Sylvester’s Complaint
Posted by John B. Kalb - 6/17/08 @ 8:59 pm - Filed Under Local Politics
At the meeting of the Allen County Election Board this afternoon was a veryeasy-going discussion about Mike’s complaint. The three-member board unamimously agreed that the credit-card non-report was a violation. They also, unanimously agreed that, since the party filed a corrected revised report, that they did not need to take any further action.
Attendees were asked to identify themselves and ask any questions or make any statements. Some in attendance did so, with all questions answered and one disagreement recognized.
The summary statement by the three members was, “we are a complaint-driven board - not a policy-setting group”.
Comments
14 Responses to “Sylvester’s Complaint”
Leave a Reply
I’m still confused. Did they state that all outstanding debts need to be reported.
Previously Andy Downs claimed he didn’t think credit card bills needed to be reported as the collector could sue the debtor and that would bring everything to light.
That is obviously ridiculous so I hope what you’re reporting is that he’s stepped back from that position…
Jeff - What was said was that the code uses the word re-pay in discussing what debt is to be included. They said that if it was necessary to “pay” a bill it would not be the debt included in the code.
Don’t know if this makes it clear or not - it seemed to work at the meeting.
Here’s what he said before:
I don’t follow the “re-pay” logic. If you are given a bill then essentially you’ve been extended a line of credit that you must eventually “re-pay”.
Can somebody explain the difference between pay and re-pay? If I’m given a bill then I must pay it. Under what scenario do I re-pay it? The definition makes no sense to me…
Somebody just needs to stop charging on their credit cards ;).
My only guess is if the bill would be paid in full during the current month it would not be listed. A debt being paid over months or past due would be one to be listed.
Jeff,
Republican Board Member Zach Klutz pointed out that there is a difference between “pay” and “re-pay”.
If you have a utility bill, you “pay” it. You do not “re-pay” by giving electricity back. He referred to these as “bills in hand”.
Credit cards DO need to be reported (as do loans) per code.
One problem is that statute does not really define “debt”, other than to say it is something you have to “re-pay”.
The second problem, and this is probably a larger issue- how could you enforce a broader description? The Election Board staff is not large enough to track every candidates campaign finance reports.
As a matter of fact, they rarely even look at them. They rely on the opposite parties to police each other. If a complaint is filed, it is then investigated.
On a final note- I checked reports from several candidates in Allen County, State candidates, and even Gubernatorial candidates. I also looked at the State parties. It appears that NONE of them interpret the law the way that ONE attorney working for the election commission did.
Kevin,
I can follow that logic for a utility bill but NOT for an “office supply bill” in Downs’ original quote - that’s what is confusing me…
Jeff,
That is the rub. Indiana Election code offers no definitions.
The Election Board stated, correctly, that all that they are really concerned with is knowing how much money came in, and how much went out.
So, for example, if a local printer prints up signs for me and gives me a bill, the EB considers that a “bill in hand”. It is not a “debt” because the law clearly states that debts need to be “RE”-payed.
Two more comments-
First, I think this is just another example of why Campaign Finance laws need to be fixed in Indiana.
Second, I cannot for the life of me understand how the GOP gained so much debt.
When I last ordered campaign signs, I had to pay 1/2 down, with the balance due at delivery.
When we had our election night event at the Grand Wayne Center, we had to pay the majority in advance the balance was due that evening after the event (I had to take a check with me).
I guess my point is, it is hard for candidates or parties to have “debts” other than loans and credit cards.
It is very unfortunate that I was not able to make the meeting. I think I will send the Election Board a written letter and ask for clarification on certain items.
The “pay” and “re-pay” items mentioned make no sense to me.
I am still unsure as to which bills need to be reported as debt and which are “bills in hand.”
Mike Sylvester
Mike,
All that has to be reported as “debts” are loans and credit cards.
Kevin,
Thanks for the clarification.
Lets say that you are renting office space and that you owe rent for Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, and May. You file your report in May.
Are you saying that per the Election Board you would not have to report any of these past due bills?
Mike Sylvester
Mike,
I am saying that is what the Election Board is saying.
the vote was 3-0.
Kevin,
One again thanks for the clarification.
I have to say that I 100% disagree with their interpretation.
I agree it is somewhat of a gray area about whether or not you should have to report bills that are not past due. My interpretation of the election law is that you should report such bills as debts.
I 100% disagree that past due bills are not debts.
Mike Sylvester
I attended this meeting, and I was somewhat disappointed with their “clarification” of the definition of debt. The example that Mike S. gave above is a perfect example. You could have unpaid rent or other bills from several months back, amounting to potentially thousands of dollars. This should be reported in some official format,m but per their current policy it is not.
Andrew Downs explanation seemed to be that 1) Election board does not have the resources to follow up on every single bill that is just a bit overdue. 2) That even in the absence of Election Board taking action on such matters, our local media will find out and report such discrepencies.
Looking at his first point, I agree with part of what he is saying, but also disagree with part of it. First of all, if the Election Board is required to check up on the due date of every single bill that is owed, then Downs is correct that we (as taxpayers) will have to pay for more staff. But the problem with his statement here is that no one is asking for this.
All we are asking is that the Parties/Candidates be required to file this information. If someone then files a complaint showing a particular item was not properly filed (such as what Mike recently did), then the Election Board only needs to review that particular transaction. In my opinion, Downs presented a scenario here that simply does not exist, and used this to justify why they will simply leave the matter unresolved.
His second statement, that the local media will pick up and report on these type of things, I find to be absolutly comical. Look at how many such things have been caught by individual citizens (Mike S., Jeff P., Kevin K.) recently, rather than the media. In fact, the media has often worked hard to not cover such events once they were forced into the public by private individuals. Much of the local media does not work for us in this regard, and I think that for Downs and the board to abdicate their responsibilities in this matter to a media that is often asleep at the wheel is ludicrous.
Finally, regarding the exact definition of what debt is, I concur with the Election Board that this is difficult to define. Is a utility bill in-hand, but not due for another week, considered a debt? What about one that is only a few days late? Where is the line that decides when a “bill” bcomes a “debt?” I offered what I thought was a fairly simple solution to this at the meeting. I suggested that if the person who is owed money files a formal complaint (through the courts, a collection agency, etc.) then the bill should then be considered as a debt.
This would mean that frivolous things like a bill that was accidently paid a few days late does not need to be reported. It would also mean that bills that have remained unpaid for several months would need to be reported as debt. Downs and the board disagreed with my idea, basically restating their previous reasons.
The area where I am in most agreement with the board though is that most of the issues that come before them stem from some degree of ambiguity in the election laws. And of course, I agree that this is not the fault of the Local Election Board, but rather of the legislators who are supposed to deliberate over such laws rather than passing half-a**ed measures that are difficult to interpret.
After the meeting I spoke privately with Andrew Downs for a few minutes. We both agreed that the fluidity of debt is much greater today than in the past. It is easier to convert one type of bill to another, and this might be the difference between legally defining the same product or service as a reportable debt or an unreportable bill.
But I disagree with Down’s reasoning that the legislators are afraid to touch the election law because it is so difficult to understand that some type of loophole might easily be snuck in past them whenever the door is open to change. My opinion is that the election laws are purposely written to be vague and difficult to interpret. Basically, you need acess to a lawyer if you plan on running for any office today. I believe this serves the major parties own agenda of creating a political playing field that is difficult to negotiate by anyone other than a corporate entity.
If you are a Republican or Democratic candidate, and in good standing with the party, you will be given legal advice by the party’s million-dollar lawyers. If you are an independent or third party candidate, you have no such support network, which makes navigating these laws much more difficult.
Finally, I wll say there is one area where I totally agree with Downs and the rest of the board. If there is even a small degree of ambiguity, and if the accused party has revised their report to reflect the position which has been clarified, then I do not think it is necessary to levy a fine. Fines should be reserved for repeat offenders, or those who openly attempt to demean the authority of the Election Board.