Report 15-13 August 2015 Complaints Considered by the Government Accountability Board Legislative Audit Bureau n Complaints Filed with the Ethics and Accountability Division Complaints Filed with the Elections Division GAB Decision-Making Improving Complaint Procedures Complaints GAB may investigate alleged violations of election, campaign finance, lobbying, and code of ethics laws.  Any individual may file a complaint with GAB alleging a violation of election, campaign finance, lobbying, and code of ethics laws. By resolution, GAB may authorize an investigation if it believes there is reasonable suspicion a violation has occurred or is occurring. In addition to bringing civil actions for violations of these laws, which may result in courts assessing forfeitures, statutes allow GAB to compromise and settle any civil action or potential action that it considers to be a minor violation or a violation caused by excusable neglect. When GAB does so, it may assess a financial penalty. In certain instances, GAB may refer information related to an alleged criminal violation of election, campaign finance, lobbying, and code of ethics laws to a district attorney or the Attorney General. From FY 2010-11 through FY 2012-13, GAB’s staff determined whether they were able to consider a complaint informally, or whether a complaint merited GAB’s involvement. We found that staff recently closed 277 complaints that had been filed from FY 2010-11 through FY 2012-13 because they believed no further action was warranted. Complaints Filed with the Ethics and Accountability Division SECTION 5.05(2m), Wis. Stats., allows GAB to investigate complaints alleging violations of campaign finance, lobbying, and code of ethics laws. In response to complaints filed with GAB or as a result of staff identifying potential concerns while completing their job duties, the administrator of the Ethics and Accountability Division sometimes 5 6     C OMPLAINTS initiated inquiries that were conducted by staff. Depending on the results of a given inquiry, GAB could vote to initiate an investigation. Statutes allow GAB to retain special investigators to conduct investigations. We found that GAB executed 11 contracts with special investigators from FY 2010-11 through FY 2013-14. The available information indicates the administrator of the Ethics and Accountability Division did not consistently provide GAB with the names of three qualified individuals who could be retained as special investigators, as required by statutes. In report 14-14, we examined complaints filed with the Ethics and Accountability Division from FY 2010-11 through FY 2012-13. GAB’s staff indicated that they reviewed each complaint in order to determine whether the complaint should be dismissed immediately, typically because the issue was unrelated to GAB’s statutory authority. For example, inmates filed complaints with GAB about the quality of their legal representation and their treatment in correctional facilities. Staff did not track how many complaints they received and dismissed immediately from FY 2010-11 through FY 2012-13. The division’s administrator divided into two categories the complaints that warranted consideration. The first category included complaints that could be resolved quickly. For example, if an individual alleged that a yard sign placed in support of a candidate for political office did not comply with statutes because the yard sign failed to indicate who paid for it, GAB’s staff may have instructed the candidate to alter the sign to include the required information. If the candidate agreed to do so, staff considered the complaint to be resolved without needing to involve GAB. From FY 2010-11 through FY 2012-13, staff did not track the complaints filed in this category. The second category included complaints that could not be resolved quickly but that instead warranted an inquiry by GAB’s staff, who attempted to contact the relevant individuals and request the information necessary to assess the complaint’s validity. These complaints involved instances in which staff believed a reasonable suspicion existed that a statutory violation may have occurred, such as the misuse of campaign finance funds, violations of lobbying laws, or the misuse of public office for political purposes. In addition, when staff identified a potential concern while completing their job duties, the division’s administrator sometimes initiated an inquiry even if a complaint had not been filed. For example, an audit of a candidate’s campaign finance report may have suggested that some required information had been excluded.