OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE, ELECTIONS DIVISION STATE OF COLORADO es IN THE MATTER OF DANIEL LEE SAPIENZA v. ANGELA MYERS 2018-11 ee eee FINAL AGENCY DECISION Daniel Lee Sapienza (Complainant) filed a complaint with the Elections Division on September 27, 2018, pursuant to Campaign and Political Finance (CPF) Rule 18.2), alleging that Angela Myers? (Respondent), violated Colorado campaign finance law by “authorizing and providing ‘monthly payments to herself from the county”? for her campaign cell phone ‘The Elections Division notified the Respondent of the complaint by email on September 27, 2018, ‘The Blections Division has conducted an inital review in accordance with CPF Rulle 18.24. For the reasens set forth below, the Elections Division finds thatthe complainant does not allege ‘8 violation of Colorado campaign finance law. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed Findings 1. The complainant does not allege a violation of Colorado Constitution Art. XXVII, the Fair Campaign Practices Act, or the Secretary of State's Rules concerning Campaign and Political Finance. ‘Complainant alleges Respondent has violated Colorado campaign finance law by using her personal cell phone for campaign-related business despite the fact thet Larimer County. reimburses her for a portion of her monthly phone bil. Fr the reasons below, the Elections Division consludes thatthe complaint fails to allege a violation of Colorads campaign finance law. Colorado law prohibits any political subdivision ofthe state from making any contribution in campaigns involving the nomination, retention, or election of any person to any publi office * * 8CCR 1505-6, Rule 182. * Larime County Clerk and Recorder » Complent, Cover Sheet. Section -45-117(0 a0, CRS.‘A conteibution is defined in the Colorado constitution (1) The payment, loan, pledge, gif, or advance of money, or guarantee of a loan, made to any candidate committe, issue committee, political ‘committee, small donor commitee, or political party; (1) Any payment made to a third party for the benefit of any candidate committee, issue committee, politcal committee, small donor committee, or political party; (Il) The fair market value of any gift or loan of property made to any candidate committe, issue commitee, political committe, small donor committe ot political party; (IV) Anything of value given, directly or indirectly, to a candidate for the purpose of promoting the candidate's nomination, retention, recall, or election’ ‘As an initial matter, CPF Rule 18.2.2 states that complaints must be filed “no later than 90 days. after the complainant knew or should have known by the exercise of reasonable diligence ofthe alleged violation.” Asa result, to the extent Complainant alleges violations outside the 90 days prior to filing his complaint, the Elections Division finds that those allegations are outside the statute of limitations set forth in Rule. The Elections Division will review Complainant's allegations that fll within the 90 days preceding the complaint Complainant alleges and provides evidence that Respondent applied for and received Larimer ‘County's wireless device allowance for 2018, inthe amount of $120 per mont, including the ‘three months leading up tothe filing ofthe complaint. Complainant further alleges thatthe Respondent uses the reimbursement amount to pay for @ portion ofthe cost for her personal cell ‘phone, which she uses for both county business and in her campaign for re-election to Larimer ‘County Cesk and Recorder. Complainant alleges that this isa prohibited contribution under section 1-45-117, CRS, and a violation of Colorado law, First, the political subdivision contribution prohibition inthe Fair Campaign Practices Act is a prohibition onthe political subdivision, not onthe candidate. As a result, othe extent ‘Complainant asserts a violation of section 1-45-17, C-RS., that violation should be directed to the political subdivision ~ Larimer County — and not to the Respondent. ‘But even though the allegations are directed to the wrong party, the Elections Division finds that Complainant has failed to allege a violation of Colorado campaign finance law. Colorado campaign finance law does not prohibit Respondent's use of her personal cell phone for both county business related to her job as county clerk and recorder and for campaign activity related to her re-election. Complainant’s evidence shows thatthe county directly reimburses Respondent * Colo, Cons. rt. XXVIII, se: 2(5¥.4 standard monthly amount, and thet the reimbursement does not cover the entire cost of Respondents cell phone bill, ‘The Complainant does not allege, nor does the Elections Division find evidence to support, thet Responéents application for and receipt of reimbursement funds forthe portion of Respondent's cel phone bill related to her county employment is outside Larimer County's wireless ‘reimbursement policy. The evidence suggests that the reimbursement policy is equally available tall employees who use their personal cell phones for county business, and does not otherwise place restrictions on an employee's personal use of their phone Further, Complainant has presented no evidence to suggest thatthe county, by reimbursing funds to an employee in accordance with standard policy, specifically intended to promote ‘Responcent’s election or further her campaign, or thatthe payment was made directly to the candidate's candidate committee, In sum, Complainant fails to allege a violation, andthe must be dismissed, Tothe estent Complainant also alleges a failure by Respondent to disclose the county's reimbursement as «contribution to her campaign, the complaint also fails because the Elections Division finds thatthe reimbursements were not contributions. 2. The Elections Division need not determine whether the complainant has alleged sufficient fats to support a legal and factual basis fr the complaint, ‘Because the Elections Division has determined that the complaint does not allege a violation of Colorado campaign finance law, the Division need not determine whether sufficient facts were alleged to support the complaint. Conclusion For the rasons set forth above, the Elections Division finds thatthe complaint does not allege a ‘Violation of Colorado campaign finance law. The complaint is dismissed ‘Dated this \\ day of October, 2018, 1700 Broadway, Suite 200 Denver, CO 80290 (03) 864.2200 “The dismissal ica inal agency action, and rubjct to eview under section 24-4106, CRS.