Rabbitt warned, not fined, by watchdog agency

<p>The state Fair Political Practices Commission has warned Petaluma City Councilman David Rabbitt about improperly filling out campaign finance reports from 2006 and 2007.</p><p>But the watchdog agency ruled that Rabbitt wasn't trying to mislead anyone, so it issued no fines.</p><p>The community group Petaluma Tomorrow had complained that Rabbitt, also a candidate for the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, violated the city's campaign finance ordinance on his disclosure forms during his successful council run four years ago.</p><p>Rabbitt carried unpaid debts from five campaign vendors over several reporting cycles instead of converting the debt to campaign contributions after 30 days, which the city ordinance requires. The debts were disclosed each cycle as unpaid debt.</p><p>The FPPC issued a warning letter, which states that there was evidence to show a violation.</p><p>“Because, however, you did not appear to be avoiding disclosure, the inaccuracies appear to be inadvertent mistakes, and you have since amended the reports to correct the errors, we have decided to close the case,” the letter states.</p><p>“I made an error on the form, and I knew that,” Rabbitt said Friday. “Since I corrected the forms and turned those in, there was no disclosure violation.”</p><p>The debts have since been paid and Rabbitt has filed corrected reports.</p><p>Petaluma Tomorrow, a slow-growth watchdog group, has supported Pam Torliatt, one of Rabbitt's opponents for the supervisors seat. Rabbitt said the timing of the complaints in relation to the supervisors race was suspicious.</p><p>“It's just crappy politics,” he said. “I wasn't trying to violate any kind of disclosure (rules). At end of day, it was an error.”</p><p>Petaluma Tomorrow also complained to the city attorney, which forwarded the complaint to the Sonoma County District Attorney's Office.</p><p>Prosecutors said they didn't pursue an investigation because the allegations were well beyond the one-year statute of limitations provided for in the ordinance. Petaluma Tomorrow was a driving force behind the ordinance, which was enacted in 2004.</p><p>The group argued that because the errors were carried over, each day was a separate violation and the most recent finance reports should have been within the statute.</p><p>“We said, ‘No, there is no continuing violation,'” said Assistant District Attorney Diana Gomez.</p><p>Bill Phillips of Petaluma Tomorrow said his group was pleased with the FPPC warning.</p><p>“That's a benefit for the voters and all the people who donated to his campaign,” he said.</p><p>He said the errors, even if unintentional, show a carelessness and inattention to detail.</p>