Ethics and Campaign Reporting:

R1

The Board of Supervisors should place a proposition on the next available general election ballot to establish an Orange County Campaign Reporting and Ethics Commission, similar to commissions in other jurisdictions in California. (F.1., F.2., F.3., F.4., F.5., F.6.)

R2

The Board of Supervisors should carefully weigh the drawbacks to FPPC enforcement outlined in the Findings before pursuing it as an option to enforcing the County’s campaign finance ordinance. (F.5.)

R3

If the Board of Supervisors contracts with the FPPC for enforcement of the County’s campaign finance ordinance, it should establish an Office of Ethics and Compliance charged with receiving complaints, monitoring, and investigating possible ethics law and policy violations, and offering training, advice and recommendations regarding such laws and policies. The Office should have the following characteristics: a) a director nominated independently from County government officials, b) a budget mandated by ordinance, with a floor on year-to-year reductions c) paid staff, including its own inside or outside counsel, and d) power to subpoena records and persons. (F.1., F.2., F.3., F.4., F.6.)

R4

At a minimum, to address current deficiencies in ethics and campaign and lobbyist oversight and reporting, the Board of Supervisors should: 1. Charge and appropriate funds for an existing agency in the County to perform comprehensive oversight of ethics compliance. 2. Charge and appropriate funds for the Registrar of Voters and the Clerk of the Board to accomplish more comprehensive oversight of campaign and lobbyist reporting, including more complete audits. 3. Charge and appropriate funds for an existing agency in the County to create and manage a consolidated, compressive database of economic interest and campaign reporting data and information, available to the public via the Internet. (F.1., F.2., F.3., F.4., F.6.) REQUIRED RESPONSES The California Penal Code §933 requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Section §933.05 (a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. (b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code section §933.05 are required from: Responses Required: Responses to Findings F.1., F.2., F.3., F.4., F.5., and F.6. are required from the Board of Supervisors Responses to Recommendations R.1., R.2., R.3. and R.4. are required from the Board Supervisors APPENDIX: Ethics Commission Survey Results (Figures are for FY 2012-2013 unless otherwise noted) CITY AND COUNTY OF COUNTY OF ORANGE COUNTY CITY OF SAN DIEGO CITY OF LOS ANGELES SAN FRANCISCO SAN BERNARDINO Population 3,090,132 1,328,073 3,866,133 826,003 2,081,313 Total budget $5.6 billion $2.8 billion $20, billion $7.9 billion $4.3 billion Total 17,000 19,500 42,000 19,919 employees Los Angeles City Ethics Office of Compliance and Agency name City of San Diego Ethics Commission San Francisco Ethics Commission Commission Ethics (OCE) Voter approved proposition, City Charter Amendment, voter Appears to be part of county Authority City Charter, City Ordinance Ordinance approved government structure. Date 2001 1990 1993 established City’s governmental ethics laws Shape, administer, and enforce Education, training, complaint Operate a strategic including education, training, laws regarding governmental investingation, statistical countywide compliance and Mission investingation, advice, ethics, conflicts of interest, reporting, advice, audits, ethics program, esuring recommendations, enforcement campaign financing, and lobbying, recommendations, enforcement, regulatory and ethical Governance City Council City Council Board of Supervisors Appears to be county CEO. /Budget Purview Political activities of elected Campaign finance audits, Elections, elected officials, (elections, officials, candidates, political candidate matching funds, candidates, city & county elected, staff, committees, com. Treasurers, public lobbyist registration and employees, lobyists, school & cities, county) employees, lobyists, 1,500 people disclosure, city official financial college board. Jurisdiction over Investigations, subpoena, Monitor changes in state Investigations, subpeona power, Investigations, campaign funding, opinions, enforcement laws, recommend policies, Actions outreach & education, advice training, education, whistleblower proceedings, fines, develop internal controls, letters, fines, audits hotline, audits, fines. oral, written informal & formal audits, helpline. Whistleblower Y -@ Auditor/Controller's office Y Y -@ Controller's Office Yes, 3rd party is host. hotline (Y, N) Appears to be 2 listed on Body size 7 5 5 web-site. Jurisdiction 1,328,073 3,866,133 826,003 Population Jurisdiction $2.8 billion $20 billion $6.7 billion Budget $ Jurisdiction no. 19,500.00 42,000 of employees By Mayor on nomination of Council Appointed by the Mayor, City One ea. appointed by Mayor, How appointed and City Att'y, approved by majority Council President, CC Pres Pro BoS, City Attorney, DA, Assessor of Council Tem, City Attorney, and Controller Term Four years Five years Six years No compensation except for Pay None $50 per meeting/waived by all "City benefits" 21 -not covered by civil service 18 includes a full-time educator Paid staff 5 (attorneys would be an asset) procedures! & 2 investigators but need more. Commission $4.2 million '12-13 ($2.3 non- $781K FY 2012 / $977K FY 2013 $2.4 million FY'12-13 Budget $ grant) Collect fines Y - + Lobbyists, campaign Y -$25,000 collected in 2013 Y -$220,200 collected in 2013 & fees? consultants ($82,000 2013) Annual report, training, audits, info Annual report, training, audits, Products website, formal & informal advice Campaign finance audits campaingn info website letters, stipulations APPENDIX: Ethics Commission Survey Results (cont’d) (Figures are for FY 2012-2013 unless otherwise noted) COUNTY OF VENTURA KERN COUNTY CITY OF OAKLAND CITY OF SAN JOSE CITY OF SEATTLE Population 834,398 855,498 399,699 983,574 Total $1.6 billion $1 billion $2.9 billion appropriations Total 3,898 5,655 employees Ventura County Campaign Campaign Finance Hearing Seattle Ethics and Elections Agency name Public Ethics Commission San Jose Ethics Commission Finance Ethics Commission Panel Commission Authority County Ordinance Voter approved ordinance City Charter Municiple Code Budget set by City Council Date 2003 or 2004 2003 1996 1992 established Consider formal complaints of Ensure fairness, openness, Monitors compliance w/ all Administer, interpret and Mission and possible Ethics Ordinance honesty and integrity in city ethics and campaign enforce the Seattle Ethics Code violations government. ordinances Governance Board of Supervisors County Board of Supervisors City Council City Council Mayor and City Council /Budget Purview Campaign Finance for Campaign finance violations Campaign finance, conflicts Interpreting and applying the (elections, candidates -County only, no under Kern County of interest, city council code Campaign and ethics regulations Seattle Ethics, elections, elected, staff, lobbyists, no training or ordinance (campaign of conduct, transparency, of elected officials Election Pamphlet, and cities, county) education, no audits. County contributions) public financing, lobbyist Reviews & investigates allegations Whistleblower Codes. Hears administrative actions Set the salaries of city council of violations of the Code and Complaint driven investigations, members; investigations, makes recommendations for includes whistle-blowers, has Actions re: alleged ordinaance audits, public hearings, enforcement action where subpoena power -handles NO violations subpoenas, fines, penalties. appropriate Sexual Harrassment Whistleblower None listed Yes hotline (Y, N) Body size 3 5 7 5 7 3 - by mayor and city council. Mayor and city council - 3 each How appointed By Board of Supervisors Board of Supervisors 4 - recruited and selected by City Council and 7th by Commission commission. 3 years / staggered -may be Term Four years 3 years Three years 4 years reappointed Pay None $200 per day for hearings None 0 1/2 person (from the CEO's Paid staff 0 5 none 6.2 paid (some are part-time) staff) Commission 0 $186,000 $782,000 appropriation Collect fines Collects fines and penalties. $3,000 - $5,000 in a normal year & fees? Annual Report, revise ordinance prior to each Hearings / Public Notices & Products Annual report Annual Report election (every 2 years), Reports letters Commission Cost Discussion Note that an estimated yearly cost of $500,000 for an Orange County ethics body would be less than 0.01 of one percent of Orange County’s total yearly budget. With comparable functions to those proposed for Orange County, the City of San Diego Ethics Commission’s budget is more than double the percentage of the City’s total budget compared to the Orange County cost estimate. Note also that the Los Angeles Ethics Commission budget is 0.01 of one percent of the total City budget, with a total City budget and City staff more than three times the size of Orange County’s. Note also that the City and County of San Francisco Ethics commission budget is whopping 0.06 of one percent of that jurisdiction’s total budget for a much smaller jurisdiction. However, Los Angeles and San Francisco may not be as relevant since they collect and administer campaign matching funds as one of their main functions, a function not proposed for Orange County.