Grasha Faces $20,000 FPPC Fine

Former Mission Springs Water Director Faces $20,000 FPPC Fine

The California Fair Political Practices Commission will consider fining Steve Grasha, a former member of the Mission Springs Water District, $20,000 for violating campaign laws, according to the FPPC Agenda.

That’s only 50% of what the FPPC had originally proposed.

So, why the proposed reduction?

The FPPC cannot comment on this specific person, case, or situation, but speaking in general terms only about the process

Cases are concluded in a number of ways (not counting anything any District Attorney or the Attorney General’s Office may do… that’s beyond our jurisdiction, although, as an aside, we do work closely and routinely with DA’s, the AG’s Office, local Ethics agencies in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, and Oakland, the FBI, US Attorney’s Offices, IRS, FTB, even other states), Jay Wierenga, Fair Political Practices Commission Communications Director, explained.

“Most of our cases are settled,” he said. “When any investigation finds violation(s) of the Act, our first course is to begin settlement talks. And, most cases, as mentioned, are settled with a stipulated agreement. This is our preferred method because, first of all, it has the violator admitting, publicly, they violated the law, the Act. It brings a monetary penalty (unless it’s a Warning Letter, which is just that) so the State of California receives a judgement that is real, is paid, and goes to the State General Fund (we do not keep penalties). And finally, it’s generally a quicker process than the next one.”

Obviously, anyone and everyone has due process rights, so anyone facing the finding of a violation can contest it, fight it. There is a hearing process that, in a nutshell, ends up with someone having their case heard with an Administrative Law Judge, who makes a recommendation (not a closure), the Commission (the 5 Commissioners) rules on that recommendation, and IF someone STILL contests all that, they can go to Superior Court and a Judge will make the final ruling. This happens very infrequently, but it’s available as due process. And anyone can settle at any point along the way (and many do during this process). Again, this brings a finding, a closure, and most of the time an admission of a violation and a payment to the State of a penalty, Wierenga said.

If someone doesn’t agree to a settlement or ignores subpoenas and deadlines for the hearing process, then it goes to default. Because we have to bring to a closure any case we find with a violation of the law. As mentioned, most are settled, some get settled through the hearing process. Those that don’t end up in a default. A default means that someone/some group facing a violation(s) has never responded to us, has quite responding after initial response, or walked away from everything at some point.

So, we have to bring a case to closure, and a default decision does that. It closes a case with a finding. But it’s our last and least favored option for a few reasons. First of all, it’s a finding without anyone admitting any guilt, as opposed to a settlement or a hearing/court finding. Second, it comes without the person/group paying a penalty/fine. The penalty imposed is what is then owed by the person/group to the State, to taxpayers. Third, we then have to begin a collections process which can take time, work hours, etc., and is no guarantee all, most, or even some will be paid to the state. But we can and do impose things like liens on property, garnishment of tax refunds, lottery winnings (any state-involved income) in order to collect the judgement, Wierenga said.

“Now, you will normally see default fines (proposed penalties until voted on by the Commission) proposed at the maximum, the most counts, the maximum fine for each count (any violation of the Act can result in a penalty of up to $5,000 per violation),” Wierenga said. “This is done in an effort to hopefully make someone, in layperson’s terms, be scared, get their attention, to get them to take it seriously, to get them literally back to the table, to get them to get back involved in reaching a settlement.”

And, in an effort to get them back to the table, the Commission voted a few years ago to put every default on the agenda one month ahead of any scheduled vote as a “pre-notice”. (that’s what the first proposed $40,000 fine was about.) It’s literally an attempt to make it public, to hopefully get the public’s attention (as well as the person facing the default), to hopefully get public opinion, outrage, concern, whatever you want to call it, attention to the fact that a public official hasn’t or isn’t cooperating, ignored deadlines for their own hearing availability and process, etc., and is facing this judgement.

It appears Grasha got scared and settled.

You can read what all led to this point, including him hanging up on an FPPC official here https://ukenreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Grasha-FPPC.pdf

He declined to comment and instead lashed out at this reporter with wild and false accusations.

The FPPC meets Thursday to vote on the fine.