Klein's reasoning defies logic

Read Aaron Klein's response to the Grand Jury Report to get a better understanding of why the Sierra College community and bipartisan voters are so up in arms against him. Pay particular attention to his reference to an FPPC ruling that he claims he based his money laundering charges on. It stretches the limits of human reasoning to see the connection between his charges and this ruling, although it bears consideration when examining his good friend Jerry Simmons' campaign for Placer County Supervisor, having received more than $100,000 from numerous friends and business associates of developer Angelo Tsakopoulos, some as far away as Chicago and New York City.

According to Klein, it is imperative to avoid "even the appearance of impropriety," (except when you're running for political office and you are on the "right side")

========================

PLACER COUNTY GRAND JURY FINDINGS

Based on the facts of its investigation, the Placer County Grand Jury makes the following findings in this case.

1. The Sierra College Foundation could legally operate as an intermediary organization funding the bond measures as defined in the FPPC Information Manual D, as advised by Gilbert & Associates, Government Financial Strategies Inc., Dr. Larry Toy (President/CEO Foundation for California Community Colleges) and without objection from the College District’s legal counsel, Marion Cantor.
   
   KLEIN RESPONSE: Respectfully, I disagree with this finding in its entirety. While the Foundation is certainly permitted to donate up to 20% of its funds to a political campaign, and most certainly can be a fully disclosed legal intermediary of funds, it seems clear to me that state and federal law prohibit political donations from qualifying for a tax deduction. Therefore, it is highly questionable that it would be legal for politically-earmarked funds to be solicited (as Measure E, G and H funds were) and then for those funds to be transferred in their earmarked amounts to the political campaigns they were earmarked for.
   
   
2. The Foundation had no intent to suppress donor names as evidenced by its willingness to supply accounting records, the display of donor names on its websites, donor list notifications to the bond measure Committees, and supported by the testimony of all donors surveyed.
   
   KLEIN RESPONSE: I disagree with this finding. The Foundation's Executive Director, Sonbol Aliabadi, and the Foundation’s Board President, Bill Halldin, certainly had no intent to suppress donor names. Whether other individuals involved in oversight of the Foundation had that intent or not is for an enforcement agency such as the Fair Political Practices Commission to investigate and determine, which was the purpose of my complaint.
   
   
3. Filing errors for Measures E, G, and H were made due to inexperience, inattention to detail and confusing underlying documentation. The donors’ names should have been itemized in an FPPC filing by the Foundation as an Intermediary.
   
   The Committee Treasurers failed to notify the Foundation of its FPPC filing requirements due to their inexperience and lack of formal training in FPPC filing requirements.
   The omission of FPPC filing of itemized donor names was inadvertent and unintentional.
   
   KLEIN RESPONSE: I partially disagree with this finding. While the Grand Jury is certainly correct in its finding that "public disclosure laws were not obeyed", its finding that the errors were due to inexperience, inattention to detail and confusing documentation is simply not supported by the facts. The law has a purpose: to shine the light of public disclosure on political campaign donations prior to the election, not after. Filling out disclosure forms in a manner completely contrary to disclosure is not "inattention to detail": it's a violation of the law.
   
   
4. The FPPC filing errors were relatively minor and easily correctable. The Committees promptly made amended filings to correctly disclose donor names when the errors were found.
   
   KLEIN RESPONSE: I strongly disagree with this finding. The filing errors were neither minor, nor were they even possible to correct. I refer you to the FPPC web site at the following address:
   
   http://www.fppc.ca.gov/index.html?id=48&show=detail&prid=617
   
   The first enforcement action listed is a "Campaign Money Laundering Violation" where an attorney and partner in a Southern California law firm was the true source of donations that were made in the names of various friends and associates. His motive for laundering the funds through these other parties was not made clear; it simply is not relevant to whether or not public disclosure laws were obeyed. The amount of his donation was $25,500.The fine from the FPPC for this violation was $72,000. There are also numerous other enforcement actions reported by the FPPC for donation amounts far less than $25,500. How can the Grand Jury, or any reasonable person, possibly conclude that $104,000 of similar violations is in any way minor, when the FPPC clearly disagrees?
   
   
5. The former President was far removed from the detailed process of making filings and there is no evidence that he had knowledge of them.
   
   KLEIN RESPONSE: I strongly disagree with this finding. Despite my philosophical and policy differences with the former President of Sierra College, he was known as an organized leader who was deeply involved in the details of his most important initiatives. The passage of the Measure E ballot initiative was the primary objective that the Board of Trustees had given the former President at the time, according to what I've been told. The former President was deeply and directly involved in the fundraising process, making numbers of fundraising telephone calls and visits to potential donors. Donors were instructed to "use the Foundation as the mechanism for submitting these funds" (these are the words of one donor in particular, whose letter stating such was provided, but ignored by the Grand Jury in its report). I simply do not believe that the former President was so distant or removed that he did not understand or comprehend the basic disclosure obligations required by the law.
   
   
6. Complainant failed to exercise due diligence before taking the serious step of making charges, and as a result, the complaint was inconsistent with the facts. The charges are unfounded, misleading and full of unsubstantiated allegation.The charges are utterly without merit.
   
   KLEIN RESPONSE: I strongly disagree with this finding. First, I want to clear up a rather significant error in your report. During my testimony in regards to FPPC "Manual D", it was my understanding that you were asking if I had specifically consulted the guide when evaluating the facts of this case. I answered truthfully that I had not, but your report implies that I had never before read the FPPC Manual D.
   
   In fact, I have read it and consulted it many times before. The only reason that I did not consult it in evaluating the facts of this particular case is that the facts of this particular case are so simple, clear and convincing. There is no question that legal violations did occur, as your own report does eventually agree in small print.
   
   I exercised very solid due diligence investigating the issues. I could have hastily filed the complaint in October, prior to the election, when I discovered them. That would probably have sealed what was at the time an uncertain victory for the seat. I chose to be cautious and investigate further.
   
   I carefully compared the facts of the case with the law, consulting with the individuals I described in my testimony and relying on my deep knowledge of California political disclosure laws, which, as the Grand Jury reluctantly admits, was correct And I very carefully made a judgment on their importance by examining past actions of the FPPC to determine whether these were major or minor violations. As best as I can tell, the Grand Jury uses the following line of reasoning to support their finding: "because we feel that the admitted violations were minor, and because Complainant does not agree with our opinion, it is clear that he did not exercise due diligence.”
   
   The facts of this case and the past actions by the FPPC prove to any reasonable person that these violations ate most assuredly not minor. The Grand Jury's entire report appears to rise and fall on that single thread.
   
   
7. The facts support the conclusion that the charges were a contributing and unjustified factor in the former President’s decision to seek an early retirement.
   
   KLEIN RESPONSE: I have to disagree with this finding, because I cannot characterize what the thought process of the former President might have been. As stated in my testimony, the facts at issue in this complaint were only the final straw, and counted perhaps 20% of the major philosophical and policy differences that I had with the former President.
   
   
8. Complainant’s insistence that the Foundation be barred from supporting Sierra College bond measures by donor solicitation as an intermediary is an unfounded opinion. The Foundation should not be prohibited from legal fund raising and bond measure contribution activities as the result of the erroneous view of a single Trustee.
   
   KLEIN RESPONSE: I disagree. It is long past time that we ensure that there is not even the appearance of impropriety in Sierra College financial dealings. If it means that we cannot offer tax deductions of a dubious legal status to our donors, then so be it.
   
   So far, that has yet to affect the fundraising efforts for this year's bond campaign, where donors have written checks directly to the political campaign, and those donations have been disclosed in accordance with the law. There has yet to be a donor who has said they would not donate unless given a tax deduction.

PLACER GRAND JURY RECOMMENDATIONS

The scope of the Grand Jury’s investigation was to examine the complaint filed against the former President by Complainant. In spite of the fact that the former President had long departed the College, we believe this to be a constructive investigation. First, there
had been no public resolution of the complaint since the other agencies that received it did not act. Also, our interviews with the College and Foundation staff showed that they were under the mistaken impression that the FPPC or some other agency might yet act, and they were waiting for that to occur. Also, the staff remains under a cloud, being led to believe that they had participated in doing something unwise, unethical or illegal, when in fact they had not. Although the staff has moved forward, it is with a sense that a wrong has been done, both by themselves through unwitting errors and by Complainant as their critic.

With the Grand Jury’s investigation and findings complete, there are constructive actions that can be implemented to put the matter behind the College and to enable needed healing. The following set of recommendations is offered with that intent.

The Placer County Grand Jury recommends that:

1. The Sierra College Board should extend the Grand Jury’s thanks and appreciation to the College and Foundation staff for persevering in the best interest of the College and the community through a difficult and trying time.
   
   KLEIN RESPONSE: This recommendation will not be implemented as worded, because it is not warranted. It has been a difficult and trying time for Sierra College staff, and I would like to express my regret, not for filing the complaint, but for the difficulty it has caused the hard-working faculty and staff at Sierra College. Though I disagree with some of them from time to time, I admire them greatly as the engine of student learning at a remarkable community institution.
   
   
2. The Board should publicly acknowledge that the complaint filed by one of its members was without merit and should offer an expression of regret to the College community, the former President, and the public.
   
   KLEIN RESPONSE: This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted and is not reasonable. The Grand Jury failed to prove that the admitted violations were minor, and therefore, their assertion that the complaint was without merit is false.
   
   
3. As a significant healing step for the college community, the Board should acknowledge in some tangible way the contributions of the former President’s tenure.
   
   KLEIN RESPONSE: This recommendation is implemented with the following statement. I'm certain that the former President did quite a number of good things for the community, and for the college. I wish him well, and look towards a bright future with our new President.
   
   
4. Complainant should apologize to the College community and the public at large for filing charges, which the Grand Jury has proved to have no merit.
   
   KLEIN RESPONSE: This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted, is not reasonable and is inconsistent with my oath of office. When I was elected, I swore to uphold the constitution and laws of the State of California. For doing my sworn duty and upholding the law, I cannot apologize.
   
   
5. It should be recognized, with support of legal counsel, that there may be substantial advantages to allowing the Foundation to raise funds for College bond issues as an intermediary as enabled by the IRS and FPPC rules.
   
   KLEIN RESPONSE: This recommendation will be implemented, as the board has determined that it will ask the foundation to seek legal counsel on this issue in the future. I remain opposed to this practice, because of the importance of avoiding even the appearance of impropriety.