FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20463 

March 17, 2009 

MEMORANDUM 

TO: Joseph F. Stoltz 

Assistant Staff Director 

^ Audit Division 

THROUGH: Robert A. Hickey 

StaffDirector 

FROM: Christopher Hughey fiCH ^()\ ^ 

Deputy General Counsel [ / 

Lawrence L. Calvert, ^^'/y\^r^ 

Associate General Couwefel ^ 

General Law and Advice 

Lorenzo Holloway 

Assistant General Couni 

Public Finance and Audit Advice 

Margaret J. Forman ^ 

Attomey « 

Allison T. Steinle ^ 

Attomey 

SUBJECT: Preliminary Report of the Audit Division on Bidisn for President, Inc. (LRA 742) 

I. INTRODUCTION 

The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed the Preliminary Audit Report ("proposed 

Report") of the Audit Division on Biden for President, hic. ("tfie Committee") that you submitted 

to this Office on December 9,2008.' This memorandum addresses our comments on the 

' This audit pertains to Mr. Biden's campaign for the Office of President in the primary election. This audit 

does not pertain to Mr. Biden's status as a Vice Presidential candidate in the general election. 
Memorandum to Wanda J. Thomas 

Preliminary Audit Report Legal Analysis 

Biden for President (LRA 742) 

Page 2 of 10 

proposed Report.^ We concur with any portions of findings not specifically discussed in this 

memorandum. In this memorandum, we address issues pertaining to the Committee's potential 

receipt of excessive contributions (Finding 2). If you have any questions, please contact 

Margaret J. Forman or Allison T. Steinle, the attomeys assigned to this audit. 

II. RECEIPT OF CONTRIBUTIONS THAT EXCEED LIMITS (FINDING 2) 

A. Proposed Report Should Specify Each Type of Excessive Contribution 

In tiie proposed Report, the auditors state that the Committee has a projected dollar value 

of unresolved excessive contributions in the amount of $120,938, which the auditors have 

revised to $106,015.93. The proposed Report, however, does not specify the exact breakdown of 

these unresolved excessive contributions. We recommend that the auditors include a breakdown 

of each type of excessive contribution that makes up the $106,015.93 sample. By providing a 

breakdown and description of why these paper and online contributions fail to meet the 

requirements for designations or attributions, the Commission will be able to understand and 

analyze the precise type and amount of excessive contributions included in the sample. 

The online contributions account for $6,104.39 ofthe $106,015.93 sample. The 

remaining unresolved excessive contributions, totaling $99,911.54, resulted firom contributions 

not made online, either by check or credit card contributions. The breakdown is as follows: 

Projected S 

Check - Attribution Issue $29,843.70 

Other Credit Card - Attribution Issue SS9,687.42 

Other Credit Card - Designation Issue 510,380.42 

Online Credit Card - Designation Issue $6,104.39 

Total $106,015.93 

We recommend that the auditors describe why the contributions not made online fail to 

meet the requirements for designation or attributions, as the paper credit card fomis and checks 

include different infonnation and therefore involve a different analysis than the online form. We 

also include an analysis of why the online contributions fail to meet the requirements for 

designations, and recommend that the auditors include a more thorough analysis and description 

of the online designation issue. 

B. Online Contributions Fail to Designate the Election 

The cover memorandum for the proposed Report concludes that the Committee's online 

contribution screen fails to meet the Commission's designation requirements. We agree with this 
Memorandum to Wanda J. Thomas 

Preliminary Audit Report Legal Analysis 

Biden for President (LRA 742) 

Page 3 of 10 

conclusion, and we recommend that the auditors raise this issue in their cover memorandum to 

the Commission. 

The Committee's online system for accepting contributions states that it "may accept 

cohtributions from an individual totaling up [to] $2,300.00 per election."^ The online 

solicitation, however, does not state that the individual may contribute $2,300 to the primary and 

$2,300 to the general election. It requires the contributor to provide an electronic signature 

authorizing the contribution when it is made. 

We conclude that the online contribution screen fails to meet the requirements for tiie 

designation of contributions, in that it fails to provide enough infonnation to designate a 

contribution greater than $2,300 to tiie general election, when that contribution is made prior to 

the primary election. Contributions designated in writing and signed by the contributor for a 

particular election are made with respect to the election so designated. 11 C.F.R. § 110.1(b)(2)(i) 

and (4). Contributions made prior to the primary election are considered to be designated to the 

primary election unless the contributor designates otherwise. 11 C.F.R. § 110.1(b)(2)(ii). To 

enable a contributor to "effectuate a designation," a conunittee may also provide a preprinted 

form "that clearly states the election to which the contribution will be applied...." Explanation 

and Justification for 11 C.F.R. § 110.1(b), 52 Fed. Reg. 760, 763 (Jan. 9,1987). In the Craig 

Romero for Congress, Inc. audit, the Commission concluded that contributor forms were 

sufficient to determine the designation of contributions greater than $2,000 among the three 

ebctions, provided that the contributor retumed the completed forms witii their ^ymssi, and 

where tbe contributor forms stated: 

Individual contributions are limited to $2,000 per individual per election cycle. 

Louisiana has three election cycles this year: 

1. The primary election, which ends at the close of qualifying on August 6, 2004; 

2. The general election on Tuesday, November 2,2004; and, 

3. The run-off election on Saturday, December 4,2004. 

This will allow an individual donor to make a contribution of $6,000 before August 6, 

2004, designating $2,000 to each of the three election cycles. 

Campaign Finance Fact Sheet, Craig Romero for Congress, Inc.; see Interim Audit Report on 

Craig Romero for Congress, Inc. (Mar. 29,2007).* 

^ The auditors' copy of this online solicitation is missing some wording at one end of the page. The Word 

"to" is placed in brackets because it appears to be the word used in this online solicitation; however, most of this 

word is missing. The auditors have been seeking to obtain a complete copy of this online solicitation from the 

Committee. The Committee claims that it looked for, but caimot fmd another copy. 

* The Craig Romero for Congress committee is a primary respondent in an Enforcement Matter, AR 07-08, 

referred after the Commission approved the final Audit Report. On January 28, 2009, the Commission found reason 

to believe that Craig Romero for Congress and the treasurer violated sections 441b(a) (prohibited contributions) and 

441a(f) (excessive contributions), and approved conciliation prior to a finding of probable cause to believe. 
Memorandum to Wanda J. Thomas 

Preliminary Audit Report Legal Analysis 

Biden for President (LRA 742) 

Page 4 of 10 

In our facts, the Committee's electronic system for accepting contributions states that the 

contributor may make a contribution of up to the maximum contribution allowed per election, 

but, unlike tiie Romero forms, is no more specific. The image firom the Committee's website 

states that the Committee **may accept contributions fi-om an individual totaling up [to] . 

$2,300.00 per election." See note 3, supra. The contributor screen provides no opportunity for 

the contributor to designate a contribution for each election (primary and general), nor does it 

state tiie total amount, $4,600, that can be contributed to both elections. Therefore, the 

contributor screen supplied by the. committee does not "clearly state[] the election to which the 

contribution will be applied." See Explanation and Justification for 11 CF.R. § 110.1(b), 52 

Fed. Reg. 760, 763 (Jan. 9,1987). As a result, we cannot disceni whetiier the contributor 

intended to contribute part of his or her contribution to the general election, when that 

contribution is made prior to the primary election. Id. Therefore, the amount of a contributor's 

online contribution of greater than $2,300 made prior to the primary election would not be 

properly designated for the general election. Id.; see 11 C.F.R. § 110.1(b)(2)(i) and (4)(i). 

C. Untimely Resolved Excessive Contributions Should Include Additional 

Analysis and Conclusion 

1. Presidential General to Senate Written Redesignations Are the 

Functional Equivalent of Untimely Presumptive Redesignatons of 

These Same Contributions from the Presidential Primary to the 

Fresiieniltscl General ElectioD 

The Committee received undesignated contributions prior to the primary election greater 

than tfie primary election contribution limit and treated these contributions as redesi^ated to tiie 

general election. After Mr. Biden withdrew from the Democratic nomination contest, thus 

ensuring that he would not be a candidate in the Presidential general election, the Committee 

then obtained written redesigniations firom these contributors to redesignate the contributions to 

Mr. Biden's 2008 Senate elections.^ The Committee claims that it sent redesignation forms 

and/or presumptive redesignation notices to the contributors that would authorize the 

redesignations from the Presidential primary to the Presidential general election, but has not yet 

been able to produce them for the auditors. The Committee was able to produce tedesignation 

forms completed by the contributors authorizing tiie Committee to redesignate Presidential 

general election contributions to the 2008 Senate primary election, oir the 2008 Senate general 

election to the extent that the contribution to tiie Senate primary election would result in an 

excessive contribution. 

^ In the proposed Report, the auditors state that "prgsumptiye redesignations apply only within the same 

election cycle." Proposed Report at 10. Our facts involve a candidate who campaigned in overlapping elections for 

two offices: President and United States Senator. Therefore, rather than generally refer to an etection cycle, we 

recommend that the auditors more clearly articulate that the redesignation regulations provide that presumptive 

redesignations may be made only'6etween that authorized committee's primary and general elections; 11 CF.R. 

§no.l(b)(5)(ii)(B)and(e)r 
Memorandum to Wanda J. Thomas 

Preliminary Audit Report Legal Analysis 

Biden for President (LRA 742) 

Page 5 of 10 

The auditors conclude that the redesignation forms autiiorizing the Committee to 

redesignate Presidential general election contributions to the 2008 Senate election(s) are an 

adequate substitute for a presumptive redesignation of the contributions firom the Presidential 

primary election to the Presidential general election. We agree with, this conclusion, in that we. 

view these iredesignation forms authorizing redesignation of Presidential general election 

contributions to-the Senate'erection(s) as the functional equivalent of late presumptive 

redesignations of these' sariie contributions from the Presidential, primary to the Presidential 

general election!.. \^e r^cQiiim thSt the auditors revise the proposed Rieport to 

provide more inforniatiori in support of thdr conclusion consistent with our comments.! 

also recommend that the auditors raise the substantive redesignation issue in th&ir cover 

memorandum to the Commission. 

the issue is whether the written redesignations signed by contributors authorizing the 

redesignation of funds from the Committee's Presidential general election to his Senate primary 

election (or Senate general election, if there is an excess), are the functional equivalent of late 

presumptiveTedesignations of these same contributions from the Presidential primary to the 

Presidential general election.^ 

In the 2008 election cycle, a contributor may contribute no more than $2,300 per election 

to the auteriz-ed conunittee ofa casif^date for Federa;! office. See 2 U.S.C. § 441a(a)(l)(A). A 

contriteor may designate in writing a contribution for a specific etection; however, ifthe 

contributor fails to do so, the contribution is considered made with respect to the next election. 

11 CF.R. § 110.1(b)(2). Thus, a contribution made prior to the primary election, but not 

designated by the contributor, is made in connection with the primary election. A committee 

may request a written redesignation of an excessive contribution made with respect to or 

designated for one election to a different election, so long as the committee satisfies certain 

requirements. 11 C.F.R. §§ 110.1(b)(3)(l), U O; 1(b)(5). Altematively, a committee may make a 

presumptive redesignation, where a committee may treat all or part of an otherwise excessive 

primary election contribution as made with respect to the genend election, so long as tiie 

committee satisfies certain requirements, including the submission of a written notice to the 

contributor that includes an option for the contributor to request a refund. 

11 C.F.R. § 110.1(b)(5)(ii)(B). The purpose of the redesignation requirements is to demonstrate 

that it is the contributor's intent to make the designation or redesignation. See Explanation and 

Justification for 11 CF.R. § 110.1(b), 52 Fed. Reg. 760, 760-62 (Jan. 9,1987) (stating tiiat 

designated contributions indicate contributor intent and the Commission considers redesigiiated 

contributions to be properly designated); Explanation and Justification for 

11 C.F.R. § 110.1(b)(5), 67 Fed. Reg. 69,928,69,931 (Nov. 19,2002) (stating that tfie rationale 

for presumptive redesignations is that the committee may reasonably infer that a contributor of 

an excessive primary contribution would probably not object to the redesignation of a portion of 

We have no indication from the auditors that the Presidential general eiection campaign ever made 

expenditures from the excessive contributions that were redesignated from the Presidential primary election to the 

Presidential general election. 
Memorandum to Wanda J. Thomas 

Preliminary Audit Report Legal Analysis 

Biden for President (LRA 742) 

Page 6 of 10 

that contribution to the general election). Ifthe committee fails to retain written records ofthe 

redesignation or reattribution, including contributor notices, the redesignation "shall not be 

effective, and the original designation or attribution shall control." 11 C.F.R. § 110.1(1)(5). 

In our facts, the Committee has been unable to produce copies of written redesignations 

from the contributors or presumptive redesignation notices sent by the Committee to the 

contributors for contributions redesignated by the Committee from the Presidential primary to 

tiie Presidential general election. We have redesignation forms signed by tiiese same 

contributors, stating that they authorize their Presidential general election contributions to be 

redesignated to the Senate primary election, or Senate general election to the extent that the 

Senate primary contribution would be excessive. See Redesignation Form. 

The Committee claims that it retained, but cannot locate, documentation supporting the 

redesignations of contributions from the Presidential primary election to the Presidential general 

election. The Committee, in its response to tiie exit conference, states that it routinely tracks 

excessive contributions and sends out redesignation letters, however, "[a] complete set" of such 

records are missing. The Committee states that it has been attempting to contact contributors to 

retrieve copies of any redesignation letters retained by the contributors, but has not received any 

copies at this time. See Conespondence from Oldaker, Biden & Belair, LLP to Paula Nurthem, 

Lead Auditor, Audit Division, Federal Election Commission (Sept. 26,2008). The Committee 

also asserts that the individual with primary responsibility for sending compliance letters to 

con^butors specifi^cally recalled semdii^ig out &e ptresumptive redesig^tion notices; however, 

^e was very ill at the ti^me and is now deceased. Therefore, tiie Coinmittee asserts tfeat tt was 

unable to obtain an affidavit from her. Id. Furthermore, tiie Conunittee asserts that contributor 

letters authorizing redesignations from the Presidential general election to the Senate election(s) 

"refiects an understanding, both by the contributor and the Committee, that the excessive portion 

ofthe contributor's contribution previously had beeh properly resolved." Id. 

We begin this analysis by examining the redesignations froih the Presidential primary 

election to the Presidential general election. The Coinmittee has failed to produce written 

records of these redesignations.According to the auditors, up to $639,000 in these 

contributions may have been excessive as to the Priesidential primary election.^ The Committee 

asserts that the written redesignations from the Presidential general election to the Senate 

election(s) "expresses the donative intent of tiie contributor." See Conespondence firom Oldaker, 

Biden & Belair, LLP to Paula Nurthem, Lead Auditor, Audit Division, Federal Election 

Commission (Sept. 26,2008). 

^ Should the Committee produce the redesignation records durinig the audit as required pursuant to the 

Commission's regulations, the auditors may consider the documentation in lieu ofour conclusion. 

* The $639,000 amount represents the amount that the Committee moved to the Biden Senate committee. 

According to the auditors, because the excessive contributions were based on a sampling, they cannot determine 

with certainty that all $639,000 ofthe contributions moved to the Senate committee were excessive contributions 

fi:om the primary election. Some contributors may have originally designated their contnbutions to the Presidential 

general election. 
Memorandum to Wanda J. Thomas 

Preliminary Audit Report Legal Analysis 

Biden for President (LRA 742) 

Page 7 of 10 

There is no basis on which the auditors may conclude, consistent with the Commission's 

regulations, that there was some earlier, timely redesignation of the contributions in question 

from the Presidential primary election to the Presidential general election. If a political 

committee does not retain the written evidence of a redesignation in writing or a presumptive 

redesignation notice, "the redsignation or reattribution shall not be effective, and the original 

designation shall control." 11 C.F.R. § 110.1(l)(5). Accordingly, the original contributions must 

be considered to be excessive Presidential primary election contributions at least up until the 

point at which the contributors received the notices asking them to redesignate Presidential 

general election contributions to the Senate campaign. 

On the other hand, we conclude that the redesignation forms signed by the contributors, 

authorizing the redesignation of their Presidential general election contributions to the Senate 

election(s) may also serve as the functional equivalent of untimely presumptive redesignations 

from the Presidential primary to the Presidential general election. 

This conclusion is consistent with the notice provision of presumptive redesignations. A 

presumptive redesignation does not require a written authorization from the contributor. Rather, 

the Committee may send a notice to the contributor ofthe redesignatibn and infonn the 

contributor of his or her option to request that the contribution be refunded. 

11 C.F.R. § 110.1 (b)(5)(ii)(B). To be timely, the presumptive notice must be sent within 60 days 

ofthe date tiiat tiie Committee received the contribution. 11 C.F.R. § 110.1(b)(5)(ii)(B)(6). The 

rationale for presiuEnptive redesignations is based on the presun^tion that "the contributor 

intended to contribute any excessive amount to that candidate's general election, without 

obtaining written permission from the contributor to treat the excess as a general election 

contribution." 67 Fed. Reg. at 69,930. In our facts, the contributor has explicitly authorized, 

with his or her signature, the Committee to redesignate a Presidential general election 

contribution (originally part of an otherwise excessive Presidential primary election contribution) 

to the Senate primary or general election. We conclude that the signed contributor forms 

authorizing the redesignation of Presidential general election contributions to the Senate 

election(s) also serve to put the contributor on notice that the Clommittee has also presumed that 

the portion ofthe otherwise excessive Presidential primary election contribution was previously 

redesignated to the Presidential general election, though it is now redesignated for the Senate 

election(s). The contributions to the Presidential priiriafy erectron, however, were excessive until 

the Presidential general to Senate redesignation fohns were sent. Given that these redesignation 

forms, serving as the functional equivalent of the presumptive redesignation notices, were sent 

much later than 60 days after the excessive Presidential primary contributions, they are untimely 

as to the redesignations from the Presidential primary to the Presidential general election.^ 

11 C.F.R. § 110.1(b)(5)(ii)(B)(6). We recommend that the auditors revise the proposed Report 

to provide more information in support of their conclusion and consistent with the above 

analysis.^ 

' We contemplated whether the auditors could conceivably infer that the written redesignations reflect iht 

contributors' intent to redesignate their Presidential primary election contributions directiy to the Senate election, 

rather than fi:om the Presidential general eleclion to the Senate election. The auditors, however, would then have to 

consider these redesignations untimely, because the contributors provided the written redesignations significantly 

longer than 60 days after the dates the Committee received the contributions. See 11 C.F.R. § 110.1(b)(5)(ii)(A)(2). 
Memorandum to Wanda J. Thomas 

Preliminary Audit Report Legal Analysis 

Biden for President (LRA 742) 

Page 8 of 10 

The Commission has pennitted conimittees to resolve problems pertaining to otherwise 

excessive primary contributions, at least for purposes ofthe audits, by sending untimely 

presumptive notification letters to the contributors.^° See. e.g., Audits for Keny Edwards 2004, 

Clark for President, Martinez for Senate, and Craig Romero for Congress. These were all 2004 

cycle audits, and some of them pertained to publically funded 2004 presidential campaigns, 

while others were audits authorized pursuant to 2 U.S.C. § 438(b). In our facts, if we permit the 

redesignation notices signed by the contributors authorizing the redesignation of their 

Presidential general election contributions to the Senate election(s) also to serve as the functional 

equivalent of untimely presumptive redesignation notices from the Presidential primafy election 

to tiie Presidential general election, the Committee does not need to send out further presumptive 

redesignation notices. 

|we recommena tnat 

cive reaesignation issue m their cover memorandum-to the . 

Commission. 

2. Refunds and Redesignations from the Presidential General Electron to 

the Senaite Election Were Ti^ly 

We address two additional issues regarding tiie timeliness ofthe written redesignations 

from the Presidential general election to the Sehate election(s), as well as any other refunds or 

redesignations of contributions originally designated for the Presidential general election. The 

auditors note in tiieir cover memorandum to the proposed Report that "although letters 

requesting redesignation to the candidate's Senate campaign were obtained timely, the 

subsequent transfer of contributions to the candidate's Senate campaign did not appear initially 

to have been done timely." However, the auditors note that they have tolled the Committee's 60 

day period for issuing refunds and obtaining redesignations from the Presidential general election 

to the Senate election until September 8,2008, consistent with Advisory Opinion 2008-04 

(Dodd). Consequentiy, the auditors treated refunds and redesignations from the Presidential 

general election to the Senate election as timely, and therefore did not include these issues in the 

proposed Report. While we agree that the refunds and redesignations from the Presidential 

general election to the Senate election should be treated as timely, we arrive at that conclusion 

through a somewhat different analysis. 

We believe that there is no legal authority that requires a committee to move redesignated 

funds from one campaign to another within the 60 day period. Commission regulations only 

require that a committee receive the redesignation letters from contributors within that 

The Commission has considered similar redesignation issues in Audit matters that have been referred to the 

Office of the General Counsel's Enforcement Division for consideration. The Commission has closed some of these 

matters after conciliation, including MUR 5959 (Martinez for Senate), MUR 5962 (Istook for Congress), MUR 5960 

(Gephardt for PresidenQ, and MUR 5961 (DeMint for Congress). 
Memorandum to Wanda J. Thomas 

Preliminary Audit Report Legal Analysis 

Biden for President (LRA 742) 

Page 9 of 10 

timeframe. There is nothing in 11 C.F.R. §§ 102.9(e) or 110.1(b), nor in Advisory Opinion 

2007-03 (Obama) or Advisory Opinion 2008-04 (Dodd), that suggests a Presidential committee 

must move funds to the Senate committee within a certain amount of time. Rather, 11 CF.R. 

§ 110.1(b)(5)(ii)(A)(2) states that a contribution is considered to be properly redesignated for 

anotiier election when "within sixty days from the treasurer's receipt of the contribution, the 

contributor provides the treasurer with a written redesignation oftiie contribution for another 

election, which is signed by the contributor." We recognize that where contributors have 

redesignated contributions between two different candidacies rather than just between the 

primary and general elections, there are additional practical concems involving the timely 

movement of funds.. Specifically, redesignated funds ultimately must be moved to another 

committee in order to practically effectuate the redesignation. Here, however, we believe these 

concems are minimal, since the Committee did, in fact, move the funds to the Senate committee 

within a reasonable amount of time, albeit not within the 60 day period required under 11 C.F.R. 

§110.1(b)(5)(ii)(A)(2). 

To the extent that any refunds or redesignations remain untimely given the above, we 

agree with the auditors that they should toll the Committee's 60 day period until September 8, 

2008, consistent with Advisory Opinion 2008-04 (Dodd). The basic principle underlying 

advisory opinions is that they may be relied upon by "any person mvolved in the specific 

transaction or activity with respect to which such advisory opinion is rendered, and... which is 

indistinguishable in all its material aspects from the trsmsaction or activity with respect to which 

advisory opiasion is rendered." 11 C.F.R. § 112.5(a). While Commission regulations suggest 

that a person may only rely upon an existing advisory opinion in order to avoid sanctions from 

the Commission, see 11 C.F.R. § 112.5(b), and Advisory Opinion 2008-04 had not yet been 

issued at tfie time the Committee acted, the Committee's facts and circumstances were materially 

indistinguishable from those of Senator Dodd's committee. Accordingly, we believe it would be 

fundamentally unfair to give one committee significantly more time to resolve excessive 

contributions than another simply because it filed an advisory opinion request. 

In Advisory Opinion 2008-04, the Commissioners looked to either the existerice of a 

novel legal question or the lack of a quomm of Commissioners as the basis for tolling the 60 day 

period, Advisory Opinion 2008-04 at n.3, and here the Conunittee was faced witii both the 

same novel legal question and a lack of quorum of Commissioners: Mr. Biden withdrew from 

the Presidential primary race on January 3,2008, the same day as Senator Dodd. The Committee 

sent out the requests for redesignations in question in Febmary, the same mbnth as Senator 

Dodd's committee. And the Committee obtained the late redesignations and made the late 

refunds in mid-March, afier its 60 day period had mn, which is precisely the legal scenario 

Senator Dodd's committee presented in its advisoiy opinion request. 

We suggest the auditors iiicorporate the above analysis in Finding 2 and specify the 

precise type^and amount of contributions that the auditors have tolled in the proposed Report. As 

a genera] rule, the Commission is not required to. toll any statutory or regulatory deadtines based 

on the existence of an unresolved legal question, even when an advisory opinion seeking 

guidance on that specific question is pending, ^ee Advisory Opinion 2008-04 (Dodd). Because 

such toUing would be sometiiing done entirely at the Commission's discretion rather than a 
Memorandum to Wanda J. Thomas 

Preliminary Audit Report Legal Analysis 

Biden for President (LRA 742) 

Page 10 of 10 

legally required mandate, we believe the auditors should include a detailed analysis and 

breakdown of the contributions affected Iby flie tolling in order for the Commisisioners to better 

understand and analyze the precise typjg^ and amount of late redesigtlations addressed in tiie audit.