Final Audit Report of the 

Commission on the UtePAC

(January 1, 2017 - December 31, 2018)

Why the Audit 

Was Done

Federal law permits the 

Commission to conduct 

audits and field 

investigations of any 

political committee that is 

required to file reports 

under the Federal 

Election Campaign Act 

(the Act). The 

Commission generally 

conducts such audits 

when a committee 

appears not to have met 

the threshold 

requirements for 

substantial compliance 

with the Act.1 The audit 

determines whether the 

committee complied with 

the limitations, 

prohibitions and 

disclosure requirements 

of the Act.

Future Action

The Commission may 

initiate an enforcement 

action, at a later time, 

with respect to any of the 

matters discussed in this 

report.

About the Committee (p. 2)

The UtePAC is a non-connected Political Action Committee with 

a non-contribution account. It is a non-qualified committee 

headquartered in Fort Duchesne, Utah. For more information, see 

the chart on the Committee Organization, p.2.

Financial Activity (p. 2)

• Receipts

o Contributions from Individuals

o Other Federal Receipts

Total Receipts

$ 22,337

303,574

$ 325,911

• Disbursements

o Operating Expenditures 

o Other Disbursements

Total Disbursements

$ 21,122

289,506

$ 310,628

Commission Findings (p. 3)

• Misstatement of Financial Activity (Finding 1)

• Increased Activity (Corrected) (Finding 2)

• Cash Disbursements (Finding 3)

• Recordkeeping for Disbursements (Finding 4)

• Recordkeeping for Communications (Finding 5)

• Disclosure of Disbursements (Finding 6)

1

 52 U.S.C. §30111(b).
Final Audit Report of the 

Commission on the UtePAC 

(January 1, 2017 - December 31, 2018)
Table of Contents

Page

Part I. Background

Authority for Audit 1

Scope of Audit 1

Limitations 1

Audit Hearing 2

Part II. Overview of Committee

Committee Organization 3

Overview of Financial Activity 3

Part III. Summaries

Commission Findings 4

Part IV. Commission Findings

Finding 1. Misstatement of Financial Activity 7

Finding 2. Increased Activity (Corrected) 10

Finding 3. Cash Disbursements 13

Finding 4. Recordkeeping for Disbursements 18

Finding 5. Recordkeeping for Communications 21

Finding 6. Disclosure of Disbursements 25
1

Part I

Background

Authority for Audit

This report is based on an audit of the UtePAC2(UTEP), undertaken by the Audit Division of the 

Federal Election Commission (the Commission) in accordance with the Federal Election 

Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (the Act). The Audit Division conducted the audit pursuant 

to 52 U.S.C. §30111(b), which permits the Commission to conduct audits and field 

investigations of any political committee that is required to file a report under 52 U.S.C. §30104. 

Prior to conducting any audit under this subsection, the Commission must perform an internal 

review of reports filed by selected committees to determine if the reports filed by a particular 

committee meet the threshold requirements for substantial compliance with the Act. 52 U.S.C. 

§30111(b).

Scope of Audit

Following Commission-approved procedures, the Audit staff evaluated various risk factors and 

as a result, this audit examined: 

1. the receipt of excessive contributions;

2. the receipt of contributions from prohibited sources;

3. the disclosure of contributions received;

4. the disclosure of individual contributors’ occupation and name of employer;

5. the disclosure of disbursements, debts and obligations;

6. the consistency between reported figures and bank records;

7. the completeness of records; and

8. other committee operations necessary to the review.

Limitations

On September 30, 2016, UTEP’s former treasurer registered the American System Group, LLC

(ASG) with the state of Utah. UTEP’s treasurer during the audit cycle entered into a contract with 

the Ute Tribe’s Business Committee to process UTEP activity, such as fundraising, advertising 

and bookkeeping, through ASG.

3

Based on documentation provided to the Audit staff, including bank statements, withdrawal 

slips, and email communications, it appeared that $189,260 was deposited into ASG’s account 

from UTEP’s account. A review of the ASG bank statements provided by UTEP identified 

additional deposits totaling $115,555 in ASG’s bank account, for which there were no 

corresponding disbursements from UTEP’s bank accounts. The Audit staff requested UTEP 

2

 UTEP has disclosed its name using slight variations on various documents. Whereas on the FEC Form 1 

Statement of Organization (Form 1), dated October 11, 2020, its name is UtePAC, a previous Form 1 disclosed 

the name as The UTE PAC. In addition, reports filed with the Commission have disclosed the name as The UTE 

PAC, The Ute PAC, and The Ute Pac. 

3

 The ASG account was not registered as an official committee depository, nor was ASG listed as a connected 

organization on UTEP’s Statement of Organization. In addition, the former treasurer advised the Audit staff 

during fieldwork that he was instructed, by his personal accountant and counsel, to conduct UTEP business 

through the ASG account.
2

provide documentation for the source of the $189,260 if it believed the funds in question were 

not from the UTEP bank account. The Audit staff also requested the source of ASG deposits 

totaling $115,555. As of this report, UTEP has not provided the requested documentation. In 

addition, UTEP’s former treasurer provided his personal bank statements4indicating that some 

of the cash disbursements in Finding 3 - Cash Disbursements were transferred to his personal 

bank account. 

 

Since UTEP’s funds were routed from its designated depository through ASG’s account before 

being disbursed for payment to UTEP’s vendors, and the composition of funds in ASG’s account 

is unknown, UTEP may have impermissibly commingled its funds with the personal funds of an 

individual. Political committees are forbidden from commingling their funds with the personal 

funds of an individual per 52 U.S.C. § 30102(b)(3) and 11 C.F.R. § 102.15. The Audit staff is 

unable to ascertain whether the ASG account contained any individual personal funds.

Audit Hearing

UTEP requested a hearing before the Commission. The request was granted, and the hearing 

was held on February 17, 2022. During the audit hearing, UTEP provided a detailed description

of the Ute Tribe (the Tribe) and its relation to UTEP, stating that it is similar to the Commission, as

it is also a governmental entity. UTEP stated that it and the Tribe only discovered that UTEP was 

being audited by the Commission after firing its former treasurer. UTEP also discussed the 

problems it had with the former treasurer, stating that he created his own LLC in order to divert

funds from UTEP to himself, and was reckless and inadequate in maintaining UTEP’s records.

UTEP stated there are still records outstanding, and it is unlikely that UTEP will be able to obtain 

any more records as it has maximized its efforts to do so over the last year and a half.

Additionally, UTEP stated during the audit hearing that it believesthe Draft Final Audit Report did

not reflect the “extensive efforts” it made to correct the public record. Further, UTEP stated it does 

not contest the audit findings in general, but it would like to see the corrected findings removed 

from the audit report. UTEP indicated it will comply and do what needs to be done “to get UtePAC

moving forward in a good way.” In a written response subsequent to the audit hearing, UTEP

indicated that the Tribe incurred costs of approximately $100,810 in the course of its own audit 

and responding to the Commission’s audit. This cost was based on a review of the invoices from

the accounting and auditing firm that performed the Tribe’s audit, as well as its General Counsel’s 

time spent responding to the Commission audit.

4 The former treasurer provided only the pages from his bank statements that disclosed the transactions for the funds 

that were withdrawn from UTEP’s bank accounts and deposited into his personal bank account.
3

Part II

Overview of Committee

Committee Organization

Overview of Financial Activity

(Audited Amounts)

Cash on hand @ January 1, 2017 $ 298

Receipts

o Contributions from Individuals 22,337

o Other Federal Receipts 303,574

Total Receipts $ 325,911

Disbursements

o Operating Expenditures 21,122

o Other Disbursements 289,506

Total Disbursements $ 310,628

Cash on hand @ December 31, 2018 $ 15,581

Important Dates

• Date of Registration September 29, 2016

• Audit Coverage January 1, 2017 - December 31, 2018

Headquarters Fort Duchesne, Utah

Bank Information

• Bank Depositories One

• Bank Accounts One Contribution; One Non-Contribution

Treasurer

• Treasurer When Audit Was Conducted Skyler Massy (3/26/20 - Present)

Robert George Lucero (9/29/16 - 3/25/20)

• Treasurer During Period Covered by Audit Robert George Lucero

Management Information

• Attended FEC Campaign Finance Seminar Yes

• Who Handled Accounting and 

Recordkeeping Tasks

Treasurer
4

Part III

Summaries

Commission Findings

Finding 1. Misstatement of Financial Activity

During audit fieldwork, a comparison of UTEP’s reported financial activity with its bank 

records revealed a misstatement of receipts and disbursements, as well as beginning and 

ending cash for calendar year 2018. Specifically, UTEP understated receipts and 

disbursements by $209,332 and $198,202 respectively. UTEP overstated its beginning 

cash on hand by $15,422 and understated its ending cash on hand by $12,065. In 

response to the exit conference, UTEP corrected the misstated receipts, disbursements,

beginning cash on hand and ending cash on hand for 2018 by filing Forms 99 

(Miscellaneous Electronic Submission). 

In response to the Interim Audit Report recommendation, UTEP stated that, given its 

work to respond to and correct the former treasurer’s financial management and 

reporting, this finding has been addressed and should be removed from the audit report. 

The Audit staff acknowledged that UTEP corrected the public record with regard to the 

misstated financial activity for the audit period. However, since UTEP’s corrective 

action occurred in response to the audit, the finding remained in the audit report. In 

response to the Draft Final Audit Report, UTEP again requested the findings that were 

addressed be reduced or removed from the audit report. UTEP also requested an audit 

hearing before the Commission.

The Commission approved a finding that UTEP understated receipts by $209,332 and 

disbursements by $198,202, overstated beginning cash on hand by $15,422, and 

understated ending cash on hand by $12,065 in calendar year 2018. (For more detail, see 

p. 7.)

Finding 2. Increased Activity (Corrected)

During audit fieldwork, a comparison of UTEP’s bank activity with its original reports 

filed revealed that receipts were understated by $248,162 and disbursements were 

understated by $255,268 for calendar years 2017 and 2018. In response to the Interim 

Audit Report recommendation, UTEP stated Forms 99 (Miscellaneous Electronic 

Submission) were filed to document and correct the former treasurer’s “failure to report 

receipts and disbursements.” UTEP requested this finding be reduced based on its 

corrective actions. The Audit staff acknowledged the Forms 99 filed in response to 

Finding 1- Misstatement of Financial Activity, also corrected the public record for the 

understatement of receipts and disbursements outlined in this finding. However, since 

UTEP’s corrective action occurred in response to the audit, the finding remained in the 

audit report. In response to the Draft Final Audit Report, UTEP again requested the 

findings that were addressed be reduced or removed from the audit report. UTEP also 

requested an audit hearing before the Commission. 
5

The Commission approved a finding that UTEP understated its receipts by $248,162 and 

disbursements by $255,268 over the two-year reporting period ending December 31, 

2018. (For more detail, see p. 10.)

Finding 3. Cash Disbursements

During audit fieldwork, the Audit staff determined that UTEP made 43 cash 

disbursements and issued one check payable to cash totaling $131,300. The Act requires 

political committees to make all disbursements, except those from a petty cash fund, by 

check or similar draft drawn on a committee account. In response to the Interim Audit 

Report recommendation, UTEP stated that the violations stem from the former treasurer’s 

“failure to comply with the FEC’s basic requirements for cash transactions” and 

requested that the finding either be removed from the audit report or the amount reduced 

based on its corrective actions. UTEP further stated it plans to implement procedures for 

maintaining a petty cash fund and documenting the use of a petty cash fund; as well as 

documenting, reporting, and preserving records for disbursements. Additionally, UTEP 

provided a letter from its financial institution attesting to the fact that many of the 

transactions which appeared to be cash disbursements were actually transfers of funds 

between accounts, reducing the amount of violation from $131,300 to $13,640. Absent 

additional documentation, the Audit staff concluded that UTEP made $13,640 in cash 

disbursements. In response to the Draft Final Audit Report, UTEP stated that the letter 

from its financial institution was not properly accounted for in the DFAR. UTEP 

requested this finding be reduced based on its corrective actions. UTEP also requested an 

audit hearing before the Commission. 

The Commission approved a finding that UTEP made cash disbursements totaling 

$13,640. (For more detail, see p.13.)

Finding 4. Recordkeeping for Disbursements

During audit fieldwork, the Audit staff identified 17 disbursements totaling $18,640, 

from the contribution account, for which UTEP did not maintain adequate 

documentation. In response to the Interim Audit Report recommendation, UTEP stated

that the former treasurer did not maintain adequate documentation for the disbursements

and requested that the finding either be removed from the audit report or the amount 

reduced, based on its corrective actions. UTEP provided records it said came from the 

former treasurer, reducing the amount of violation by $500. Absent additional 

documentation, the Audit staff concluded that UTEP did not maintain sufficient records 

for 16 transactions totaling $18,140. In response to the Draft Final Audit Report, UTEP 

again requested the findings that were addressed be reduced or removed from the audit 

report. UTEP also requested an audit hearing before the Commission.

The Commission approved a finding that UTEP failed to maintain records to support 

disbursements totaling $18,140. (For more detail, see p. 18.)
6

Finding 5. Recordkeeping for Communications

During audit fieldwork, the Audit staff reviewed disbursements for communications to 

verify the accuracy of the information and proper classification of transactions disclosed 

on UTEP’s disclosure reports. UTEP reported 15 disbursements totaling $52,764 on 

Schedules B (Itemized Disbursements), Line 21(b) (Other Federal Operating 

Expenditures) and Line 29 (Other Disbursements); and Schedule H4 (Disbursements for 

Allocated Federal/Non-Federal Activity) with purposes including, “advertising,” 

“printing,” “video crew expense,” “outdoor retailer advertising,” “printed materials” and 

“banners, posters, brochures.” An additional 18 disbursements totaling $17,058 were not 

reported. In response to the exit conference, UTEP provided invoices but the 

documentation was insufficient to make a determination pertaining to the purpose for 

these disbursements and verification as to whether these were operating expenditures or 

allocable activity. 

In response to the Interim Audit Report recommendation, UTEP provided records it said 

came from the former treasurer, reducing the amount of violation by $8,000, and 

requested that the finding either be removed from the audit report or the amount reduced,

based on its corrective actions. Absent additional documentation, the Audit staff 

concluded that UTEP did not maintain sufficient records for verification of proper 

reporting and determination of how to report communication disbursements totaling 

$61,822. In response to the Draft Final Audit Report, UTEP again requested the findings 

that were addressed be reduced or removed from the audit report. UTEP also requested 

an audit hearing before the Commission.

The Commission approved a finding that UTEP failed to maintain records to support

disbursements for communications totaling $61,822. (For more detail, see p. 21.)

Finding 6. Disclosure of Disbursements

During audit fieldwork, the Audit staff identified 25 disbursements totaling $94,998 that 

either lacked or had inaccurate disclosure information. In response to the exit 

conference, UTEP filed the Form 99 (Miscellaneous Electronic Submission) to include 

missing or correct information for all 25 disbursements totaling $94,998. In response to 

the Interim Audit Report recommendation, UTEP stated it filed the Form 99 to correct 

the former treasurer’s incomplete and inaccurate reporting for these transactions and 

requested that the finding be removed from the audit report based on its corrective 

actions. The Audit staff acknowledged the filing of the Form 99 corrected the public 

record. However, since UTEP’s corrective action occurred in response to the audit, the 

finding remained in the audit report. In response to the Draft Final Audit Report, UTEP 

again requested the findings that were addressed be reduced or removed from the audit 

report. UTEP also requested an audit hearing before the Commission.

The Commission approved a finding that UTEP failed to correctly disclose disbursements 

totaling $94,998. (For more detail, see p. 25.)
7

Part IV

Commission Findings

Finding 1. Misstatement of Financial Activity

Summary

During audit fieldwork, a comparison of UTEP’s reported financial activity with its bank 

records revealed a misstatement of receipts and disbursements, as well as beginning and 

ending cash for calendar year 2018. Specifically, UTEP understated receipts and 

disbursements by $209,332 and $198,202 respectively. UTEP overstated its beginning 

cash on hand by $15,422 and understated its ending cash on hand by $12,065. In 

response to the exit conference, UTEP corrected the misstated receipts, disbursements,

beginning cash on hand and ending cash on hand for 2018 by filing Forms 99 

(Miscellaneous Electronic Submission). 

In response to the Interim Audit Report recommendation, UTEP stated that, given its 

work to respond to and correct the former treasurer’s financial management and 

reporting, this finding has been addressed and should be removed from the audit report. 

The Audit staff acknowledged that UTEP corrected the public record with regard to the 

misstated financial activity for the audit period. However, since UTEP’s corrective 

action occurred in response to the audit, the finding remained in the audit report. In 

response to the Draft Final Audit Report, UTEP again requested the findings that were 

addressed be reduced or removed from the audit report. UTEP also requested an audit 

hearing before the Commission.

The Commission approved a finding that UTEP understated receipts by $209,332 and 

disbursements by $198,202, overstated beginning cash on hand by $15,422, and 

understated ending cash on hand by $12,065 in calendar year 2018.

Legal Standard

Contents of Reports. Each report must disclose:

• The amount of cash on hand at the beginning and end of the reporting period;

• The total amount of receipts f or the reporting period and for the calendar year;

• The total amount of disbursements for the reporting period and for the calendar 

year; and

• Certain transactions that require itemization on Schedule A (Itemized Receipts) or 

Schedule B (Itemized Disbursements). 52 U.S.C. §30104 (b)(1),(2),(3),(4) and 

(5).

Facts and Analysis

A. Facts

During audit fieldwork, the Audit staff reconciled UTEP’s reported financial activity with 

its bank records for calendar years 2017 and 2018. The reconciliation determined that 
8

UTEP misstated receipts and disbursements for 2018, as well as beginning cash on hand 

and ending cash on hand for 2018. The following chart details the discrepancies between 

UTEP’s disclosure reports and bank activity. The succeeding paragraphs explain why the 

discrepancies occurred.

2018 Committee Activity

Reported Bank Records Discrepancy

Beginning Cash on hand @ 

January 1, 2018

$17,410 $1,988 $15,422

Overstated

Receipts $3,334 $212,666 $209,332

Understated

Disbursements $871 $199,073 $198,202

Understated

Ending Cash on hand @ 

December 31, 2018

$3,5165$15,581 $12,065

Understated

The beginning cash on hand was overstated by $15,422 and the discrepancy resulted from 

prior period discrepancies.

The misstatement of 2018 receipts resulted from the following differences:

• Contributions from individuals not reported $5,950

• Other federal receipts not reported 202,814

• Receipts not supported by bank deposits (15)

• Unexplained difference 583

Net Understatement of Receipts $ 209,332

The other federal receipts not reported, totaling $202,814, consisted primarily of receipts 

deposited into the non-contribution account from The Ute Indian Tribe (the Tribe), 

totaling $200,000.

The misstatement of 2018 disbursements resulted from the following differences:

• Federal operating expenditures not reported $ 9,856

• Other disbursements not reported 188,346

Understatement of Disbursements $198,202

The other disbursements not reported, totaling $188,346, consisted of cash 

disbursements, meals, travel expenses, vehicle expenses, equipment purchases, purchase 

of items for research, printing/media/advertising costs, accounting services, 

staffing/payroll/media consulting services, internet services, telephone bills, office 

utilities, rent, shipping costs, bank and 3rd party service fees, office supplies, and

registration fees for events.

5

 The reported ending cash on hand does not equal reported beginning cash on hand plus reported receipts 

minus reported disbursements. This was due to a mathematical discrepancy in which the reported 

beginning cash on hand for 2018 did not equal the ending cash on hand reported for 2017.
9

The $12,065 understatement of the ending cash on hand was a result of the reporting 

discrepancies described above. 

B. Interim Audit Report & Audit Division Recommendation

The Audit staff discussed this matter with the UTEP representative during the exit 

conference and provided a schedule detailing the misstatement of financial activity. In 

response to the exit conference, the UTEP representative provided a written response

stating that the former treasurer acted on his own accord even though the Tribe provided 

additional funds for the former treasurer to hire an administrative professional to assist 

with reporting and compliance. UTEP further stated the overwhelming problem was the 

former treasurer’s use and management of UTEP funds and indicated that it is taking 

steps to avoid the misuse of funds by any future treasurer.6 UTEP’s former treasurer 

stated in a letter to the Audit staff, included in UTEP’s written response, that he was the 

main employee; he tried to understand Commission software, guidelines and rules for 

reporting and found it difficult to balance the books and report properly; and that he 

“assumed [there were] fewer reporting requirements in the non-contribution account.” 

He further stated that Tribal Members were informed of all UTEP activities. 

UTEP subsequently filed Forms 99 (Miscellaneous Electronic Submission) to correct all 

of its misstated receipts, disbursements, beginning cash on hand and ending cash on hand 

for 2018. Since UTEP’s corrective action occurred after audit notification, the matter is 

included in this audit report.

The Interim Audit Report recommended that UTEP provide any additional comments it 

deemed relevant.

C. Committee Response to Interim Audit Report

In response to the Interim Audit Report recommendation, UTEP stated that it filed Forms

99 to correct the former treasurer’s erroneous reporting. UTEP further stated, “Finding 1 

has been addressed and should be removed from the audit findings” and also addressed 

the written exit conference response from the former treasurer as follows:

• UTEP agreed with the former treasurer that he was the main employee and 

added, the former treasurer “never told the Tribe or anyone else that he needed 

additional employees or that he was not keeping financial records as required by 

the FEC” or that he “needed assistance understanding FEC software, procedures 

or requirements.” Once the former treasurer “requested funding to hire 

accountants and lawyers to assist with UtePAC management, these funds were 

provided as a part of UtePAC’s budget.”

• UTEP stated the former treasurer’s claim that he “assumed [there were] fewer 

reporting requirements for the non-contribution account” was “not a defense and 

6

 On January 4, 2020, UTEP hired an independent accounting firm to conduct an internal audit of the 

former treasurer’s management of UTEP activities after “growing concerns.” UTEP indicated that it 

learned of the Commission’s audit once its General Counsel began to take over UTEP’s operations 

following the former treasurer’s termination. UTEP further stated that its independent audit resulted in 

findings similar to those uncovered during the Commission’s audit.
10

cannot be accurate.” UTEP acknowledges there is guidance on non-contribution 

accounts and the information is “easily accessible on [the] FEC’s website.”

• UTEP disagreed with the former treasurer’s statement that “Tribal members were 

informed of all UtePAC activities.” UTEP said the former treasurer did not 

inform anyone with the Tribe or working for the Tribe that he “was failing to 

keep records required by the FEC, that he had questions about which records the 

FEC required him to keep, or that he was having difficulty using the FEC 

software and following FEC requirements.”

D. Draft Final Audit Report 

The Draft Final Audit Report acknowledged that UTEP filed Forms 99 and corrected the 

public record for the misstatement of receipts, disbursements, beginning cash on hand 

and ending cash on hand for 2018. However, since UTEP’s corrective action occurred in 

response to the audit, the finding would remain in the audit report. 

E. Committee Response to the Draft Final Audit Report 

In response to the Draft Final Audit Report, UTEP stated the “FEC provides no basis for 

maintaining corrected audit findings in its DFAR. To encourage compliance with FEC 

audits, the FEC should remove and reduce findings that have been addressed.” UTEP 

continued to request the findings that have been addressed or corrected be reduced or 

removed from the audit report and requested an audit hearing with the Commission.

The Audit staff maintained that the corrective action occurred in response to the audit and 

therefore the finding would remain in the audit report.

F. Audit Hearing

See Audit Hearing section on page 2.

Commission Conclusion 

On April 28, 2022, the Commission considered the Audit Division Recommendation 

Memorandum, in which the Audit staff recommended that the Commission find that 

UTEP understated receipts by $209,332 and disbursements by $198,202, overstated 

beginning cash on hand by $15,422, and understated ending cash on hand by $12,065 in 

calendar year 2018.

The Commission approved the Audit staff’s recommendation.

Finding 2. Increased Activity (Corrected)

Summary

During audit fieldwork, a comparison of UTEP’s bank activity with its original reports 

filed revealed that receipts were understated by $248,162 and disbursements were 

understated by $255,268 for calendar years 2017 and 2018. In response to the Interim 

Audit Report recommendation, UTEP stated Forms 99 (Miscellaneous Electronic 

Submission) were filed to document and correct the former treasurer’s “failure to report 
11

receipts and disbursements.” UTEP requested this finding be reduced based on its 

corrective actions. The Audit staff acknowledged the Forms 99 filed in response to 

Finding 1- Misstatement of Financial Activity, also corrected the public record for the 

understatement of receipts and disbursements outlined in this finding. However, since 

UTEP’s corrective action occurred in response to the audit, the finding remained in the 

audit report. In response to the Draft Final Audit Report, UTEP again requested the 

findings that were addressed be reduced or removed from the audit report. UTEP also 

requested an audit hearing before the Commission. 

The Commission approved a finding that UTEP understated its receipts by $248,162 and 

disbursements by $255,268 over the two-year reporting period ending December 31, 

2018. 

Legal Standard

A. Reporting Requirements. All political committees other than authorized

committees of a candidate shall file either:

• Quarterly reports. 52 U.S.C. § 30104(a)(4)(A); or

• Monthly reports in all calendar years shall be filed no later than the 20th day after

the last day of the month and shall be complete as of the last day of the month,

except that, in lieu of filing the reports otherwise due in November and December

of any year in which a regularly scheduled general election is held, a pre-general

election report shall be filed in accordance with 52 U.S.C. § 30104(2)(A)(i), a

post-general election report shall be filed in accordance with 52 U.S.C. §

30104(2)(A)(ii), and a year-end report shall be filed no later than January 31 of

the following calendar year. 52 U.S.C. § 30104(a)(4)(B)

B. Contents of Reports. Each report must disclose:

• The amount of cash on hand at the beginning and end of the reporting period;

• The total amount of receipts f or the reporting period and for the calendar year; 

• The total amount of disbursements for the reporting period and for the calendar 

year; and

• Certain transactions that require itemization on Schedule A (Itemized Receipts) or 

Schedule B (Itemized Disbursements). 52 U.S.C. § 30104 (b)(1),(2),(3),(4) and 

(5).

Facts and Analysis

A. Facts

During audit fieldwork, in addition to examining UTEP’s most recently filed reports prior 

to audit notification, the Audit staff also compared UTEP’s originally filed reports with 

its bank records. The purpose of this additional reconciliation was to identify the degree 

to which UTEP misstated its original filings.

The Audit staff calculated that UTEP understated its receipts by $248,162 and 

disbursements by $255,268 on the original reports filed over the two-year period ending 

on December 31, 2018. These figures included the $209,332 understatement of receipts 
12

and the $198,202 understatement of disbursements from 2018 discussed in Finding 1-

Misstatement of Financial Activity. 

B. Interim Audit Report & Audit Division Recommendation

The Audit staff discussed this matter with the UTEP representative during the exit

conference and provided a schedule detailing the understatement of receipts and 

disbursements on UTEP’s original reports. In response to the exit conference, UTEP’s 

written response stated that the former treasurer was responsible for all of the day-to-day 

operations of UTEP. UTEP asserted that the findings were due to the former treasurer’s 

use and management of UTEP funds, it is working with its General Counsel to correct the 

“numerous reporting errors... to the extent possible”7and is taking steps to avoid the 

misuse of funds by any future treasurer. The former treasurer’s written response stated 

that the responsibility for the violation of FEC rules ultimately lies with the Tribe and not 

with him or his LLC.8 

The Interim Audit Report recommended that UTEP provide any comments it deemed

necessary with respect to this matter. 

C. Committee Response to Interim Audit Report

In response to the Interim Audit Report recommendation, UTEP stated Forms 99 were

filed to correct, as much as possible, the former treasurer’s “failure to report receipts and 

disbursements.” UTEP requested this finding be reduced based on its corrective actions. 

UTEP stated most of the understatements appeared to be based on the former treasurer’s 

failure to document and report receipts and disbursements from the non-contribution 

account.

UTEP stated the former treasurer’s assertion that “the responsibility for the violation of 

FEC rules ultimately lies with the Tribe and not him or his LLC” is incorrect. UTEP 

explained that “under the Act, treasurers can be held liable in both their official and 

personal capacities” and that “all of the responsibility for the violation of FEC rules lies 

with [the former treasurer] who served as [UTEP’s] sole Director and Treasurer during 

the time period under audit.”

D. Draft Final Audit Report 

The Draft Final Audit Report acknowledged that Forms 99 filed for Finding 1-

Misstatement of Financial Activity also corrected the public record for receipts and 

7

 On October 5, 2020, counsel for UTEP submitted a Request for Consideration of a Legal Question by the 

Commission (Request). UTEP asked that the Commission: 1) name UTEP’s former treasurer “as a 

Respondent” in the Commission’s audit of UTEP; 2) not “name” UTEP and its current treasurer in the 

audit; and 3) not impose any civil penalties against UTEP. UTEP was informed by the Office of General 

Counsel on October 22, 2020 that the questions raised in the Request were beyond the scope of the 

Commission’s policy on Requests for Legal Consideration, which was intended to provide a forum for 

committees to resolve legal questions related to corrective actions recommended by the Reports Analysis 

Division or the Audit Division.

8 The former treasurer’s LLC is the American System Group, LLC (ASG). ASG was retained by UTEP to 

serve as an independent contractor responsible for the formation, management, advertising and 

fundraising of UTEP. The contract with the former treasurer allowed UTEP funds to be deposited into 

and vendors to be paid out of ASG’s bank account.
13

disbursements outlined in this finding. However, since UTEP’s corrective action 

occurred in response to the audit, the finding would remain in the audit report.

Further, the Audit staff noted that the Commission has the authority to conduct audits and 

field investigations of any political committee required to file a report under section 

30104 of the Federal Election Campaign Act, per 52 U.S.C. § 30111(b). The audit of 

UTEP was authorized pursuant to this statutory authority. The subject of this audit, 

therefore, is UTEP and not its former treasurer. As such, UTEP is responsible for any 

audit findings. Whether a committee treasurer may be held personally liable for violating 

a duty imposed by law is determined through the Commission’s enforcement process and 

not an audit.

E. Committee Response to the Draft Final Audit Report 

In response to the Draft Final Audit Report, UTEP stated the “FEC provides no basis for 

maintaining corrected audit findings in its DFAR. To encourage compliance with FEC 

audits, the FEC should remove and reduce findings that have been addressed.” UTEP 

continued to request the findings that have been addressed or corrected be reduced or 

removed from the audit report and requested an audit hearing with the Commission.

The Audit staff maintained that the corrective action occurred in response to the audit and 

therefore the finding remained in the audit report.

F. Audit Hearing

See Audit Hearing section on page 2.

Commission Conclusion 

On April 28, 2022, the Commission considered the Audit Division Recommendation 

Memorandum, in which the Audit staff recommended that the Commission find that 

UTEP understated receipts by $248,162 and disbursements by $255,268 over the twoyear reporting period ending December 31, 2018.

The Commission approved the Audit staff’s recommendation.

Finding 3. Cash Disbursements

Summary

During audit fieldwork, the Audit staff determined that UTEP made 43 cash 

disbursements and issued one check payable to cash totaling $131,300. The Act requires 

political committees to make all disbursements, except those from a petty cash fund, by 

check or similar draft drawn on a committee account. In response to the Interim Audit 

Report recommendation, UTEP stated that the violations stem from the former treasurer’s 

“failure to comply with the FEC’s basic requirements for cash transactions” and 

requested that the finding either be removed from the audit report or the amount reduced 

based on its corrective actions. UTEP further stated it plans to implement procedures for 

maintaining a petty cash fund and documenting the use of a petty cash fund; as well as 
14

documenting, reporting, and preserving records for disbursements. Additionally, UTEP 

provided a letter from its financial institution attesting to the fact that many of the 

transactions which appeared to be cash disbursements were actually transfers of funds 

between accounts, reducing the amount of violation from $131,300 to $13,640. Absent 

additional documentation, the Audit staff concluded that UTEP made $13,640 in cash 

disbursements. In response to the Draft Final Audit Report, UTEP stated that the letter 

from its financial institution was not properly accounted for in the DFAR. UTEP 

requested this finding be reduced based on its corrective actions. UTEP also requested an 

audit hearing before the Commission. 

The Commission approved a finding that UTEP made cash disbursements totaling 

$13,640.

Legal Standard

A. Disbursement by Check. A political committee may only make expenditures in 

cash, not to exceed $100, from a petty cash fund. A written journal for such cash 

expenditures is to be maintained by the treasurer. All other disbursements shall be 

made by check or similar draft drawn on account(s) established at the campaign’s 

depository (ies). 52 U.S.C. §30102(h).

B. Petty Cash Fund. A political committee may maintain a petty cash fund out of 

which it may make expenditures not in excess of $100 to any person per purchase per 

transactions. 

It is the duty of the treasurer to keep and maintain a written journal of all petty cash 

disbursements. The written journal shall include:

• Name and address of every person to whom any disbursement is made;

• Date;

• Amount;

• Purpose; and

• If disbursement is made for a candidate, the journal shall include the name 

of that candidate and the office (including State and Congressional district) 

sought by such candidate. 11 CFR §102.11.

C. Required Records for Disbursements. For each disbursement, the treasurer of a 

political committee must keep records on the:

• Amount;

• Date;

• Name and address of the payee;

9

• Purpose (a brief description of why the disbursement was made);

• If the disbursement was made on behalf of a candidate, the candidate’s name 

and office sought by the candidate; and

9 The payee is usually the person providing the goods or services to the committee. In the case of travel 

advances, however, the payee is the person receiving the advance. 11 CFR §102.9(b)(2).
15

• If the disbursement was in excess of $200, the records must include a receipt 

or an invoice from payee, or a cancelled check or share draft to the payee. If 

the disbursement was made by credit card, the record must include the 

monthly statement or customer receipt and the cancelled check used to pay 

the credit card bill. 52 U.S.C. §30102(c) and 11 CFR §102.9(b).

D. Preserving Records and Copies of Records. The treasurer of a political committee 

must preserve all records and copies of reports for 3 years after the report is filed. 52 

U.S.C. §30102(d).

Facts and Analysis

A. Facts

During audit fieldwork, the Audit staff examined bank records and the disbursement 

database provided by UTEP and identified 43 transactions, totaling $135,600, involving 

cash disbursements. One transaction was a check payable to cash in the amount of $150; 

the remaining transactions consisted of cash withdrawals from UTEP’s contribution and 

non-contribution bank accounts.

According to UTEP’s former treasurer, the cash disbursements were used to pay various 

individuals and vendors for salaries, telephone bills, office supplies, reimbursement of 

travel expenses, payroll, and printing or other advertising costs. The former treasurer 

stated that these expenses were campaign related. 

The Audit staff reviewed UTEP’s disbursement database to assess the nature of the cash 

disbursements and noted the following:

• Other than bank statements and withdrawal slips disclosing the cash transactions, 

and statements from the former treasurer, UTEP presented no documentation, 

such as receipts, invoices, payroll documents or contemporaneous memoranda, 

etc., demonstrating the cash disbursements were in fact payments for bona fide 

campaign expenses.

10

• 32 of the cash disbursements totaling $66,940 were not reported. UTEP filed 

Forms 99 (Miscellaneous Electronic Submission) in response to the audit to 

address the unreported cash disbursements. See Finding 1- Misstatement of 

Financial Activity. 

The Audit staff further noted that political committees may maintain a petty cash fund out 

of which they may make expenditures not in excess of $100 to any person, per purchase, 

and per transaction. The political committees must maintain a written journal of all petty 

cash disbursements per 11 C.F.R. §102.11. However, UTEP did not maintain a petty 

cash fund. UTEP confirmed that there was no use of a petty cash fund and a review of 

UTEP’s disbursement records did not yield any evidence to demonstrate that UTEP ever 

10 UTEP filed Forms 99 in response to the exit conference disclosing the payee as the former treasurer. See 

Finding 1 – Misstatement of Financial Activity and Finding 6 – Disclosure of Disbursements. UTEP 

also did not maintain an accounting of 16 of the cash disbursements, totaling $18,140, since they were 

not in the disbursement database. See Finding 4 – Recordkeeping for Disbursements.
16

established or maintained a petty cash fund. UTEP stated the former treasurer claimed he 

could no longer access the information to many of his accounts utilized to make 

purchases for UTEP. The Audit staff concluded the 43 cash disbursements, in excess of 

$100, totaling $131,300, were excessive cash disbursements.

B. Interim Audit Report & Audit Division Recommendation

The Audit staff discussed this matter with the UTEP representative during the exit 

conference and provided a schedule of cash disbursement transactions. In response to the 

exit conference, UTEP’s written response expressed that the former treasurer was 

responsible for “...complying with all FEC requirements for PACs...” and that the 

former treasurer “...represented to the Tribe that he was capable and experienced...” in 

this area. The UTEP representative expressed a willingness to provide the documentation 

but stated that he was having difficulty obtaining the documentation and that the former 

treasurer “kept few if any records regarding financial transactions as the Director and 

Treasurer of [UTEP].” UTEP worked with the former treasurer to obtain control of the 

records and accounts, but stated he “has not been forthcoming with necessary information 

and records.” The UTEP representative also stated that the former treasurer’s “failure to 

produce records regarding [UTEP] disbursements” makes it “difficult to track his 

finances to determine the true purpose of many of his withdraws and expenditures.” 

UTEP stated the overwhelming problem was the former treasurer’s use and management 

of UTEP funds. UTEP added that it was taking steps to avoid the misuse of funds by any 

future treasurer. The written statement of UTEP’s former treasurer stated that the 

responsibility for the violation of FEC rules ultimately lies with the Tribe and not with 

him or his LLC. 

The Interim Audit Report recommended that UTEP:

• Demonstrate it complied with the provisions of 52 U.S.C. §30102(h) regarding cash 

disbursements;

• Provide any comments it deemed relevant regarding the cash disbursements; and

• Provide the missing disbursement documentation to demonstrate that the cash 

disbursements were for campaign activity.

C. Committee Response to Interim Audit Report

In response to the Interim Audit Report recommendation, UTEP requested the finding be 

removed from the audit report or the amount reduced “based on the work of [UTEP] to 

investigate and correct this finding.” UTEP stated the former treasurer “failed to comply 

with the FEC’s basic requirements for cash transactions.” UTEP explained that for “over 

more than a year” it “gathered as much information as possible about these cash 

transactions” and the former treasurer “continued to provide only limited information” 

and “did not retain records or refuses to produce the records needed to fully address 

Finding 3.” UTEP stated it cannot provide records because the former treasurer did not 

retain the records, however, UTEP plans to implement procedures for maintaining a petty 

cash fund and documenting the use of a petty cash fund; as well as documenting, 

reporting, and preserving records for disbursements. Finally, UTEP provided a letter 

from its financial institution, attesting to the fact that much of what appeared to be cash 
17

disbursements were actually transfers of funds between accounts, which did not involve 

cash.

UTEP noted that “...the responsibility for complying with the Act extends to holding 

former treasurers liable in their personal capacity” and as such, UTEP believes the former 

treasurer “should be held personally responsible under Finding 3, not [UTEP] or its 

current treasurer.”

D. Draft Final Audit Report 

The Draft Final Audit Report acknowledged UTEP’s plan to implement procedures to 

comply with the provisions of 52 U.S.C. §30102(h) regarding cash disbursements and the 

letter from the financial institution attesting that transfers from UTEP’s bank accounts to 

the former treasurer’s bank accounts performed in-branch were not cash disbursements. 

This reduced the violation amount from $133,300 to $13,640, for which UTEP provided 

no documentation or explanation that these were in fact not cash disbursements. The 

cash disbursements, totaling $13,640, were cash withdrawals, including ATM 

withdrawals from UTEP’s bank account. The Audit staff also noted no documentation 

was provided to verify the disbursements were for campaign related activities. As such, 

the Audit staff concluded that UTEP made $13,640 in cash disbursements. 

Further, the Audit staff noted that the Commission has the authority to conduct audits and 

field investigations of any political committee required to file a report under section 

30104 of the Federal Election Campaign Act, per 52 U.S.C. § 30111(b). The audit of 

UTEP was authorized pursuant to this statutory authority. The subject of this audit, 

therefore, is UTEP and not its former treasurer. As such, UTEP is responsible for any 

audit findings. Whether a committee treasurer may be held personally liable for violating 

a duty imposed by law is determined through the Commission’s enforcement process and 

not an audit.

E. Committee Response to the Draft Final Audit Report 

In response to the Draft Final Audit Report, UTEP stated the letter from its financial 

institution was not “properly accounted for” in the Draft Final Audit Report (DFAR).

Specifically, UTEP stated that whereas the DFAR indicated that the letter from its

financial institution resulted in the reduction of the amount in violation from $131,300 to 

$13,640, the letter affirmed that $131,300 was never the violation amount, instead the 

violation amount had always been $13,640. UTEP asked that corrected finding be 

reduced or removed from the audit report and requested an audit hearing with the 

Commission.

The Audit staff noted that UTEP did not provide the letter from its financial institution

until it received the Interim Audit Report (IAR). As such, the $131,300 amount in

violation referenced in the IAR was reduced to $13,640 in the DFAR. If UTEP had

provided the letter from its financial institution in response to the exit conference, the 

amount in violation referenced in the IAR would have been $13,640, with no reference to 

the $131,300.
18

F. Audit Hearing

See Audit Hearing section on page 2.

Commission Conclusion 

On April 28, 2022, the Commission considered the Audit Division Recommendation 

Memorandum, in which the Audit staff recommended that the Commission find that 

UTEP made cash disbursements totaling $13,640.

The Commission approved the Audit staff’s recommendation.

Finding 4. Recordkeeping for Disbursements

Summary

During audit fieldwork, the Audit staff identified 17 disbursements totaling $18,640, 

from the contribution account, for which UTEP did not maintain adequate 

documentation. In response to the Interim Audit Report recommendation, UTEP stated

that the former treasurer did not maintain adequate documentation for the disbursements

and requested that the finding either be removed from the audit report or the amount 

reduced, based on its corrective actions. UTEP provided records it said came from the 

former treasurer, reducing the amount of violation by $500. Absent additional 

documentation, the Audit staff concluded that UTEP did not maintain sufficient records 

for 16 transactions totaling $18,140. In response to the Draft Final Audit Report, UTEP 

again requested the findings that were addressed be reduced or removed from the audit 

report. UTEP also requested an audit hearing before the Commission.

The Commission approved a finding that UTEP failed to maintain records to support 

disbursements totaling $18,140. 

Legal Standard

A. Required Records for Disbursements. For each disbursement, the treasurer of a 

political committee must keep records on the:

• Amount;

• Date;

• Name and address of the payee;11

• Purpose (a brief description of why the disbursement was made - see below); and

• If the disbursement was made on behalf of a candidate, the candidate’s name and 

the office sought by the candidate. 

• If the disbursement was in excess of $200, the records must include a receipt or 

invoice from the payee, or a cancelled check or share draft to the payee. If the 

disbursement was by credit card, the record must include the monthly statement 

or customer receipt and the cancelled check used to pay the credit card bill.

52 U.S.C. §30102(c)(5) and 11 CFR §102.9(b).

11 The payee is usually the person providing the goods or services to the committee. In the case of travel 

advances, however, the payee is the person receiving the advance. 11 CFR §102.9(b)(2).
19

B. Preserving Records and Copies of Reports. The treasurer of a political committee 

must preserve all records and copies of reports for 3 years after the report is filed. 52 

U.S.C. §30102(d).

Facts and Analysis

A. Facts

During audit fieldwork, the Audit staff reviewed disbursements from the contribution 

account and the non-contribution account and determined that UTEP did not maintain 

adequate documentation for 17 disbursements, totaling $18,64012, from the contribution 

account. Sixteen of these disbursements totaling $18,140 were for cash disbursements,

and the remaining disbursement for $500 was a debit purchase. UTEP did not maintain

receipts or invoices for these transactions. In addition, these transactions were not in 

UTEP’s disbursement database. The Audit staff used UTEP’s bank statements and 

withdrawal slips to identify the dates and amounts of the disbursements.

B. Interim Audit Report & Audit Division Recommendation

The Audit staff discussed this matter with the UTEP representative during the exit 

conference and provided a schedule of the disbursement transactions lacking adequate 

documentation. In response to the exit conference, UTEP provided copies of contracts,

invoices, emails, billing statements, and receipts to adequately document some

disbursements. These transactions were not included in the finding amount. The UTEP 

representative expressed a willingness to provide the documentation but stated that he 

was having difficulty obtaining the documentation and that the former treasurer “kept few 

if any records regarding financial transactions as the Director and Treasurer of [UTEP].” 

UTEP worked with the former treasurer to obtain control of the records and accounts, but 

stated he “has not been forthcoming with necessary information and records.” The UTEP 

representative also stated that the former treasurer’s “failure to produce records regarding 

[UTEP] disbursements” makes it “difficult to track his finances to determine the true 

purpose of many of his withdrawals and expenditures.” UTEP stated the overwhelming 

problem was the former treasurer’s use and management of UTEP funds. UTEP added 

that it was taking steps to avoid the misuse of funds by any future treasurer. The written 

statement of UTEP’s former treasurer stated that the responsibility for the violation of 

FEC rules ultimately lies with the Tribe and not with him or his LLC.

The Interim Audit Report recommended that UTEP provide documentation to support the 

disbursements totaling $18,640.

C. Committee Response to Interim Audit Report

In response to the Interim Audit Report recommendation, UTEP stated that it requested 

the former treasurer “provide all remaining [UTEP] records in his possession” and that 

the former treasurer “provided some additional explanations of his disbursements.”

UTEP indicated it did not have the time to “assess his response” before responding to the 

12 Eleven of the disbursements totaling $14,740 were not reported on Schedule B (Itemized Disbursements) 

and are included in Finding 1 – Misstatement of Financial Activity.
20

Interim Audit Report. UTEP also stated that it appears the former treasurer “did not 

retain records or refuses to produce the records needed to fully address Finding 4”. The 

explanations UTEP stated were provided by the former treasurer included a spreadsheet 

with purposes of the disbursements; however, there was only documentation to support 

one transaction totaling $500. No documentation or records were provided to support the 

remaining $18,140 in disbursements.

UTEP noted that “...the responsibility for complying with the Act extends to holding 

former treasurers liable in their personal capacity” and as such, UTEP believes the former 

treasurer “should be held personally responsible under Finding 4, not [UTEP] or its 

current treasurer.”

D. Draft Final Audit Report 

The Draft Final Audit Report acknowledged that the Audit staff reviewed and accepted 

the documentation for one transaction, reducing the violation amount by $500. The 

spreadsheet the committee provided, compiled by the former treasurer, and not verified 

by current UTEP representatives, included purposes of disbursements, however, without 

supporting documentation, this was not sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the 

recordkeeping requirements of 11 CFR §102.9(b). Absent additional documentation, and 

supporting records, the Audit staff concluded that UTEP did not maintain sufficient 

records for 16 transactions totaling $18,140. 

Further, the Audit staff noted that the Commission has the authority to conduct audits and 

field investigations of any political committee required to file a report under section 

30104 of the Federal Election Campaign Act, per 52 U.S.C. § 30111(b). The audit of 

UTEP was authorized pursuant to this statutory authority. The subject of this audit, 

therefore, is UTEP and not its former treasurer. As such, UTEP is responsible for any 

audit findings. Whether a committee treasurer may be held personally liable for violating 

a duty imposed by law is determined through the Commission’s enforcement process and 

not an audit.

E. Committee Response to the Draft Final Audit Report 

In response to the Draft Final Audit Report, UTEP continued to request the findings that

have been addressed or corrected be reduced or removed. UTEP stated the “FEC 

provides no basis for maintaining corrected audit findings in its DFAR. To encourage 

compliance with FEC audits, the FEC should remove and reduce findings that have been 

addressed.” UTEP requested an audit hearing with the Commission.

The Audit staff noted that Draft Final Audit Report reflected the violation amount was 

reduced by $500, based on supporting documentation provided by UTEP.

F. Audit Hearing

See Audit Hearing section on page 2.
21

Commission Conclusion 

On April 28, 2022, the Commission considered the Audit Division Recommendation 

Memorandum, in which the Audit staff recommended that the Commission find that 

UTEP failed to maintain records to support disbursements totaling $18,140.

The Commission approved the Audit staff’s recommendation.

Finding 5. Recordkeeping for Communications

Summary

During audit fieldwork, the Audit staff reviewed disbursements for communications to 

verify the accuracy of the information and proper classification of transactions disclosed 

on UTEP’s disclosure reports. UTEP reported 15 disbursements totaling $52,764 on 

Schedules B (Itemized Disbursements), Line 21(b) (Other Federal Operating 

Expenditures) and Line 29 (Other Disbursements); and Schedule H4 (Disbursements for 

Allocated Federal/Non-Federal Activity) with purposes including, “advertising,” 

“printing,” “video crew expense,” “outdoor retailer advertising,” “printed materials” and 

“banners, posters, brochures.” An additional 18 disbursements totaling $17,058 were not 

reported. In response to the exit conference, UTEP provided invoices but the 

documentation was insufficient to make a determination pertaining to the purpose for 

these disbursements and verification as to whether these were operating expenditures or 

allocable activity. 

In response to the Interim Audit Report recommendation, UTEP provided records it said 

came from the former treasurer, reducing the amount of violation by $8,000, and 

requested that the finding either be removed from the audit report or the amount reduced, 

based on its corrective actions. Absent additional documentation, the Audit staff 

concluded that UTEP did not maintain sufficient records for verification of proper 

reporting and determination of how to report communication disbursements totaling 

$61,822. In response to the Draft Final Audit Report, UTEP again requested the findings 

that were addressed be reduced or removed from the audit report. UTEP also requested 

an audit hearing before the Commission.

The Commission approved a finding that UTEP failed to maintain records to support 

disbursements for communications totaling $61,822. 

Legal Standard

A. Formal Requirements Regarding Reports and Statements. Each political 

committee shall maintain records with respect to the matters required to be reported 

which shall provide in sufficient detail the necessary information and data from which 

the filed reports may be verified, explained, clarified, and checked for accuracy and 

completeness. 11 CFR §104.14(b)(1).
22

B. Preserving Records and Copies of Reports. The treasurer of a political committee 

must preserve all records and copies of reports for 3 years after the report is filed. 

52 U.S.C. §30102(d).

Facts and Analysis

A. Facts

During audit fieldwork, the Audit staff reviewed disbursements for communications to 

verify the accuracy of the information and proper classification of transactions disclosed 

on the reports. UTEP made 33 disbursements totaling $69,822 for which documentation 

was insufficient to make a determination pertaining to whether 15 of these disbursements 

totaling $52,764 were correctly reported on Schedule B, Line 21(b); Schedule B, Line 29 

and Schedule H4. The remaining 18 disbursements totaling $17,058 were not reported. 

UTEP filed Forms 99 in response to the audit to address the unreported disbursements. 

See Finding 1 – Misstatement of Financial Activity. 

The Audit staff’s analysis resulted in the following:

i. Disbursements – No Invoices or Copies of Communications Provided 

($66,577)

Twenty-five disbursements totaling $66,577 were paid to nine vendors. Twelve

of these disbursements, totaling $51,103, were disclosed on Schedule B, Line 29 

and Schedule H4 with purposes of “advertising,” “printing” and “video crew 

expense.” Thirteen disbursements totaling $15,474 were not reported. No

invoices or associated communications were provided for these disbursements. 

Without sufficient detail, the Audit staff was unable to verify the reporting of 

these amounts or determine how the amounts should be reported. The Audit staff 

requested copies of the invoices and the associated communications for each of 

the disbursements. To date, these invoices and communications have not been 

provided.

ii. Disbursements – Invoices Provided – No Copies of Communications 

Provided ($1,795)

Six disbursements totaling $1,795 were paid to three vendors. One disbursement 

totaling $211 was disclosed on Schedule B, Line 29 with a purpose of 

“advertising.” Five disbursements totaling $1,584 were not reported. For these 

disbursements, UTEP provided invoices but did not provide information about the 

related communications. Without sufficient detail, the Audit staff was unable to 

verify the reporting of these amounts or determine how the amounts should be 

reported. The Audit staff requested copies of the associated communications. To 

date, these communications have not been provided.

iii. Disbursements – No Invoices – Copies of Communications Provided ($1,450)

Two disbursements totaling $1,450 were paid to two vendors. The disbursements 

were reported on Schedules B, Line 21(b) and Line 29 with purposes of 

“advertising” and “video crew expense,” respectively. For one of the 
23

disbursements totaling $1,165, UTEP provided a copy of a plan for TV ads but no 

invoice. For the other disbursement totaling $285, UTEP provided a copy of the 

social media video link and an invoice, but the invoice provided did not match the 

amount or date of the transaction. Without sufficient detail, the Audit staff was

unable to verify the reporting of these amounts or determine how the amounts 

should be reported. The Audit staff requested copies of the invoices. To date, 

these invoices have not been provided.

B. Interim Audit Report & Audit Division Recommendation

The Audit staff discussed this matter with the UTEP representative during the exit 

conference and provided a schedule of the disbursements for which further records were 

necessary to verify the accuracy of UTEP’s reporting. In response to the exit conference, 

UTEP provided some invoices and payment receipts with corresponding media records 

such as photographs of banners. These transactions were not included in the finding 

amount. The UTEP representative also stated that he was committed to resolving the

findings and had been working with the vendors and UTEP’s former treasurer to obtain 

the requested records. The UTEP representative expressed a willingness to provide the 

documentation but stated that he was having difficulty obtaining the documentation and 

that the former treasurer “kept few if any records regarding financial transactions as the 

Director and Treasurer of [UTEP].” UTEP had been working with the former treasurer to 

obtain control of the records and accounts, but stated he “has not been forthcoming with 

necessary information and records.” The UTEP representative also stated that the former 

treasurer’s “failure to produce records regarding [UTEP] disbursements” makes it 

“difficult to track his finances to determine the true purpose of many of his withdrawals 

and expenditures.” UTEP stated the overwhelming problem was the former treasurer’s 

use and management of UTEP funds. UTEP added that it was taking steps to avoid the 

misuse of funds by any future treasurer. The written statement of UTEP’s former 

treasurer stated that the responsibility for the violation of FEC rules ultimately lies with 

the Tribe and not with him or his LLC.

The Interim Audit Report recommended that UTEP provide, in sufficient detail, 

documentation that allowed for verification of proper reporting and determination of how 

to report the communication disbursements totaling $69,822. The documentation should 

have included the invoices and associated communications.

C. Committee Response to Interim Audit Report

In response to the Interim Audit Report recommendation, UTEP stated it “worked 

extensively over the past year and a half to obtain information and records” from the 

former treasurer. UTEP provided the Audit staff with records received from the former 

treasurer, but noted it did not have time to “assess his responses” before responding to the 

Interim Audit Report. Additionally, UTEP stated it appears its former treasurer “did not 

maintain records for communications as required by the Federal Election Campaign Act

and the FEC”. The records UTEP said were from the former treasurer included an 

explanation of some of the disbursements, various invoices, cancelled checks, pictures of 

events and copies of fliers and billboards. However, UTEP and the former treasurer were 

not able to indicate which records corresponded to which disbursements. UTEP 
24

requested this finding be removed from the audit report or the amount reduced based on 

its corrective actions. 

UTEP noted that “...the responsibility for complying with the Act extends to holding 

former treasurers liable in their personal capacity” and as such, UTEP believes the former 

treasurer “should be held personally responsible under Finding 5, not [UTEP] or its 

current treasurer.”

D. Draft Final Audit Report 

The Draft Final Audit Report stated the Audit staff made several attempts to assist UTEP 

with verifying the accuracy of the disbursements for communications by providing a 

detailed spreadsheet to help UTEP match the invoices with the disbursements for 

communications and following up on UTEP’s progress. The Audit staff verified one 

transaction, totaling $8,000, was correctly reported based on a copy of the negotiated 

check to the vendor and a photo to support that the payment was for a booth rental. This 

reduced the violation amount by $8,000. Absent additional documentation and/or 

UTEP’s ability to correlate records previously provided with its reported disbursements, 

the Audit staff concluded that UTEP did not maintain sufficient records for verification 

of proper reporting and determination of how to report communication disbursements 

totaling $61,822. 

Further, the Audit staff noted that the Commission has the authority to conduct audits and 

field investigations of any political committee required to file a report under section 

30104 of the Federal Election Campaign Act, per 52 U.S.C. § 30111(b). The audit of 

UTEP was authorized pursuant to this statutory authority. The subject of this audit, 

therefore, is UTEP and not its former treasurer. As such, UTEP is responsible for any 

audit findings. Whether a committee treasurer may be held personally liable for violating 

a duty imposed by law is determined through the Commission’s enforcement process and 

not an audit.

E. Committee Response to the Draft Final Audit Report 

In response to the Draft Final Audit Report, UTEP continued to request the findings that

have been addressed or corrected be removed or reduced. UTEP stated the “FEC 

provides no basis for maintaining corrected audit findings in its DFAR. To encourage 

compliance with FEC audits, the FEC should remove and reduce findings that have been 

addressed.” UTEP requested an audit hearing with the Commission.

The Audit staff noted that Draft Final Audit Report reflected the violation amount was 

reduced by $8,000, based on supporting documentation provided by UTEP.

F. Audit Hearing

See Audit Hearing section on page 2.

Commission Conclusion 

On April 28, 2022, the Commission considered the Audit Division Recommendation 

Memorandum, in which the Audit staff recommended that the Commission find that 
25

UTEP failed to maintain records to support disbursements for communications totaling 

$61,822.

The Commission approved the Audit staff’s recommendation.

Finding 6. Disclosure of Disbursements

Summary

During audit fieldwork, the Audit staff identified 25 disbursements totaling $94,998 that 

either lacked or had inaccurate disclosure information. In response to the exit 

conference, UTEP filed the Form 99 (Miscellaneous Electronic Submission) to include 

missing or correct information for all 25 disbursements totaling $94,998. In response to 

the Interim Audit Report recommendation, UTEP stated it filed the Form 99 to correct 

the former treasurer’s incomplete and inaccurate reporting for these transactions and 

requested that the finding be removed from the audit report based on its corrective 

actions. The Audit staff acknowledged the filing of the Form 99 corrected the public 

record. However, since UTEP’s corrective action occurred in response to the audit, the 

finding remained in the audit report. In response to the Draft Final Audit Report, UTEP 

again requested the findings that were addressed be reduced or removed from the audit 

report. UTEP also requested an audit hearing before the Commission.

The Commission approved a finding that UTEP failed to correctly disclose disbursements 

totaling $94,998.

Legal Standard

A. Reporting Other Disbursements. When other expenditures to the same person 

exceed $200 in a calendar year, the committee must report the:

• The amount of the expenditures;

• The date when the expenditures were made;

• The name and address of the payee; and

• The purpose of the expenditures. 52 U.S.C. §30104(b)(5)(A) and 11 CFR 

§104.3(b)(3)(i).

B. Examples of Purpose.

• Adequate Descriptions. Examples of adequate descriptions of “purpose” include 

the following: dinner expenses, media, salary, polling, travel, party fees, phone 

banks, travel expenses, travel expense reimbursement, catering costs, loan 

repayment, or contribution refund. 11 CFR §104.3(b)(3)(i)(B).

• Inadequate Descriptions. The following descriptions do not meet the requirement 

for reporting “purpose”: advance, election-day expenses, other expenses, expense 

reimbursement, miscellaneous, outside services, get-out-the-vote, and voter 

registration. 11 CFR §104.3(b)(3)(i)(B).
26

Facts and Analysis

A. Facts

During audit fieldwork, the Audit staff identified 25 reported disbursements totaling 

$94,998 that either lacked or had inaccurate disclosure information. All of these 

disbursements were from the non-contribution account. These reporting errors consisted 

of the following:

• Ten disbursements totaling $7,258 were missing a memo text13 stating they were

disbursements from the non-contribution account;

• Two disbursements totaling $1,124 were missing a memo text stating they were

disbursements from the non-contribution account and were reported on Schedule 

H4 (Disbursements for Allocated Federal /Non-Federal Activity) instead of 

Schedule B (Itemized Disbursements), Line 29 (Other Disbursements);

• Nine disbursements totaling $82,773 were reported with the incorrect payees and 

missing a memo text stating they were disbursements from the non-contribution 

account;

• Four disbursements totaling $3,843 were reported with the incorrect payees, 

missing a memo text stating they were disbursements from the non-contribution 

account and were reported on Schedule H4 instead of Schedule B, Line 29. 

During audit fieldwork, the UTEP representative responded by sending a letter dated 

April 27, 2020 to the Acting Assistant Staff Director for Audit stating that “Mr. Lucero 

had a history of making incomplete and inaccurate filings with the FEC.”

B. Interim Audit Report & Audit Division Recommendation

The Audit staff discussed this matter with the UTEP representative during the exit 

conference and provided a schedule of the disclosure transactions. In response to the exit 

conference, UTEP filed the Form 99 (Miscellaneous Electronic Submission) to include 

the missing or correct information and to correct the Schedules and line numbers for all 

25 disbursements totaling $94,998. Since UTEP’s corrective action occurred after audit 

notification, the matter is included in this audit report. UTEP stated the overwhelming 

problem is the former treasurer’s use and management of UTEP funds. UTEP added that 

it is taking steps to avoid the misuse of funds by any future treasurer. The written 

statement of UTEP’s former treasurer stated that the responsibility for the violation of 

FEC rules ultimately lies with the Tribe and not with him or his LLC. 

The Interim Audit Report recommended that UTEP provide any additional comments it 

deemed relevant to this matter. 

C. Committee Response to Interim Audit Report

In response to the Interim Audit Report recommendation, UTEP stated the Form 99 was 

filed to correct the former treasurer’s “incomplete and inaccurate reporting of these 

transactions.” UTEP requested this finding be removed from the audit report based on its 

13 When itemizing transactions from the non-contribution account on Schedule B, political committees 

should identify these disbursements by entering “Non-Contribution Account” as a memo text or in the 

description field along with the required purpose of the disbursement.
27

corrective actions.14 UTEP also noted that “...the responsibility for complying with the 

Act extends to holding former treasurers liable in their personal capacity” and as such, 

UTEP believes the former treasurer “should be held personally responsible under Finding 

6, not [UTEP] or its current treasurer.”

D. Draft Final Audit Report 

The Draft Final Audit Report acknowledged that UTEP corrected the public record by 

filing the Form 99. However, since UTEP’s corrective action occurred in response to the

audit, the finding would remain in the audit report.

Further, the Audit staff noted that the Commission has the authority to conduct audits and 

field investigations of any political committee required to file a report under section 

30104 of the Federal Election Campaign Act, per 52 U.S.C. § 30111(b). The audit of 

UTEP was authorized pursuant to this statutory authority. The subject of this audit, 

therefore, is UTEP and not its former treasurer. As such, UTEP is responsible for any 

audit findings.

E. Committee Response to the Draft Final Audit Report 

In response to the Draft Final Audit Report, UTEP continued to request the findings that

have been addressed or corrected be reduced or removed. UTEP stated the “FEC 

provides no basis for maintaining corrected audit findings in its DFAR. To encourage 

compliance with FEC audits, the FEC should remove and reduce findings that have been 

addressed.” UTEP requested an audit hearing with the Commission.

F. Audit Hearing

See Audit Hearing section on page 2.

Commission Conclusion 

On April 28, 2022, the Commission considered the Audit Division Recommendation 

Memorandum, in which the Audit staff recommended that the Commission find that 

UTEP failed to correctly disclose disbursements totaling $94,998.

The Commission approved the Audit staff’s recommendation.

14 In addition to the Form 99 provided by UTEP, the former treasurer provided updated purposes for three 

of the 25 disbursements; however, he did not provide any supporting documentation and UTEP could not 

verify the accuracy of the purposes. Therefore, UTEP did not amend its Form 99 to include these 

purposes.