By Natasha Collins
The campaign practices and campaign financial statements of supervisorial candidate Barbara Koppel have been attacked by Joe Simitian, her opponent for the Fifth District seat.
Simitian accused Koppel of receiving contributions over the legal limit of $350, receiving contributions after the legal acceptance date, not returning illegal contributions, accepting contributions from an interested party while sitting on the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and running her campaign at a deficit.
All these accusations were presented Sept. 4 to the Santa Clara County Ethics Commission. In the four minutes given for Koppel to respond, her attorney Richard K. Abdalah denied the accusations.
"Many of these accusations are frivolous, and we will prove that," Abdalah said. "We didn't see half of the stuff they presented before today, which is unfair. How do they expect us to respond to things we knew nothing about?"
The items Koppel's campaign crew of Abdalah, financial adviser Tom Hall and campaign manager Ronald Smith did receive were not presented to them with enough time to adequately respond, they said.
"We were given the documents two days before the long holiday weekend," Abdalah said. "This was not adequate time for us to respond to all the allegations. We believe the timing of this is suspicious."
Koppel will present her side of the case to the commission on Sept. 18.
Simitian and lawyer William Hebert believe Koppel has violated the policy of public disclosure and are raising a question about campaign spending limits.
"The voting public has a right to know who the campaign contributors are," Simitian said.
Simitian argued that because Koppel had received in-lieu contributions, or donations of services, on the day of the election from several local food industry groups, she violated the 17-day contribution ban. The ordinance reads in part, "No person shall accept or solicit any contributions...after 17 days prior to the primary or general election."
Koppel argues, however, that her victory celebration did not violate the law because it took place on election day.
"All the donations he is referring to were for a victory-day celebration/kickoff party for the general election," Koppel said. "I believed that according to the law I could have these [in-lieu-of contributions] made on election day."
Simitian has also accused Koppel of accepting contributions in excess of the amount allowed by ethical standards ordinances. Simitian said Koppel received a contribution of $350 from Kaiser Cement Corporation and a contribution of $350 from Kaiser Sand and Gravel. The law says a primary business entity can only donate up to $350. Since both of these companies are owned by Hanson Industries, only a contribution totalling $350 could have legally been made.
Koppel says she did not know the two companies were owned by a larger entity and that a violation had occurred. "I did not intentionally do anything wrong," she said. "I have bent over backwards to run a clean campaign. If I was going to do anything illegal, why would I report it?"
Koppel was also asked to defend contributions made by school board, state assembly and supervisor candidates. Simitian says that donations made from other campaign funds violated the California Fair Political Practices act, which prohibits the transfer of funds from one campaign committee to another.
"The money was not transferred from one campaign to another. They were donations by these people," Koppel said. "If this is not allowed, then a lot of people don't know about it."
The most damaging accusation made against Koppel was her acceptance of donations by Kaiser Cement and Kaiser employees while sitting on the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. According to Simitian's attorney, contributions were made soon after a permit was granted by the Air Quality Management District to burn tires. Hebert argued that if the permit had been appealed, it would have come before the board for a vote.
"It is a conflict of interest for her to receive donations from a group with a permit pending," Hebert said.
Koppel said that since the application for Kaiser's permit was not a board decision, she would not have to vote on the issue, so there was no conflict or violation. The issuing of a permit is handled by the Air Quality Management staff and not the board, she added.
Koppel hopes to clear her name of all accusations filed against her and believes Simitian is overstepping his bounds to find charges against her.
"I guess this is how he is going to run his campaign," Koppel said. "These are just more frivolous charges . People know me and understand all these charges are untrue."
Koppel will present her case to the Santa Clara County Ethics Commission on Sept. 18 at 3 p.m. in the Santa Clara County Government Center. A final decision will be made by the commission after both sides have presented their case and an investigation by the commission has been completed.
This article appeared in the Saratoga News, September 11, 1996.
©1996 Metro Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved