Grisham Bills Recall Campaign for Security Firm She Founded in January; 3/5 Election Still Counting Votes, But Some Races Clear

Grisham Bills Recall Campaign for Security Firm She Founded in January

Price-Recall Campaign head Brenda Grisham expensed payments to the campaign for a security firm she herself founded in late January, a new campaign finance report reveals. Grisham appears to own the company—Efficient Private Protection and Security, LLC [EPPS]—which was registered under Grisham’s name just a month and a half ago on January 23, 2024, according to Secretary of State documents. The reports show that Grisham, acting as an agent of the campaign, allegedly paid EPPS, apparently her own company, $4,525.00 in the period between October 1 and December 31, 2023. An East Bay Times report cites Grisham's own claim that she has already been reimbursed for the amount by the campaign.

The new and bewildering information comes from an amended “460” report that SAFE—the acronym for the Recall campaign run by Grisham and Carl Chan—filed this week. A 460 report is a required campaign finance report which details money raised, spent and owed that is required to be submitted regularly during election periods and semi-annually. Those reports are also subject to amendment when mistakes or oversights are caught either by the campaign principals or the Fair Political Practices Commission [FFPC]. The report is published to the public again with amendments briefly described, but without full explanations or narratives.

The new report is timestamped March 4th just after 1pm, around the time that Chan, Grisham and others were holding a press conference on the steps of the courthouse as they turned in signatures, flanked by armed, masked men bearing sidearms.

Grisham Acted as Campaign Agent, Paying EPPS

SAFE’s original 460 submitted in late January covered October 1 through December 31 and had no mention of EPPS, nor Grisham’s alleged expenditures. The amended report containing the new information was timestamped Monday at around 1pm, shortly after SAFE turned in what the campaign claims is over 100K signatures for Price’s recall. The new report adds potentially $4,525 to the previous expenditures reported in January. Grisham also appears to have billed the campaign $2,562 coded as office expenses— the amount is exactly the cost of one of the payments listed to her own security firm, but it's unknown what the expense is for.

It’s not clear why the information wasn’t included in the original report, or why it is only coming to light this week, after campaign principals Carl Chan and Grisham arrived at the Renee C Davidson courthouse flanked by armed men masking their identity in order to turn in what they claim is well over 100K signatures for the recall of DA Price. As startled witnesses and viewers of the event observed, the men had no corresponding company-identifying information and were dressed in black with patches that said security, but not wearing uniforms. Several carried handguns on hip holsters.

Payments like those purportedly made by Grisham are typical for a campaign, and are itemized in a special section where the costs are not added to the campaign expenditures—Schedule G is most often used like an expense account sheet, when a representative of the campaign must purchase items or services out of pocket but will expect to be compensated. Full compensation may be reported in a subsequent report or the same report—it’s possible that the $2,562 that shows up in accrued expenses for Grisham is an attempt to represent compensation to Grisham for at least some of the costs.

Grisham in recent statements to the East Bay Times declined to identify the name of the employer of the armed men accompanying herself and other campaign staff, though she claims it was not EPPS. Security companies that fill a role using weapons require certifications and training and there are legal requirements about their presentation—they must have patches identifying their company, which the armed group shadowing Chan and Grisham lacked. If the group that accompanied Chan and Grisham are with EPPS, more payments may surface in subsequent reports. EPPS appears to lack state credentials, as well.

Chan Would Have Had to Okay Process

Many campaign finance committees that intend to raise large sums hire a mainstream oversight and accounting organization to serve in the role of Treasurer, likely because state and federal campaign finance laws are a specialized area of knowledge and easy to run afoul of. SAFE did hire such a firm, Deane and Company—but Carl Chan, a co-founder of the committee, is listed as the Treasurer, with a Deane representative as Assistant Treasurer. That means that Chan is ultimately responsible for the committee’s account and must personally sign off on the reports and the books. Fair Political Practices Commission [FPPC] literature advises committee principals that the Treasurer position should not be filled by someone intending to serve as a mere figurehead—the Treasurer is directly accountable for the campaign’s finances and even the actions of the Assistant Treasurer. Chan can also be seen in photos taken of the event flanked by the security guards and apparently using their services.

This publication sent Chan detailed questions about these and other issues, but Chan did not respond by press time—and has never responded to any questions from this publication.

EPPS Did Not Exist During the Reporting Period

The report raises other issues. EPPS, was only registered by Grisham, according to documents, on January 23, 2024—the company apparently did not legally exist when Grisham expensed the payments to the campaign last year. The registration was logged about a week before the 10-1 to 12/31 report’s January 31, 2024 due date.

Price’s campaign team and representatives have reacted with concern about the revelations. A statement from William Fitzgerald, the “Protect the Win” spokesperson to this publication called the security group “an unidentified armed militia…no logos, just mystery and black masks.” Fitzgerald said the actions put the public at risk.

Long-Standing Issues on Price Recall Resurface

Price’s legal representative, James R. Sutton, of The Sutton Law Firm, this week also sent the ROV a letter outlining the Charter-specific process expected from the ROV. Sutton notes the ALCO Charter mandates that:

—Only signatures collected by ALCO registered voters may count toward the recall

—Only those signatures that also include the occupation of the signer are valid

—The ROV take no more than 10 days to verify all signatures

The ROV under Tim Dupuis has stated that the office regards the signature-gatherer voter registration in the charter rules to be unconstitutional. But Sutton’s firm has informed Dupuis at least twice over the past several months that the firm regards Dupuis perspective unfounded and has cautioned him to observe the registered voter requirement. The ROV has also admitted publicly and in documents that that the verification most likely can't be completed in 10 days.

Measure B, Changing Charter Recall Rules to State's Rules, Will Likely Pass

Measure B, the ballot measure that could change ALCO’s recall rules to those used by the state currently has 65% of votes, with only 50% + 1 needed to pass in the most current vote tallies. The measure most likely will pass.

According to statements made by Donna Ziegler, the County’s Counsel, in preparation of the legislation, the major impact to the current recall would be if the signatures are found to be valid and an election is scheduled. The election date would be more ample and flexible in that case using the state’s rules after the charter is amended, and the election would not include a replacement option on the ballot. But the current rules for establishing signature validation will hold. That means the ROV must attempt to validate the recall signatures while counting ballots for the March 5th election, and has until March 14th to do so. As of the publication date for this article, likely less than half of the County’s ballots have been counted. Sutton says that his firm may pursue legal remedies if the ROV does not hold to the Charter requirements.

3/5 Election Still Counting Votes, But Some Races Clear

Not enough votes have been counted to make predictions on every ALCO March 5th contest, but many candidates and measures have already logged so many positive votes, the outcome seems fairly certain as of March 8th on the following races:

—Bas is likely to be the major vote holder for ALCO BOS D5, but will be shy of the 50% needed to avoid a runoff in November. Bauters will likely be her opponent in November.

—Miley’s machine politics brought him to an outsized share of the votes in ALCO D5 early on in an unsurprising outcome and he’s likely to hold on to the seat he’s held for over 20 years.

—All of the County and City measures are likely to pass, including Measure B, which will change local recall rules to the state structure

The AD18 Central Committee race has over a dozen candidates and there are some gaps of only several hundred votes or less between many of them, so the slate is not clear. Loren Taylor is likely going to be on the committee however, and Price will most likely keep her seat on the Committee, also.

More on all this when the majority of the votes are counted.