City Ethics Commission

Gil Garcetti President

Bill Boyarsky Dr. Uri Herscher Robert Saltzman

Sean Treglia

MEMORANDUM

July 1 1,2006

LeeAnn M. Pelham Executive Director

CITY ETHICS COMMISSION 200 N. Spring Street

City Hall - 24th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012

(213) 978-1960 (213) 978-1988 FAX (213) 978-2609 TDD http://ethics.lacity.org

TO: Members of the City Ethics Commission

FROM: LeeAnn M. Pelham, Executive Director Deena R. Ghaly, Deputy Executive Director for Enforcement and Legal Affairs Kirsten M. Pickenpaugh, Assistant Director of Enforcement

RE: Submission of Matter of Pierce O'Donnell, et al.; (Dolores Valdez), CEC Case No. 03-56-A, for Commission Final Determination, including Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Possible Penalty

On May 21,2004, CEC Enforcement staff issued a Report in Support of a Finding of Probable Cause ("Probable Cause Report"), (provided at Attachment A), in the above- referenced case, charging the Respondent with potential violations of Los Angeles City Charter ("Charter") 5 470(k). An Accusation issued against all Respondents on July 8, 2004, and the Commission elected to refer the matter to an outside hearing officer on September 22,2004. By agreement of the parties, the matter was stayed pending resolution of a parallel proceeding. All Respondents, with the exception of Dolores Valdez, subsequently entered into stipulated settlement agreements with the Commission.

In an agreement signed on June 16,2006, (provided at Attachment B), Respondent Dolores Valdez waived all procedural rights, including her right to a full administrative hearing pursuant to Los Angeles Administrative Code 5 24.1.2(e), and agreed to the submission of this matter to you for a final determination and possible penalty fiom any resulting findings of fact and conclusions of law and a Decision and Order, based solely upon the attached Probable Cause Report. As part of this agreement, Respondent has agreed that the factual representations within the attached Probable Cause Report would be consistent with any testimonial and documentary evidence which would be presented by Commission staff if an administrative hearing were conducted on the merits.

This item appears on your June 18,2006 agenda. At that meeting, the staff will present the case to you for your consideration and possible action consistent with the

agreement with Respondent as outlined above. Please review the probable cause report fully prior to the meeting so that you will be prepared to take action at that time.

We look forward to answering any questions you may have about this matter at that time.

cc: Renee Stadel, Esq Los Angeles City Attorney's Office

ATTACHMENT A (see binder for Exhibits)

DEENA R. GHALY, SBN 220466 Director of Enforcement KIRSTEN M. PICKENPAUGH, SBN 2074 17 Assistant Director of Enforcement LOS ANGELES CITY ETHICS COMMISSION 200 North Spring Street City Hall - 24' Floor Los Angeles, California 900 12

Complainant

BEFORE THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE LOS ANGELES CITY ETHICS COMMISSION

In the Matter of: CEC Case No. 2003-56-A

PIERCE O'DONNELL; DOLORES VALDEZ; DAVID BERNSTEIN; LAURIlVDA (JOYCE) DELANEY; STEPHEN DESHER; HILDA REPORT IN SUPPORT OF A FINDING ESCOBAR; LINDA FRASER; LEONARD OF PROBABLE CAUSE KISHIMOTO; ANITA LATINOVIC; ELSE LATINOVIC; CATHLEEN LEE; BECKY MA; ANTONIO MARTIN; JOYCELOU MARTIN; ELIZABETH OWEIV; DANETTE POLCHOWSKI; WILLIAM POWELL; MARK RAMIREZ; BERT RODRIGUEZ; NEIL SACKER; HARRY SILBERMAN; SHEREULL SOLIZ; and SHARON WRIGHT,

Respondents.

INTRODUCTION

Los Angeles City Charter ("Charter") Article VII, § 706 authorizes the Los Angeles City Ethics Commission ("CEC") to "conduct investigations of alleged violations of state law, the Charter, and City ordinances relating to campaign finance, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and

governmental ethics. Pursuant to that section, any person who violates, who causes any other person to violate, or who aids and abets any other person in a violation of any provision of the Charter or of a City ordinance relating to campaign financing, lobbying, conflicts of interest, or governmental ethics is liable under the provisions of the article.

Under the direction of the CEC's Director of Enforcement and pursuant to the agency's investigation and enforcement regulations, the enforcement division investigates potential violations of the laws within the CEC's jurisdiction. Los Angeles Administrative Code ("LAAC") §24.'1.2. If, after reviewing the evidence gathered during the course of an investigation, the CEC's Director of Enforcement determines that the CEC should commence administrative enforcement proceedings, he or she must submit a written probable cause reportio the CEC Executive Director requesting such action and providing a summary of the law and evidence, which may include hearsay evidence and must include any known exculpatory or mitigating information, in support of the request. LAAC §§24.1.2(d)(l)(A) and (B).

The Executive Director may find probable cause and commence an enforcement action "only if the evidence is sufficient to lead a person of ordinary caution and prudence to believe or entertain a strong suspicion that a violation has been committed and the respondent committed or caused the violation." LAAC §24.1.2(d)(7)(B). "A finding of probable cause by the Executive Director does not constitute a finding that a violation has actually occurred." Id.

This writing serves as the probable cause report in the instant case. As detailed below, the investigation revealed evidence that the Respondents violated the Charter provisions relating to campaign finance law and the Campaign Finance Ordinance. Specifically, the evidence gathered during the investigation supports findings that:

(I) Respondent Pierce O'Donnell directed and financed the reimbursement of 26 contributions in violation of Charter §470(k);

(2) Respondent Dolores Valdez solicited contributions with the promise of reimbursement and/or delivered reimbursement finds from O'Donnell and thereby aided and abetted O'Donnell in the reimbursement of 21 contributions in violation of Charter §470(k);

(3) Respondent Else Latinovic solicited one contribution with the promise of reimbursement and delivered reimbursement funds from O'Donnell and thereby aided and abetted O'Donnell in the reimbursement of one contribution in violation of Charter §470(k);

(4) Respondents Laurinda (Joyce) Delaney; Stephen Desher; Hilda Escobar; Linda Fraser; Anita Latinovic; Else Latinovic; Antonio Martin; Joycelou Martin; Elizabeth Owen; Danette Polchowski; William Powell; Mark Ramirez; Bert Rodriguez; Harry Silberman; Sherrill Soliz; and Sharon Wright each made one contribution in his or her own name and accepted reimbursement for that contribution from O'Donnell in violation of Charter §470(k);

(5) Respondents David Bernstein, Leonard Kishimoto; Cathleen Lee; Becky Ma; and Neil Sacker each made a contribution in their own name and an unauthorized contribution in their spouse's name and accepted reimbursement for both contributions from O'Donnell in violation of Charter §470(k);

(6) Because O'Donnell was the true source of 27 contributions totaling $26,500, he exceeded and violated the per person contribution limit of Charter §470(c)(4);

(7) Because O'Donnell was the true source of 28 contributions totaling $27,500, he exceeded and violated the per election contribution limit of Charter §470(c)(6); and

(8) O'Donnell failed to notify the CEC within 24 hours of making an independent expenditure greater than $1,000 in violation of LAMC 949.7.26.

Based on the evidence gathered in this investigation and detailed in this report, staff recommends that a probable cause finding should issue and an enforcement proceeding should commence against the Respondents.

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND APPLICABLE LAW

CEC staff received a referred complaint from the Fair Political Practices Commission ("FPPC") alleging that a support employee for the law firm of O'Donnell & Shaeffer, LLP, operating under the direction of Pierce O'Donnell, the firm's major equity partner, violated Los Angeles City campaign finance and governmental ethics laws by reimbursing O'Donnell & Shaeffer employees, their friends, relatives, and associates for political contributions made to Los Angeles City candidates. CEC and FPPC staff agreed to conduct a joint investigation of the allegations, and the CEC deferred its in depth investigation to the FPPC's investigative timetable as lead agency. The Public Integrity Unit of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office also joined the investigation. Though the complaint named a different employee than the one later determined to be primarily responsible, the multi-agency investigation otherwise confirmed the allegations.

A. Assumed Name Contributions

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 candidate for Los Angeles City office or to his or her controlled committee. The same Charter section further provides that "no 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."

City law prohibits the act of making a contribution under an assumed name, reimbursing another person for their contribution, or accepting reimbursement for a contribution, commonly referred to as political money laundering, because it deprives the public of information about the

true source of a candidate's financial support and circumvents campaign contribution limits established by Charter.$$470(c)(3)-(6), which were intended to prevent individuals from exercising undue influence over candidates or elections.

Based on past CEC investigations, money laundering schemes tend to follow a pattern of maximum contributions made by persons with a common connection, followed shortly thereafter by an equivalent payment to the contributor from the connecting individual or entity. The conduit contributors in a money-laundering scheme frequently have no prior contribution history or are ineligible to vote in the affected election because they do not live in the jurisdiction.

CEC staffs review of contributions connected to the OYDonnell & Shaeffer law firm found several indicators of money laundering. Public campaign finance records on file with the CEC reflect 23 contributions to James Hahn's controlled committee for the 2001 mayoral primary election, the "Hahn for Mayor Controlled Committee," from OYDonnell & Shaeffer employees or attorneys. Almost all of the contributions were for $1,000, the maximum amount allowed by Charter in a mayoral election, and were given by persons with no prior contribution history. Approximately half of those contributions appeared to have been made by support employees and half of the contributors showed addresses outside Los Angeles city limits, making them ineligible to vote for the supported candidate. Copies of the contribution checks obtained from CEC matching funds records and from the campaign committee indicate that the majority of the contributions occurred in May 2000 and February 2001, suggesting a coordinated fundraising effort by Respondent OYDonnell. As the investigation progressed, CEC staff developed both direct and circumstantial evidence of money laundering by OYDonnell, including attorney proffers, documentary evidence; and testimonial evidence.

After the CEC and the FPPC conducted several preliminary interviews in this matter, OYDonnell admitted, via counsel Lance Olson's letter dated January 21, 2004, attached at Exhibit I, to reimbursing a number of current and former support employees of his firm for contributions to the Hahn for Mayor Controlled Committee, as well as several of the employees' spouses and other of OyDonnell's personal or business associates. The letter included a list of 18 names and stated that the listed persons "were reimbursed by Mr. O'Donnell."

Campaign statements filed by the Hahn for Mayor Controlled Committee reflect contributions made by 16 of the people on Olson's list and seven of their spouses or family members, plus three more people showing OYDonnell & Shaeffer as their employer who were not included on the list, for a total of 26 suspect contributions. A copy of the relevant portions of the campaign statements is attached at Exhibit 2. Staff found no evidence of any contribution made by the remaining two individuals on the list provided by OyDonnell's counsel.

On April 7,2004, OYDonnell voluntarily produced copies of his bank statements for the suspect contribution periods and copies of cancelled checks issued to the persons named in his attorney's January 21St letter. However, in the letter accompanying OYDonnell's last document production, attached at Exhibit 3, his counsel appeared to retreat from the prior statement that O'Donnell reimbursed persons for campaign contributions, advising that "the production of these documents in no way constitutes an admission that Mr. OYDonnell in fact reimbursed employees

of O'Donnell & Shaeffer for contributions made in connection with James Hahn's mayoral campaign." Staff notes that the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office became involved in the case in the interim between the January 21St letter and the April 7th letter and believes that the change in Olson's representations reflect his concern about incriminating his client. In addition, as described below, other evidence gathered during the investigation overwhelmingly supports Olson's original statement.

Finally, in response to a request from the CEC for a handwriting sample to authenticate the reimbursement checks issued from O'Donnell's account to respondents in this matter, OYDonnell agreed, via counsel's letter dated May 12,2004, attached at Exhibit 4, to provide an exemplar of his signature. A copy of the faxed signature is attached at Exhibit 5.

In addition to the above-described attorney proffers regarding reimbursement, CEC enforcement staff found circumstantial evidence of reimbursed contributions by reviewing the individual personal financial records of OYDonnell and the named contributors. Those records create a clear paper trail leading back to OYDonnell as the true source of the funds used for the contributions made by the other respondents in this matter. The documentary evidence for every instance of money laundering identified herein includes a copy of the contribution check, a copy of a check payable to the named contributor for the same amount fiom OyDonnell's account and issued within one week of the contribution check, and, in all but four cases, a copy of the named contributor's bank records reflecting deposit of the OYDonnell check. Staff also obtained direct evidence in the form of admissions during sworn interviews with contributors. The specific documentary evidence of laundering and investigation reports of all swdrn interviews conducted with Respondents during the course of the investigation are attached at Exhibits 6 - 104, progressing in alphabetical order by Respondents' name.':

With the exception of OYDonnell and Valdez, CEC and Los Angeles County District Attorney staff interviewed each of the named respondents. Their contributions generally fit the typical money laundering pattern: Of the 21 respondents interviewed, 13 lived outside Los Angeles City limits at the time of their contribution. See Bernstein, Exh. 6; Delaney, Exh. 10; Escobar, Exh. 20; Ma, Exh. 52; Lee, Exh. 47; Rodriguez, Exh. 80, and Soliz, Exh. 96. All but one of those 21 respondents gave the maximum contribution, and five actually exceeded the maximum by making an unauthorized spousal contribution. See Bernstein, Exh. 6; Kishimoto, Exh. 3 1; Lee, Exh. 47; Ma, Exh. 52; and Sacker, Exh. 85. Only one of the respondents made a contribution to any other City candidate. Rodriguez, Exh. 80. During sworn interviews with investigators, all but one of the witnesses confirmed receiving reimbursement for political contributions to the Hahn for Mayor Controlled ~ommi t t ee .~

' Exhibits for respondent spouses Stephen Desher and Elizabeth Owen are found together at Exhibits 14 - 19; exhibits for respondent spouses Antonio and Joycelou Martin are found together at Exhibits 58-64.

References to testimony of witnesses are by name and exhibit number. Despite an offer of immunity f?om the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office, David Bernstein, the

remaining individual, invoked his right against self-incrimination under the U.S. Constitution and declined to answer any questions regarding contributions to Los Angeles City candidates or any payments he might have received fiom O'Domell. Staff has not inferred any negative implications fiom Bemstein's refusal to cooperate with the CEC investigation.

During their sworn interviews, investigators asked respondents to describe the events leading to their contribution and subsequent reimbursement. Fifteen respondents described being solicited by O'Donnell's personal assistant Dolores Valdez for a contribution to the Hahn campaign, followed by their receipt from Valdez of a reimbursement check written on O'Donnel17s personal bank account. Delaney, Exh. 10; Escobar, Exh. 20; Fraser, Exh. 26; Kishimoto, Exh. 3 1; Else Latinovic, Exh. 42; Ma, Exh. 52; Martin, Exh. 58; Owen, Exh. 15; Polchowski, Exh. 65; Powell, Exh. 70; Rarnirez, Exh. 75; Rodriguez, Exh. 80; Silberman, Exh. 91; Soliz, Exh. 96; and Wright, Exh. 101. Respondents Delaney, Escobar, Ma, Polchowski, Powell, Ramirez, and Soliz recalled receiving a reimbursement check from Valdez within a day or two of giving her their contribution check. See Delaney, Exh. 10; Escobar, Exh. 20; Ma, ~ x h . 52; Polchowski, Exh. 65; Powell, Exh. 70; Rarnirez, Exh. 75; and Soliz, Exh. 96. Escobar, Fraser, and Soliz also testified that they would not have contributed to Hahn's campaign were it not for the promise of reimbursement; in fact, Escobar would not have had sufficient funds to cover a $1,000 contribution without reimbursement . See Escobar, Exh. 20; Fraser, Exh. 26, and Soliz, Exh. 96.

Although the majority of the respondents recalled communicating only with Valdez about their contributions and reimbursements, six of the respondents testified to their general understanding that they would receive reimbursement for their contributions from O'Donnell, with Delaney and Escobar recalling that Valdez specifically told them they would be reimbursed with funds from O'Donnell. See Delaney, Exh. 10; Escobar, Exh. 20; Fraser, Exh. 26; Kishimoto, Exh. 31; Owen, Exh. 15; and Rodriguez, Exh. 80. Nine respondents were familiar with O'Donnel17s signature and testified that the signature on the reimbursement check was his. See Delaney, Exh. 10; Fraser, Exh. 26; Ma, Exh. 52; Martin, Exh. 58; Ramirez, Exh. 75; Polchowski, Exh. 65; Powell, Exh. 70; Soliz, Exh. 96; and Wright, Exh. 101.

Respondents Fraser, Ma, and Powell testified that Valdez acted at O'DonnellYs instruction and on his behalf in soliciting and reimbursing contributions for the Hahn campaign, based on their knowledge of Valdez's working relationship with O'Donnell. See Fraser, Exh. 26; Ma, Exh. 52, and Powell, Exh. 70. Respondents Delaney, Kishimoto, Polchowski, Powell, Ramirez, and Silberman believed they were making contributions to "help out Pierce O'Donnell" or as a "favor" to him. See Delaney, Exh. 10; Kishimoto, Exh. 3 1, Polchowski, Exh. 65; Ramirez, Exh. 75; and Silberman, Exh. 9 1. The respondents' belief that they were helping O'Donnell rather than Valdez is supported by evidence that OYDonnell routinely sought other personal favors from his employees, such as driving his son to Mammoth to join the family on vacation, tutoring his son, buying birthday gifts for family members, and cashing personal checks. See Ramirez, Exh. 75; Kishimoto, Exh. 3 1; Lee, Exh. 47; and copies of O'Donnell's account attached at Exh. 105.

Wright testified that Valdez told her O'Donnell needed to raise additional funds for Hahn. See Wright, Exh. 10 1. When Else Latinovic asked Valdez why O'Donnell could not give the full amount himself, Valdez told her that there are "limits" to the amount O'Donnell could contribute. See Else Latinovic, Exh. 42. Fraser also testified that she believed there was "some kind of limitation that would be exceeded if Pierce had to do it all, 'but that it was okay if

somebody else did it." See Fraser, Exh. 26. Except for Polchowski, all Respondents gave the maximum amount permitted by law. Polchowski, Exh. 65. Valde~~asked respondents to write their contribution check for $1,000, if unmarried, or $2,000, in the case of a contributor known by Valdez to be married. Fraser, Exh. 26; Kishimoto, Exh. 3 1; Ma, Exh. 52; Martin, Exh. 58; Ramirez, Exh. 75; Rodriguez, Exh. 80; Silberman, Exh. 91, and Soliz, Exh. 96. Several of the contributors who gave $2,000 at Valdez's request later received a contribution verification form from the campaign. At least three of those contributors signed, without permission, their spouse's signature on that form, thereby disguising what would otherwise be an excess contribution. Kishimoto, Exh. 3 1; Lee, Exh. 47; and Ma, Exh. 52. Kishimoto specifically identified Valdez as the person who instructed him to sign his wife's name to that form. See Kishimoto, Exh. 3 1.

Staff also found evidence that Valdez may not have been the only person soliciting contributions with the understanding that they would be reimbursed by Pierce O'Donnell:

Before making a contribution in her own name in 200 1, Else Latinovic asked her mother Anita Latinovic to make a contribution in 2000 and endorsed a reimbursement check from O'Donnell over to Anita. Latinovic said it was her own idea to ask her mother for a contribution. See Anita Latinovic, Exh. 37; and Else Latinovic, Exh. 42. Neil Sacker testified that he might have made a contribution to the Hahn campaign at the request of a friend from the Yale Alumni Association or at the request of someone fiom his network of outside litigation counsel. Sacker testified that O'Donnell is a member of that network of business associates. In addition to his own contribution, Sacker also made an unauthorized spousal contribution in his wife's name, Catherine Sacker. See Sacker, Exh. 86. Campaign statements filed by the Hahn campaign reflect a joint contribution fiom David and Lisa Bernstein, but the contribution check has only one signature on it, in David's name. Bernstein declined to answer questions regarding how he might have come to make a contribution to the Hahn campaign, but since neither he nor his wife worked for O'Donnell & Shaeffer, it is unlikely that Valdez solicited those contributions.

The sum of the evidence obtained in this matter indicates money laundering and an intent to circumvent contribution limits. The transactions in this case fit the typical money laundering pattern, and the above-detailed method of contribution followed by reimbursement allowed Respondents to serve as conduits for money flowing from O'Donnell to the Hahn for Mayor Controlled Committee, thereby masking O'Donnell's identity as the true source of those contributions.

B. Late Independent Expenditure Notification

Shortly before the June 5,2001 general election date, O'Donnell gave an additional $25,000 in support of Hahn's mayoral campaign in the form of an independent expenditure but did not make that financial support public information until almost five months later. On May 24,2001, O'Donnell made a $25,000 independent expenditure to the Save Proposition 13 Newsletter for a political advertisement opposing Antonio Villaraigosa, one of Hahn's opponents

in the primary election, and supporting Hahn for Mayor of Los Angeles, a copy of which is attached at Exhibit 106. Although there is no limit on the amount a person may spend independently to support or oppose a candidate, LAMC $ 49.7.26 requires any person who makes independent expenditures4 of more than $1,000 supporting or opposing any candidate to notify the CEC within 24 hours each time one or more payments are made meeting that threshold. CEC staff spoke with O'Donnell on September 19,2001, regarding his late notification. O'Donnell confirmed that he made the independent expenditure but had failed to report it as required by LAMC $49.7.26, and he agreed to file any necessary reports. O'Donnell then took an additional six weeks to publicly report the expenditure. An investigative report summarizing staffs conversation with O'Donnell is attached at Exhibit 107. O7Donnell reported his independent expenditure to the CEC on October 30,2001, 159 days after making the expenditure, via the California Form 460, Form 461, and Form 496 attached at Exhibit 108.

FINDINGS

Based on the foregoing discussion, staff believes there is probable cause to find that Respondents committed the following violations of City campaign finance law:

COUNTS 1 - 74: LAUNDERING POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS Violations of Charter 6 470(k)

COUNTS I - 26: Respondent O'Donnell made 26 assumed name contributions to the Hahn for Mayor Controlled Committee, in violation of Charter $ 470(k), by using $25,500 of his personal funds to reimburse $500 to Danette Polchowski for a single contribution made in her name; $1000 each to Laurinda (Joyce) Delaney, Hilda Escobar, Linda Fraser, William Powell, Mark Ramirez, Bert Rodriguez, Harry Silberman, Sherrill Soliz, and Sharon Wright, for single contributions made in their names; and $2,000 each to David Bernstein, Leonard Kishimoto, Else Latinovic, Cathleen Lee, Becky Ma, Antonio Martin, Joycelou Martin, Elizabeth Owen, and Neil Sacker for two contributions made in their names and in the name of their spouse or other family member.

COUNTS 27 - 47 Respondent Dolores Valdez aided and abetted O'Donnell in the laundering of 21 contributions to James Hahn's mayoral campaign in violation of Charter $470(k), by soliciting individual or joint contributions with the promise of reimbursement andlor delivering reimbursement for individual, joint, or relative contributions to Laurinda (Joyce) Delaney, Hilda Escobar, Linda Fraser, Leonard Kishimoto, Else Latinovic, Cathleen Lee, Becky Ma, Antonio Martin, Elizabeth Owen, Danette Polchowski, William Powell, Mark Ramirez, Bert Rodriguez, Harry Silberman, Sherrill Soliz, and Sharon Wright. As noted above, pursuant to Article 7, $706 of the Charter, a person who aids and abets any other person in a violation of any provision of the Charter

4 State law defines an independent expenditure as a payment made by any person in connection with a communication expressly advocating the nomination, election, or defeat of a clearly identified candidate, or the qualification, passage, or defeat of a clearly identified measure, or which, taken as a whole and in context, unambiguously urges a particular result in an election, but which is not made to or at the behest of or cooperation, concert, or coordination with or the affected candidate or committee." Cal. Gov. Code 9 8203 1.

or of a City ordinance relating to campaign financing, lobbying, conflicts of interest, or governmental ethics is also liable under the provisions of the article.

COUNT 48: Respondent Else Latinovic aided and abetted O'Donnell in the laundering of one contribution to James Hahn's mayoral campaign in violation of Charter §470(k), by soliciting a contribution with the promise of reimbursement and delivering reimbursement for an individual contribution to her mother Anita Latinovic. As noted above, pursuant to Article 7, $706 of the Charter, a person who aids and abets any other person in a violation of any provision of the Charter or of a City ordinance relating to campaign financing, lobbying, conflicts of interest, or governmental ethics is also liable under the provisions of the article.

COUNT 49: Respondent Hilda Escobar, a legal secretary employed by O'Donnell & Shaeffer, made a $1,000 contribution to the Hahn for Mayor Controlled Committee in her own name in exchange for receiving $1,000 reimbursement from O'Donnell, which resulted in an assumed name contribution in violation of Charter §470(k).

During a sworn interview, Escobar, a legal secretary employed by O'Donnell & Shaeffer, admitted making a contribution to the Hahn for Mayor Controlled Committee in response to a request from Valdez, O'Donnell's personal assistant, and receiving from Valdez a check from O'Donnell's account in return, which she confirmed to be reimbursement for her contribution. Escobar issued a check dated May 22,2000, made payable to Hahn for Mayor in the amount of $1,000; and the Hahn for Mayor Controlled Committee reported receiving a contribution in the amount of $1,000 on June 20,2000 in Escobar's name. Account records belonging to Pierce and Dawn O'Donnell reveal the issuance of a personal check dated May 23,2000, and made payable to Escobar, in the amount of $1,000. The check from the O'Donnells' account issued to Escobar is dated one day after Escobar's contribution check and is for the same amount as her contribution check. Escobar's bank records also indicate a corresponding $1,000 deposit to her account on May 24,2000. See Exhibits 20 - 25 for copies of investigative reports, checks, relevant pages of California Form 460, and bank statement.

COUNTS 50 and 51: Respondent David Bernstein, O'DonnellYs former physical fitness trainer, made a $2,000 joint contribution to the Hahn for Mayor Controlled Committee in his and his wife's names in exchange for receiving $2,000 reimbursement from O'Donnell, which resulted in two assumed name contributions in violation of Charter §470(k).

During a sworn interview, Bernstein gave staff his address, which matches the address shown on the contribution check in question and acknowledged knowing O'Donnell, but he declined to answer any questions concerning contributions to Los Angeles City candidates, reimbursements for contributions to Los Angeles City candidates, or any related documents. Although Bernstein declined to answer questions regarding contributions or reimbursements, bank records indicate that he issued a check dated May 23,2000, made payable to Hahn for Mayor in the amount of $2,000; and the Hahn for

Mayor Controlled Committee reported receiving a contribution in the amount of $1,000 on June 20,2000, in Bernstein's name. The campaign also reported receiving another contribution on that date in the same amount from Bernstein's wife, Lisa; however, the check submitted to the campaign bears only one signature, in David's name. Account records belonging to Pierce and Dawn O'Donnell reveal the issuance of a personal check dated May 23,2000, and made payable to Bernstein, in the amount of $2,000. The check from the O'DonnellsY account issued to Bernstein is dated the same day as the contribution check bearing his name and address and is for the same amount as the contribution check. See Exhibits 6 - 9 for copies of investigative report, checks, and relevant pages of California Form 460.

COUNT 52: Respondent Laurinda (Joyce) Delaney, a paralegal employed by O'Donnell & Shaeffer, made a $1,000 contribution to the Hahn for Mayor Controlled Committee in her own name, in exchange for receiving $1,000 reimbursement from 0 'Donnell, which resulted in an assumed name contribution in violation of Charter §470(k).

During a sworn interview, Delaney admitted making a contribution to the Hahn for Mayor Controlled Committee in response to a request from Valdez, O'Donnell's personal assistant, and receiving from Valdez a check from O'Donnell's account in return, which she confirmed to be reimbursement for her contribution. Delaney issued a check dated May 23,2000, and made payable to Hahn for Mayor in the amount of $1,000; and the Hahn for Mayor Controlled Committee reported receiving a contribution in the amount of $1,000 on June 20,2000, in Delaney's name. Account records belonging to Pierce and Dawn O'Donnell reveal the issuance of a personal check dated May 23,2000, and made payable to Joyce Delaney, in the amount of $1,000. The check from O'Donnell's account issued to Delaney is dated the same day as Delaney's contribution check and is for the same amount as her contribution check. See Exhibits 10 - 13 for copies of investigative report, checks, and relevant pages of California Form 460.

COUNT 53: Respondent Linda Fraser, a former secretarial and' paralegal employee of O'Donnell & Shaeffer, made a $1000 contribution to the Hahn for Mayor Controlled Committee in herown name, in exchange for receiving $1,000 reimbursement from O'Donnell, which resulted in an assumed name contribution in violation of Charter §470(k).

During a sworn interview, Fraser admitted making a contribution to the Hahn for Mayor Controlled Committee and receiving from Valdez, O'Donnell's personal assistant, a check from O'Donnell's account in return, which she confirmed to be reimbursement for her contribution. Fraser issued a check dated May 23,2000, and made payable to James Hahn for Mayor in the amount of $1,000; and the Hahn for Mayor Controlled Committee reported receiving a contribution in the amount of $1,000 on June 21,2000 in Fraser's name. Account records belonging to Pierce and Dawn O'Donnell reveal the issuance of a personal check dated May 23,2000, and made payable to Fraser, in the amount of $1,000. The check from O'Donnell's account issued to Fraser is dated the same day as

Fraser's contribution check and is for the same amount as her contribution check. Her bank records indicate a $1,000 deposit to her account'on May 26,2000. Exhibits 26 - 30 for copies of investigative report, checks, relevant pages of California Form 460, bank statement, and deposit record.

COUNT 54: Respondent William Powell, a paralegal employed by O'Donnell & Shaeffer, made a $1000 contribution to the Hahn for Mayor Controlled Committee in his own name, in exchange for receiving $1,000 reimbursement from O'Donnell, which resulted in an assumed name contribution in violation of Charter §470(k).

During a sworn interview, Powell admitted making a contribution to the Hahn for ~ a ~ & Controlled Committee in response to a request from Valdez, O'Donnell's personal assistant, and receiving from Valdez a check from O'Donnell's account in return, which he confirmed to be reimbursement for his contribution. Powell issued a check dated May 23,2000, and made payable to Hahn for Mayor in the amount of $1,000; and the Hahn for Mayor Controlled Committee reported receiving a contribution in the amount of $1,000 on June 2 1,2000 in Powell's name. Account records belonging to Pierce and Dawn O'Donnell reveal the issuance of a personal check dated May 23,2000, and made payable to Bill Powell, in the amount of $1,000. The check from the O'Donnell's account issued to Powell is dated the same day as Powell's contribution check and is for the same amount as his contribution check. Powell's bank records also indicate a $1,000 deposit to his account on the same day he made the contribution and received the check from O'Donnell's'account. Exhibits 70 - 74 for copies of investigative report, checks, relevant pages of California Form 460, and bank statement.

COUNT 55: Respondent Mark Ramirez, an offices services/mailroom employee of O'Donnell & Shaeffer, made a $1000 contribution to the Hahn for Mayor Controlled Committee in his own name in exchange for receiving $1,000 reimbursement from O'Donnell, which resulted in an assumed name contribution in violation of Charter §470(k).

During a sworn interview, Ramirez admitted making a contribution to the Hahn for Mayor Controlled Committee in response to a request from Valdez, O'Donnell's personal assistant, and receiving from Valdez a check from O'Donnell's account in return, which he confirmed to be reimbursement for his contribution. Ramirez issued a check dated May 23,2000, and made payable to Hahn for Mayor in the amount of $1,000; and the Hahn for Mayor Controlled Committee reported receiving a contribution in the amount of $1,000 on June 21,2000 in Ramirez's name. Account records belonging to Pierce and Dawn O'Donnell reveal the issuance of a personal check dated May 23,2000, and made payable to Mark Ramirez, in the amount of $1,000. The check from the O'DonnellsY account issued to Ramirez is dated the same day as Ramirez's contribution check and is for the same amoynt as his contribution check. Ramirez's bank records also indicate a deposit of a $1,000 check to his checking account on May 25,2000. Exhibits 75 - 79 for copies of investigative report, checks, relevant pages of California Form 460, bank statement, and deposit record.

COUNT 56: Respondent Bert Rodriguez, a facilities manager employed by O'Donnell & Shaeffer, made a $1000 contribution to the Hahn for Mayor Controlled Committee in his own name in exchange for receiving $1,000 reimbursement from O'Donnell, which resulted in an assumed name contribution in violation of Charter §470(k).

During a sworn interview, Rodriguez admitted making a contribution to the Hahn for Mayor Controlled Committee in response to a request from Valdez, O'Donnell's personal assistant, and receiving from Valdez a check from O'Donnell's account in return, which he confirmed to be reimbursement for his contribution. Rodriguez issued a check dated May 23,2000, and made payable to Hahn for Mayor in the amount of $1,000; and the Hahn for Mayor Controlled Committee reported receiving a contribution in the amount of $1,000 on June 21; 2000 in Rodriguez's name. Account records belonging to Pierce and Dawn O'Donnell reveal the issuance of a personal check dated May 23,2000, and made payable to Bert Rodriguez in the amount of $1,000. The check from the O'Donnells' account issued to Rodriguez is dated the same day as Rodriguez's contribution check and is for the same amount as his contribution check. Rodriguez's bank records also indicate a deposit of $1,000 to his checking account on June 1,2000. See Exhibits 80 -84 for copies of investigative report, checks, relevant pages of California Form 460, and bank statement.

COUNT 57: Respondent Sherrill Soliz, a legal secretary employed by O'Donnell & Shaeffer, made a $1,000 contribution to the Hahn for Mayor Controlled Committee in her own name in exchange for receiving $1,000 reimbursement from O'Donnell, which resulted in an assumed name contribution in violation of Charter §470(k).

During a sworn interview, Soliz admitted making a contribution to the Hahn for Mayor Controlled Committee in response to a request from Valdez, O'Donnell's personal assistant, and receiving from Valdez a check from O'Donnell's account in return, which she confirmed to be reimbursement for her contribution. Soliz issued a check dated May 23,2000, and made payable Hahn for Mayor in the amount of $1,000; and the Hahn for Mayor Controlled.Committee reported receiving a contribution in the amount of $1,000 on June 2 1,2000 in Soliz's name. Account records belonging to Pierce and Dawn O'Donnell reveal the issuance of a personal check dated May 23,2000, and made payable to Sherill Soliz in the amount of $1,000. The check from the O'Donnells' account issued to Soliz is dated the same day as Soliz's contribution check and is for the same amount as her contribution check. Soliz's bank records also indicate a deposit of $1,000 into her checking account on May 28,2000. See Exhibit 96-100 for copies of investigative report, checks, relevant pages of California Form 460, and bank statement.

COCrNT 58: Respondent Anita Latinovic, the mother of an O'Donnell & Shaeffer employee, made a $1,000 contribution to the Hahn for Mayor Controlled Committee in her own name, in exchange for receiving $1,000 reimbursement from O'Donnell, which resulted. in an assumed name contribution in violation of Charter §470(k).

During a sworn interview, Latinovic admitted making a contribution to the Hahn for Mayor Controlled Committee in response to a request from her daughter Else Latinovic and receiving a check from OYDonnell's account endorsed over to her by her daughter, which she confirmed to be reimbursement for her contribution. Anita Latinovic issued a check dated May 25,2000, and made payable to Hahn for Mayor in the amount of $1,000; and the Hahn for Mayor Controlled Committee reported receiving a contribution in the amount of $1,000 on June 2 1,2000, in Anita Latinovic's name. Account records belonging to Pierce and Dawn OYDonnell reveal the issuance of a personal check dated May 23,2000, and made payable to Else Latinovic, Anita's daughter, in the amount of $1,000. The reverse side of that check is signed "Else Latinovic, Pay to the order of Anita Latinovic." Anita Latinovic's bank records also indicate a deposit of $1,000 to h& checking account on May 26,2000. Exhibit 37 - 41 for copies of investigative report, checks, relevant pages of California Form 460, and bank statement.

COUNTS 59 and 60: Respondent Neil Sacker, Chief Operating Officer and General Counsel for Stratus Film, made a $2,000 joint contribution to the Hahn for Mayor Controlled Committee in his and his wife's own names in exchange for receiving $2,000 reimbursement from O'Donnell, which resulted in two assumed name contributions in violation of Charter §470(k).

During a sworn interview, Sacker testified that he had no specific recollection of making a contribution to ihe James Hahn mayoral campaign but that he might have done so at the request of a friend. Bank records indicate that Sacker issued a check dated May 26, 2000, and made payable to Hahn for Mayor in the amount of $2,000; and the Hahn for Mayor Controlled Committee reported receiving a contribution in the amount of $1,000 on June 2 1,2000, in Sacker's name. The campaign also reported receiving another contribution on that date in the same amount fiom Sacker's then-wife, Catherine; however, during a sworn interview, Catherine Sacker testified that she never made a political contribution to any Los Angeles City candidate; she had no knowledge of a contribution being made in her name; she and Neil Sacker stopped speaking on May 1, 2000; they formally separated the following month; and their divorce was final in 2003. Account records belonging to Pierce and Dawn O'Donnell reveal the issuance of a personal check dated May 23,2000, and made payable to Neil Sacker, in the amount of $2,000. The check from O'Donnell's account issued to Neil Sacker is dated three days prior to Sacker's contribution and is for the same amount as his contribution check. Sacker recognized the signatures on the contribution check and on the endorsement section of the check fi-om the O'Donnell account as his own. Sacker's bank records also indicate a deposit of $32,000 on May 30,2000, which includes the deposit of the $2,000 check from the O'Donnells' account. Exhibits 85 - 90 for copies of investigative report, checks, relevant pages of California Form 460, and bank statement and deposit records.

COUNTS 6 1 and 62: Respondent Leonard Kishimoto, a former paralegal employee of O'Donnell & Shaeffer, made a $2,000 joint contribution to the Hahn for Mayor Controlled Committee in his and his wife's own names in exchange for receiving $2,000

reimbursement from O'Donnell, which resulted in two assumed name contributions in violation of Charter $470(k).

During a sworn interview, Kishimoto admitted making a contribution to the Hahn for Mayor Controlled Committee in response to a request from Valdez, O'Donnell's personal assistant, and receiving from Valdez a check from O'Donnell's account in return, which he confirmed to be reimbursement for his contribution. Kishimoto, issued a check dated February 2 1,200 1, and made payable to Hahn for Mayor in the amount of $2,000. The Hahn for Mayor Controlled Committee reported receiving a conhibution in the amount of $1,000 on April 2, 200 1, in Leonard Kishimoto's name. The campaign also reported

a

receiving another contribution on that date in the same amount from Kishimoto's then- wife, Elta. A copy of a letter from the Hahn for Mayor Controlled Committee dated February 26,200 1, bears signatures for both Leonard and Elta Kishimoto indicating their consent to allocate a $1,000 contribution in each of their names from a prior contribution; however, Leonard Kishimoto testified that he signed his wife's name to that letter without her knowledge. Account records belonging to Pierce OYDonnell reveal the issuance of a personal check dated February 2 1,2001, and made payable to Len Kishimoto in the amount of $2,000. The memo line on that check bears the word "Contribution." The check from O'DonnellYs account issued to Leonard Kishimoto is dated the same day as Kishimoto's contribution check and is for the same amount as his contribution check. Leonard Kishimoto's bank records also indicate a deposit of $2,000 on February 22, 200 1. See Exhibits 3 1 - 36 for copies of investigative report, checks, relevant pages of California Form 460, and bank statement and/or deposit record.

COUNTS 63 and 64: Respondent Cathleen Lee, an accounting assistant employed by O'Donnell & Shaeffer, made a $2,000 joint contribution to the Hahn for Mayor Controlled Committee in her and her husband's own names in exchange for receiving $2,000 reimbursement from O'Donnell, which resulted in two assumed name contributions in violation of Charter §470(k).

During a sworn interview, Cathleen Lee admitted making a contribution to the Hahn for Mayor Controlled Committee in response to a request from Valdez, 0' Donnell's personal assistant, and receiving from Valdez a check from O'Donnell's account in return, which she confirmed to be reimbursement for her contribution. Lee issued a check dated February 2 1,200 1, and made payable to Hahn for Mayor in the amount of $2,000. The Hahn for Mayor Controlled Committee reported receiving a contribution in the amount of $1,000 on March 29,200 1, in Cathleen Lee's name. The campaign also reported receiving another contribution on that date in the same amount from Lee's husband, Greg; however, Lee testified that she signed her husband's name without his knowledge to a letter faxed to her by the Hahn for Mayor Controlled Committee indicating his consent to allocate a $1,000 contribution in his name from a prior contribution. Account records belonging to Pierce O'Donnell reveal the issuance of a personal check dated February 21,200 1, and made payable to Cathleen Lee in the amount of $2,000. The memo line on that check bears the word "Contributions." The check from OYDonnell's account issued to Lee is dated the same day as Lee's contribution check and is for the

same amount as her contribution check. Lee's bank records also indicate a $2,000 deposit to her checking account on March 5,2001. Exhibits 47 -51 for copies of investigative report, checks, relevant pages of California Form 460, and bank statement.

COUNTS 65 and 66: Respondent Stephen Desher, an employee of Ceramica San Lorenzo, and Respondent Elizabeth Owen, a legal secretary employed by O'Donnell & Shaeffer, made a $2,000 joint contribution to the Hahn for Mayor Controlled Committee in their own names in exchange for receiving $2,000 reimbursement from O'Donnell, which resulted in two assumed name contributions in violation of Charter §470(k).

During a sworn interview, Owen and Desher admitted making the contribution to the Hahn for Mayor Controlled Committee in response to a request to Owen from Valdez, O'Donnell's personal assistant. Owen admitted receiving a check from O'Donnell's account in return, which she confirmed to be reimbursement for the contribution. Desher admitted receipt of O'Donnell's check endorsed over to him by his wife, which he confirmed to be compensation for his check dated February 22,2001, which was made payable to James Hahn for Mayor in the amount of $2,000. The Hahn for Mayor Controlled Committee reported receiving a contribution in the ari-~ount of $1,000 on March 24,2001, in Desher's name. The campaign also reported receiving another contribution on that date in the same amount from Desher's wife, Elizabeth Owen. A copy of a letter from the Hahn for Mayor Controlled Committee dated February 26,2001, bears signatures for both Elizabeth Owen and Stephen Desher indicating their consent to allocate a $1,000 contribution in each of their names from a prior contribution. Account records belonging to Pierce O'Donnell reveal the issuance of a personal check dated February 22,2001, and made payable to Elizabeth Owen in the amount of $2,000. The memo line on that check bears the word "Contribution." The check from O'Donnell's account issued to Owen is dated the same day as her husband's contribution check and is for the same amount as his contribution check. The reverse side of that check is signed "Pay to Stephen Desher; E Owen." Exhibits 14 - 19 for copies of investigative reports, checks, and relevant pages of California Form 460.

COUNT 67: Respondent Else Latinovic, an office administrator employed by O'Donnell & Shaeffer, made a $1,000 contribution to the Hahn for Mayor Controlled Committee in her own name in exchange for receiving $1,000 reimbursement from O'Donnell, which resulted in an assumed name contribution in violation of Charter §470(k).

During a sworn interview, Else Latinovic admitted making a contribution to the Hahn for Mayor Controlled Committee in response to a request from Valdez, O'Donnell's personal assistant, and receiving from Valdez a check from O'Donnell's account in return, which she confirmed to be reimbursement for her contribution. Latinovic issued a check dated February 22,200 1, and made payable to Hahn for Mayor in the amount of $1,000; and the Hahn for Mayor Controlled Committee reported receiving a contribution in the amount of $1,000 on March 8,2001 in Else Latinovic's name. Bank records belonging to Pierce O'Donnell reveal the issuance of a personal check dated February 22,200 1, and

made payable to Else Latinovic in the amount of $2,000. The memo line on that check bears the word "Contribution." The check from O'Donnell's account issued to Latinovic is dated the same day as Latinovic's contribution check and is for the same amount as her contribution check. Latinovic's bank records also reflect a $1,13 1 .SO deposit to her account on February 26,2001; the same date appears on the back of O'Donnell's cancelled check. See Exhibits 42 - 46 for copies of investigative report, checks, relevant pages of California Form 460, and bank statement.

COUNTS 68 and 69: Respondent Becky Ma, an accounting manager employed by O'Donnell & Shaeffer, made a $2,000 joint contribution to the Hahn for Mayor Controlled Committee in her and her husband's own names in exchange for receiving $2,000 reimbursement from O'Donnell, which resulted in two assumed name contributions in violation of Charter §470(k).

During a sworn interview, Becky Ma confirmed making the contributions to the Hahn for Mayor Controlled Committee in response to a request from Valdez, O'Donnell's personal assistant, and receiving from Valdez a check from O'Donnell's account in return, which she confirmed to be reimbursement for her contributions. Ma issued a check dated February 22,200 1, and made payable to Hahn for Mayor in the amount of $2,000. The Hahn for Mayor Controlled Committee reported receiving a contribution in the amount of $1,000 on April 2,2001, in Ma's name. The campaign also reported receiving another contribution on that date in the same amount from Ma's husband, Yul. A copy of a letter from the Hahn for Mayor Controlled Committee dated February 26,2001, bears signatures for both Becky and Yul Ma indicating their consent to allocate a $1,000 contribution in each of their names from a prior contribution; however, Ma testified that she signed her husband's name to that letter without his knowledge. Account records belonging to Pierce O'Donnell reveal the issuance of a personal check dated February 22, 2001, and made payable to Becky Ma in the amount of $2,000. The memo line on that check bears the word "Contribution." The check from O'Donnell's account issued to Ma is dated the same day as Ma's contribution check and is for the same amount as her contribution check. Ma's bank records indicate a $2,123.94 deposit to her checking account on March 1,2001, which included the check issued to Ma from the O'Donnells' account. See Exhibits 52 - 57 for copies of investigative report, checks, relevant pages of California Form 460, and bank statement and deposit records.

COUNTS 70 and 7 1 : Respondents Antonio Martin, a paralegal employed by O'Donnell & Shaeffer, and Respondent Joycelou Martin, a project analyst employed by Universal Studios, made a $2,000 joint contribution to the Hahn for Mayor Controlled Committee in their own names in exchange for receiving $2,000 reimbursement from O'Donnell, which resulted in two assumed name contributions in violation of Charter §470(k).

During sworn interviews, Antonio and Joycelou Martin admitted making the contribution to the Hahn for Mayor Controlled Committee in response to a request to Antonio Martin from Valdez, O'Donnell's personal assistant, and receiving from Valdez a check from O'Donnell's account in return, which they confirmed to be reimbursement for their

contribution. Joycelou Martin issued a check dated February 22,200 1, and made payable to Hahn for Mayor in the amount of $2,000. A copy of a letter from Hahn for Mayor Controlled Committee dated February 26,200 1, bears signatures for both Antonio and Joycelou Martin indicating their consent to allocate a $1,000 contribution in each of their names fiom a prior c~ntribution.~, but the Hahn for Mayor Controlled Committee only reported receiving one contribution in the amount of $2,000, on March 24,200 1, in Joycelou Martin's name, after the lifting of the $1,000 per person contribution limit on March 9,2001. Bank records belonging to Pierce O'Donnell reveal the issuance of a personal check dated February 22,2001, and made payable to Antonio Martin in the amount of $2,000. The memo line on that check bears the word "Contribution." The - check from O'Donnell's account issued to Martin is dated the same day as his wife's contribution check and is for the same amount as her contribution check. The Martins' bank records indicate a $2,530 deposit to her account on February 23,200 1; the same date appears on the back of O'Donnell's cancelled check. Exhibits 58 - 64 for copies of investigative reports, checks, contribution allocation letter, relevant pages of California Form 460, and bank statement.

COUNT 72: Respondent Harry Silberman, a paralegal employed by O'Donnell & Shaeffer, made a $1,000 contribution to the Hahn for Mayor Controlled Committee in his own name in exchange for receiving $1,000 reimbursement from O'Donnell, which resulted in an assumed name contribution in violation of Charter §470(k).

During a sworn interview, Silberman admitted making the contribution to the Hahn for Mayor Controlled Committee in response to a request fiom Valdez, O'DonnellY s personal assistant, and receiving from Valdez a check from O'Donnell's account in return, which he confirmed to be reimbursement for his contribution. Silberman issued a check dated February 22,200 1, and made payable to Hahn for Mayor in the amount of $1,000; and the Hahn for Mayor Controlled Committee reported receiving a contribution in the amount of $1,000 on March 8,2001, in Silberman's name. Bank records belonging to Pierce O'Donnell reveal the issuance of a personal check dated February 22,200 1, and made payable to Harry Silberman in the amount of $1,000. The memo line on that check bears the word "Contribution." The check from O'Donnell's account issued to Silberman is dated the same day as Silberman's contribution check and is for the same amount as his contribution check. Silberman's bank records also reflect a $1,000 deposit to his account on February 23,200 1. See Exhibits 91 - 95 for copies of investigative report, checks, relevant pages of California Form 460, and bank statement.

COUNT 73: Respondent Sharon Wright, a paralegal employed'by O'Donnell & Shaeffer, made a $1,000 contribution to the Hahn for Mayor Controlled Committee in her own name in exchange for receiving $1,000 reimbursement from 0 'Donnell, which resulted in an assumed name contribution in violation of Charter §470(k).

5 Despite the allocation letter signed by both Antonio and Joycelou Martin, the Hahn for Mayor Controlled Committee reported receiving only one contribution in the amount of $2,000, on March 24, 200 1, in Joycelou Martin's name, after the lifting of the $1,000 per person contribution limit on March 9,2001.

During a sworn interview, Wright admitted making a contribution to the Hahn for Mayor Controlled Committee in response to a request from Valdez, O'Donnell's personal assistant, and receiving from Valdez a check from O'Donnell's account in return, which she confirmed to be reimbursement for her contribution. Wright issued a check dated February 22,200 1, and made payable to Hahn for Mayor in the amount of $1,000; and the Hahn for Mayor Controlled Committee reported receiving a contribution in the amount of $1,000 on March 8,2001, in Wright's name. Bank records belonging to Pierce O'Donnell reveal the issuance of a personal check dated February 22,2001, and made payable to Sharon Wright in the amount of $1,000. The memo line on that check- bears the word "Contribution." The check from OYDonnell's account issued to Wright is dated the same day as Wright's contribution check and is for the same amount as her contribution check. See Exhibit 10 1 - 104 for copies of investigative report, checks, and relevant pages of California Form 460.

COUNT 74: Respondent Danette Polchowski, a legal assistant employed by O'Donnell & Shaeffer, made a $500 contribution to the Hahn for Mayor Controlled Committee in her own name in exchange for receiving $500 reimbursement from O'Donnell, which resulted in an assumed name contribution in violation of Charter §470(k).

During a sworn interview, Polchowski admitted making a contribution to the Hahn for Mayor Controlled Committee in response to a request from Valdez, O'Donnell's personal assistant, and receiving from Valdez a check from O'Donnell's account in return, which she confirmed to be reimbursement for her contribution. Polchowski issued a check dated February 28,2001, and made payable to Hahn for Mayor in the amount of $500. The Hahn for Mayor Controlled Committee reported receiving a'contribution in the amount of $500 on March 8,2001 in Polchowski's name. Bank records belonging to Pierce 0' Donne11 reveal the issuance of a personal check dated February 2 1,200 1, and made payable to Danette Polchowski in the amount of $500. The memo line on that check bears the word "Contribution." The check from O'Donnell's account issued to Polchowski is dated one week prior to Polchowski's contribution check and is for the same amount as her contribution check. Polchowski's bank records reflect an $800 deposit to her account on March 15,2001; the same date appears on the back of O'Donnell's cancelled check. See Exhibits 65 - 69 for copies of investigative report, checks, relevant pages of California Form 460, and bank statement.

COUNTS 75 - 121: EXCESS CONTRIBUTIONS

As a further deterrent to circumvention of the City's contribution limits, Los Angeles Municipal Code ("LAMC") 5 49.7.2(A) states, among other things, that all payments made by a person or organization whose contributions or expenditure activity is financed by any corporation or other person are considered to be made by a single person or committee. This provision is commonly referred to as an "aggregation of payments" requirement. Failure to aggregate contributions may result in a violation of Charter tj 470 (c)(3), (4), and/or (6).

Pursuant to LAMC 5 49.7.2(A), all payments made by a person whose contributions were financed by O'Donnell are considered to have been made by O'Donnell, and must be aggregated with other contributions made by O'Donnell to the same candidate or during the same election.

Per candidate contribution limit Violations of Charter 4470(c)(4)

Charter 5 470(c)(4) limits individual contributions to a mayoral candidate to $1,000 per election cycle. During the 2001 Los Angeles City elections, O'Donnell made a $1,000 contribution to contribution to Hahn in his own name on December 27, 1999. Since O'Donnelr was also the true source of the funds for the assumed name contributions described in Counts 1 - 26 and totaling $25,500, all of those assumed name contributions to James Hahn's campaign must be aggregated and attributed to OYDonnell as well.

COUNTS 75 -100: From December 27, 1999to February 28,2001, using his own name and 26 different assumed names, O'Donnell contributed $26,500 to the 200 1 primary campaign of Los Angeles City candidate James Hahn, thereby exceeding the $1,000 individual contribution limit to a mayoral candidate 26 times, in violation of Charter 5 470(c)(4), with a total excess contribution of $25,500.

Per election contribution limit Violations of Charter 6470(c)(6)

During the 2001 primary election, Charter 5 470(c)(6) limited individual contributions to all candidates to an aggregate total of $7,000. Pierce O'Donnell made contributions in his own name to two candidates, James Hahn and Michael Feuer, totaling $2,000. He also made 26 contributions to Hahn under assumed names totaling $25,500.

COUNTS 10 1 - 121 : From December 27, 1999 to February 28,200 1, using his own name and 26 different assumed names, O'Donnell contributed $27,500 to Los Angeles City candidates James Hahn and Michael Feuer, thereby exceeding the individual contribution limit per election 21 times, in violation of Charter 5 470(c)(6), with a total excess contribution of $20,500.

COUNT 122: FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE NOTICE OF INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURE

Violation of LAMC 449.7.26

COUNT 122: On May 24,200 1, Respondent O'Donnell made an independent expenditure of $25,000 to the Save Proposition 13 Newsletter for a political advertisement opposing Antonio Villaraigosa and supporting Hahn for Mayor of Los Angeles. O'Donnell did not notify the CEC of his independent expenditure until October 30,2001. O'Donnell's failure to notify the CEC within 24 hours of making this independent expenditure violates LAMC tj 49.7.26.

'

CONCLUSION

The evidence gathered in this investigation and detailed in this report supports findings that:

Respondent Pierce O'Donnell made 26 assumed name contributions totaling $25,500, in violation of Charter §470(k); made 26 contributions exceeding Los Angeles per candidate contribution limits by a total of $25,500, in violation of Charter §470(c)(4); and made 21 contributions exceeding Los Angeles per election contribution limits by a total of $20,500, in violation of Charter §470(c)(6); and failed to notify the CEC within 24 hours of making an independent expenditure greater than $1,000, in violation of LAMC 549.7.26; Respondent Dolores Valdez aided and abetted in the making of 2 1 assumed name contributions totaling $2 1,500, in violation of Charter §470(k); Respondent Else Latinovic accepted reimbursement for a contribution made in her own name and aided and abetted in the making of one additional assumed name contribution in violation of Charter §470(k); Respondents Laurinda (Joyce) Delaney, Stephen Desher, Hilda Escobar; Linda Fraser; Anita Latinovic; Antonio Martin; Joycelou Martin; Elizabeth Owen; Danette Polchowski; William Powell; Mark Ramirez; Bert Rodriguez; Hany Silberman; Sherrill Soliz; and Sharon Wright each accepted reimbursement for a contribution made in their own names, in violation of Charter §470(k); and Respondents David Bernstein; Leonard Kishimoto; Cathleen Lee; Becky Ma; and Neil Sacker each accepted reimbursement for a contribution made in their own names and for an additional unauthorized contribution made in their spouse's name.

Based on the evidence, staff recommends that a probable cause finding should issue and an enforcement proceeding should commence against the Respondents for violations of the Charter and Campaign Finance Ordinance.

Respectfully,

Date:

ATTACHMENT B

' 06/15/2006 THU 11:17 PAX 213 !78 1909 City Ethics Cornision

. W A m P DUJ3 PROCESS AND PROCEDURAL RIGHTS OF RESRQNDEm POLOpES VAIJ3JZ UNDER L-A-A-C. 6 X 1 . 2

Tht undersigned, Ddores VaIdcz, has b-named os a &ondent In the Matt* of Pimcc ODonnell; Dqlaxm Vddez; David Banstciu Lnurinda (Joyce) Del- Stephen Deshcr, XiIda Escobar, U& Fmw; L e q d Kishhoto; Anita Latiaovic; Else W o v i c ; , C a t h I ~ be; .Becky Ma; AM0o.i~ Maxtin; bymion M e Blizabeth Owen; Daactte - PoIchawk5; William Powell; Mark Ramirsz; Bcrt Rodrigun; Neil Sacker; H q Sillxmiaq Sherrill Soliz and Sharrm Wright; City Ethics Edorcement Casc Number 2003 -564 (hereaftm, '"Action").

Dolores Valda @ ~ a ~ , "Respondent"), without admi- or'derrying aay of the dlegations of the Amusation in this action, mccpt as s p d d y set haein, wnscats to i k d i n s of hcts and conclusions of law and a conespand;ds Dcoision and 'order regarding this M a n . For pupxo5 of submitting this matter diredy ta the Board of thc City Hthics Commission fm deTibe~%tion on add i s s ~ a o of an appaqriate Order, Remondent hereby consents, agms, admits, ahwledgm, xcpnarttmts, mdtrsbds, wd waives as bllows:

1, Respondent understands that this is a City EMcs Commission Action which i s g o m e i t by the Jnvesti.gations and Enforucmant Regulations dct out in JAs Aogeles Admimistrathe Code ( L U G ) 924.12

2. Respondent acknowledges issuance of a Report in Support of aFinag of Probable Cause (Trobable Cause &pod'), miming her a respondent in this Adon, pu;anant to LAAC $24.12(d)(l).

3, Respondent admits p p c ~ and &%dive swim upon her 'of the Probable Cause Report in &is Adon.

4, kcspondcrrt admits to fhe jufkxliiction of thc City Ethics Commission over her and . over the subject matk of this acdon.

5. Respondeat ackuowlcdgea a Finding of Pmbable Cause by the Commissi~n's Execwive Director p- to LAAC §24.1.2(dJ(7). .

6. R q m d e n t admits p r o p and effective service upon her o f fhe Finding of Probable Gusa puraumt to LAAC 924.1.2(d)(7)(E)-

7. &spondcnt tlckmw1odg~s iss~mce of an Accusa%n m t;his A d ~ n pWUant to LAAC 524.1 .ZdXB).

8. bspo-t admits proper and &ctiw servioe upon her of fie Accusation in this Action pursuant to U A C $24.1.2(d)(BXC).

9- Rapondeal wkmwledges and freely and v o ~ ~ waives hor fight to discovmy pursua@ to W C $24.12{c)@).

10. Respondat ahowledgcs and ficcly and vohmtarily waives ha right to submit an administrative hearing brief prior to a hearing in this Action, pursuant.to LAAC §24,12(e)(4).

1 1. Rapondent aclmowledges a d freely and volnntarily waivas hei' tight to m administrativebaaring and determination of this mattm pmuant to i+AAC $24-1.2(e).

06/15/2006 TBU 11:17 FB% 213 918 1989 City Ethics Commision

12. Respondent is ch@ with 21 comb of violating Charter-$47O(k) by soliciting contributions with the promise of reimbursement andlor delivering rcimbursmeot

' funds from fdow respondent Pieroe OPomeIll ("O'Donnell"), thcrcby aiding and abetting OIDonneU in mnking assumed r m e contributions in vioIation of m a $470(k), totaling $20,500. ResI;ondent a c b w l e d ~ r;hc understands the nature of the c h a i p against her, -

13. Pursuant to Charter $706(c), Rqandcnt f m a maximum penalty of $105,000 fbr tho charged violatians of Charter $470(k) nnrVor rn order to cease and desist.

14. Respondent agrees not to contest h t t h e is a &dual basis for cach of the . repmentations and assertjons made within the Probable Csusc Report, 8nd that if . . an admmwmtivu heating ward conducted cm the merits of this Action, Commission sWIs prepwed itna able to presmt admisxiile evidence, testimonial and/or docwnentary, in support of eaoh of tho= mpmse&tions and assertions.

15. Respondent consen@ to BUbmisSi~n vf the Actidn fbr a final detednetioa and possibk penalty and any rmulting fladiags of h c t and oanalusions of law and Decision and Otd~ , h d ao2eLy upon thc Probable Cause Repart issucd in this Adan, and a ~ o w l c d g e s and agrees that the factual rspresmtntions witbin the Probable Causc Report would be w-t with tustimoniaf and docmrientary evidence which would be prcsmted by co&sion staff if an admfnistrstive hazing ware conducted onthtrnccits.

-16. Upon the Board's ftnal dctbmination regarding ?his Action, Rcsponderrt corneats to submiseion and considedm of any Sodiap of W, conclusions of law, and a c c o m p ~ d e d b by the City Etics Commission in a publiqmeefhg fbr purposes of flaming aa appropriate Okder or Penalty, if arty, and d e wbich meeting the Commission shd consider all of the relevant 151-m- s n m ~ the casq inc1wiing but not Mted to:

a. the sav* of the viola'tion(s); b. the pmseace or absmcc of my intention to wnct& d 4 c 2 or mislead;

whether the violatian(s) d w e r c &liberate2 neghg2tle as inadvertant; d whcther the Responded demonskited good faith by mtlsulting the

Commission staff in a m m m not c~n~titutiog a complete defense under Cbazter $705;

s. whether the violatioh(s) w a s l m an hctlar.5d incident or put o f a ptuq and wheth~rr the.Re~podiimt has a prim record of violations of the City Charter, ntdinances or similar laws; and

E the degtcc to wM& the R q o b t cooperated with Commissjon &in . ordw to provide full disclosum, remedy a violation, or caopemte

voluntarily Wth an iavwtigatian, to the e t such infhmidan is detailed in the wbablr cause report

17. Upon thx or more of the ~ s s i 6 n e s ~ reaching 9 consmsus in finding any .

violation or i m p k g an Order, Respondant consmte to the bsuanee of an Ckdcr and Pcnnlty requiring lzer b: a cease and desist thc violatio~ and/or b. file anyrqarts. stakmeista or 0th docum&t.s or information redred by

law; and

06/15/2006 THU 11:17 PAX 213 978 188s City Ethics Commision

c. pay a monatnry p d t y ths General Futld of the city ofup +D five thousmd dollar$ ($5,000) for each violation or three times the amom which Respondent M c d to report propedy or unlawllly coatributcd, wqadcd, ~ a v e or r d v * whi~hevor is grater.

1% Respondent vohtarily wnscnts to the ontry of the Com*asion'a fin- of facts, conclusions of law, and D8cisioa and Order andqxwcnts that no tender, off&, promise or h a t of any kind w b a ~ o ~ e ~ has bcen made by anyone, including the City Ethics Csrnmiaiion or any member of its Board or staff, to induce her to so consent.

19. Respondent acknowlodgm and agrees that this proceeding an8 her Conscnt is for the purposes of resolving this proceeding pnly, in cankbmity with tho ~autpxip hanct prodsiohs of the Zns Angel& City Chmtcr, the Los Angela Mimidpal 0rdi-m and the h s AngeIes Administrative Cock, and doe$ not resolve, afFec$ or pedudc any other p d m g which may be brought agaimt her- Raspondent achowledm that the ~ ~ s i o n ' s entry of a Decision and Order may have colMaral cgnsequem clndm fdd or stare law and ?he rules and regulatIom of self-mgdatory organizations, licensing boards, and othrzr reddory - mjgnbtions- Smh oollatd consequepces are separate fiam any sanction imposed in, this administrative pro^^

20. Respmdent undmtands and a g a s to comply wjth thc Commission'S policy not to p d t a Rqo&t l~ t~ stipdatv to a violation within its jurisdiction while denying the e;tlagations sot.forth in Ih probable cause report, the aoctrsatiorq'or presented in an administrative hearing. In c o ~ ~ l p h e with this policy, Respondent agre8s (i) not to tala= my action orto make or p m f t to be made any public slatemeat'dmyhg, M y or hdirccdyh my d~gat icm in the probable causc rcpm or creating the impression that the,pbsible cause repart is without tkctml basis and (ii &at upon €he cbmsnission's public &owldpmt and receipt of this consent, Respondent hmbywithdrawa any papers filed 31 this action to the exteat that.lhq d&y my ailegation in the prabable causc rcp6i-t. If Rcspondentbrewhes &is agreemant, the Executive Director may r e q p t the Commission v m t e its Decision aad Order and convme m adminishafiver h&g on the m&r. No- in his prodsion d k a a Respondant?, ri&t to t& legal or podtiow in dr;f8aso of litigation, or in dd- of othm lcgd pceedkga, ih which the ~~o~~ is not a party.

21- Rsspomkmt wdvm any right ahe may have lo seek judicial r&ew of the Board's W o n or to appeal the Co-on's Order d e r City, st* or -federal law.

22. Respondent hereby agrees that this Coasent may be arulcxed to and d c part of . thc Pmbablo Cause Report ismcd id tlds Action and provided to the Boatd fox its

review in comection wit4 its 3b.d d-ation. 23. w o n d e n t herdby agrees that tba Co&ssicm sh821 retain jurisdiction of this

action for all purposes, iwludi.ug implamating and odfor@ing the mans of any Decision and Orda issued in this Action.

24. Resp&t represents that shc has rcad and d m d each ptovidon in this Cons- and ackxt~wledgcs that she has had suEc5caxt oppartunity t x ~ consult counsel .before signing the Consent.

06/15/2000 T3U 11:17 PAX 213 87'8 1989 City Ethics Commision ~005/005

DATED: 4//6/06

DATED: