€STATE OF MINNESOTACAMPAIGN FINANCE AND PUBLIC DISCLOSURE BOARD.........
December 1, 2015
Nokomis Room
Centennial Office Building.........
MINUTESThe meeting was called to order by Chair Beck.
Members present: Beck, Flynn, Leppik, Oliver, Rosen, Sande
Others present: Goldsmith, Sigurdson, Fisher, Pope, staff; Hartshorn, counsel
MINUTES (November 3, 2015)
After discussion, the following motion was made:Member Leppik’s motion:

To approve the November 3, 2015, minutes as drafted.

Vote on motion:

Unanimously passed.

CHAIR’S REPORTBoard meeting schedule
The next Board meeting is scheduled for Friday, January 15, 2016. Member Leppik has a conflict with
the February meeting date. The Executive Director will poll members to determine if the February
meeting date can be adjusted so that all members are able to attend. The Executive Director also said
that given the late date of the January meeting, it was possible that the February meeting would becanceled.
Report of nominating committee for 2016 officers
Member Flynn reported that the nominating committee, which consisted of Member Flynn and Chair
Beck, had met and nominated Member Sande to serve as chair and Member Rosen to serve as vicechair during 2016.
Whereupon the following motion was made:Member Flynn’s motion:

That the report of the nominating committee be adopted
and that Member Sande be elected to serve as chair andMember Rosen be elected to serve as vice chair during
2016.

Page - 2 Minutes
December 1, 2015

Vote on motion:

Unanimously passed.

Board accomplishments in 2016
Chair Beck provided members with a list of the Board’s accomplishments in 2016 that is attached toand made a part of these minutes. Chair Beck went over the accomplishments on the list and thenreviewed the matters where work remained to be done.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TOPICS
Status of office operations
Mr. Goldsmith told members that since the last meeting, staff had reached an agreement with theMinnesota Secretary of State that would allow a backup copy of the Board’s electronic information to be
stored on that office’s server. Mr. Goldsmith said that this agreement fulfilled the off-site data storage
requirement in the Board’s continuation of operations plan.
Mr. Goldsmith also reported that he had testified in front of the Legislative Advisory Commission
regarding the payment of the attorney’s fees in the Seaton v. Wiener litigation. Mr. Goldsmith said that
the Commission had approved the payment, the Governor had signed the order, and the funds would
be paid out by the end of the week.
Mr. Goldsmith finally stated that the new compilation of the campaign finance laws was ready and that
staff otherwise had been busy with the usual office activities.
Website redevelopment update
Mr. Goldsmith told members that the website redevelopment was taking approximately 75% of his time
and that the project was still on track for an April 1st release date. Mr. Goldsmith said that development
would continue in January and February and that March would be devoted to testing.
Center for Public Integrity Report
Mr. Goldsmith told members that Minnesota had received a grade of D- in a recent disclosure reportissued by the Center for Public Integrity. Mr. Goldsmith noted that only three of the thirteen categories
on which states were evaluated were under the Board’s jurisdiction. Mr. Goldsmith also pointed outthat only three states were given grades higher than a D+ in the report. Mr. Goldsmith stated that
although there were things that could be improved in Minnesota, the Board already had made specificand general recommendations for improvements and he was not overly alarmed by the report.
Members then discussed the report’s view of what states ought to be doing and the advantages anddisadvantages of different funding mechanisms for oversight agencies like the Board.

-2-

Page - 3 Minutes
December 1, 2015
Review of political contribution refund (PCR) program
Mr. Sigurdson presented members with a report on this matter that is attached to and made a part ofthese minutes. Mr. Sigurdson reviewed the main points in the report and answered members’questions. Chair Beck then made several comments about the benefits of the program, including that it
increases the proportional importance of small donors to campaigns, eliminates income as a barrier tocitizen participation, and ultimately engages more voters in the political process. Other members alsocommented on the benefits of the political contribution program.
Year-end balance reconciliation for campaign finance filers
Mr. Goldsmith presented members with a memorandum on this matter that is attached to and made apart of these minutes. Mr. Goldsmith told members that beginning with the 2015 year-end reports,
there would be a gentle roll-out of a multi-year program intended to get all committees to regularlyreconcile their report balances to their bank balances. Mr. Goldsmith said that this reconciliation would
be voluntary and that to persuade committees to comply, he was asking the Board to give him theauthority to grant one-time balance adjustments to committees that have cash balance discrepancies of$200 or less. Mr. Goldsmith said that any requests for balance adjustments of over $200 would be
brought to the Board for decision. Members asked that the outreach for the reconciliation initiativeemphasize that balance discrepancies can cause major problems for committees in the long run andthat the purpose of the reconciliation effort is to help committees resolve discrepancies before theygrow into major problems.
After discussion, the following motion was made:Member Sande’s motion:

To adopt the following resolution:

Resolved, that the Executive Director is delegated the authority to approve one-time balanceadjustments of up to $200 to year-end campaign finance reports to make the reported balance
equal the corresponding year-end bank balance after reconciling all transactions.
Vote on motion:

Unanimously passed.

Year-end economic interest reporting issues
Mr. Goldsmith presented members with a memorandum on this topic that is attached to and made apart of these minutes. Mr. Goldsmith told members that while implementing the new legislation
requiring annual filing of statements of economic interest, staff had encountered some issues that could
not be conclusively resolved by statute or rule. Mr. Goldsmith said that the memorandum laid out theseissues and outlined the approach that the executive director recommended using for each reporting
situation.

-3-

Page - 4 Minutes
December 1, 2015
After discussion, the following motion was made:Member Leppik’s motion:

To adopt the following resolution:

Resolved, the Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board adopts and approves the
Executive Director’s proposals for handling specific economic interest reporting situations as
outlined in his memorandum to the Board dated November 24, 2015.
Vote on motion:

Unanimously passed.

ADVISORY OPINION
Mr. Sigurdson presented members with an advisory opinion request that is attached to and made a partof these minutes. Mr. Sigurdson said that the request initially was non-public but that the requester had
signed a release making the matter public. Mr. Sigurdson said the opinion concerned the narrow issueof whether a state agency was a principal and therefore subject to the gift ban. Mr. Sigurdson said that
staff would begin work on a draft advisory opinion to present to the Board at the next meeting.
ENFORCEMENT REPORT
A.

Consent Agenda

1.

Confirmation of administrative termination of lobbyists Jan Mueller and Jim Emery on
behalf of the Alzheimer’s Association, MN-ND Chapter

Mr. Fisher told members that this principal had asked that the lobbyists be administratively terminatedas of October 31, 2015, because the individuals were no longer employed by the association.
After discussion, the following motion was made:Member Rosen’s motion:

To confirm the administrative termination of lobbyists Jan
Mueller and Jim Emery on behalf of the Alzheimer’s
Association, MN-ND Chapter.

Vote on motion:

Unanimously passed.

B.

Discussion Items

1.

Request for a one-time balance adjustment – Mark W Uglem Candidate Volunteer
Committee

Mr. Fisher told members that this committee had a balance discrepancy of $101.98 that it was unable
to account for primarily due to a change in treasurer. The committee asked the Board to authorize it tomake a one-time balance adjustment to change its January 1, 2014, balance from $10,924.57 to$10,822.59. Mr. Fisher said that staff had reviewed the committee’s financial records and determinedthat this adjustment would bring the committee’s reported cash on hand into balance with its bankstatement.

-4-Page - 5 Minutes
December 1, 2015
After discussion, the following motion was made:Member Oliver’s motion:

To approve the Mark W Uglem Candidate Volunteer
Committee’s request for a one-time balance adjustment tochange its January 1, 2014, balance from $10,924.57 to$10,822.59.

Vote on motion:

Unanimously passed.

C.
Name of
Candidate orCommittee

Cindie Reiter

Waiver requests
Late
Fee
Amount

Civil
PenaltyAmount$10$0Reasonfor Fine

Factors for waiver

8/31/2015
Economic
Interest

Written notice was sent to city hall
address provided by the organization.
Verbal notice given at WMO meetings
was not received by this filer due to a
medical condition that caused her tomiss meetings.

Board
Member’s
MotionMemberFlynn

MotionVote on Motion

To waivethe $10late fee.

Passedunanimously.

Informational Items
A.

Payment of late filing fee for 2013 Report of Receipts and Expenditures:
Derrick Lehrke for House, $125 (revenue recapture)

B.

Payment of a civil penalty for a contribution from an unregistered association without
disclosure:
Bridget Sullivan for Judge, $108.59

C.

Payment of a civil penalty for misuse of committee funds:
Tim Manthey, $200 October payment

D.

Payment of a civil penalty for exceeding the special source aggregate contribution limit:
Leon Lillie for House, $250

DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE LEGISLATIVE RECOMMENDATIONSMembers discussed whether the Board should make any formal legislative recommendations for the2016 session. Members then discussed whether the Board should make any recommendations
regarding the funding of the PCR program. Members asked staff to prepare a version of Mr. Sigurdson’sreport on the PCR program that could be signed by the Chair and then distributed to all legislators.

-5-

Page - 6 Minutes
December 1, 2015
After discussion, the following motion was made:Member Flynn’s motion:

To adopt the following resolution:

Resolved, that the Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board supports the political contribution
refund program and recommends that funding for the program be reinstated.
Vote on motion:

Motion passed (4 ayes, 2 nays).

LEGAL COUNSEL’S REPORT
Mr. Hartshorn presented members with a written report that is attached to and made a part of theseminutes. Mr. Hartshorn reported that a motion for summary judgement was being prepared in the
Lehrke matter and that pleadings were being prepared in the other matters listed on the report.
OTHER BUSINESSThere was no other business to report.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
The Chair recessed the regular session of the meeting and called to order the executive session. Uponcompletion of the executive session, there was nothing to report into regular session.
There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned by the Chair.
Respectfully submitted,

Gary Goldsmith
Executive Director
Attachments:
Board accomplishments in 2016
Report on the political contribution refund program
Memorandum regarding year-end balance reconciliation for campaign finance filers
Memorandum on year-end economic interest reporting issues
Request for advisory opinion
Legal counsel report-6-

CFB accomplishments – 2015
Chair George Beck
The Board and the staff have a much to be proud of in the matters accomplished thisyear:
1. The Board’s budget bill was passed by the legislature as was the Board’s
technical bill which made a needed revision to the prima facie step in an
investigation.
2. The reconciliation update project that reconciled filed reports of contributions andspending was completed.
3. Substantial progress has been made on an extensive redesign of the Board’s
website with an April 1st deadline in sight.
4. The Board continued its support for legislation that would require full disclosureof all campaign contributions.
5. A detailed and clear report of the campaign spending during 2014 was preparedand made available to the public.
6. The staff continued to research the approach of other states on disclosure ofcontributions.
7. The staff has begun to research the approach of other states to defining what
constitutes prohibited cooperation between a candidate and an independent
expenditure committee with a view to a possible rulemaking.
8. Creation of a grid of pending cases for Board review each month.
9. Disposition of significant cases of violations of campaign finance law.

Of course, much is still left to be done, such as:
1. Continued support for disclosure leading to passage of legislation.
2. Review of Minnesota’s public official disclosure requirements which are lax
compared to other states with consideration given to more than one set of
requirements depending on the office.
3. Support for funding of Minnesota’s campaign contribution refund program.
4. Addressing the understaffing of the Board in order to support morecomprehensive activity.
5. Greater public exposure for the work and function of the Board.
6. Preparation of reports on matters of interest to the public under the jurisdiction of
the Board.

Minnesota

Campaign Finance andPublic Disclosure Board
Date: November 25, 2015
To:

Board Members

From: Jeff Sigurdson, Assistant Director
Re:

Telephone: 651-539-1189

Information on the use of the political contribution refund program.

At the request of Board Members staff has compiled this review on the use of the politicalcontribution refund (PCR) program by candidates and political parties. This memo a briefbackground on the PCR program and then presents some comparisons on the payment of PCR
refunds to donors of candidates and political parties during the years 2002 through 2014.
Administration of PCR Program
The PCR program is administered by the Department of Revenue as provided in Minnesota
Statutes Section 290.06. The program provides that an eligible Minnesota voter who
contributes to a candidate who has signed the public subsidy agreement, or to a major or minor
political party unit, may apply for a refund from the Department of Revenue. The maximum
amount that will be refunded is $50 per person ($100 per married couple) per year. To apply
for a refund the donor must submit a PCR receipt issued by a candidate or party unit, and a
Department of Revenue application on which the donor must provide a social security number.
The Department of Revenue tracks refund requests by social security number so that noindividual receives more than a $50 refund in a calendar year.
The Board’s role in the issuing of PCR refunds is to provide a computer file that lists all
candidate committees that have a current public subsidy agreement on file and all political party
units registered with the Board. The Department of Revenue uses that information to verify thatthe donor gave to an eligible candidate or party unit. The Board also provides paper PCR
receipts to eligible candidates and party units and has developed the Campaign Finance
Reporter software so that the software can also be used to generate a PCR receipt.
In August of each year the Department of Revenue sends a file to the Board that provides thenumber of PCR refunds, and the total amount of the refunds, issued to donors in the priorcalendar year. The file provides the refund totals by candidate committee and by political party
unit. The Board converts the file contents into reports which are posted on the Board’s website
at www.cfboard.state.mn.us/campfin/pcrprog.html. On the website there are separate reports
for candidates and party units for the years 1996 through 2014.
The Board also compares the PCR refunds issued for candidates and political party units to thecontributions disclosed on the Reports of Receipts and Expenditures filed with the Board. The
comparison is used to verify that the refunds issued for a committee do not exceed thecontributions reported as received by a committee.
-1-

History and Status of the PCR Program
The PCR program was initiated in 1990. The program is funded through the general fund of thestate. It is not funded through the political party check-off on state income tax and property tax
form.
The PCR program was not funded in the State of Minnesota budget for the FY 2016 – 2017
biennium. Any donation received by an eligible candidate or party unit after June 30, 2015, will
not be eligible for a PCR refund. The statutory language in Chapter 290 authorizing the
program remains in place.
This is not the first time the PCR program has been unfunded. In 2009 then Governor
Pawlenty used an unallotment of funds to balance a budget deficit. Among the programs thatlost funding was the PCR program. Contributions received after June 30, 2009, were noteligible for payment. The program remained in statute but unfunded during the following FY2012 – 2013 biennium. The program was funded for the FY 2014 – 2015 biennium.
In total, the PCR program was not funded for contributions received in the last six months of2009, all of calendar years 2010, 2011, and 2012, and the first six months of 2013.
PCR Refunds Issued by Candidates
During the years 2002 through 2014 the Department of Revenue paid $17,824,788 as PCR
refunds to candidate donors. Figure 1 graphs the amount paid to candidates by party by year.
The spikes in refunds paid that occur in 2002 and 2006 correspond to when the office ofgovernor is on the ballot. For reasons that are unclear from this data, a similar spike did notoccur during the 2014 gubernatorial election.
Figure 1-2-

As you would expect the vast majority of refunds were issued for contributions made to
Democrat Farmer Labor (DFL) and Republican Party of Minnesota (RPM) candidates. In all
years but 2003 the total issued for donations to DFL candidates was higher than the amountissued for donations to RPM candidates. Although in 2014 the difference was only about$5,000.
While the total amount issued to donors of DFL candidates was typically higher than theamounts issued to other party candidates, the percentage of contributions refunded forcandidates through the PCR program shows a different result. In Figure 2 the total
contributions from individuals to candidates are grouped by party and compared to the amountrefunded to donors by the PCR program.
The donors to RPM candidates were refunded 36% of the total amount contributed through the
PCR program. This is a slightly higher rate than DFL donors, who were refunded 34% of thetotal contributed to candidates. The Green Party of Minnesota (GPM) candidate donors wererefunded at the highest rate for a single party at 39%, with the Independence Party of Minnesota(IPMN) candidate donors refunded at the lowest percentage of 23% . The category column for“Other” is a combination of the Libertarian and Grass Root Party candidates.
Figure 2-3-

The percentage of donations to candidates that are refunded through the PCR program also
varies by year. In Figure 3 the amount donated by individuals to candidates is compared to thetotal refunded by the PCR program. The spikes in the graph correspond to election years when
the amount raised by candidates increases dramatically. Of note is that the percentage ofcontributions refunded through the PCR program increases significantly in non-election years.
For example 32% of contributions were refunded in election year 2002, with 62% refunded in
2003. A similar pattern is seen in election year 2004, 36% refunded, followed by 46% refundedin 2005. And again in election year 2006, 29% refunded, followed by 57% refunded in 2007.
The pattern probably reflects that until 2013 the contribution limit in a nonelection year was
significantly lower than the contribution limit in an election year.
Figure 3

The PCR program issues more refunds for donations made to candidates who are incumbent
office holders than for donations made to candidates who are challengers. In Figure 4 therefunds for donations made to challengers is compared to refunds for donations made to
incumbents by year. The percentage for challengers and incumbents shown in Figure 4
represents the percentage of total contributions received from individuals that was refundedthrough the PCR program.
The only years in which donors to challengers received a higher amount of refunds than donors
to incumbents are 2002 and 2006. In both years the explanation is found in the gubernatorial
race. In 2002 the incumbent governor did not run for reelection, which made all donations togubernatorial candidates for challengers. In 2006 then Governor Pawlenty did not sign the
public subsidy agreement so his committee could not issue PCR receipts during his reelection
campaign; so again all PCR refunds for gubernatorial candidates were for challengers.
-4-Figure 4

The impact on the ability of candidates to raise contributions from individuals when the PCR
program is not funded is not clear. In Figure 5 the total contributions from individuals received
by all candidates (excluding judicial candidates who cannot issue PCR receipts) is represented
by the green line, the contributions received from individuals received by House candidates onlyis shown by the blue line. As mentioned earlier there are peaks associated with the years on
which the governor is on the ballot, which makes a trend hard to isolate on the green line. But
the House is on the ballot every election, so in theory the peaks and valleys on the blue line
should be relatively uniform.
However, in 2009 through 2011 the amount received by House candidates decreases. Whether
this is because the PCR program is not funded for part of 2009 and all of 2010 and 2011, or,
because the economy was poor during that time and individuals felt less able to contribute to
candidates cannot be shown with this information. Of note, in 2012 the PCR program was notfunded, but contributions to candidates were at a level similar to years when the program wasfunded.
-5-

Figure 5

PCR Refunds Issued by Political Parties
Donors to political parties received a significantly higher amount PCR refunds than donors to
candidates during the years 2002 through 2014. Total PCR refunds to political party donors
came to $30,174,954 compared to the $17,824,788 issued to candidate donors. Similar to
candidates, the majority of the refunds were to donors of the DFL and RPM parties. Figure 6
shows the total refunds issued to political parties compared to the total contributions received bypolitical parties.

-6-

Figure 6

The donors to the RPM party received the highest amount of refunds at $21,427,000 followed
by $8,510,793 to donors of the DFL party. The percentage of total contributions refundedthrough the PCR program was also highest for the RPM. Donors to the RPM received 37% of
the amount given back through the PCR program, compared to 11% for DFL donors.
In total, donors to RPM party units and RPM candidates were refunded $29,168,623 through the
PCR program, compared to $17,833,730 refunded to donors of DFL party units and DFL
candidates. In Figure 7 the refunds to RPM and DFL candidate donors is compared to therefunds to RPM and DFL political party donors. In general the chart shows that the donors to
DFL candidates and party units have received roughly similar amounts during 2002 – 2014;
while the donors to RPM party units have received significantly more than the donors to RPM
candidates.

-7-

Figure 7-8-Minnesota

Campaign Finance andPublic Disclosure Board
Date: November 24, 2015
To:

Board Members

From: Gary Goldsmith, Executive Director
Re:

Telephone: 651-539-1190

Reconciliation of reports to bank statements

This year we will begin a gentle roll-out of a multi-year program aimed at getting all campaign
finance committees and funds to a point where their reported year-end cash balance reconciles
to their year-end bank statement. When reporting notices are mailed out in December, we will
include a bulletin on this subject. For this first effort, participation will be strictly voluntary.
In addition to the bulletin itself, we will include a simple form and simple instructions that filers
can use to determine if their year-end report balance reconciles to the year-end bank balance.
If the balances reconcile, the filer can provide us with a copy of the form and the bank statement
and we will record the fact that the report reconciles to the bank. Our records retention
schedule is being updated to permit us to securely destroy these bank statements once weverify them.
We anticipate that many committees will not be able to reconcile the two balances and that for
some, the difference may be substantial. It is also likely that there will be many committees
whose balances differ by smaller amounts. We anticipate that some committees that have been
in existence for a long time will have larger discrepancies that are a result of small accumulating
errors.
Staff believes that to make this process work it would be appropriate for the Board to delegate
to the Executive Director the authority to authorize one-time balance adjustments withinparameters set by the Board. Staff suggests that the Executive Director be authorized toapprove one-time adjustments of up to $200 to bring committee's reports into balance with bankrecords. For discrepancies of more than $200, staff will work with committees to clarify theextent and likely causes of the problem. Based on preliminary staff inquiries, any of thefollowing further actions could occur:
1. Staff will present matters to the Board on the consent agenda in regular session incases where there is a strong staff recommendation that an adjustment be authorized.
2. Staff will present adjustment requests to the Board as discussion items in regularsession.
3. Staff will present matters to the Board in executive session for the authorization or an
audit/investigation.
A resolution along the lines of the following would provide the necessary delegation:
Resolved, that the Executive Director is delegated the authority to approve one-time balanceadjustments of up to $200 to year-end campaign finance reports to make the reported balance
equal the corresponding year-end bank balance after reconciling all transactions.

Minnesota

Campaign Finance andPublic Disclosure Board
Date:

November 30, 2015

To:

Board Members

From:

Gary Goldsmith

Subject:

Approaches to EIS issues raised by the new annual recertification requirement

In 2015, the legislature required all public officials to annually review and recertify theirstatements of economic interest even if nothing on those statements had changed. In the past,recertification was required only if something on the statement had changed during the reporting
period. While preparing to implement the annual recertification requirement, staff has
encountered several issues that cannot be conclusively resolved by the EIS statutes and rules.
This memo describes the approaches that the executive director proposes to use to resolvethese matters.
1. Annual EIS requirement for late fall appointees
When a new public official is appointed, that official must file a statement of economic interest
that covers the 30 days prior to the person’s appointment. Officials who require confirmationfrom the Minnesota Senate have 14 days to file the statement. Other officials have 60 days.
Minnesota Statutes section 10A.09, subdivision 6, now provides that the annual statement isdue on the last Monday in January and “must cover the period through December 31 of the year
prior to the year when the statement is due.”
For officials appointed in the late fall of a calendar year, the timeline for filing the originalstatement of economic interest will not work well with the timeline for the annual statement. For
example, an official appointed on December 1, 2015, would have until January 30, 2016, to filethe original statement covering November 1st through December 1st but would be required to filethe annual statement covering the rest of the year by January 25, 2016. An official appointed
on November 15, 2015, would have until January 14, 2016, to file the original statement andthen be required to file an annual covering the six weeks after the official’s appointment by
January 25, 2016. In short, officials appointed near the end of the calendar year technicallywould be required to file two statements within a very short period of time. The repetitive filing
requirements could be burdensome to comply with and may not provide any additional
meaningful disclosure.
Consequently, the executive director proposes to effectively combine the original and annual
requirements into one filing by permitting anyone appointed on or after November 1st of a year
to file a statement that covers the 30 days prior to appointment through the date the statement
was filed.

2. Termination statements for officials leaving office
The prior version of Minnesota Statutes section 10A.09, subdivision 6, required an official to filean annual statement of economic interest only if something on the previous statement hadchanged. Minnesota Rules 4505.0900, subpart 4, conforms to this version of the statute andrequires an official leaving a public official position to file a termination statement only ifsomething on the most recent statement has changed.
However, the revised Minnesota Statutes section 10A.09, subdivision 6, now requires a public
official to file an annual statement of economic interest for each year that the individual was in
office even if nothing on the previous statement has changed. These statements are due on thelast Monday in January and cover the previous calendar year.
Because an individual who left a public official position during a calendar year was in officeduring that year, that official must file an annual statement under the new statute. The deadline
for filing this statement is the last Monday in January of the year following the year when theofficial left office. The executive director proposes to treat the annual statement as the official’s
termination statement. If the official files a termination statement prior to the due date for theannual statement, the executive director will not require a separate annual statement.
3. Annual EIS requirement for January terminations
As discussed above, when a public official leaves office, the official must file an annual
statement covering any time served in office during the calendar year. Because terms ofelective office begin and end near January 1st, many public officials leave office in early
January.
The timeline for the annual statement will not work well for these officials. For example, anofficial leaving official on January 2, 2016, will be required to file an annual statement covering
calendar year 2015 by January 26, 2016. Because the official served two days in 2016, theofficial also technically would be required to file an annual statement covering those two days
that would be due on the last Monday in January 2017.
To avoid requiring public officials to file statements over a year after leaving office but to still
comply with the disclosure requirements, the executive director proposes to permit anyone
leaving office before the last Monday in January of a year to file an annual statement that covers
the previous calendar year through the official’s date of termination.
4. Approach to reporting mid-year changes to financial interests
For purposes of an annual EIS, a public official must report financial interests held at any time
during the previous year. See Minn. Stat. § 10A.09, subds. 5 (business and professional activity
categories), 6 (honoraria); Minn. R. 4505.0100, subpt. 1 (sources of compensation); 4505.0700(real property); 4505.0900, subpt. 7 (securities).
Because the annual EIS must disclose financial interests held at any time during the previous
year, an official cannot remove an interest from an EIS immediately after its sale or termination.
Instead, the interest must remain on the EIS until the year after the year of its sale or
termination. Because officials cannot remove interests that they no longer hold for over a yearafter their disposition, the executive director proposes to modify the reporting forms to allow
officials to indicate that the interest has been sold or the source of income has ended.
In addition, if an official acquires a new asset or income source during the year, the official must
report that new financial interest on the annual recertification, which is due on the last Monday
in January. Some officials, however, prefer to disclose the new asset or income source
immediately. The executive director proposes to allow officials to report new financial interests
during the middle of a year with the understanding that the official still will be required to file theannual recertification for that year by the last Monday in January.
These proposals, if approved by the Board, will be implemented through the use of custom
letters and forms designed to achieve the reporting outcome for each of these unique situations.
If the Board approves of these approaches, a motion would be in order consistent with thefollowing:
Resolved, the Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board adopts and approves the
Executive Director's proposals for handling specific economic interest reporting situations as
outlined in his memorandum to the Board dated November 24, 2015.

Gary Goldsmith
Executive Director
Campaign Finance & Public Disclosure Board
190 Centennial Office Building
658 Cedar Street
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-1603

Dear Mr. Goldsmith:
The Minnesota Zoological Garden (the Zoo) is seeking an advisory opinion from the Campaign
Finance & Public Disclosure Board as to whether the Zoo is a lobbyist principal under Minnesota
Statutes Chapter 10A and subject to the prohibition on gifts from lobbyists and principals tolegislators set out in Minnesota Statutes section 10A.071.
The facts are as follows:
1.
The Minnesota Zoological Garden is established in Minnesota Statutes Chapter
85A. The Zoo is a state agency operated by the Minnesota Zoological Board (the Zoo board).
The Zoo board consists of up to 30 members, 15 appointed by the Governor and 15 appointed
by the board. The Zoo’s board members are public officials. The Zoo board appoints a director
to oversee the Zoo’s operations. The Zoo’s director, officers, and employees are state
employees.
All receipts from parking, admission, concessions, memberships, and donations are deposited
into the state treasury and statutorily appropriated back to the Zoo board for the Zoo’s
operations. Standard admission to the Zoo for one adult for the day is $18.00. Parking is anadditional $7.00.
2.
The Minnesota Zoo Foundation (the Foundation) is a Minnesota nonprofit
corporation and a public charity under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. The
purpose of the Foundation is to benefit, support and carry out the purposes of the Zoo and,more specifically, to raise funds, host special events and advocate on behalf of the Zoo.
The Foundation is governed by an independent board of trustees. The Zoo’s director is ex
officio the president of the Foundation and sits on the Foundation board but does not havevoting rights.

In consideration of fundraising and other services provided by the Foundation, the Zoo provides
furnished office space and technical support to the Foundation. The Zoo and the Foundation
also share a website at www.mnzoo.org.
3.
The Foundation pays a lobbyist more than $500 a year to represent the interestsof the Zoo at the state legislature. The lobbyist works at the direction of the president of theFoundation, who is also the director of the Zoo, and in coordination with the Zoo’s public affairs
director, who is an employee of the Zoo. The Foundation does not direct the lobbyist’s work.
The lobbyist is registered with the Board and lists the Foundation as the organization
represented on his registration form and lobbyist disbursement reports. These reports list thepresident of the Foundation (the director of the Zoo), as the contact for the principal.
4.
For the past several years, the Zoo has held a Legislators’ Day at the Zoo. The
Zoo provides free admission to the Zoo, parking, lunch, and private tours by Zoo staff tolegislators who attend this event. All legislators have been invited to the event in past years.
The Zoo would like to continue hosting a Legislators’ Day at the Zoo and similar events for statelegislators in the future.
Question?
Does the prohibition on gifts from lobbyists and principals to legislators in Minnesota Statutes
section 10A.071 prohibit the Minnesota Zoological Garden from providing free admission,
parking, food and beverages, and zoo tours to legislators as part of a Legislators’ Day at the Zooor similar events?
Sincerely,

Kevin Willis
Director/President
Minnesota Zoo

Revised: 11/24/15

CAMPAIGN FINANCE AND PUBLIC DISCLOSURE BOARD
December, 2015
ACTIVE FILES
Candidate/Treasurer/
Lobbyist

Committee

Derrick Lehrke

Derrick Lehrke for House

Cedar Towing & Auction

North East Social

Evan Rapp

Evan Rapp Volunteer
Committee

Report Missing/
Violation

Late Fee/
Civil Penalty

Referred
to AGO

Principal Campaign
Committee Amended 2014
Year-End Report ofReceipts and Expenditures$1,0008/3/2015

Late Filing Fee for latefiling of the Principal
Campaign Committee 2013
Year-End Report$1252014 Lobbyist Principal
Report-Late filing
2014Amended Principal
Report2013 Lobbyist Principal
Report2014 Lobbyist Principal
Report-Late filing$1,000/$1,000

10/13/2015$1,000/$1,000

10/13/2015

Fund reimbursement$928.50/$928.50

Date S&C
Servedby Mail

Default
Hearing Date

9/ 21/2015
10/6/2015

Date
Judgment
EnteredCase Status

Summons &Complaint mailed
to Sheriff forService 10/29/15
Request retrieved
Hold$475/$100
10/13/2015

CLOSED FILES
Candidate/Treasurer/
Lobbyist

Branden Petersen

Committee

Branden (Petersen) for
SenateReport Missing/
Violation

Late Fee/
Penalty

Referred
to AGO

Principal Campaign
Committee 2014 Year-End
Report of Receipts andExpenditures$1,000/$1,000

8/3/2015

Date S&C
Servedby Mail

Default
Hearing
Date

Date
Judgment
EnteredCase Status

Closed