BEFORE THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE LOS ANGELES CITY ETHICS COMMISSION. In the Matter of: CEC Case No

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "BEFORE THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE LOS ANGELES CITY ETHICS COMMISSION. In the Matter of: CEC Case No"

Sheena Lewis
5 years ago
Views:

1 LEEANN M. PELHAM Executive Director LOS ANGELES CITY ETHICS COMMISSION 200 North Spring Street City Hall 24 th Floor Los Angeles, California (213) Complainant BEFORE THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE LOS ANGELES CITY ETHICS COMMISSION In the Matter of: CEC Case No MARK ABRAMS; CHARLES ELLIOTT FITZGERALD; STIPULATION, DECISION, MATTHEW COMPTON; HEATHER COMPTON; AND ORDER DAVID COMPTON; DONNA COMPTON; (Lisa Staub) EMALEN BATTON; JASON WILLIAMS; JANNA WILLIAMS; SCOTT WILLIAMS; TERA WILLIAMS; THE LAKES AT RAINTREE VILLAGE, LLC; CLEO BLUTH; ERICA ESKES; WILLEM ESKES; VIRGINIA GRINDLEY; STEVE GRINDLEY; DAVID EISENBERG; KATHY EISENBERG; LISA STAUB; TIFFANY GIFFORD; JOHN GREGORY VAN ORMAN; HELEN VAN ORMAN; NICOLE LAVIOLETTE; CLIFFORD LAVIOLETTE; KENNETH RAY STEPP; L. SCOTT ROBINSON; FLORY ROBINSON; LILA RIZK; SAMIR RIZK; JAMIESON MATYKOWSKI, Respondents. The complainant, LeeAnn M. Pelham, Executive Director of the Los Angeles City Ethics Commission ( Commission ), and Respondent Lisa Staub ( Respondent ) hereby agree that this Stipulation will be submitted for consideration by the Commission at its next regularly scheduled meeting, and that the agreements herein are contingent upon the approval of this Stipulation and the accompanying Decision and Order by the Commission. The parties agree to enter into this Stipulation to resolve all factual and legal issues raised in this matter and to reach a final disposition without the necessity of holding an administrative hearing to determine the liability of the Respondent.

2 Respondent understands, and hereby knowingly and voluntarily waives, any and all procedural rights under Los Angeles City Charter ( Charter ) 706 and Los Angeles Administrative Code (d) and (e), including but not limited to a determination of probable cause, the issuance and receipt of an accusation, the right to appear personally at any administrative hearing held in this matter, to confront and cross-examine all witnesses testifying at the hearing, to subpoena witnesses to testify at the hearing, and to have the Commission or an impartial administrative law judge hear the matter. Respondent stipulates to having violated the Charter as described in Exhibit 1, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and that Exhibit 1 is a true and accurate summary of the facts in this matter. Respondent agrees to the issuance of the attached Decision and Order and imposition by the Commission of an administrative penalty of $500 to be paid in the form of a cashier s check, payable to the General Fund of the City of Los Angeles, upon the signing of this Stipulation. An analysis of the settlement amount is also included in Exhibit 1, page 2. The Commission will hold the submitted payments until it issues its Decision and Order in this matter. The parties agree that in the event the Commission refuses to accept the proposed stipulation, it shall become null and void. The parties further agree that within ten business days after the Commission meeting at which the Stipulation is rejected, all payments tendered by Respondent in connection with this Stipulation shall be returned to Respondent. Respondent further stipulates and agrees that in the event the Commission rejects the Stipulation and a full evidentiary hearing before the Commission becomes necessary, no member of the Commission Board or staff, nor the Executive Director, shall be disqualified because of prior consideration of this Stipulation. DATED: LEEANN M. PELHAM, Executive Director CITY ETHICS COMMISSION DATED: LISA STAUB Respondent 2

3 DECISION AND ORDER The City Ethics Commission has considered the above Stipulation and the attached exhibit at its meeting on. The City Ethics Commission hereby approves the Stipulation and orders that, in accordance with the Stipulation, Respondent Lisa Staub shall pay a total fine of $500 to the City of Los Angeles. DATED: GIL GARCETTI, President CITY ETHICS COMMISSION 3

4 EXHIBIT 1 INTRODUCTION Mark Abrams ( Abrams ) and Charles Elliott Fitzgerald ( Fitzgerald ) are real estate developers who worked together in the Los Angeles area from 1999 to In order to avoid the per-person contribution limits, Abrams asked his employees and business associates to make contributions that he would reimburse them for. Matthew Compton is a real estate broker and investor based in Southern California who worked for Abrams and Fitzgerald. Between September 2001 and October 2002, Matthew Compton; his wife Heather Compton; his parents David and Donna Compton; his friends Walter and Emalen Batton; Jason, Janna, Scott and Tera Williams; his cousin Lisa Staub; and Pacific California Estates Realty, a company he was president of, each made contributions to one or more of the following Los Angeles City candidates: Mayoral candidate James Hahn; City Council candidate Tony Cardenas; and City Council candidate Nick Pacheco. Matthew Compton and his relatives and friends named above made the contributions following a request from Abrams with the understanding that Abrams would reimburse them. On or about the same dates the contributions were made, Mark Abrams gave Matthew Compton the reimbursement funds in cash, and Matthew Compton caused Mark Abrams to reimburse each of the individual respondents, including himself and Pacific California Estates Realty, for their contributions by distributing the funds to the contributors. Respondent Lisa Staub admits to having violated the City Charter as follows by: COUNT 1: Accepting funds from Mark Abrams to make an assumed name political contribution in violation of Charter 470(k). APPLICABLE LAW The Charter, the LAMC, applicable ordinances, and the Political Reform Act ( PRA ), Cal. Gov. Code , govern campaign financing and disclosure requirements for Los Angeles City elections. Provisions of particular relevance to the instant case are discussed in greater detail below with reference to specific violations. VIOLATIONS COUNT 1: ASSUMED NAME CONTRIBUTION Charter 470(k) provides that no person or combination of persons acting jointly in a name other than the name by which they are identified for legal purposes, nor in the name of another person or combination of persons may, directly or indirectly, make a contribution, to a 1

5 candidate for Los Angeles City office or to his or her controlled committee. In addition to its prohibition against making political contributions through and in the name of others, Charter 470(k) also provides that [n]o person shall make a contribution in his, her or its name of anything belonging to another person or received from another person on the condition that it be used as a contribution. COUNT 1: Respondent accepted funds from Mark Abrams to make a $500 political contribution in February 2003 to the Pacheco for Council Controlled Committee in violation of the Charter 470(k) prohibition against assumed name contributions. FACTORS IN MITIGATION Respondent has no history of enforcement with the Commission and cooperated with the investigation of this matter. CONCLUSION While a maximum administrative penalty in this matter could result in a penalty of up to $5,000 per count or three times the amount unlawfully contributed, accepted, or reported, whichever is greater, for the instant case, $5,000 and $1,500 respectively, the facts of this case justify the imposition of the agreed upon administrative penalty against Respondent totaling $500. The penalty amount is equivalent to the amount the Respondent unlawfully contributed to Los Angeles City campaigns. 2

BEFORE THE SAN FRANCISCO ETHICS COMMISSION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

BEFORE THE SAN FRANCISCO ETHICS COMMISSION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1 JOHN ST. CROIX Executive Director SAN FRANCISCO ETHICS COMMISSION Van Ness Avenue, Suite San Francisco, CA --0 Complainant In the Matter of COMMITTEE TO PROTECT SAN FRANCISCO S MOST VULNERABLE, (ID 1;