilson: aye; Chair Silver: aye.

Notes: Votes and verbatim roll‑call attributions were read from the transcript. If a tally or affiliation is not specified in the record it is listed as recorded; “yes” and “aye” are reported as stated. The commission did not take a formal vote on the SEI posting options; that item remained a pre‑notice discussion and staff will return with draft regulatory language.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","February 2025 Commission Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","A concise listing of formal votes taken during the Feb. 13 Fair Political Practices Commission meeting, including motions and recorded roll‑call results.","taxTitle","California Exposition and State Fair, Other State Agencies, Executive, California","taxId",76735,"location","California","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6330727,"FPPC audit recommends simpler thresholds, direct‑cost disclosure for nonprofit‑funded official travel",709,17133000,17842000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2313631-44e37b4d748a82a24bdfea2bc20401be&start=17133&end=17842","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2313631-44e37b4d748a82a24bdfea2bc20401be/thumbnail_17133000.jpg","/articles/6330727/California/FPPC-audit-recommends-simpler-thresholds-directcost-disclosure-for-nonprofitfunded-official-travel","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6330727-bae59debc4f5a1362cf2d5663cece228/orig.mp4?Expires=1775460399&Signature=aTtJlerIABK-f5pU9gSGH8h11o8TCUxVvE-6N6rtEB22uj7IjX7HsAbXEpjce6daX-d4A~hphtEmXBHkVEXLBHd1L4RITb9RQ~J9jTXXJ0FCgWpcs6dWGzYCYU8azvJ454YYlvL1PbZFqpnfA4Sk02vYUJrOBQVH9g-q3HOZnCfZrs8KAfc1mDqktx0s-leJKWczTlXVszNc~ky5fs~3Y7Jk9eNDQ9RPH90jq0TPTbx8fXM6~FVz4UgjTjsa9anDjCmqTOQ-YMF85zw9783468~am1rQ1qEs2Zy9qWAq8p7l9ze7Via7by3~FvAEdVGqO2yhg8cb8KHhf3yQYL0N4Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Fair Political Practices Commission received an audit Feb. 13 that evaluated whether nonprofit organizations are complying with Form 807 requirements to disclose donors who fund travel for state and local elected officials. The audit, performed by the FPPC’s Audits and Assistance Division, concluded the current statutory and regulatory thresholds are difficult to apply in practice and recommended legislative changes to simplify disclosure rules.

Auditors reviewed 2021–2022 filings disclosed on officials’ Form 700s and selected 10 organizations with high reported travel‑related expenses for deeper testing. The team requested IRS Form 990s, source documentation for travel expenses (invoices, receipts, contracts, credit‑card records), and supporting schedules. Audit staff reported several practical obstacles: many organizations failed to produce requested records or supplied incomplete documentation; indirect costs and broad ‘management and general’ categories on 990s made it difficult to trace which expenses were travel‑related; and some organizations produced internal spreadsheets rather than original invoices.

The audit findings included that audited 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) entities did not meet the one‑third total‑expense threshold that triggers Form 807 filing under current rules; results for 501(c)(6) organizations were inconclusive because staff could not obtain necessary documents. Based on its fieldwork, the audit recommended that the Legislature replace the current percentage and layered monetary triggers (for example, $10,000 and $5,000 per official) with a single flat monetary threshold to prompt Form 807 filing, require organizations to disclose direct travel costs (hotels, airfare, ground transportation, per‑diem advances and reimbursements), and consider expanding who must file Form 807.

Audits Chief Shraddha Shah told the commission the audit encountered noncooperation that lengthened field work and required subpoenas for some records. Commissioners urged staff to consult with stakeholders, including nonprofit trade groups, to select an appropriate flat threshold and to consider the burden on smaller organizations that lack formal accounting systems. Commissioners also emphasized the public interest in transparent donor disclosure for travel that could influence official decision‑making.

Staff recommended pursuing legislative changes to clarify thresholds and disclosure requirements and to improve the form and administrative processes so the FPPC and public can better verify compliance.","An FPPC discretionary audit of Form 807, the nonprofit travel disclosure form, found the current 1/3 expense threshold and multiple numeric triggers impede public transparency and recommended a flat monetary threshold, disclosure of direct costs, and expanding who must file.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6330732,"FPPC discusses posting options for statements of economic interest as electronic filing moves to agency system",1273,12189000,13462000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2313631-44e37b4d748a82a24bdfea2bc20401be&start=12189&end=13462","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2313631-44e37b4d748a82a24bdfea2bc20401be/thumbnail_12189000.jpg","/articles/6330732/California/FPPC-discusses-posting-options-for-statements-of-economic-interest-as-electronic-filing-moves-to-agency-system","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6330732-beed6f42a0f770c7b351a60f92942d2c/orig.mp4?Expires=1775460399&Signature=Ip7d5epQtTB3Eo9Wm8xdZ9M5IwGAy5t67gTZQXtZpgLOgIKy5iugeX6ImLalr74sC7NQXQrWhWt4auXIEvJF6xxXATjaxuX-taIUszSpdF5ptYKzt~oUdq0nVxodcnjsJOxDKRdLvAhrP-i5HTjJ1dGbycJlypEfzopKu3GP444OjNPOqixykYUR0LcyuAh~2fivxrhhEPICr9tBsekcyM2CPo69PUFr4u3x4yJ5vsyiqbg~frb86yhRAsKM~gArAl3b2j1wPkCNZ~g3B-kwyI04fbWOSiSpvJxTUZNahhsq-lZqYopxJ19p9i0RoKLBHqeeNqCVd8jrz3TknwGauA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Commission staff sought preliminary direction Feb. 13 from the Fair Political Practices Commission on how widely the agency should post statements of economic interest online after AB 1170 requires many filers to use the FPPC’s electronic filing system.

Legal and filing staff presented three options for which Form 700 filings would be posted on the FPPC website: (1) maintain the current rule — post elected officers and FPPC chair/commissioners only; (2) post all Government Code section 87200 filers (the higher‑level state and local officials required to disclose broader financial interests); or (3) post every statement submitted to the FPPC (including many state and local employees who currently file with agencies). Staff said broad posting would be technically feasible once all filers submit electronically; it would reduce staff time spent responding to requests and scanning paper filings.

Several commissioners expressed concern about privacy and safety for lower‑level employees whose Form 700s could include residential information or other identifiers; one commissioner asked whether schedulers and similar staff—positions that often are held by women statewide—might be disproportionately affected. Staff noted the law already requires certain redactions and that AB 1170 also added email addresses to the list of fields that may be redacted when posted. Commissioners also asked whether legislative employees and others who currently file with the Legislature or other agencies would be included; staff said agencies may designate certain positions to file with FPPC, and those who file with FPPC will now file electronically.

Staff reported that administrative and IT divisions had identified posting option 2 (post all §87200 filers) and option 3 (post all filings received) as feasible with modest additional administrative setup; more fine‑grained posting by job function (for example, only supervisors) would be technically more complex. Commissioners asked staff to return at adoption with two clear options (post §87200 filers vs. post all filings received by FPPC) and to include privacy‑and‑safety analysis, reverse data‑transfer opportunities for local agencies, and stakeholder feedback from legislative staff and advocacy groups.

No formal vote was taken; staff will present regulatory language and a recommendation for adoption at a future meeting.","Commission pre‑notice discussion focused on rules for posting statements of economic interest (Form 700) after AB 1170 requires filing directly with the FPPC; staff presented three posting options and solicited commissioner direction.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":46,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6330736,"FPPC denies bid to vacate default in former city‑council candidate case",1935,10204000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2313631-44e37b4d748a82a24bdfea2bc20401be&start=10204&end=12139","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2313631-44e37b4d748a82a24bdfea2bc20401be/thumbnail_10204000.jpg","/articles/6330736/California/FPPC-denies-bid-to-vacate-default-in-former-citycouncil-candidate-case","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6330736-d2cc97d1bf8305990d2948b5a3f508b1/orig.mp4?Expires=1775460399&Signature=MEjAkVDWdO-N-eRYAasYqPjf9YzfKA08D4KtwzoMktctKzR0oMmi0Hr6qVxRvGX6EfPLLXe-LISrF5bqavQTDd3r17cUcCpeyNZGULR9T1oBU3F8m6hS5UmtluPqDw7H1rmjeMCgaIfS6nSaBD-zWfQSs00mnpSGNwsxlWgSupkvoMrU-imBlFOW-CPV~Kwwv79bC9GvJJa4r7poc2gbaWcX8VCmApXl8BFs7v4hjHo-HqCMKhhXWTrfUthmnYc83B70my-Wj2MDqXfhwpaunRg6KtVdW2Y8OxWLXkXext3RL7iNT0SSdDOnbTh4GVexcFWnGgMUt167xpDYtxKLzQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Fair Political Practices Commission voted Feb. 13 to deny a motion to vacate a default decision filed by Sandy Genas, a former candidate in a 2016 city council race. The commission decided 5–0 that Genas had not shown the “good cause” required under statute to reopen a default previously approved by the commission.

General Counsel David Bainbridge and Chief Enforcement James Lindsey explained the limited legal standard for a motion to vacate: the moving party must show they did not receive notice of the accusation or demonstrate mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect. Staff reported the agency had a proof of personal service of the accusation, multiple prior notices from filing officers and the enforcement division, and no substantiated medical‑emergency or other extraordinary reason that would excuse non‑participation.

Commissioners examined the factual record and past practice. Some commissioners emphasized compassion and the agency’s interest in compliance; others noted the respondent had many opportunities to engage, had been personally served, and had not responded over multiple years. Staff described the agency’s practice of posting pre‑notice defaults and seeking to obtain participation where possible; they also noted the commission had denied a similar motion in the recent past when the statutory standard was not met.

A motion to deny the request prevailed. Roll call: Delia Baker: aye; Alf W. Brandt: aye; Elsa Ortiz: yes; William Wilson: aye; Chair David Silver: aye. The motion to vacate was therefore denied, and the default stands. Staff noted the respondent retains any collection or post‑default remedies available under statute and noted the commission’s collections regulation that may permit executive‑director‑level crediting or reductions after reasonable collection attempts.","The commission declined a request from Sandy Genas to vacate a default decision in an enforcement matter involving campaign filing failures, denying the motion by unanimous vote.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_47":117,"_49":118,"_51":119,"_53":120,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":121,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":122,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6330741,"FPPC approves $87,000 settlement in large campaign money‑laundering case",1888,5333000,7221000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2313631-44e37b4d748a82a24bdfea2bc20401be&start=5333&end=7221","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2313631-44e37b4d748a82a24bdfea2bc20401be/thumbnail_5333000.jpg","/articles/6330741/California/FPPC-approves-87000-settlement-in-large-campaign-moneylaundering-case","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6330741-1a8d51da2d6f91df2cbb6aac28230d10/orig.mp4?Expires=1775460399&Signature=M3w8ioLWpyuGl9NFzaL7YTaHOqWAowmNINFpxqcKr~SqfuemNwGpeNcP5FK84eEUCVUIxXk-L0gYgRi3Vlef2DhRsQFV3Ht4AXOe2TFI6gbjFDOAf4doNtIwmxEHNuSHNpD3EASPGaQU8FO2vxcy-wyT7qU6vivC2hwPjAt0E4b1kFTSw2VVwzqrBP1NE-UI8p3GIoFurX9fxBY-51KylCl3dTk946B3WFM57PZMorNJaQwTJGMEO10N97D3hGigJ-7KNdq4NGp9ctUIv0WeNbo~9RmFoUSIRE0YjWyaksnSBA9g-j7dNylImwdpFUg6ipTy0dDA2~cXC~J8e3mpkQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Fair Political Practices Commission voted unanimously Feb. 13 to approve a stipulated settlement totaling $87,000 in an enforcement matter the agency described as complex and significant. Commissioners voted 5–0 to accept the agreement after staff described theft‑style and money‑laundering allegations and explained enforcement’s strategy in negotiating the settlement.

The case arose from alleged improper use of intermediary accounts and unreported advertising expenditures. Enforcement staff told the commission the investigation spanned multiple years and involved detailed forensic review of funds and advertising records. Chief Enforcement James Lindsey described the settlement as the largest administrative stipulation in recent FPPC history and said the figure reflected a negotiated, certain recovery compared with the uncertainty of full administrative or judicial proceedings.

Commissioners asked detailed questions about the stipulation’s language and the scope of charges not pursued. Commissioner Delia Baker asked whether statements in the stipulation were the respondents’ claims or findings of the FPPC; staff clarified that certain passages are recitations of the respondents’ account and not the commission’s factual findings. Commissioners also asked how the stipulated amount compared to maximum potential fines and whether the matter should be referred to local prosecutors. Lindsey said enforcement had pursued major counts (including money‑laundering counts and enhanced advertisement penalties) but that charging every conceivable count can be duplicative because of overlapping conduct. He said the negotiated settlement equated to roughly 85% of the agency’s assessed maximum for the charged counts and that enforcement had not, at that point, referred the matter to a district attorney for criminal prosecution.

Commissioners discussed the public‑interest tradeoffs in settling versus litigating. Some members noted the benefit of swift, certain recovery and the publicity effect of an administrative stipulation; others and public commenters urged referral for criminal review and asked whether the agency had fully explored the maximum penalty range. Staff said prosecuting to judgment would be resource‑intensive and uncertain, and that settlements yield immediate recoveries to the state.

The motion to approve the stipulation was made and seconded; the roll call vote was Baker: aye; Brandt: aye; Ortiz: yes; Wilson: aye; Chair Silver: aye. Motion passed.

The commission did not adopt any additional sanctions beyond the negotiated settlement during the meeting. Staff said probable‑cause and administrative hearing steps had occurred prior to settlement negotiations and described the pathway to an administrative hearing if the stipulation had not been approved. The commission also urged staff to consider whether criminal referral was appropriate and to document decision points for future public reference.","The Fair Political Practices Commission approved a stipulated administrative settlement totaling $87,000 in a multi‑count enforcement matter described by staff as one of the most complex money‑laundering investigations the agency has handled.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Votes at a glance: FPPC actions Feb. 13, 2025

FPPC audit recommends simpler thresholds, direct‑cost disclosure for nonprofit‑funded official travel

FPPC discusses posting options for statements of economic interest as electronic filing moves to agency system

FPPC denies bid to vacate default in former city‑council candidate case

FPPC approves $87,000 settlement in large campaign money‑laundering case