SR 11-28-2017 13D 13.D
November 28, 2017
Council Meeting: November 28, 2017 Santa Monica, California
1 of 1
CITY CLERK’S OFFICE - MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson-Warren, City Clerk, Records & Elections Services
Department
Date: November 28, 2017
13.D Request of Councilmembers Himmelrich and McKeown that the City
Attorney review recent correspondence, including a letter from the Santa
Monica League of Women Voters, regarding alleged violations of Santa
Monica campaign finance laws and recommend avenues for further action,
including the possibility of appointing an independent counsel.
THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF SANTA MONICA
P.O. BOX 1265 SANTA MONICA. CA 90406-1265
PHONE: 31 0.394.4661 WWW.LWVSANTAMONICA.ORG
#MakingDemocracy Work
OFFICF.RS October 31, 2017
Pre.tident
Barbara lnatsugu
Via Prmdou (racont)
S«rdary
Sharon Hart
Trl!as.urt!r
Nntaly:t Zer·niL'\kaya
DIRECTORS
Karen Carrt:)
Janet Carttr
Frank Gruber
Jason Islas
Be<ky Lantry
Joan.oe Leav-in
A d n: K. '\Villi.1 m s
Mayor Ted Wintercr
Santa Monica City Council SENT VIA eMAIL
Re: Request For Independent Investigation of the Huntley's Apparent Violations of
Santa Monica Election Code
Dear Mayor Winterer and Council members:
The League of Women Voters of Santa Monica (LWVSM) has a long history of
commitment to open, fair and accountable election practices. As an organization, we
have been outspoken on this subject at the national. state. county and local levels of
government and in our communities. It is an integral part of our belief in Making
Democracy Work.
Our board of directors has reviewed the recent settlement reached by the California Fair
Political Practices Commission and the Huntley Hotel with regard to the Huntley's
documented violations of California State Jaw, which "prohibits making contributions in
the name of another. in two separate general elections (2012 and 2014). (See attached
Stipulation) As part of that review, we also looked at the Santa Monica Municipal Code,
specifically the Elections Code Articles 11.04.030 Findings and purpose and 11.04.050
Li mitations on contributions from persons.
Based on our review and the admissions documented in the Stipulation, it appears that
the 62 separate violations of state law also violate Santa Monica's Elections Code:
11.04.050 Limitations on contributions from persons
11.04.040(d) Definitions: Person. A natural born individual. as well as any organization.
We therefore request that (1} the City conduct an Investigation to determine
whether local enforcement of the Santa Monica Elections Code is called for, given
the Huntley's admissions as detailed in the FPPC Stipulation; and (2) that the
investigation should be conducted by outside counsel acting independently of the
City Attorneys Office, given that the apparent violations involve contributions to
the campaigns of members of the City Council. It should be noted that the FPPC did
not find the Council members in violation of Election Law, nor did it find that their
campaigns were aware of the Huntley's behavior. The request for independent counsel
is specifically to avoid even the perception of a conflict of interest or bias.
It should also be noted that while the FPPC can and did enforce state election law in this
case, only the City of Santa Monica can ensure enforcement of our local Election
Code. We believe non-enforcement can have the effect of not only undermining Santa
Monica's Election Code itself, but will also say to our voters that those with money will
be allowed to usc their wealth and innuence to violate our Election Code and get oway
with it. Our form of government will only work if voters trust that our election
system provides a fair public process in which all votes count.
L.WVSM Letter to City Council
Page 2 of2
In conclusion. I would like to reiterate that by signing the Stipulation, the Huntley has agreed that
the facts and conclusions described in the document arc, in fact, correct. Much of the research has
already been done by the FPPC and it is public. so an independent counsel would have ready access
to that data, thus saving time and money.
Voters deserve to know who is giving money to campaigns. They also need to know that election
laws will be enforced and each person (defined in Election Code as "A natural born individual. as
well as any organization") found in violation will he held accountable. This is not only common
sense -it is crucial if voters are to remain the cornerstone of our democracy. The League will
continue to fight for enhanced disclosure and enforcement and calls on you to do the same.
?3~au~~,u.~~~
Barhara I natsugu
Presidem
League of Women Voters of Santa Monica
cc: Santa Monica City Manager
Santa Monica City Attorney
Santa Monica City Clerk
LWVSM Board of Directors
Anachno~ul: FPPC Case No. 1:;(246 Stipulation, Dccivion and Order-the Huntley Hotel
•
GALENA WEST
Chief of Enforcement
•
2 MICHAEL W. HAMILTON
Commission Counsel
3 fair Political Practices Commission
428 J StTcct, Suite 620
4 Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 322-5772
5 Facsimile: (916) 322-1932
6 Attorneys for Complainant
7
•
8
9
10
BEFORE THE FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORN IA
11 In the Malter of. FPPC Case No. 15/246
12 THE HUNTLEY HOTEL, STU'ULATJON, DECISION AND ORDER
13 Respondent.
14
15 INTRODUCTI.ON
16 Respondent the Huntley Hotel ("The Huntley") is a luxury hotel located in Santa Monica,
17 California.
18 The Political Refonn Act (the "Act")' prohibits contributions made in the name of another. The
19 Huntley made 62 campaign contributions totaling $97,350 in the names of other people 10 various
20 candidate controlled committees and geneml purpose committees over the course of two local election
21 cycles.
22 Ill
23 Ill
24 1/1
25
26
27
28
1 The Act is contained in Government Code sccnons 81000 throug.h 91014. All SUlturory refCrenccs are to the
Government Code. unless otherwise indicated. The regulations oft he Fair Political Practices Commission are contained in
Sections 18110 througb I 8997 of Title 2 of !.he California Code ofRegulatious. All rcgulalory rcftrcoces are to Title 2,
Division 6 of the California Code of Regulations. unless otherwise indicated.
STtJ'ULATION. DECISION AND ORDER
FPPC Cs.,c No. 15/246
• •
1 SUMMARY OF TilE LAW
2 Need for Lib enol Construction and Vigorous t:nforcement of the Political Reform Act
3 When enacting !he Political Reform Act, the people of California found and declared that
4 previous laws regulating political practices suffered from inadequate enforcement by state and local
5 authoriries.2 For this reason, the Act is to be construed liberally to accomplish its purposes.3
6 One purpose of the Act is to prom(l{e transparency by ensuring that receipts and expenditures 10
7 election campaigns are fully and trulhfully disclosed so that voters are fully informed and improper
8 practices are inhibited-' Alone these lines, the Act includes a comp1·ebensivc campaign reporting
9 system-and !he true sources of campaign contributions may not be concealed.' Another purpose of !he
10 Act is to provide adequate enforcement mechani>ms so that r:be Act will be "vigorously enforud.~6
II Prohibition Against Making Contributions in tb~ Name of Another
12 No campaign contribution may be made in the name of another persoo.7 'Ibis prOhibition bel~
13 keep !he public informed as to the actual sources of campaign contributions-and helps to prevent
14 circumvention of campaign contribution limits. When a person makes a contribution on behalf of
IS anolher, that person's intcrme<hary relationship wilh the actual contributor must be .disclosed to the
16 recipient of the contribution-and the recipient's campaign filings must disclose both by !he intermediary
17 and the nctual contributor. •
18 SUM.M.ARY OF Til£ FACTS
19 The Huntley is located on 2nd Street in Santa Monica, California, directly behind the Fainnont
20 Miramar llotel (the ·'Miramar"). The Huntley is owued and operated by the 2.nd Street Corpor:nion.
21 Sohrab Sassouniao (''Sassounian") is the co-owner of 2nd Street Corporation and is the President/General
22 Manager of The Rumley HC>tel. Manju Raman ("Raman") ha.~ served as TJie Huntley's Assistant
23 General Manager since 1998. In 2012, the Miramar was actively pursuing plans before the Planning
24
25
26
27
28
'Section 81001, subdi>ision (11)
'Seclioo 81003.
,. Section 81002, ~ubdiv1S10fl (n).
'Sccuons ~4200. ets.q. and 84301.
6 S«tlon 81002, subdivl~•on(Q.
'Sccllon 84301.
• Scctioo 84302.
2
STIPULA TIO~. DECISION AND ORDER
.fPJ>C case No. 1 "246
' • •
Commission of Santa Monica 1ha1 involved a signiticanl expansion and redevelopment of iiS ptopcrty,
2 constructing three new buildings (including 8 J I c•caq· hish rise 'D"'c-t)s adding private condommiums,
3 affordable housing, and comrncrciol development 10 lhc existing hotel facililies, and more than doubling
4 the Miramar's above grade floor area. As did many other businesses and residents in the immedia1e
5 neighborhood and throughout the ei1y, The Huntley took issue with the Miramar's proposed expansion,
6 primarily due to iiS adverse impacls on local uaffie, liS blocking of the sunlighl and views of adjaccnl and
7 nearby buildings, and the disruption 10 !he quality oftifc that woul~ be caused by ils leng1hy construction
8 timetable.
9 The Hunlley had not previously been involved in local land usc controversies or govcmmcnlal
10 advocacy, so shortly aft<:r the Miramar's expansion plans were announced, The Huolley retained a
II promincn1 Los Angeles law firm with extensive land usc and governmenl relations experience, Latham &
12 Watkins, to advise it \\~th respect to opposing the Miramar's proposal before the Santa MOnica PlanJ?ing
13 Commission and City Council. One of 1hc law firm 's.initial rcc~mmcnda1ions was for The Hum ley to
14 select an individual who would serve as a liaison with other imeres1cd community members and who
15 could rcprcscnl the hotel in helping to organize the community's opposition to the Miramar project and
16 in communicaling with the relevant governmental personnel. The Humlcy sclccted.Ralll3o 10 be its
I 7 liaison wi1h the law finn, !he ei1y's agencies, and !he cormnunity, even though she had no previous
18 experience in performing 1hesc funclions.
19 Upon tbe recon:unenda1ion of the Latham & Walkins attorneys, 1hc Hum ley also agreed 10 hire
20 Susan Burnside ("Burnside"), a local political consultant, to assist in organizing and .coordinating the
2 I communily's opposi1ion 10 the Miramar projcc1, wi1h Raman also serving as The Hun11ey's liaison 10
22 Burnside, even !hough Raman had no prior poli1ical or campaign experience. Burnside planned to
23 achieve this objective by organizing and advising 3 coalition of residents !hat shared The Huntley's
24 concerns about the Miramar's expansion, which was called Santa Mooicans Agains1 Miramar Expansion
25 (the "Coalition'l The Coalition met approximately monthly, generally at The Huntley's facilities . .
26 In August of 2012, Burnside and 1Wo local rcsidcniS, Ivan Perkins and Susan Scarafia, opened a
27 political committee named San1a Monicans for Responsible Growth (the "Committee'). The purpose of
28 1be Commiuee was 10 provide 1he Coalition with a vehicle 10 SUpport candidates in San13 Monica who
)
ST1PULA TION, DECISION AND OR.DER
FPPC Case No. I S/246
• •
rnvored a slow-growth position wilh respect to development in downtown Santa Monica and who might
2 be expected ro oppose the Miramar's signiiicaot expanston proposal. Raman as "flte Huntley's liaison to
3 Burnside, was aware of the Committee's activities, but played oo active role in its management.
4 Santa Monica holds its regular municipal elections in November . of even-numbered years.
5 According to Raman, sometime in the late Summer or Fall of2012, The Huntley's attorneys suggested to
6 Raman that the hotel should try to raise approx.imately $10,000 to suppon two City Council candidates,
7 Richard McKinnon and Ted Wintercr, whn were running on a slow-growth platfonn. Tltc attorneys ulso
8 suggested raising a Jesser amount, S5,000, for each of !be two incumbent councilmembers who were
9 running for re-election, Terry O'Day and Gleam Davi<. The attorneys explained that The Huntley shou.ld
JO collect checks for the campaign contriburiotts from different individuals and present them together to the
II candidates. According to Raman. she bad 1101 previously made or raised campaign coorributions and was
12 not personally familiar with all of the applicable campaign finance rules and restrictions. Raman
13 solicited contributions from various individuals, including Sassounian's relatives, friends and associates,
!4 but when she realized that she was falling shon of the assigned goals, she asked several hotel employees
15 and their spouses if they could write checks to the candidates and offered to reimburse them for their
16 conrributions. All the contributions made by The Huntley through these intennediaries were either the
17 maximum contribution limit in Santa Monica of S325, or the ma.ximum of S250 that a person could
18 eonrribute to a candidate serving on a planning commission when the person bas business before the
19 planning commission.9 The Huntley, through Raman, reimbursed these intermediaries for making tbc
20 contributions. These contributions were reponed on campaign Statements filed by the candidates.
21 However, the individual intermediaries were reponed as dte conrributors, and The Huntley was not
22 identified as the true source of the contributions. In total, The Huntley reimbur!<Cd forty CQntributions
23 totaling S 11,650 to the above-named candidates. Each of those contributions is detailed in the chan
24 below.
25 Around this same time period in September of 20!2, The Huntley·s attorneys and Burnside
26 infonned Raman that they needed to quickly r.tise about $75,000 to $100.000 for !be Committee, which
27
28 • ~ 84308.
4
~IIPULATIOI\. DECISION AND ORDER
FPPC Case No. I S/246
• •
1 the Committee planned to use for independent expenditures in the November election. According to
2 Raman, Burnside and the attorneys suggested that it would be best if the funding could come from a
3 broader segxnent of the communi!)', not just from The Huntley, so that it reflected the broader
4 communil)''s opposition to Miramar's development proposal. Raman contends she did not know whom
5 she could tum to outside of The Huntley in order to raise that amount of money, and she was not
6 comfOrtable asking others fur large sums of money. Instead, Raman's immediate reaction was to think of
7 who, among those who opposed the Miramar's expansion project, might be willing to pm their name on a
8 check and be reimbursed for their contribution by The Huntley. Raman approached louretta Walker
9 ("Walker"}, a friend and the owner of Body Z Alive, which is located adjacent to The Huntley. Raman
10 asked Walker to make a $15,000 campaign contribution in the name of Body Z Alive to the Committee
II with lhe understanding thal The Huntley would give her the money to make tbe contribution. 1n order to
12 secure payment from The Huntley, Raman helped to prepare three invoices in the name of Body Z Alive
13 for $5,000 each. The invoices ro The Huntley were dated for September 16, 2012, September 17, 2012,
14 and September 18, 2012 and were descnbed as for mcditatton services, even though oo services were
15 aerually provided. On October 16, 2012. The Huntley issued three checks of $5,000 apiece to Walker,
16 and on that same date, Walker wrote a check for $15,000 to the Commiuee. Walker's conrributioo was
17 reponed on campaign statemrots filed by the Comrnince with Body Z Alive reported as the contributor.
18 The Huntley was not identified as the true source of the $15,000 contribution.
19 Ill ~tober of 2012, Raman approached Nimish .Patel ("Patel"), a friend and long-time business
20 counsel tor The llunlley, to ask if Patel's finn, Richardson Patel, could make a $10,000 campaign
21 contribution to the Committee in the name of Richardson Patel with the understanding that l'be Huntley
22 would give it the money to make the contribution. On October 15, 2012, Richardson Patel invoiced The
23 Huntley $20,000, of.which $10,000 was for the firm's monthly retainer and the additional $10,000 was to
24 constirute payment for the contribution. On October 16, 2012, The Huntley issued a check for $ J 0,000 to
25 Richardson Patel for tbc contributiOn to the Committee. On October 18, 2012, Doug Gold, Chief
26 Financial Officer of the law flnn, wrote a check fur SJO,OOO to the Committee. Gold wnote the check
27 from a checking account belonging to Pure Pilates, a business owned by Gold's wife, Amanda Gold. On
2& ~tober 19, 2012, Richardson Patel wire transferred SIO,OOO to Pure Pilates with the description reading,
s
ST!Pl:LATION. DECISION AND ORDER
FPPCC..CNo.IS/246
---------
• •
"expense reimbursement." The S 1 0,000 contribution was reported on campaign statements filed by the
2 Committee with Pure Pilates reponed as the contributor. The Huntley was not identified as the true
3 source of the $10,000 contribution, nor was Richardson Patel identified as an intermediary. Neither
4 Raman nor anyone else at The Huntley was aware at the time how Richardson Patel intended to make the
5 contribution to the Committee.
6 Around the same time Raman secured the contributions from Body Z Alive and Richardson Patel,
7 Raman also asked Chris Scnnings ("Sennings"), a friend and the owner of Playground Consulting, The
8 Huntley's long-time Information Technology consultant, to make a campaign contribution of $50,000 to
9 the Committee with the understanding that The Huntley W(>Uld give Sennings the money tO make the
l 0 conrribution. Scnnings sent four invoices to The Huntley for a total of $50,025 worth of work be did not
II perform. On October 12,2012, The Huntley issued a check to Playground Consulting for $50,025. On
12 tbat same date, Sennings signed a check for $25,000 on behalf of Playgrotmd Consulting to the
13 Committee. On October 24, 2012, Scrmings signed a second $25,000 check on behalf of Playground
14 Consulting to the Comminee. The Committee reponed receiving tbe contributions from Sennings with
IS Playground Consulting as the contributor for both contributions. The Huntley was not identified as the
16 true source of the two contributions totaling $50,000.
17 The Huntley's contributions to the Conmlittce were used to make expenditures in support of
18 Richard McK.iimon·s and Ted Wintcrer's bids for the Santa Monica City Council. Burnside as the
19 pcilitical consultant for tbe Committee designed four mailers to support these candidates. On the semi-
20 armnal campaign statement covering the repo11ing period of October 21, 2012-December 31, 2012, the
21 Committee reported making approximately $71,875 in expenditur<'S in suppon of Winterer and
22 McKinnon. ln 2013, The Huntley also contributed $23,927.36 to Committee in its own name, effectively
23 paying off the Committee's debt from the 2012 election.
24 ln total in 2012, The Huntley made 44 contributions that totaled $86,650 in the names of others
25 rather than its own name.
26 The Huntley was also involved in making campaign contributions in the name of another during
27 the 2014 election cycle. The largest such contribution again went through Body Z Alive. Raman asked
28 Walker .if she would rnake a $5,000 contribution to the Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City
·6
STJPULATIO>J. DEC!SJOK AND ORDER
FPPC Case No. I S/246
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
J
12
13
14
l
15
16
l7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
• •
("SMCLC"), explaining that The Jiuntley would give her the money to make the contribution. On
September 19,2014, Walker invoiced The Huntley for $5,000 for services that she did not perform. On
October 16, 2014, The Huntley wrote a check to Body Z Alive for $5,000, and on October 21 , 2014,
Walker wrote a check from Body Z Alive's check.ing account to SMCLC for $5,000. SMCLC reported
Body Z Alive as the contributor. The Huntley was not identified as the true source of !he $5,000
contribution.
In 2015, Raman was asked if she and the Huntley could raise $10,000 to help pay down the
campaign debt of Richard McKinnon, who bad run unsuccessfully for election to the Santa Monica City
Council in 2014. According to Raman, as before, she raised what she could from others, but when she
fell short of her goal, she once again offered to reimburse various hotel employees and friends for their
contributions. Those 16 contributions, totaling $5,200, are detailed in the chart below. McKinnon's
commince reported the intermediaries as the contributors. The Huntley was not identified as the true
source of these contributions.
VIOLATIONS
Counts J. 62
Counts I -62 : Making a Contribution in the Name of Another
The Huntley made the following contributions in the names of other persons in violation of
Government Code section 8430 I :
DATE CHECK . -. -.
COUNT NAME R£CEI VED .6Y AMOUNT RECIPIENT
RECIPIE_NT
Roehelli 9/l6/2012 $325.00 Re-Elect City
J Fernandez (Silver) Council member Terry
0'Dav2012
2 Michelle Scnnings 9/l8120l2 $325.00 ~leamip2':;'~~ for City
3 Diane Nomura 91l8/20l2 $325.00 Gleam;:>;;/~ for City
4 Roc~elli 911812012 $325.00 Gleam Davis for City
Fernandez fSilver\ il2012
5 Manju Raman 9118/2012 $325.00 ~leamip2~1i~ for City
6 Elisa A. Dadian 9/18!2012 $325.00 91eam ~~)~for City
7 Mandana Amini 9/18!2012 $325.00 Gleam Davis for City
'12012
8 Hclal £!-Sherif 9118/2012 $325.00 Gleam Davis for Citv
7
STIPULATION, DECISION AND ORDER
FPPC Case No. 15/246
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I
I
9
10
I 1
12
13
14
15
16
'-·
t7
18"
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
•
-
Diane Nomura
Douglas F. Ewer
Douglas 1'. Ewer
Mauju Raman
Elisa A. Dadian
Jessica J::. Perahia,
Mandana Amini
Hclat EJ-Sbcrif
MichcUc Scnning.~
Jessica E. Perahia,
David Cohen
Body Z Alive,
Arm Lauretta
Walker
Adriana Moreno
Michelle Scnniogs
Rochelli . (<;ilver)
Elisa A. Dadian
Rodney Prechel
Playground
r.;n"lltino 1nr..
Manju Raman
Dillon M Silver
DBA Silver Ent
Helal M. EI-Sberif
Adrian Perez
•
-Council 201?
9/23/2012 $325.00 Rc-J:::Icct City
Counci~gnber Terry O'Dav2
9/23/2012 $325.00 Gleam. D-avis for City
C:nnnr.il ?01 ~
9/23/2012 $325.00 Re-Elect City
g?.~~i~~~ber Terry
9/23/2012 $325.00 Re-Elect City
Councilmember Terry I O'Dav 7.012
9123/2012 $325.00 Re-Elect City I g?uncilmember Terry
Dav2012
9/23/2012 $325.00 Re-Elect City
. g?~~i~~~;'ber Terry
9123/2012 $325.00 Re-Elect City
g.o~~i~gnber Terry
9123/2012 $325.00 Re-Elect City
1
g?uocilrocmber Terry
Dav 2012
9/23/2012 $325.00 Re-Elect City
g~~i~f~nber Terry
9/24/2012 $325.00 Gleam Davis for City
C:ouncil 2017
10/12/2012 $250.00 McKinnon for City
Council 2012
10/1 812012 $15,000.00 Santa Monicans for
Responsible Growtb
10il9/2012 $250.00 ~;~~il2ot2r City
10/19/2012 $325.00 McKinnon for City
. 2012
J 0/19/2012 $250.00 ~~~2of~r City unctl
l 0/t 9/2012 $250.00 ~_;.~ innon for City 110Ci120J2 I 10/19/2012 $250.00 McKinnon for City
C'.lluncil 2012
' J0/1912012 . $25,000.00 ~nta Mo~i~~~~.!;,
10!19/2012 $250.00 McKinnon for City
Council 2012
10/1912012 $325.00 McKinnon for City
Council 2012
10/19/2012 $250.00 ~~~r.~~~f~t City
10/]9/2012 $250.00 Mc.Kiruton for City
Council 2012
8
STIPULATION. DECISION AND ORDER
FPPC Cose No. 15/246
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
JO
!
12
13
14
15
J6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
31
32
33
34
35
36
1 37
38
i--39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
•
Elizabeth Sanchez
I :;chardson &
'•tel
Michelle Senniogs
David Cohen
Rochclli I ii~,:;;allitP'
Elisa A. Dad ian
Rodoey Prechel
Manju Raman
I ~~~'k~v~:~~~
Helal M. £!-Sherif
Adrian Perez
Elizabeth Sanchez
Adriana Moreno
Playground
· ro~;,,ltin" In~
Manju Raman
Body Z Alive,
~~"~uretta
Marschinda Felix
Linda Jane Miller
Elisa A. Dad ian
Elizabeth Sanchez
Manju Raman
francisco (-~,.,;,;;,)
?uillenno R De
I_. !..Q.(J'C
Don1~!?, W. Eh•h
AkcmiS.
Nakamoto
Jason Zucker
Diane Nomura
•
10/2312012 $250.00
1 ~':.~~~r~rcity . n~'l l
10/24/2012 $10,000.00 1 ~anta Monicans for
10/2512012 $325.00 ~~~"W.i1n;';[f3 for City n~il
10125/2012 $250.00 Ted Winterer for City
Coun~il 701)
10/25/2012 $250.00 ~~d wi,"~';;~; for City .nun"'i
10/25/2012 $250.00 I ~~~,:;;\";~g for City
I 0/25120.12 $250.00 Ted "'?,"~;for City Co uno;
J0/25/2012 $250.00
1
~';:! wi1o;~er for City . . un~; ' 12
10/25/2012 $325.00 I ~ed ~i~~~fr for City 'nnn · 2 17
10/25/2012 $250.00 I ~~~ Win~~,'; for City -unci)?
J0/27/2012 $250.00 I ~~~.Wimerer for City . -·· neil 201?
10/29/2012 $250.00 J~d Win;~r;'~ for City 'n•mriJ 2
10/30/2012 $250.00 J ~? W i n~~{1cr for City Hn••;] 2 2
I J/5/2012 $25,000.00 ~anta Moni~?s for · (irowth
6/29/2013 $500.00 ~!~~!~~~~;:~s for R nt ' u
10/2112014 $5,000.00 SMCLC-PAC
11 /18/2015 $325.00 ~cK.i~~~,[~r City
11/23/2015 $325.00 ~cK.innou for City
.o\lnril ?0 14
11 /23/2015 $325.00 ~~~";~~~[or City ,o; ? 4
I 1/2312015 $325 .00 ~_:~inn~~;or City neil? 4
11123/2015 $325.00 ~~~~n~~~ ror City cil 4
1112312015 $325.00 I ~;,~on for City
-il.2014
1112312015 $325.00 I ~;.~~~{or City neil 14
J ii23i2015 $325.00 I ~;,~c~~~~ [~'City
1112312015 $325.00 I ~cK.i"f~~ ;or City onnril 4
11/23/2015 $325.00 I ~cK.iuu~'A for City 'n,,n;;,? ~l.d
I l/2312015 $325.00 I ~~~~;~~p[~r City
9
STIPULATION. DECISION AND ORDER
FPPC Case No. I $1246
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
• •
-
58 Shemaa Masry 11123/2015 $325.00 ~;~ron for City il 2014
59 Asa~~m~~· 11123/2015 $325.00 ~-cKi~~~[~r City All~n 'mura
60 Staci ll:akamoto I 112412015 $325.00 McKinnon for City
'12014
61 Roch~l~if~i!;er, 1112512015 $325.00 ~~~nnon for City Dillon · ,.q 2014
62 David Cohen 12/23/2015 $325.00 ~~f~~{~r City
TOTAL: $97 350 .. .
PROPOSED PENALTY
This mancr consists of 62 counts. The maximum penalty that may be imposed is S5,000 per
count. Thus. the ma.~imum penalty mat may be imposed i~ 5310,000.10
ln determining the appropriate penalty for a particular violation of the Act, the Commission
considers the fucts of the case, the public hurm involved, and the purposes of the Act. Also, the
Commission considers factors such as: (a) the seriousness of the violation; (b) the presence or absence of
any intention to conceal, deceive or mislead; (c) whether the violation wns deliberate, negligent or
inadvertent; (d) whether the .;otation was isolated or part of a panem; (e) whether corrective
amendments voluntarily were filed to provide fuU disclosure; aod (f) whether the violator bas a prior
record of '~olations.11 Additionally, the Commission considers p<;nahics in prior cases with comparable
violations.
Making a campaign contribution in the name of another is one of the most serious violations of
the Acl. It deceives the public as to the true source of contributions, and as occurred with certain of the
conTributions in this case, it auows for the eircumvemioo of local conTribution limits. Recent stipulations
show that the Commission views these types of cases as warranting the maximum penalty of SS,OOO per
count. For example:
0 In the Marter of AB&l l'oundry, A Divtsion of Me Wane, Inc., FPPC Ca~c No. 15174 (approved
on July 21, 201{,), the Commission imposed n penally of$! 00,000 against AB&J Foundry for laundering
37 contributions through employees and their spouses. totaling $23,900 from 2012. 2014.l'or purposes
00$cc: Sc.tion 83116 . ...Wovosooo(o).
'1 Regukttion 18.36l.S. $ubd•vtSton (d).
10
STIPULATION, !JllCISION AND ORDeR
FPrC C'oi<C: No. I 51246
h
• •
of settlement and in consideration of mitigating factors, only 20 counts were charged. One of the
2 mitigating circumstances in this case was that AB&l Foundry cooperated with the Enforcement Division.
3 This included an immediate admission that the violations occurred -and the disclosure of other
4 violations that were not yet discovered. Additionally, the respondents did not have a history of violating
5 the Act.
6 u In the Matter of Moo tlan Bae, FPPC Case No. 13/203 (approved on Aug. 20, 2015), the
7 Commission imposed a penalty of $45,000 against Moo ttan Bae for laundering nine contributions that
8 totaled S I 0,550. The respondent in this case initially refused to cooperdte with the in vcstigation and there
9 was evidence that the respondent was intimidating witnesses and pressured them to lie about the f.lets.
10 In the cwTent case, The Huntley cooperated with the Enforcement Division after retaining
J I counsel, has conducted its own internal review of the events, and has admitted that the violations
12 occurred, while disclosing other violations that were not yet discovered. Respondent also has no history
13 of any prior violations of the Act. Moreover, Raman -who was responsible for making the
14 reimbursements at issue -contends she had oo prior involvement ·with pOlitical campaigns or
15 fundraising and insists that she did not appreciate the illegality of the reimbursements. While she is now
16 aware of the law and accepts full respansibility for her prior actions.. Raman contend~ that neither the
17 attorneys nor the political consultant she worked with bad suggested that she was doing anything illegal
J 8 at the time, and that her own attorneys participated in one of the t'eimbursements without objection,
19 leading her to believe that her actions i.ti reimbursing others' contributions were not unlawful or
20 inappropriate.
21 In other respects, however, there arc fewer mitigating circwusraoces in the current case. The
22 violations in this case were part of a pattern that took place over two election cycles from 2012 through
23 2015. The contributions reimbursed by Tbe Huntley concealed the full extent of The Huntley's financial
24 suppOrt for the Corrunittee and created an impression that the Committee enjoyed broader financial
25 suppOrt. In addition, the number of reimbursements and the amount of money involved is greater here
26 than in each of these prior cases.
27 Ba.~ed on the totality of the cincumstances in this matter, the mitigating factors in AB&i Foundry
28 that justified the consolidation of some counts are overcome by the other circumstances present in this
II
STIPULATION, DECISION AND ORDER
I'PPC C-No. I S/246
--···---_..
• •
case so that a maximum fine for each count is justified to deter this type of conduct in the future. For the
2 foregoing reasons, a penalty in the amount of$5,000 per count is recommended for Counts I through 62
3 -for a tot•! administrative penalty in the nmount of$310,000.
4 CONCLUSiON
5 Complainant, the Enforcement Division of the Fair Political Practices Commission, and
6 Respondent The Huntley hereby agree as follows:
7 I. Responde.nt violated the Act as described in the foregoing pages, which are a true and
8 accurate summary of the factS in this matter.
9 2. This stipulation will be submitted for consideration by the Fair Political Practices
10 Commission at its next regularly scheduled meeting-or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard.
II 3. This stipulation resolves all factual aod legal issues raised in this matter lor the purpose
12 of reaching a fiual disposition withou(the necessity of holding an administrative hearing to deten11ine the
13 liability of Respondent pursuant to Sccrio•l 83116.
14 4. Respondent understands, and hereby knowingly and voluntarily waives, any and all
15 procedural rights set forth io Sections 83115.5, 11503, I 1523, and Regulations 18361.1 through 18361.9.
16 Th1s includes, but is not limited to the right to appear personally at any administrative hearing held in Ibis
17 matter, to be represented by an attorney at Respondent's own ex-pense, to confron1 and cross-examine all
18 witnesses testifying at !be heanng, to subpoena witnesses to testify at !be bearing, to have an impartial
19 administrative law judge preside over the hearing as a hearing officer, and to have the matter judicially
20 reviewed.
21 5. Respondent agrees to tlle issusnce of the decision and order set !orth below. Also,
22 Respondent agrees to the Commission imposing against it an a?ministrative penalty in the amount of
23 $310,000. One or more cashier's checks or money orders totaling said amount-to be paid to the
24 General Fund of the State of California-is/arc submitted with this stipulation as full payment of the
25 administrative penalty described above, and same shall be held by the State of California until the
26 Commission issues itS decision and order regarding this matter.
27 6. If the Commission refuses to approve this stipulation-lben thts stipulation shall become
28 null and void, and within fifteen business days after the Commission meeting at wbich the stipulation is
12
STIPULATION, DECISION AND ORDER
FPPC Coso No t5n46
• •
rejected, all paytnents tendered by Respondent in connection with this stipulation shall be reimbnrsed to
2 Respondent. lf this stipulation is not approved by the Connnission, and if a full evidentiary heating
3 before the Commission becomes necessary, neither any member of the Commission, nor the Executive
4 Di ector, shall be disqualified because of prior consideration of this Stipulation.
5 7. The par1ies to this agreement may execute their respective signarure pages separately. A
6 co y of any party's executed signarure page including a hardcopy of a signarure page transmitted via fax
7 or sa PDf email attachment is as effective and binding as tbe original.
8
9 D ed:
10
I 1
12
13
14
15 D ted:
16
17
. 18
19
20
21 Ill
22 Ill
23 Ill
24
25
26
27
28
00/oc. /zon
Galena West, Chief of Enfotcement
Fair Political PrJctices Commission
Manju Raman, Assistant General Manager, on behalf of
Respondent The Huntley Hotel .
13
STIPULATION, DECISI0:-1 AND ORDER
FPPC Case No. 15/246
_j
• •
The foregoing stipulation of the parties "In the Matter of The Huntley Hotel," FPPC Case No.
2 15 246 is hereby accepted as the final decision and order of the J.'air Political Practices Commission,
3 e ctivc upon execution below by the Chair.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I I
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IT IS SO ORDERED.
D ted:
I I
Fair Political Practices Commission
14
STIPULATION, DECISION AND ORnER
FPPC Case No. 15/246
l
ll:: (.) w :I:
(.)
(/)
~ w
:I:
(/) < (.) ..
' .
% < z 5 ~~-~ ~ ,;.~ • -!:' 0 .. ; ~ ::
X -o'3 0 • . ~ 2 " li iJ l = • £§
... ~
0 N .,;
0 .. c ::J ..,
r
0 .... >-&
• • .
(/). ~ <1> (.)
0 c:
'0 c: <ll
~ <ll "" 0 '0 i::i t:
<ll Cl) :;,
0
£
t: <1> --o ~ '0 c: :;, .<::
<1> ~ ..c: I-• • •
--.. ~ -~
~ ·,
I •
.-/ i
::'\ :
_, ..
0! S: C::-.~
% :::;j -t'.: ~:iJ;:
<.n (/) :-t•, pr: 8-~ "" "" ~-.. ~8~ r::5 ~.~
!; r ~ .,
N .... ll z M ,. o§ . z ~:; < .. ~J 0 .~
"' ~0 ~ ~""";,:~ ~ ..~~§ "'~• £0 :l "'~-d ~H~
• •
To: Santa Monica City Council
From: Santa Monica Forward
UNITE HERE Local 11
Date: October 31, 2017
Re: Possible Violations of Santa Monica Elections Code
Dear Councilmembers:
After lengthy negotiations, the California Fair Political Practices Commission
reached a settlement with the Huntley Hotel regarding the Huntley’s violations of
California state law prohibiting laundering of campaign contributions in the 2012
and 2014 Santa Monica elections. The settlement documents the Huntley’s
violations of state law and required the Huntley to pay $310,000 in fines for
violations of the California Political Reform Act, the second largest fine the FPPC
has ever imposed. The Huntley’s 62 separate violations of state law, as
acknowledged by the Huntley in a signed stipulation with the FPPC, also appear to
constitute violations of the Santa Monica Elections Code. The City should conduct a
full and fair investigation of the Huntley’s apparent violations of the Santa Monica
Elections Code, and, if violations are found, take appropriate enforcement action as
provided for in the Santa Monica Elections Code.
Specifically, the stipulation between the FPPC and the Huntley identifies, and the
Huntley has admitted to, facts that could constitute a violation of SMMC Section
11.04.050, which limits campaign contributions. (The current limit is $340; the limit
applicable to the 2012 and 2014 elections was $325). While state law prohibits
making contributions in another person’s name, the Santa Monica Elections Code
sets a limit on the amount that any entity or individual can contribute to a
candidate. State law does not provide such limits for local candidates.
The Huntley’s actions appear to have been violations of both state prohibitions on
laundering campaign contributions as well as violations of Santa Monica’s limit on
campaign contributions. As detailed in its FPPC stipulation, the Huntley engaged
Santa Monica City Council
Page 2 of 3
in a pattern of reimbursing individuals and organizations who made contributions
to candidate-controlled committees. Because these contributions were in fact
madeby the Huntley, each contribution in excess of the first $325 would constitute a
separate violation of the Santa Monica Elections Code.
A second question that bears investigation is whether the stipulation includes all
instances of Huntley campaign contributions that exceeded Santa Monica’s $325
limit. Public campaign filings by City Council candidates in the 2012 and 2014
elections cycles suggest the need to investigate whether there are additional
contributions not mentioned in the stipulation for which the nominal contributor
received reimbursement from the Huntley.
The Santa Monica Elections Code will only be taken seriously by those who
participate in Santa Monica elections if the City is willing to investigate potential
violations and take appropriate enforcement action. If the Huntley can admit to
actions which constitute violations of the Santa Monica Elections Code in a signed
stipulation with a state agency without the City taking any action to investigate or
appropriately enforce its laws, then the Santa Monica Elections Code is
undermined. The FPPC investigated and took enforcement action with respect to
the state violations, but only the City can ensure that our local Elections
Code is enforced.
The City should conduct an investigation, including a thorough review of
unredacted FPPC evidence, to determine (1) whether local enforcement of the Santa
Monica Elections Code is warranted, with respect to the Huntley’s actions detailed
in the stipulation, and (2) whether additional violations of local law occurred that
were not listed in the stipulation. (It should be noted that individuals associated
with the Huntley have continued to make contributions that should be examined to
determine whether the Huntley has stopped its practice of reimbursing people for
their contributions.) Because the Huntley’s apparent violations of the Santa Monica
Elections Code involve contributions to the campaigns of the members of the City
Council, the investigation should be conducted by outside counsel acting
independently of the City Attorney’s office.
The City of Santa Monica has consistently stood for free and fair elections that are
in full compliance with state and local law. The Huntley’s actions violate the public
policy principles embodied in the Santa Monica Elections Code, which the City
Council adopted specifically to curb the influence of financially powerful entities
such as the Huntley in our local elections. If the Huntley can violate the Santa
Monica Elections Code with impunity and face no enforcement, the message the
City sends to ordinary voters is that their participation in our local democracy
doesn’t matter compared to the spending of wealthy special interests.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
GALENA WEST
Chief of Enforcement
MICHAEL W. HAMILTON
Commission Counsel
Fair Political Practices Commission
428 J Street, Suite 620
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 322-5772
Facsimile: (916) 322-1932
Attorneys for Complainant
BEFORE THE FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION
In the Matter of:
THE HUNTLEY HOTEL,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Respondent.
FPPC Case No. 15/246
STIPULATION, DECISION AND ORDER
INTRODUCTION
Respondent the Huntley Hotel ("The Huntley") is a luxury hotel located in Santa Monica,
California.
The Political Reform Act (the "Act")I prohibits contributions made in the name of another. The
Huntley made 62 campaign contributions totaling $97,350 in the names of other people to various
candidate controlled committees and general purpose committees over the course of two local election
cycles.
'The Act is contained in Government Code sections 81000 through 91014. All statutory references are to the
Government Code, unless otherwise indicated. The regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission are contained in
Sections 18110 through 18997 of Title 2 of the California Code of Regulations. All regulatory references are to Title 2,
Division 6 of the California Code of Regulations, unless otherwise indicated.
STIPULATION, DECISION AND ORDER
FPPC Case No. 15/246
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SUMMARY OF THE LAW
Need for Liberal Construction and Vigorous Enforcement of the Political Reform Act
When enacting the Political Reform Act, the people of California found and declared that
previous laws regulating political practices suffered from inadequate enforcement by state and local
authorities.2 For this reason, the Act is to be construed liberally to accomplish its purposes.3
One purpose of the Act is to promote transparency by ensuring that receipts and expenditures in
election campaigns are fully and truthfully disclosed so that voters are fully informed and improper
practices are inhibited.' Along these lines, the Act includes a comprehensive campaign reporting
system—and the true sources of campaign contributions may not be concealed.5 Another purpose of the
Act is to provide adequate enforcement mechanisms so that the Act will be "vigorously enforced."'
Prohibition Against Making Contributions in the Name of Another
No campaign contribution may be made in the name of another person.' This prohibition helps
keep the public informed as to the actual sources of campaign contributions—and helps to prevent
circumvention of campaign contribution limits. When a person makes a contribution on behalf of
another, that person's intermediary relationship with the actual contributor must be disclosed to the
recipient of the contribution—and the recipient's campaign filings must disclose both by the intermediary
and the actual contributor.8
SUMMARY OF THE FACTS
The Huntley is located on 2nd Street in Santa Monica, California, directly behind the Fairmont
Miramar Hotel (the "Miramar"). The Huntley is owned and operated by the 2nd Street Corporation.
Sohrab Sassounian ("Sassounian") is the co-owner of 2nd Street Corporation and is the President/General
Manager of The Huntley Hotel. Manju Raman ("Raman") has served as The Huntley's Assistant
General Manager since 1998. In 2012, the Miramar was actively pursuing plans before the Planning
2 Section 81001, subdivision (h).
3 Section 81003.
4 Section 81002, subdivision (a).
Sections 84200, et seq. and 84301.
'Section 81002, subdivision (0.
Section 84301.
8 Section 84302.
2
STIPULATION, DECISION AND ORDER
FPPC Case No. 15/246
••
S :01 WV S I NnrLI
,)iGSw MOD 9730ii0v):i,;.1
• Tvoanod blivd
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Commission of Santa Monica that involved a significant expansion and redevelopment of its property,
constructing three new buildings (inchteing a 21 On? 111811 r;cr towf...)9 adding private condominiums,
affordable housing, and commercial development to the existing hotel facilities, and more than doubling
the Miramar's above grade floor area. As did many other businesses and residents in the immediate
neighborhood and throughout the city, The Huntley took issue with the Miramar's proposed expansion,
primarily due to its adverse impacts on local traffic, its blocking of the sunlight and views of adjacent and
nearby buildings, and the disruption to the quality of life that would be caused by its lengthy construction
timetable.
The Huntley had not previously been involved in local land use controversies or governmental
advocacy, so shortly after the Miramar's expansion plans were announced, The Huntley retained a
prominent Los Angeles law firm with extensive land use and government relations experience, Latham &
Watkins, to advise it with respect to opposing the Miramar's proposal before the Santa Monica Planning
Commission and City Council. One of the law firm's. initial recommendations was for The Huntley to
select an individual who would serve as a liaison with other interested community members and who
could represent the hotel in helping to organize the community's opposition to the Miramar project and
in communicating with the relevant governmental personnel. The Huntley selected .Raman to be its
liaison with the law firm, the city's agencies, and the community, even though she had no previous
experience in performing these functions.
Upon the recommendation of the Latham & Watkins attorneys, the Huntley also agreed to hire
Susan Burnside ("Burnside"), a local political consultant, to assist in organizing and coordinating the
community's opposition to the Miramar project, with Raman also serving as The Huntley's liaison to
Burnside, even though Raman had no prior political or campaign experience. Burnside planned to
achieve this objective by organizing and advising a coalition of residents that shared The Huntley's
concerns about the Miramar's expansion, which was called Santa Monicans Against Miramar Expansion
(the "Coalition"). The Coalition met approximately monthly, generally at The Huntley's facilities.
In August of 2012, Burnside and two local residents, Ivan Perkins and Susan Scarafia, opened a
political committee named Santa Monicans for Responsible Growth (the "Committee"). The purpose of
the Committee was to provide the Coalition with a vehicle to support candidates in Santa Monica who
3
STIPULATION, DECISION AND ORDER
FPPC Case No. 15/246
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
favored a slow-growth position with respect to development in downtown Santa Monica and who might
be expected to oppose the Miramar's significant expansion proposal. Raman as The Huntley's liaison to
Burnside, was aware of the Committee's activities, but played no active role in its management.
Santa Monica holds its regular municipal elections in November of even-numbered years.
According to Raman, sometime in the late Summer or Fall of 2012, The Huntley's attorneys suggested to
Raman that the hotel should try to raise approximately $10,000 to support two City Council candidates,
Richard McKinnon and Ted Winterer, who were running on a slow-growth platform. The attorneys also
suggested raising a lesser amount, $5,000, for each of the two incumbent councilmembers who were
running for re-election, Terry O'Day and Gleam Davis. The attorneys explained that The Huntley should
collect checks for the campaign contributions from different individuals and present them together to the
candidates. According to Raman, she had not previously made or raised campaign contributions and was
not personally familiar with all of the applicable campaign finance rules and restrictions. Raman
solicited contributions from various individuals, including Sassounian's relatives, friends and associates,
but when she realized that she was falling short of the assigned goals, she asked several hotel employees
and their spouses if they could write checks to the candidates and offered to reimburse them for their
contributions. All the contributions made by The Huntley through these intermediaries were either the
maximum contribution limit in Santa Monica of $325, or the maximum of $250 that a person could
contribute to a candidate serving on a planning commission when the person has business before the
planning commission.9 The Huntley, through Raman, reimbursed these intermediaries for making the
contributions. These contributions were reported on campaign statements filed by the candidates.
However, the individual intermediaries were reported as the contributors, and The Huntley was not
identified as the true source of the contributions. In total, The Huntley reimbursed forty contributions
totaling $11,650 to the above-named candidates. Each of those contributions is detailed in the chart
below.
Around this same time period in September of 2012, The Huntley's attorneys and Burnside
informed Raman that they needed to quickly raise about $75,000 to $100,000 for the Committee, which
9 § 84308.
4
STIPULATION, DECISION AND ORDER
FPPC Case No. 15/246
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the Committee planned to use for independent expenditures in the November election. According to
Raman, Bumside and the attorneys suggested that it would be best if the funding could come from a
broader segment of the community, not just from The Huntley, so that it reflected the broader
community's opposition to Miramar's development proposal. Raman contends she did not know whom
she could turn to outside of The Huntley in order to raise that amount of money, and she was not
comfortable asking others for large sums of money. Instead, Raman's immediate reaction was to think of
who, among those who opposed the Miramar's expansion project, might be willing to put their name on a
check and be reimbursed for their contribution by The Huntley. Raman approached Louretta Walker
("Walker"), a friend and the owner of Body Z Alive, which is located adjacent to The Huntley. Raman
asked Walker to make a $15,000 campaign contribution in the name of Body Z Alive to the Committee
with the understanding that The Huntley would give her the money to make the contribution. In order to
secure payment from The Huntley, Raman helped to prepare three invoices in the name of Body Z Alive
for $5,000 each. The invoices to The Huntley were dated for September 16, 2012, September 17, 2012,
and September 18, 2012 and were described as for meditation services, even though no services were
actually provided. On October 16, 2012, The Huntley issued three checks of $5,000 apiece to Walker,
and on that same date, Walker wrote a check for $15,000 to the Committee. Walker's contribution was
reported on campaign statements filed by the Committee with Body Z Alive reported as the contributor.
The Huntley was not identified as the true source of the $15,000 contribution.
In October of 2012, Raman approached Nimish Patel ("Patel"), a friend and long-time business
counsel for The Huntley, to ask if Patel's firm, Richardson Patel, could make a $10,000 campaign
contribution to the Committee in the name of Richardson Patel with the understanding that The Huntley
would give it the money to make the contribution. On October 15, 2012, Richardson Patel invoiced The
Huntley $20,000, of which $10,000 was for the firm's monthly retainer and the additional $10,000 was to
constitute payment for the contribution. On October 16, 2012, The Huntley issued a check for $10,000 to
Richardson Patel for the contribution to the Committee. On October 18, 2012, Doug Gold, Chief
Financial Officer of the law firm, wrote a check for $10,000 to the Committee. Gold wrote the check
from a checking account belonging to Pure Pilates, a business owned by Gold's wife, Amanda Gold. On
October 19, 2012, Richardson Patel wire transferred $10,000 to Pure Pilates with the description reading,
5
STIPULATION, DECISION AND ORDER
FPPC Case No. 15/246
•
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
"expense reimbursement." The $10,000 contribution was reported on campaign statements filed by the
Committee with Pure Pilates reported as the contributor. The Huntley was not identified as the true
source of the $10,000 contribution, nor was Richardson Patel identified as an intermediary. Neither
Raman nor anyone else at The Huntley was aware at the time how Richardson Patel intended to make the
contribution to the Committee.
Around the same time Raman secured the contributions from Body Z Alive and Richardson Patel,
Raman also asked Chris Sennings ("Sennings"), a friend and the owner of Playground Consulting, The
Huntley's long-time Information Technology consultant, to make a campaign contribution of $50,000 to
the Committee with the understanding that The Huntley would give Sennings the money to make the
contribution. Sennings sent four invoices to The Huntley for a total of $50,025 worth of work he did not
perform. On October 12, 2012, The Huntley issued a check to Playground Consulting for $50,025. On
that same date, Sennings signed a check for $25,000 on behalf of Playground Consulting to the
Committee. On October 24, 2012, Sennings signed a second $25,000 check on behalf of Playground
Consulting to the Committee. The Committee reported receiving the contributions from Sennings with
Playground Consulting as the contributor for both contributions. The Huntley was not identified as the
true source of the two contributions totaling $50,000.
The Huntley's contributions to the Committee were used to make expenditures in support of
Richard McKinnon's and Ted Winterer's bids for the Santa Monica City Council. Burnside as the
political consultant for the Committee designed four mailers to support these candidates. On the semi-
annual campaign statement covering the reporting period of October 21, 2012— December 31, 2012, the
Committee reported making approximately $71,875 in expenditures in support of Winterer and
McKinnon. In 2013, The Huntley also contributed $23,927.36 to Committee in its own name, effectively
paying off the Committee's debt from the 2012 election.
In total in 2012, The Huntley made 44 contributions that totaled $86,650 in the names of others
rather than its own name.
The Huntley was also involved in making campaign contributions in the name of another during
the 2014 election cycle. The largest such contribution again went through Body Z Alive. Raman asked
Walker if she would make a $5,000 contribution to the Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City
6
STIPULATION, DECISION AND ORDER
FPPC Case No. 15/246
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IS
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
("SMCLC"), explaining that The Huntley would give her the money to make the contribution. On
September 19, 2014, Walker invoiced The Huntley for $5,000 for services that she did not perform. On
October 16, 2014, The Huntley wrote a check to Body Z Alive for $5,000, and on October 21, 2014,
Walker wrote a check from Body Z Alive's checking account to SMCLC for $5,000. SMCLC reported
Body Z Alive as the contributor. The Huntley was not identified as the true source of the $5,000
contribution.
In 2015, Raman was asked if she and the Huntley could raise $10,000 to help pay down the
campaign debt of Richard McKinnon, who had run unsuccessfully for election to the Santa Monica City
Council in 2014. According to Raman, as before, she raised what she could from others, but when she
fell short of her goal, she once again offered to reimburse various hotel employees and friends for their
contributions. Those 16 contributions, totaling $5,200, are detailed in the chart below. McKinnon's
committee reported the intermediaries as the contributors. The Huntley was not identified as the true
source of these contributions.
VIOLATIONS
Counts 1-62
Counts 1 — 62: Making a Contribution in the Name of Another
The Huntley made the following contributions in the names
Government Code section 84301:
of other persons in violation of
COUNT NAME
DATE CHECK
RECEIVED BY
RECIPIENT
AMOUNT RECIPIENT
1
Rochelli
Fernandez (Silver)
9/16/2012 $325.00 Re-Elect City
Councilmember Terry
O'Day 2012
2 Michelle Scnnings 9/18/2012 $325.00 Gleam Davis for City
Council 2012
3 Diane Nomura 9/18/2012 $325.00 Gleam Davis for City
Council 2012
4 Rochelli
Fernandez (Silver)
9/18/2012 $325.00 Gleam Davis for City
Council 2012
5 Manju Raman 9/18/2012 $325.00 Gleam Davis for City
Council 2012
6 Elisa A. Dadian 9/18/2012 $325.00 Gleam Davis for City
Council 2012
7 Mandana Amini 9/18/2012 $325.00 Gleam Davis for City
Council 2012
8 Hclal El-Sherif 9/18/2012 $325.00 Gleam Davis for City
7
STIPULATION, DECISION AND ORDER
FPPC Case No. 15/246
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
•
Council 2012
9
Diane Nomura 9/23/2012 $325.00 Re-Elect City
Councilmember Terry
O'Day 2012
10 Douglas F. Ewer 9/23/2012 $325.00 Gleam Davis for City
Council 2015
11
Douglas F. Ewer 9/23/2012 $325.00 Re-Elect City
Councilmember Terry
O'Day 2012
12
Manju Raman 9/23/2012 $325.00 Re-Elect City
Councilmember Terry
O'Day 2012
13
Elisa A. Dadian 9/23/2012 $325.00 Re-Elect City
Councilmember Terry
O'Day 2012
14
Jessica E. Perahia,9/23/2012 $325.00 Re-Elect City
Councilmember Terry
O'Day 2012
15
Mandana Amini 9/23/2012 $325.00 Re-Elect City
Councilmember Terry
O'Day 2012
16
Helal El-Sherif 9/23/2012 $325.00 Re-Elect City
Councilmember Terry
O'Day 2012
17
Michelle Sennings 9/23/2012 $325.00 Re-Elect City
Councilmember Terry
O'Day 2012
18 Jessica E. Perahia,9/24/2012 $325.00 Gleam Davis for City
Council 2012
19 David Cohen 10/12/2012 $250.00 McKinnon for City
Council 2012
20
Body Z Alive,
Attn Louretta
Walker
10/18/2012 $15,000.00 Santa Monicans for
Responsible Growth
21 Adriana Moreno 10/19/2012 $250.00 McKinnon for City
Council 2012
22 Michelle Sennings 10/19/2012 $325.00 McKinnon for City
Council 2012
23 RocheIli
Fernandez (Silver)
10/19/2012 $250.00 McKinnon for City
Council 2012
24 Elisa A. Dadian 10/19/2012 $250.00 McKinnon for City
Council 2012
25 Rodney Prechel 10/19/2012 $250.00 McKinnon for City
Council 2012
26 Playground
Consulting, Inc.
10/19/2012 $25,000.00 Santa Monicans for
Responsible Growth
27 Manju Raman 10/19/2012 $250.00 McKinnon for City
Council 2012
28 Dillon M Silver
DBA Silver Ent
10/19/2012 $325.00 McKinnon for City
Council 2012
29 Helal M. El-Sherif 10/19/2012 $250.00 McKinnon for City
Council 2012
30 Adrian Perez 10/19/2012 $250.00 McKinnon for City
Council 2012
8
STIPULATION, DECISION AND ORDER
FPPC Case No. 15/246
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
31 Elizabeth Sanchez 10/23/2012 $250.00 McKinnon for City
Council 2012
32 Richardson &
Patel
10/24/2012 $10,000.00 Santa Monicans for
Responsible Growth
33 Michelle Sennings 10/25/2012 $325.00 Ted Winterer for City
Council 2012
34 David Cohen 10/25/2012 $250.00 Ted Winterer for City
Council 2012
35 Rochelli
Fernandez (Silver)
10/25/2012 $250.00 Ted Winterer for City
Council 2012
36 Elisa A. Dadian 10/25/2012 $250.00 Ted Winterer for City
Council 2012
37 Rodney Prechel 10/25/2012 $250.00 Ted Winterer for City
Council 2012
38 Manju Raman 10/25/2012 $250.00 Ted Winterer for City
Council 2012
39 Dillon M Silver
DBA Silver Ent
10/25/2012 $325.00 Ted Winterer for City
Council 2012
40 Helal M. El-Sherif 10/25/2012 $250.00 Ted Winterer for City
Council 2012
41 Adrian Perez 10/27/2012 $250.00 Ted Winterer for City
Council 2012
42 Elizabeth Sanchez 10/29/2012 $250.00 Ted Winterer for City
Council 2012
43 Adriana Moreno 10/30/2012 $250.00 Ted Winterer for City
Council 2012
44 Playground
Consulting, Inc.
11/5/2012 $25,000.00 Santa Monicans for
Responsible Growth
45 Manju Raman 6/29/2013 $500.00 Santa Monicans for
Renters' Rights
46
Body Z Alive,
Attn Louretta
Walker
10/21/2014 $5,000.00 SMCLC — PAC
47 Marschinda Felix 11/18/2015 $325.00 McKinnon for City
Council 2014
48 Linda Jane Miller 11/23/2015 $325.00 McKinnon for City
Council 2014
49 Elisa A. Dadian 11/23/2015 $325.00 McKinnon for City
Council 2014
50 Elizabeth Sanchez 11/23/2015 $325.00 McKinnon for City
Council 2014
51 Manju Raman 11/23/2015 $325.00 McKinnon for City
Council 2014
52 Francisco
Carbaial
11/23/2015 $325.00 McKinnon for City
Council 2014
53 Guillermo R De
La Torre
11/23/2015 $325.00 McKinnon for City
Council 2014
54 Donald W.
Ehehalt
11/23/2015 $325.00 McKinnon for City
Council 2014
55 Akemi S.
Nakamoto
11/23/2015 $325.00 McKinnon for City
Council 2014
56 Jason Zucker 11/23/2015 $325.00 McKinnon for City
Council 2014
57 Diane Nomura 11/23/2015 $325.00 McKinnon for City
Council 2014
9
STIPULATION, DECISION AND ORDER
FPPC Case No. 15/246
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
58 Shemaa Masry 11/23/2015 $325.00 McKinnon for City
Council 2014
59 Asa Nomura,
Allan C. Nomura
11/23/2015 $325.00 McKinnon for City
Council 2014
60 Staci Nakamoto 11/24/2015 $325.00 McKinnon for City
Council 2014
61 RocheIli Silver,
Dillon Silver
11/25/2015 $325.00 McKinnon for City
Council 2014
62 David Cohen 12/23/2015 $325.00 McKinnon for City
Council 2014
TOTAL:$97,350
PROPOSED PENALTY
This matter consists of 62 counts. The maximum penalty that may be imposed is $5,000 per
count. Thus, the maximum penalty that may be imposed is $310,000.10
In determining the appropriate penalty for a particular violation of the Act, the Commission
considers the facts of the case, the public harm involved, and the purposes of the Act. Also, the
considers factors such as: (a) the seriousness of the violation; (b) the presence or absence ofCommission
any intention to conceal, deceive or mislead; (c) whether the violation was deliberate, negligent or
inadvertent; (d) whether the violation was isolated or part of a pattern; (e) whether corrective
amendments voluntarily were filed to provide full disclosure; and (f) whether the violator has a prior
record of violations.11 Additionally, the Commission considers penalties in prior cases with comparable
violations.
Making a campaign contribution in the name of another is one of the most serious violations of
the Act. It deceives the public as to the true source of contributions, and as occurred with certain of the
contributions in this case, it allows for the circumvention of local contribution limits. Recent stipulations
show that the Commission views these types of cases as warranting the maximum penalty of $5,000 per
count. For example:
0 In the Matter of AB&I Foundry, A Division of McWane, Inc., FPPC Case No. 15/74 (approved
on July 21, 2016), the Commission imposed a penalty of $100,000 against AB&1 Foundry for laundering
37 contributions through employees and their spouses, totaling $23,900 from 2012 - 2014. For purposes
l° See Section 83116, subdivision(c).
ll Regulation 18361.5, subdivision (d).
10
STIPULATION, DECISION AND ORDER
FPPC Case No. 15/246
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
of settlement and in consideration of mitigating factors, only 20 counts were charged. One of the
mitigating circumstances in this case was that AB&I Foundry cooperated with the Enforcement Division.
This included an immediate admission that the violations occurred — and the disclosure of other
violations that were not yet discovered. Additionally, the respondents did not have a history of violating
the Act.
In the Matter of Moo Han Bae, FPPC Case No. 13/203 (approved on Aug. 20, 2015), the
Commission imposed a penalty of $45,000 against Moo Han Bae for laundering nine contributions that
totaled $10,550. The respondent in this case initially refused to cooperate with the investigation and there
was evidence that the respondent was intimidating witnesses and pressured them to lie about the facts.
In the current case, The Huntley cooperated with the Enforcement Division after retaining
counsel, has conducted its own internal review of the events, and has admitted that the violations
occurred, while disclosing other violations that were not yet discovered. Respondent also has no history
of any prior violations of the Act. Moreover, Raman — who was responsible for making the
reimbursements at issue — contends she had no prior involvement with political campaigns or
fundraising and insists that she did not appreciate the illegality of the reimbursements. While she is now
aware of the law and accepts full responsibility for her prior actions, Raman contends that neither the
attorneys nor the political consultant she worked with had suggested that she was doing anything illegal
at the time, and that her own attorneys participated in one of the reimbursements without objection,
leading her to believe that her actions in reimbursing others' contributions were not unlawful or
inappropriate.
In other respects, however, there are fewer mitigating circumstances in the current case. The
violations in this case were part of a pattern that took place over two election cycles from 2012 through
2015. The contributions reimbursed by The Huntley concealed the full extent of The Huntley's financial
support for the Committee and created an impression that the Committee enjoyed broader financial
support. In addition, the number of reimbursements and the amount of money involved is greater here
than in each of these prior cases.
Based on the totality of the circumstances in this matter, the mitigating factors in AB&I Foundry
that justified the consolidation of some counts are overcome by the other circumstances present in this
11
STIPULATION, DECISION AND ORDER
FPPC Case No. 15/246
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
case so that a maximum fine for each count is justified to deter this type of conduct in the future. For the
foregoing reasons, a penalty in the amount of $5,000 per count is recommended for Counts 1 through 62
— for a total administrative penalty in the amount of $310,000.
CONCLUSION
Complainant, the Enforcement Division of the Fair Political Practices Commission, and
Respondent The Huntley hereby agree as follows:
1. Respondent violated the Act as described in the foregoing pages, which are a true and
accurate summary of the facts in this matter.
2. This stipulation will be submitted for consideration by the Fair Political Practices
Commission at its next regularly scheduled meeting—or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard.
3. This stipulation resolves all factual and legal issues raised in this matter—for the purpose
of reaching a final disposition without' the necessity of holding an administrative hearing to determine the
liability of Respondent pursuant to Section 83116.
4. Respondent understands, and hereby knowingly and voluntarily waives, any and all
procedural rights set forth in Sections 83115.5, 11503, 11523, and Regulations 18361.1 through 18361.9.
This includes, but is not limited to the right to appear personally at any administrative hearing held in this
matter, to be represented by an attorney at Respondent's own expense, to confront and cross-examine all
witnesses testifying at the hearing, to subpoena witnesses to testify at the hearing, to have an impartial
administrative law judge preside over the hearing as a hearing officer, and to have the matter judicially
reviewed.
5. Respondent agrees to the issuance of the decision and order set forth below. Also,
Respondent agrees to the Commission imposing against it an administrative penalty in the amount of
$310,000. One or more cashier's checks or money orders totaling said amount—to be paid to the
General Fund of the State of California—is/are submitted with this stipulation as full payment of the
administrative penalty described above, and same shall be held by the State of California until the
Commission issues its decision and order regarding this matter.
6. If the Commission refuses to approve this stipulation—then this stipulation shall become
null and void, and within fifteen business days after the Commission meeting at which the stipulation is
12
STIPULATION, DECISION AND ORDER
FPPC Case No. 15/246
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
rejected, all payments tendered by Respondent in connection with this stipulation shall be reimbursed to
Respondent. If this stipulation is not approved by the Commission, and if a full evidentiary hearing
before the Commission becomes necessary, neither any member of the Commission, nor the Executive
Director, shall be disqualified because of prior consideration of this Stipulation.
7. The parties to this agreement may execute their respective signature pages separately. A
copy of any party's executed signature page including a hardcopy of a signature page transmitted via fax
or as a PDF email attachment is as effective and binding as the original.
Dated:
Dated: 00 /o. /201/
Galena West, Chief of Enforcement
Fair Political Practices Commission
Manju Raman, Assistant General Manager, on behalf of
Respondent The Huntley Hotel.
13
STIPULATION, DECISION AND ORDER
FPPC Case No. 15/246
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The foregoing stipulation of the parties "In the Matter of The Huntley Hotel," FPPC Case No.
15/246 is hereby accepted as the final decision and order of the Fair Political Practices Commission,
effective upon execution below by the Chair.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: g7/7/7
Fair Political Practices Commission
14
STIPULATION, DECISION AND ORDER
FPPC Case No. 15/246
0000610 11-24
Office AU a 1210(8)
Remitter: SOHRAB SASSOUNIAN
Operator ID.. eu018384
CASHIER'S CHECK
PAY To THE ORDER OF ***GENERAL FUND FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA***
***Three hundred ten thousand.dollars and no cents***
Payee Address:
Memo:
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.
1300 4TH ST
SANTA MONICA. CA 90401
FOR INQUIRIES CALL (480)3943122
Z St NfIr LI
• ;IXI,00 8201.12.;
'flfl0d U?
fiRAM:711,4
•
June 06, 2017
'1/41310,00
VOID IF OVER US $ 3l&000.0
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE
15/24(a
-11/uu kitA144-ei
hitt\
Se
c
u
r
i
t
y
Fe
a
t
u
r
e
s
I
_1
To: Santa Monica City Council
From: Santa Monica Forward
UNITE HERE Local 11
Date: October 31, 2017
Re: Possible Violations of Santa Monica Elections Code
Dear Councilmembers:
After lengthy negotiations, the California Fair Political Practices Commission
reached a settlement with the Huntley Hotel regarding the Huntley’s violations of
California state law prohibiting laundering of campaign contributions in the 2012
and 2014 Santa Monica elections. The settlement documents the Huntley’s
violations of state law and required the Huntley to pay $310,000 in fines for
violations of the California Political Reform Act, the second largest fine the FPPC
has ever imposed. The Huntley’s 62 separate violations of state law, as
acknowledged by the Huntley in a signed stipulation with the FPPC, also appear to
constitute violations of the Santa Monica Elections Code. The City should conduct a
full and fair investigation of the Huntley’s apparent violations of the Santa Monica
Elections Code, and, if violations are found, take appropriate enforcement action as
provided for in the Santa Monica Elections Code.
Specifically, the stipulation between the FPPC and the Huntley identifies, and the
Huntley has admitted to, facts that could constitute a violation of SMMC Section
11.04.050, which limits campaign contributions. (The current limit is $340; the limit
applicable to the 2012 and 2014 elections was $325). While state law prohibits
making contributions in another person’s name, the Santa Monica Elections Code
sets a limit on the amount that any entity or individual can contribute to a
candidate. State law does not provide such limits for local candidates.
The Huntley’s actions appear to have been violations of both state prohibitions on
laundering campaign contributions as well as violations of Santa Monica’s limit on
campaign contributions. As detailed in its FPPC stipulation, the Huntley engaged
Item 13-D 11/27/17
1 of 21 Item 13-D 11/27/171 of 21
Santa Monica City Council
Page 2 of 3
in a pattern of reimbursing individuals and organizations who made contributions
to candidate-controlled committees. Because these contributions were in fact
madeby the Huntley, each contribution in excess of the first $325 would constitute a
separate violation of the Santa Monica Elections Code.
A second question that bears investigation is whether the stipulation includes all
instances of Huntley campaign contributions that exceeded Santa Monica’s $325
limit. Public campaign filings by City Council candidates in the 2012 and 2014
elections cycles suggest the need to investigate whether there are additional
contributions not mentioned in the stipulation for which the nominal contributor
received reimbursement from the Huntley.
The Santa Monica Elections Code will only be taken seriously by those who
participate in Santa Monica elections if the City is willing to investigate potential
violations and take appropriate enforcement action. If the Huntley can admit to
actions which constitute violations of the Santa Monica Elections Code in a signed
stipulation with a state agency without the City taking any action to investigate or
appropriately enforce its laws, then the Santa Monica Elections Code is
undermined. The FPPC investigated and took enforcement action with respect to
the state violations, but only the City can ensure that our local Elections
Code is enforced.
The City should conduct an investigation, including a thorough review of
unredacted FPPC evidence, to determine (1) whether local enforcement of the Santa
Monica Elections Code is warranted, with respect to the Huntley’s actions detailed
in the stipulation, and (2) whether additional violations of local law occurred that
were not listed in the stipulation. (It should be noted that individuals associated
with the Huntley have continued to make contributions that should be examined to
determine whether the Huntley has stopped its practice of reimbursing people for
their contributions.) Because the Huntley’s apparent violations of the Santa Monica
Elections Code involve contributions to the campaigns of the members of the City
Council, the investigation should be conducted by outside counsel acting
independently of the City Attorney’s office.
The City of Santa Monica has consistently stood for free and fair elections that are
in full compliance with state and local law. The Huntley’s actions violate the public
policy principles embodied in the Santa Monica Elections Code, which the City
Council adopted specifically to curb the influence of financially powerful entities
such as the Huntley in our local elections. If the Huntley can violate the Santa
Monica Elections Code with impunity and face no enforcement, the message the
City sends to ordinary voters is that their participation in our local democracy
doesn’t matter compared to the spending of wealthy special interests.
Item 13-D 11/27/17
2 of 21 Item 13-D 11/27/172 of 21
Item 13-D 11/27/17
3 of 21 Item 13-D 11/27/173 of 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
GALENA WEST
Chief of Enforcement
MICHAEL W. HAMILTON
Commission Counsel
Fair Political Practices Commission
428 J Street, Suite 620
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 322-5772
Facsimile: (916) 322-1932
Attorneys for Complainant
BEFORE THE FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION
In the Matter of:
THE HUNTLEY HOTEL,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Respondent.
FPPC Case No. 15/246
STIPULATION, DECISION AND ORDER
INTRODUCTION
Respondent the Huntley Hotel ("The Huntley") is a luxury hotel located in Santa Monica,
California.
The Political Reform Act (the "Act")I prohibits contributions made in the name of another. The
Huntley made 62 campaign contributions totaling $97,350 in the names of other people to various
candidate controlled committees and general purpose committees over the course of two local election
cycles.
'The Act is contained in Government Code sections 81000 through 91014. All statutory references are to the
Government Code, unless otherwise indicated. The regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission are contained in
Sections 18110 through 18997 of Title 2 of the California Code of Regulations. All regulatory references are to Title 2,
Division 6 of the California Code of Regulations, unless otherwise indicated.
STIPULATION, DECISION AND ORDER
FPPC Case No. 15/246
Item 13-D 11/27/17
4 of 21 Item 13-D 11/27/174 of 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SUMMARY OF THE LAW
Need for Liberal Construction and Vigorous Enforcement of the Political Reform Act
When enacting the Political Reform Act, the people of California found and declared that
previous laws regulating political practices suffered from inadequate enforcement by state and local
authorities.2 For this reason, the Act is to be construed liberally to accomplish its purposes.3
One purpose of the Act is to promote transparency by ensuring that receipts and expenditures in
election campaigns are fully and truthfully disclosed so that voters are fully informed and improper
practices are inhibited.' Along these lines, the Act includes a comprehensive campaign reporting
system—and the true sources of campaign contributions may not be concealed.5 Another purpose of the
Act is to provide adequate enforcement mechanisms so that the Act will be "vigorously enforced."'
Prohibition Against Making Contributions in the Name of Another
No campaign contribution may be made in the name of another person.' This prohibition helps
keep the public informed as to the actual sources of campaign contributions—and helps to prevent
circumvention of campaign contribution limits. When a person makes a contribution on behalf of
another, that person's intermediary relationship with the actual contributor must be disclosed to the
recipient of the contribution—and the recipient's campaign filings must disclose both by the intermediary
and the actual contributor.8
SUMMARY OF THE FACTS
The Huntley is located on 2nd Street in Santa Monica, California, directly behind the Fairmont
Miramar Hotel (the "Miramar"). The Huntley is owned and operated by the 2nd Street Corporation.
Sohrab Sassounian ("Sassounian") is the co-owner of 2nd Street Corporation and is the President/General
Manager of The Huntley Hotel. Manju Raman ("Raman") has served as The Huntley's Assistant
General Manager since 1998. In 2012, the Miramar was actively pursuing plans before the Planning
2 Section 81001, subdivision (h).
3 Section 81003.
4 Section 81002, subdivision (a).
Sections 84200, et seq. and 84301.
'Section 81002, subdivision (0.
Section 84301.
8 Section 84302.
2
STIPULATION, DECISION AND ORDER
FPPC Case No. 15/246
Item 13-D 11/27/17
5 of 21 Item 13-D 11/27/175 of 21
••
S :01 WV S I NnrLI
,)iGSw MOD 9730ii0v):i,;.1
• Tvoanod blivd
Item 13-D 11/27/17
6 of 21 Item 13-D 11/27/176 of 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Commission of Santa Monica that involved a significant expansion and redevelopment of its property,
constructing three new buildings (inchteing a 21 On? 111811 r;cr towf...)9 adding private condominiums,
affordable housing, and commercial development to the existing hotel facilities, and more than doubling
the Miramar's above grade floor area. As did many other businesses and residents in the immediate
neighborhood and throughout the city, The Huntley took issue with the Miramar's proposed expansion,
primarily due to its adverse impacts on local traffic, its blocking of the sunlight and views of adjacent and
nearby buildings, and the disruption to the quality of life that would be caused by its lengthy construction
timetable.
The Huntley had not previously been involved in local land use controversies or governmental
advocacy, so shortly after the Miramar's expansion plans were announced, The Huntley retained a
prominent Los Angeles law firm with extensive land use and government relations experience, Latham &
Watkins, to advise it with respect to opposing the Miramar's proposal before the Santa Monica Planning
Commission and City Council. One of the law firm's. initial recommendations was for The Huntley to
select an individual who would serve as a liaison with other interested community members and who
could represent the hotel in helping to organize the community's opposition to the Miramar project and
in communicating with the relevant governmental personnel. The Huntley selected .Raman to be its
liaison with the law firm, the city's agencies, and the community, even though she had no previous
experience in performing these functions.
Upon the recommendation of the Latham & Watkins attorneys, the Huntley also agreed to hire
Susan Burnside ("Burnside"), a local political consultant, to assist in organizing and coordinating the
community's opposition to the Miramar project, with Raman also serving as The Huntley's liaison to
Burnside, even though Raman had no prior political or campaign experience. Burnside planned to
achieve this objective by organizing and advising a coalition of residents that shared The Huntley's
concerns about the Miramar's expansion, which was called Santa Monicans Against Miramar Expansion
(the "Coalition"). The Coalition met approximately monthly, generally at The Huntley's facilities.
In August of 2012, Burnside and two local residents, Ivan Perkins and Susan Scarafia, opened a
political committee named Santa Monicans for Responsible Growth (the "Committee"). The purpose of
the Committee was to provide the Coalition with a vehicle to support candidates in Santa Monica who
3
STIPULATION, DECISION AND ORDER
FPPC Case No. 15/246
Item 13-D 11/27/17
7 of 21 Item 13-D 11/27/177 of 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
favored a slow-growth position with respect to development in downtown Santa Monica and who might
be expected to oppose the Miramar's significant expansion proposal. Raman as The Huntley's liaison to
Burnside, was aware of the Committee's activities, but played no active role in its management.
Santa Monica holds its regular municipal elections in November of even-numbered years.
According to Raman, sometime in the late Summer or Fall of 2012, The Huntley's attorneys suggested to
Raman that the hotel should try to raise approximately $10,000 to support two City Council candidates,
Richard McKinnon and Ted Winterer, who were running on a slow-growth platform. The attorneys also
suggested raising a lesser amount, $5,000, for each of the two incumbent councilmembers who were
running for re-election, Terry O'Day and Gleam Davis. The attorneys explained that The Huntley should
collect checks for the campaign contributions from different individuals and present them together to the
candidates. According to Raman, she had not previously made or raised campaign contributions and was
not personally familiar with all of the applicable campaign finance rules and restrictions. Raman
solicited contributions from various individuals, including Sassounian's relatives, friends and associates,
but when she realized that she was falling short of the assigned goals, she asked several hotel employees
and their spouses if they could write checks to the candidates and offered to reimburse them for their
contributions. All the contributions made by The Huntley through these intermediaries were either the
maximum contribution limit in Santa Monica of $325, or the maximum of $250 that a person could
contribute to a candidate serving on a planning commission when the person has business before the
planning commission.9 The Huntley, through Raman, reimbursed these intermediaries for making the
contributions. These contributions were reported on campaign statements filed by the candidates.
However, the individual intermediaries were reported as the contributors, and The Huntley was not
identified as the true source of the contributions. In total, The Huntley reimbursed forty contributions
totaling $11,650 to the above-named candidates. Each of those contributions is detailed in the chart
below.
Around this same time period in September of 2012, The Huntley's attorneys and Burnside
informed Raman that they needed to quickly raise about $75,000 to $100,000 for the Committee, which
9 § 84308.
4
STIPULATION, DECISION AND ORDER
FPPC Case No. 15/246
Item 13-D 11/27/17
8 of 21 Item 13-D 11/27/178 of 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the Committee planned to use for independent expenditures in the November election. According to
Raman, Bumside and the attorneys suggested that it would be best if the funding could come from a
broader segment of the community, not just from The Huntley, so that it reflected the broader
community's opposition to Miramar's development proposal. Raman contends she did not know whom
she could turn to outside of The Huntley in order to raise that amount of money, and she was not
comfortable asking others for large sums of money. Instead, Raman's immediate reaction was to think of
who, among those who opposed the Miramar's expansion project, might be willing to put their name on a
check and be reimbursed for their contribution by The Huntley. Raman approached Louretta Walker
("Walker"), a friend and the owner of Body Z Alive, which is located adjacent to The Huntley. Raman
asked Walker to make a $15,000 campaign contribution in the name of Body Z Alive to the Committee
with the understanding that The Huntley would give her the money to make the contribution. In order to
secure payment from The Huntley, Raman helped to prepare three invoices in the name of Body Z Alive
for $5,000 each. The invoices to The Huntley were dated for September 16, 2012, September 17, 2012,
and September 18, 2012 and were described as for meditation services, even though no services were
actually provided. On October 16, 2012, The Huntley issued three checks of $5,000 apiece to Walker,
and on that same date, Walker wrote a check for $15,000 to the Committee. Walker's contribution was
reported on campaign statements filed by the Committee with Body Z Alive reported as the contributor.
The Huntley was not identified as the true source of the $15,000 contribution.
In October of 2012, Raman approached Nimish Patel ("Patel"), a friend and long-time business
counsel for The Huntley, to ask if Patel's firm, Richardson Patel, could make a $10,000 campaign
contribution to the Committee in the name of Richardson Patel with the understanding that The Huntley
would give it the money to make the contribution. On October 15, 2012, Richardson Patel invoiced The
Huntley $20,000, of which $10,000 was for the firm's monthly retainer and the additional $10,000 was to
constitute payment for the contribution. On October 16, 2012, The Huntley issued a check for $10,000 to
Richardson Patel for the contribution to the Committee. On October 18, 2012, Doug Gold, Chief
Financial Officer of the law firm, wrote a check for $10,000 to the Committee. Gold wrote the check
from a checking account belonging to Pure Pilates, a business owned by Gold's wife, Amanda Gold. On
October 19, 2012, Richardson Patel wire transferred $10,000 to Pure Pilates with the description reading,
5
STIPULATION, DECISION AND ORDER
FPPC Case No. 15/246
Item 13-D 11/27/17
9 of 21 Item 13-D 11/27/179 of 21
•
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
"expense reimbursement." The $10,000 contribution was reported on campaign statements filed by the
Committee with Pure Pilates reported as the contributor. The Huntley was not identified as the true
source of the $10,000 contribution, nor was Richardson Patel identified as an intermediary. Neither
Raman nor anyone else at The Huntley was aware at the time how Richardson Patel intended to make the
contribution to the Committee.
Around the same time Raman secured the contributions from Body Z Alive and Richardson Patel,
Raman also asked Chris Sennings ("Sennings"), a friend and the owner of Playground Consulting, The
Huntley's long-time Information Technology consultant, to make a campaign contribution of $50,000 to
the Committee with the understanding that The Huntley would give Sennings the money to make the
contribution. Sennings sent four invoices to The Huntley for a total of $50,025 worth of work he did not
perform. On October 12, 2012, The Huntley issued a check to Playground Consulting for $50,025. On
that same date, Sennings signed a check for $25,000 on behalf of Playground Consulting to the
Committee. On October 24, 2012, Sennings signed a second $25,000 check on behalf of Playground
Consulting to the Committee. The Committee reported receiving the contributions from Sennings with
Playground Consulting as the contributor for both contributions. The Huntley was not identified as the
true source of the two contributions totaling $50,000.
The Huntley's contributions to the Committee were used to make expenditures in support of
Richard McKinnon's and Ted Winterer's bids for the Santa Monica City Council. Burnside as the
political consultant for the Committee designed four mailers to support these candidates. On the semi-
annual campaign statement covering the reporting period of October 21, 2012— December 31, 2012, the
Committee reported making approximately $71,875 in expenditures in support of Winterer and
McKinnon. In 2013, The Huntley also contributed $23,927.36 to Committee in its own name, effectively
paying off the Committee's debt from the 2012 election.
In total in 2012, The Huntley made 44 contributions that totaled $86,650 in the names of others
rather than its own name.
The Huntley was also involved in making campaign contributions in the name of another during
the 2014 election cycle. The largest such contribution again went through Body Z Alive. Raman asked
Walker if she would make a $5,000 contribution to the Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City
6
STIPULATION, DECISION AND ORDER
FPPC Case No. 15/246
Item 13-D 11/27/17
10 of 21 Item 13-D 11/27/1710 of 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IS
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
("SMCLC"), explaining that The Huntley would give her the money to make the contribution. On
September 19, 2014, Walker invoiced The Huntley for $5,000 for services that she did not perform. On
October 16, 2014, The Huntley wrote a check to Body Z Alive for $5,000, and on October 21, 2014,
Walker wrote a check from Body Z Alive's checking account to SMCLC for $5,000. SMCLC reported
Body Z Alive as the contributor. The Huntley was not identified as the true source of the $5,000
contribution.
In 2015, Raman was asked if she and the Huntley could raise $10,000 to help pay down the
campaign debt of Richard McKinnon, who had run unsuccessfully for election to the Santa Monica City
Council in 2014. According to Raman, as before, she raised what she could from others, but when she
fell short of her goal, she once again offered to reimburse various hotel employees and friends for their
contributions. Those 16 contributions, totaling $5,200, are detailed in the chart below. McKinnon's
committee reported the intermediaries as the contributors. The Huntley was not identified as the true
source of these contributions.
VIOLATIONS
Counts 1-62
Counts 1 — 62: Making a Contribution in the Name of Another
The Huntley made the following contributions in the names
Government Code section 84301:
of other persons in violation of
COUNT NAME
DATE CHECK
RECEIVED BY
RECIPIENT
AMOUNT RECIPIENT
1
Rochelli
Fernandez (Silver)
9/16/2012 $325.00 Re-Elect City
Councilmember Terry
O'Day 2012
2 Michelle Scnnings 9/18/2012 $325.00 Gleam Davis for City
Council 2012
3 Diane Nomura 9/18/2012 $325.00 Gleam Davis for City
Council 2012
4 Rochelli
Fernandez (Silver)
9/18/2012 $325.00 Gleam Davis for City
Council 2012
5 Manju Raman 9/18/2012 $325.00 Gleam Davis for City
Council 2012
6 Elisa A. Dadian 9/18/2012 $325.00 Gleam Davis for City
Council 2012
7 Mandana Amini 9/18/2012 $325.00 Gleam Davis for City
Council 2012
8 Hclal El-Sherif 9/18/2012 $325.00 Gleam Davis for City
7
STIPULATION, DECISION AND ORDER
FPPC Case No. 15/246
Item 13-D 11/27/17
11 of 21 Item 13-D 11/27/1711 of 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
•
Council 2012
9
Diane Nomura 9/23/2012 $325.00 Re-Elect City
Councilmember Terry
O'Day 2012
10 Douglas F. Ewer 9/23/2012 $325.00 Gleam Davis for City
Council 2015
11
Douglas F. Ewer 9/23/2012 $325.00 Re-Elect City
Councilmember Terry
O'Day 2012
12
Manju Raman 9/23/2012 $325.00 Re-Elect City
Councilmember Terry
O'Day 2012
13
Elisa A. Dadian 9/23/2012 $325.00 Re-Elect City
Councilmember Terry
O'Day 2012
14
Jessica E. Perahia,9/23/2012 $325.00 Re-Elect City
Councilmember Terry
O'Day 2012
15
Mandana Amini 9/23/2012 $325.00 Re-Elect City
Councilmember Terry
O'Day 2012
16
Helal El-Sherif 9/23/2012 $325.00 Re-Elect City
Councilmember Terry
O'Day 2012
17
Michelle Sennings 9/23/2012 $325.00 Re-Elect City
Councilmember Terry
O'Day 2012
18 Jessica E. Perahia,9/24/2012 $325.00 Gleam Davis for City
Council 2012
19 David Cohen 10/12/2012 $250.00 McKinnon for City
Council 2012
20
Body Z Alive,
Attn Louretta
Walker
10/18/2012 $15,000.00 Santa Monicans for
Responsible Growth
21 Adriana Moreno 10/19/2012 $250.00 McKinnon for City
Council 2012
22 Michelle Sennings 10/19/2012 $325.00 McKinnon for City
Council 2012
23 RocheIli
Fernandez (Silver)
10/19/2012 $250.00 McKinnon for City
Council 2012
24 Elisa A. Dadian 10/19/2012 $250.00 McKinnon for City
Council 2012
25 Rodney Prechel 10/19/2012 $250.00 McKinnon for City
Council 2012
26 Playground
Consulting, Inc.
10/19/2012 $25,000.00 Santa Monicans for
Responsible Growth
27 Manju Raman 10/19/2012 $250.00 McKinnon for City
Council 2012
28 Dillon M Silver
DBA Silver Ent
10/19/2012 $325.00 McKinnon for City
Council 2012
29 Helal M. El-Sherif 10/19/2012 $250.00 McKinnon for City
Council 2012
30 Adrian Perez 10/19/2012 $250.00 McKinnon for City
Council 2012
8
STIPULATION, DECISION AND ORDER
FPPC Case No. 15/246
Item 13-D 11/27/17
12 of 21 Item 13-D 11/27/1712 of 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
31 Elizabeth Sanchez 10/23/2012 $250.00 McKinnon for City
Council 2012
32 Richardson &
Patel
10/24/2012 $10,000.00 Santa Monicans for
Responsible Growth
33 Michelle Sennings 10/25/2012 $325.00 Ted Winterer for City
Council 2012
34 David Cohen 10/25/2012 $250.00 Ted Winterer for City
Council 2012
35 Rochelli
Fernandez (Silver)
10/25/2012 $250.00 Ted Winterer for City
Council 2012
36 Elisa A. Dadian 10/25/2012 $250.00 Ted Winterer for City
Council 2012
37 Rodney Prechel 10/25/2012 $250.00 Ted Winterer for City
Council 2012
38 Manju Raman 10/25/2012 $250.00 Ted Winterer for City
Council 2012
39 Dillon M Silver
DBA Silver Ent
10/25/2012 $325.00 Ted Winterer for City
Council 2012
40 Helal M. El-Sherif 10/25/2012 $250.00 Ted Winterer for City
Council 2012
41 Adrian Perez 10/27/2012 $250.00 Ted Winterer for City
Council 2012
42 Elizabeth Sanchez 10/29/2012 $250.00 Ted Winterer for City
Council 2012
43 Adriana Moreno 10/30/2012 $250.00 Ted Winterer for City
Council 2012
44 Playground
Consulting, Inc.
11/5/2012 $25,000.00 Santa Monicans for
Responsible Growth
45 Manju Raman 6/29/2013 $500.00 Santa Monicans for
Renters' Rights
46
Body Z Alive,
Attn Louretta
Walker
10/21/2014 $5,000.00 SMCLC — PAC
47 Marschinda Felix 11/18/2015 $325.00 McKinnon for City
Council 2014
48 Linda Jane Miller 11/23/2015 $325.00 McKinnon for City
Council 2014
49 Elisa A. Dadian 11/23/2015 $325.00 McKinnon for City
Council 2014
50 Elizabeth Sanchez 11/23/2015 $325.00 McKinnon for City
Council 2014
51 Manju Raman 11/23/2015 $325.00 McKinnon for City
Council 2014
52 Francisco
Carbaial
11/23/2015 $325.00 McKinnon for City
Council 2014
53 Guillermo R De
La Torre
11/23/2015 $325.00 McKinnon for City
Council 2014
54 Donald W.
Ehehalt
11/23/2015 $325.00 McKinnon for City
Council 2014
55 Akemi S.
Nakamoto
11/23/2015 $325.00 McKinnon for City
Council 2014
56 Jason Zucker 11/23/2015 $325.00 McKinnon for City
Council 2014
57 Diane Nomura 11/23/2015 $325.00 McKinnon for City
Council 2014
9
STIPULATION, DECISION AND ORDER
FPPC Case No. 15/246
Item 13-D 11/27/17
13 of 21 Item 13-D 11/27/1713 of 21
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
58 Shemaa Masry 11/23/2015 $325.00 McKinnon for City
Council 2014
59 Asa Nomura,
Allan C. Nomura
11/23/2015 $325.00 McKinnon for City
Council 2014
60 Staci Nakamoto 11/24/2015 $325.00 McKinnon for City
Council 2014
61 RocheIli Silver,
Dillon Silver
11/25/2015 $325.00 McKinnon for City
Council 2014
62 David Cohen 12/23/2015 $325.00 McKinnon for City
Council 2014
TOTAL:$97,350
PROPOSED PENALTY
This matter consists of 62 counts. The maximum penalty that may be imposed is $5,000 per
count. Thus, the maximum penalty that may be imposed is $310,000.10
In determining the appropriate penalty for a particular violation of the Act, the Commission
considers the facts of the case, the public harm involved, and the purposes of the Act. Also, the
considers factors such as: (a) the seriousness of the violation; (b) the presence or absence ofCommission
any intention to conceal, deceive or mislead; (c) whether the violation was deliberate, negligent or
inadvertent; (d) whether the violation was isolated or part of a pattern; (e) whether corrective
amendments voluntarily were filed to provide full disclosure; and (f) whether the violator has a prior
record of violations.11 Additionally, the Commission considers penalties in prior cases with comparable
violations.
Making a campaign contribution in the name of another is one of the most serious violations of
the Act. It deceives the public as to the true source of contributions, and as occurred with certain of the
contributions in this case, it allows for the circumvention of local contribution limits. Recent stipulations
show that the Commission views these types of cases as warranting the maximum penalty of $5,000 per
count. For example:
0 In the Matter of AB&I Foundry, A Division of McWane, Inc., FPPC Case No. 15/74 (approved
on July 21, 2016), the Commission imposed a penalty of $100,000 against AB&1 Foundry for laundering
37 contributions through employees and their spouses, totaling $23,900 from 2012 - 2014. For purposes
l° See Section 83116, subdivision(c).
ll Regulation 18361.5, subdivision (d).
10
STIPULATION, DECISION AND ORDER
FPPC Case No. 15/246
Item 13-D 11/27/17
14 of 21 Item 13-D 11/27/1714 of 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
of settlement and in consideration of mitigating factors, only 20 counts were charged. One of the
mitigating circumstances in this case was that AB&I Foundry cooperated with the Enforcement Division.
This included an immediate admission that the violations occurred — and the disclosure of other
violations that were not yet discovered. Additionally, the respondents did not have a history of violating
the Act.
In the Matter of Moo Han Bae, FPPC Case No. 13/203 (approved on Aug. 20, 2015), the
Commission imposed a penalty of $45,000 against Moo Han Bae for laundering nine contributions that
totaled $10,550. The respondent in this case initially refused to cooperate with the investigation and there
was evidence that the respondent was intimidating witnesses and pressured them to lie about the facts.
In the current case, The Huntley cooperated with the Enforcement Division after retaining
counsel, has conducted its own internal review of the events, and has admitted that the violations
occurred, while disclosing other violations that were not yet discovered. Respondent also has no history
of any prior violations of the Act. Moreover, Raman — who was responsible for making the
reimbursements at issue — contends she had no prior involvement with political campaigns or
fundraising and insists that she did not appreciate the illegality of the reimbursements. While she is now
aware of the law and accepts full responsibility for her prior actions, Raman contends that neither the
attorneys nor the political consultant she worked with had suggested that she was doing anything illegal
at the time, and that her own attorneys participated in one of the reimbursements without objection,
leading her to believe that her actions in reimbursing others' contributions were not unlawful or
inappropriate.
In other respects, however, there are fewer mitigating circumstances in the current case. The
violations in this case were part of a pattern that took place over two election cycles from 2012 through
2015. The contributions reimbursed by The Huntley concealed the full extent of The Huntley's financial
support for the Committee and created an impression that the Committee enjoyed broader financial
support. In addition, the number of reimbursements and the amount of money involved is greater here
than in each of these prior cases.
Based on the totality of the circumstances in this matter, the mitigating factors in AB&I Foundry
that justified the consolidation of some counts are overcome by the other circumstances present in this
11
STIPULATION, DECISION AND ORDER
FPPC Case No. 15/246
Item 13-D 11/27/17
15 of 21 Item 13-D 11/27/1715 of 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
case so that a maximum fine for each count is justified to deter this type of conduct in the future. For the
foregoing reasons, a penalty in the amount of $5,000 per count is recommended for Counts 1 through 62
— for a total administrative penalty in the amount of $310,000.
CONCLUSION
Complainant, the Enforcement Division of the Fair Political Practices Commission, and
Respondent The Huntley hereby agree as follows:
1. Respondent violated the Act as described in the foregoing pages, which are a true and
accurate summary of the facts in this matter.
2. This stipulation will be submitted for consideration by the Fair Political Practices
Commission at its next regularly scheduled meeting—or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard.
3. This stipulation resolves all factual and legal issues raised in this matter—for the purpose
of reaching a final disposition without' the necessity of holding an administrative hearing to determine the
liability of Respondent pursuant to Section 83116.
4. Respondent understands, and hereby knowingly and voluntarily waives, any and all
procedural rights set forth in Sections 83115.5, 11503, 11523, and Regulations 18361.1 through 18361.9.
This includes, but is not limited to the right to appear personally at any administrative hearing held in this
matter, to be represented by an attorney at Respondent's own expense, to confront and cross-examine all
witnesses testifying at the hearing, to subpoena witnesses to testify at the hearing, to have an impartial
administrative law judge preside over the hearing as a hearing officer, and to have the matter judicially
reviewed.
5. Respondent agrees to the issuance of the decision and order set forth below. Also,
Respondent agrees to the Commission imposing against it an administrative penalty in the amount of
$310,000. One or more cashier's checks or money orders totaling said amount—to be paid to the
General Fund of the State of California—is/are submitted with this stipulation as full payment of the
administrative penalty described above, and same shall be held by the State of California until the
Commission issues its decision and order regarding this matter.
6. If the Commission refuses to approve this stipulation—then this stipulation shall become
null and void, and within fifteen business days after the Commission meeting at which the stipulation is
12
STIPULATION, DECISION AND ORDER
FPPC Case No. 15/246
Item 13-D 11/27/17
16 of 21 Item 13-D 11/27/1716 of 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
rejected, all payments tendered by Respondent in connection with this stipulation shall be reimbursed to
Respondent. If this stipulation is not approved by the Commission, and if a full evidentiary hearing
before the Commission becomes necessary, neither any member of the Commission, nor the Executive
Director, shall be disqualified because of prior consideration of this Stipulation.
7. The parties to this agreement may execute their respective signature pages separately. A
copy of any party's executed signature page including a hardcopy of a signature page transmitted via fax
or as a PDF email attachment is as effective and binding as the original.
Dated:
Dated: 00 /o. /201/
Galena West, Chief of Enforcement
Fair Political Practices Commission
Manju Raman, Assistant General Manager, on behalf of
Respondent The Huntley Hotel.
13
STIPULATION, DECISION AND ORDER
FPPC Case No. 15/246
Item 13-D 11/27/17
17 of 21 Item 13-D 11/27/1717 of 21
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The foregoing stipulation of the parties "In the Matter of The Huntley Hotel," FPPC Case No.
15/246 is hereby accepted as the final decision and order of the Fair Political Practices Commission,
effective upon execution below by the Chair.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: g7/7/7
Fair Political Practices Commission
14
STIPULATION, DECISION AND ORDER
FPPC Case No. 15/246
Item 13-D 11/27/17
18 of 21 Item 13-D 11/27/1718 of 21
0000610 11-24
Office AU a 1210(8)
Remitter: SOHRAB SASSOUNIAN
Operator ID.. eu018384
CASHIER'S CHECK
PAY To THE ORDER OF ***GENERAL FUND FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA***
***Three hundred ten thousand.dollars and no cents***
Payee Address:
Memo:
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.
1300 4TH ST
SANTA MONICA. CA 90401
FOR INQUIRIES CALL (480)3943122
Z St NfIr LI
• ;IXI,00 8201.12.;
'flfl0d U?
fiRAM:711,4
•
June 06, 2017
'1/41310,00
VOID IF OVER US $ 3l&000.0
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE
15/24(a
-11/uu kitA144-ei
hitt\
Se
c
u
r
i
t
y
Fe
a
t
u
r
e
s
I
_1
Item 13-D 11/27/17
19 of 21 Item 13-D 11/27/1719 of 21
November 27, 2017
Via E-Mail Santa Monica City Council 1985 Main Street Santa Monica, CA 90401 Re: November 28, 2017 Agenda Item 13D Dear Mayor Winterer and Council Members, The Santa Monica Transparency Project writes in response to Item 13D on the November 28, 2017 City Council Agenda. The Transparency Project understands the item is for a broad request that the City Attorney review the City’s own enforcement of its campaign contribution laws and recommend avenues for further action. This is particularly important where no other review has occurred, such as by the FPPC or the LA D.A. This was not the case with the Huntley, where the FPPC has already carried out a detailed review and enforcement. The Transparency Project has long been in the forefront of requesting greater enforcement, locally or by the State or County, and has suggestions for how the City can have greater and timelier enforcement and transparent practices including as to the following: In 2010, the City took no action against a developer-funded group, Santa Monicans for Quality Government, which allegedly flouted our City campaign disclosure requirements to hide the identity of the donors, including major developers with projects pending before the City, by not timely filing any statements with our City until virtually the day of the election. Thereafter, the City took no action against SMQG for its alleged refusal to file accurate, timely campaign information. As you will remember, at the initial request of the Transparency Project (and others), the City recently hired an independent council, John Hueston, to in part review this in relation to Oaks and its non-enforcement. With Oaks, neither Santa Monica, nor the LAD.A. nor the State Attorney General (both of whom deferred to Santa Monica), would for years seek remedies for numerous blatant campaign donation related violations. Several important suggestions by Mr. Hueston in his Report to the Council have not been implemented. For example, as to penalties and enforcement under Oaks Mr. Hueston proposed remedies that subject the initial violator (for example a developer or contractor) to enforcement— this was not implemented. Moreover, in a related matter, it is time for a review of implementation of the lobbying ordinance, including whether lobbyists are timely and fully updating.
Item 13-D 11/27/17
20 of 21 Item 13-D 11/27/1720 of 21
Ensuring that these and other election law violations don’t happen again should be included in any review. We hope LWVSM will join us in the tracking and enforcement of violations by major donors, bundling of donations, and disguised donors hiding behind LLCs and other violations of the public right to know who is behind candidates and ballot committees in the 2018 election. Respectfully, Mary Marlow Chair For the Santa Monica Transparency Project
Item 13-D 11/27/17
21 of 21 Item 13-D 11/27/1721 of 21