"The biggest company you've never heard of" is managing the city's parking meters
MTA documents show that Andy Thornley, formerly of the Bicycle Coalition, is actually working for Serco, not the MTA, under a $43 million contract with the city to manage the city's parking meters. (I wrote about Thornley leaving the SFBC here.) How Serco handles refugees in Australia. How Serco manages juvenile detention in Australia. Serco requires a lot of oversight after it gets a contract. Serco and privatization.
|Andy "We need to take space from cars" Thornley|
Why we need to keep an eye on Serco in San Francisco:
EXHIBIT 1 IN SUPPORT OF STIPULATION, DECISION AND ORDER FPPC 08/074
Respondent Serco Management Services, Inc. ("Respondent Serco") is a service company providing infrastructure support services to state and local governments. Respondent Serco has multi-million dollar contracts with the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency ("SFMTA") to provide parking services. In 2006, Bevan Dufty, Chris Daly and Doug Chan were all candidates for San Francisco Board of Supervisors, which approves contracts made with SFMTA. Paul Carpmeal was at all times relevant to this matter a supervisor for Serco out of their San Francisco office, supervising, among others, Timothy Sanocki, Andrew Kang, and Alexiy Sukhendo.
In this matter, Respondent Serco made five contributions, totaling $1,100, to the controlled committees of Bevan Dufty, Chris Daly and Doug Chan between June and October, 2006, in names other than its own name, in violation of Government Code Section 84301 of the Political Reform Act (the "Act").
1 These violations denied the public of information regarding the true source of these candidates’ financial support.
SUMMARY OF THE LAW
An express purpose of the Act, as set forth in Section 81002, subdivision (a), is to ensure that receipts and expenditures in election campaigns are fully and truthfully disclosed, so that voters may be fully informed, and improper practices may be inhibited. The Act therefore provides for the full disclosure of receipts and expenditures in election campaigns through the periodic filing of campaign statements, as provided in Sections 84200 through 84211.
In order to obtain disclosure of the true source of a contribution, Section 84301 provides that no contribution shall be made, directly or indirectly, by any person in a name other than the name by which that person is identified for legal purposes.
SUMMARY OF THE FACTS
Respondent Serco has multi-million dollar contracts with the SFMTA to provide parking services. In 2006, Bevan Dufty, Chris Daly and Doug Chan were all candidates for San Francisco Board of Supervisors, which approves contracts made with SFMTA. Paul Carpmeal was at all times relevant to this matter a supervisor for Serco out of their San Francisco office, supervising, among others, Timothy Sanocki, Andrew Kang, and Alexiy Sukhendo.
During 2006, Paul Carpmeal directed these three Serco employees to make a total of five contributions to various candidates for San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors out of their personal funds and then receive reimbursement from Serco petty cash. Mr. Carpmeal had been advised that he, as a foreign national, could not make contributions personally. Additionally, Respondent Serco was prohibited by the San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code from making contributions to any individuals holding a position on the Board of Supervisors, or candidates for the Board of Supervisors, since the Board ultimately approves the SFMTA contracts with Serco.
Making a Contribution in a Name Other Than One’s Own Name
Respondent Serco made five contributions, totaling $1,100, to three candidate controlled committees between June and October 2006, in names other than its own name, in violation of Section 84301. Respondent made the contributions by reimbursing through petty cash to three individuals who were Serco employees who had made a contribution to the campaign committees of Bevan Dufty, Chris Daly, and Doug Chan at the request of their supervisor, Paul Carpmeal. Respondent Serco did not inform any of the three campaign committees that it was the true source of these contributions.
At the time of the violations, a San Francisco city ordinance imposed a ban on campaign contributions made to candidates for certain elected offices, ones which had the power to approve contracts with the company making the contributions, and prohibited contributions from corporations or businesses if a separate committee was not used. (San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code Sections 1.114(b) and 1.126.) As such, Respondent Serco was prohibited from giving to these three committees for candidates for the San Francisco County Board of Supervisors since the Board of Supervisors ultimately approves the SFMTA contracts with Serco...