| WASHINGTON -- The Federal Election Commission is making public an
additional case resolved in the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) program. This brings
to 42 the total number of cases released thus far. The
program’s goal is to expedite resolution of some enforcement matters, reduce the cost
of processing complaints, and enhance overall FEC enforcement. Closed ADR negotiated
settlement summaries are available in the FEC’s Press and Public Records offices. For
a case to be considered for ADR treatment, a respondent must express willingness to engage
in the ADR process, agree to set aside the statute of limitations while the case is
pending in the ADR Office, and agree to participate in bilateral negotiations and, if
necessary, mediation.
Bilateral negotiations through ADR are oriented toward reaching an expeditious
resolution with a mutually agreeable settlement that is both satisfying to the
respondent(s) and in compliance with the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). Resolutions
reached through direct and, when necessary, mediated negotiations are submitted to the
Commissioners for final approval. If a resolution is not reached in bilateral negotiation,
the case proceeds to mediation. It should be noted that cases resolved through ADR are not
precedential.
| 1. |
ADR 027 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| RESPONDENTS: |
(a) Friends and Farmers for Rich Rodriguez for Congress Committee, Craig
Boone, treasurer (CA) (b) Rich Rodriguez (CA)
(c) Gilkey Enterprises (CA)
(d) Manzanillo Ranch (CA)
(e) Tiemersma Dairy (CA)
(f) Panoche Ginning Company (CA)
(g) Sierra Vista Pharmacy (CA)
(h) Tres Panoche Land Company (CA)
(i) Grapery (CA)
(j) Willemina Dairy (CA)
(k) Peggy Stefanopoulos (CA)
(l) GFW Power Systems Company, Inc. (CA)
(m) Danell Brothers, Inc. (CA) |
|
| SOURCE: |
MUR 5062 - Complainant: David Plouffe, Executive Director, Democratic
Congressional Campaign Committee |
|
| SUBJECT: |
Corporate contributions; excessive contributions; failure to accurately
report contributions |
|
| NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT: |
(a-k) The Commission determined that any alleged violation of the FECA
was unsubstantiated, and agreed to dismiss the matter. (l) Respondent acknowledged that
an employee made a contribution based on the belief that the contribution was legal.
Respondent received a full refund of the contribution. In an effort to resolve this
matter, respondent agreed to issue a corporation directive by July 1, 2001 to senior
management concerning the FECA prohibition on corporations making contributions or
expenditures in connection with any election for federal office.
(m) Respondent acknowledged that a contribution was made based on the belief that the
contribution was legal. Respondent received a full refund of the contribution. In an
effort to resolve this matter, respondent agreed to issue a corporation directive by July
1, 2001 to senior management concerning the FECA prohibition on corporations making
contributions or expenditures in connection with any election for federal office. |
# # # |
