Ravi Menta CCuatnmas Fair POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION September 9, 1996 The Honorable Paul J. Pfingst District attorney County of San Diego P.O. Box X-1011, Suite 1440 San Diego, CA 92101 RE: FPPC Administrative Action Dear Mr. Pfingst: The Fair Political Practices Commission recently concluded an administrative action against the following respondent(s) for violation of the Political Reform Act: 94/189 Gatlin Development Co.; Frank Gatlin Enclosed for your information is a copy of the Decision and Order. Although you may already be aware of this matter, we are routinely forwarding this information to you because the case arose in your jurisdiction and because you appear to be the proper authority to determine whether further action is warranted. If you need additional information, please contact Darryl East, Chief of our Enforcement Division, at (916) 322-5660. ve truly a jexy truly yours Gee EU Robert Tribe Acting Executive Director Enclosures RT:sf cc:Attorney General 428 J] Srrcer, Sure 800, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814 (916) 322-5660Ravi Menta ‘Cuatmaan Fair Potiticat Practices COMMISSION November 20, 1995 Greg Thompson, Chief Deputy Office of District Attorney County of San Diego P.O. Box X-1011, 101 West Broadway, Suite 700 San Diego, CA 92112 RE: FPPC No. 95/455, Gresham, Varner, et al. Dear Greg: I am writing to confirm our understanding regarding your office’s position in the above referenced matter. As you are aware, our agency is conducting an investigation into possible violations of the California Political Reform Act within the County and the City of San Diego. I have previously met with you to discuss this case, and we have had follow up telephone conversations. Specifically, we are looking into a matter involving the San Bernardino based law firm of Gresham, Varner, Savage, Nolan & Tilden, ("respondents"). We believe the law firm reimbursed several of its employees, partners, and others for political contributions those persons made to five members of the San Diego City Council during 1993 and 1994. We believe the alleged violations took place either within the County of San Bernardino or the City of San Diego. Violations of the Political Reform Act can be prosecuted criminally (Government Code § 91000). The District aAttorney’s office has jurisdiction for violations committed within its county (Government Code § 91001). I understand that the San Diego District Attorney has a policy of deferring misdemeanor offenses, including Political Reform Act prosecutions, to the City Attorney’s office where the violations occurred within the jurisdiction of the city. As such, you advised me that this matter should directed to the City Attorney’s office.Greg Thompson November 20, 1995 Page Two For your information, our agency has presented the facts of this case to the San Diego City Attorney’s office. They have indicated they will not investigate or prosecute this case, but instead, will rely upon our agency to bring appropriate administrative and civil penalties for any violations which have occurred. our agency has conveyed the position of your office and that of the City Attorney to counsel representing the respondents in this matter. Based upon the above, the respondents have agreed to fully cooperate with our investigation and enter into a stipulation whereby a penalty will be assessed against them. I will keep your office informed of the final disposition of this matter. I appreciate your assistance in making resolution of this case possible. Very truly yours, ig i CEE Darryl E. East Chief of EnforcementRavi Menta Caiman Farr Potiticat Practices COMMISSION December 7, 1995 Greg Thompson, Chief Deputy office of District Attorney County of San Diego P.O. Box X-1011, 101 West Broadway, Suite 700 San Diego, CA 92112 RE: FPPC No. 94/189, Gatlin Development Company Dear Greg: I am writing to confirm our understanding regarding your office’s position in the above referenced matter. As you are aware, our agency is conducting an investigation into possible violations of the California Political Reform Act within the County and the City of San Diego. I have previously met with you to discuss this case, and we have had follow up telephone conversations. Specifically, we are looking into a matter involving the San Diego based firm of Gatlin Development Company, ("respondent") . We believe the respondent reimbursed several of its employees and others for political contributions those persons made to members of the San Diego City Council and a Board of Supervisor’s candidate during 1993 and 1994. We believe the alleged violations took place within the City and County of San Diego. Violations of the Political Reform Act can be prosecuted criminally (Government Code § 91000). The District Attorney’s office has jurisdiction for violations committed within its county (Government Code § 91001). I understand that the San Diego District Attorney has a policy of deferring misdemeanor offenses, including Political Reform Act prosecutions, to the City Attorney’s office where the violations occurred within the jurisdiction of the city. As such, you have advised me that this matter should be directed to the City attorney’s office.Greg Thompson December 7, 1995 Page Two For your imformation, our agency has presented the facts of this case to Bill Newsome of the San Diego City Attorney’s office. They have indicated that they will not investigate or prosecute this case, but instead, will rely upon our agency to bring appropriate administrative and civil penalties for any violations which have occurred. our agency has conveyed the position of your office and that of the City Attorney to counsel representing the respondent in this matter. Based upon the above, the respondent has agreed to fully cooperate with our investigation and enter into a stipulation whereby a penalty will be assessed against them. I will keep your office informed of the final disposition of this matter. I appreciate your assistance in making the resolution of this case possible. Very truly yours, (Sy, Ect Darryl E. East Chief of Enforcement cc: William Newsome, Esq.