Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Da Gifts Disclosure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors approve DA’s acceptance of donated furniture after debate over whether a separate Form 801 was required
Summary
The Budget & Finance Committee approved retroactive acceptance of donated furniture for the District Attorney’s Office, but members split over whether the DA should also have filed FPPC Form 801 (for gifts that benefit an individual). The DA said he filed Form 803 and that the FPPC found no violation; the city attorney advised that Form 801 is required when a gift benefits an official. Item 9 passed by roll call with two No votes.
The Budget & Finance Committee considered two gift acceptance items from the District Attorney’s Office on May 8, including in‑kind technical assistance (item 8) and donated furniture and design services (item 9). Item 8 — technical assistance valued at $250,000 from the Open Society Foundation to be provided by the National Council on Crime and Delinquency for the local Sentencing Commission and victim‑services analysis — was moved forward by the committee without opposition.
Item 9 prompted extended debate. District Attorney Gascon explained the furniture donations (listed in the filing) were given to the city for use in the DA executive office and a victim‑services lounge and said the office filed a Form 803 (beheested payment report) and had contacted the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). He told the committee the FPPC indicated it would not open an investigation and that the agency had concluded the gifts were acceptable as gifts to the City.
Deputy City Attorney John Givner told the committee that state law and FPPC guidance require different filings depending on who benefits. He explained that Form 803 reports behested payments when an elected official solicits donations to a government entity and that Form 801 must be filed with the FPPC when a gift to a department confers a tangible benefit on an individual officer or employee (in which case someone other than the beneficiary must have chosen who received the benefit). Givner said he did not believe a Form 801 had been filed in this case and that, generally, his office advises officials to file Form 801 where the FPPC’s past advice indicates a gift benefits an individual.
District Attorney Gascon and DA staff said they consulted with counsel and the FPPC and maintained that the 803 filing — which they posted and provided to the committee — was the appropriate procedure for these behested gifts. Several supervisors said they were satisfied that the DA disclosed donors and amounts publicly; other supervisors said filing an 801 would remove lingering public‑perception concerns because some individual contributions approached $9,999 and furniture sits in the district attorney’s executive office.
After discussion, the committee held a roll call vote on item 9. Supervisors Marr and Avalos voted No; Supervisors Bridal (Reid), Weiner and Farrell voted Aye. The motion to accept the furniture and design services passed. Because one supervisor was absent when item 8 originally passed, the committee rescinded the prior vote on item 8 and re‑moved it forward to include that supervisor on the record; item 8 then also passed without opposition.
District Attorney Gascon said he would follow up with his attorney to obtain any FPPC documentation the committee requested. The committee’s action sends both resolutions to the full Board of Supervisors for final consideration.
