During my last re-election campaign an ethics complaint was filed by one of my opponent's supporters against my Candidate Officer Holder (C/OH) Financial Disclosure Reports which are required to be filed a minimum of twice a year to the Ethics Commission.  Although, sworn complaints are confidential until the commission makes a find, the ethics complaint was immediately leaked to the media during the campaign. This complaint, not unlike the numerous complaints filed against other contested incumbents and candidates, drilled down on how expenses were detailed on the reports dated from 2004 to 2007. Specifically, the complaint referenced how detailed the report of expenses paid for on a credit card were reported. 

Although, the expenses were indeed reported, they were not properly detailed to comport to commission rule changes which were different than those required of previous reporting requirements.  For example: Campaign supplies were purchased at Office Max on a certain date utilizing a credit card. The bill was received a month later and payment was made to the credit card company. The expense was reported as payment to the credit card company with a description of supplies as an explanation. Per the changed commission rules, as opposed to reporting the date payment was made to the credit card company, the commission rule required that detail had to indicate the original date that the purchase made and state the name of Office Max as opposed to the credit card company to which the payment was made. 

I take full responsibility for the oversight and desire to be transparent in disclosure, as that is what trust is built upon in public service.  Since, 1994 my campaign finance reports have utilized the same transparency disclosure in reporting in the more than thirty (30) plus reports that have been filed.  The Ethics Commission had not brought any concern to my campaign treasurer's attention.  Never before had their been a reason for the campaign to believe that a report was improper.   Although, the original reports should have been properly detailed after the commission changed the method of reporting, it was and is indeed necessary to revise those reports for greater clarity. 

THE CATCH-22

In an attempt to do so and submit the reports to the Ethics Commission during the time period that the complaint was being reviewed for legitimacy by the board, I submitted the first detailed report electronically to the Ethics Commission Website.  Unfortunately, the administrative division issued an immediate $10,000 fine before the board had assessed the validity of the original allegations for which the reports were being revised and submitted for review.  As a result of a need and desire to submit five additional reports, I and my legal counsel were horrified to find ourselves in a catch-22 by the possibility of a $10,000 fine per report.  My legal counsel advised that I should hold the other reports until we could get further clarification of any future assessed fine.  In the meantime, the Ethics Board met, reviewed the original complaint and assessed a $2,800 fine which closed the complaint.  That fine was paid December 2008.   Further discussions were held with the commission concerning submitting the additional reports.  My legal counsel was successful in explaining to the commission that the report was submitted for transparency per the complaint; the commission waived the $10,000 fine in February 2009.   However, the staff indicated that they could not determine if a $10,000 fine per report could or would be waived on future reports since the original case was fully reviewed and closed sufficiently with the acceptance of the $2,800 fine in December 2008. 

I apologize to anyone who felt I made a deliberate attempt to conceal information.  That was never the case.  Since the commission has closed the case the revised reports are not required, but I felt disclosure in some manner is necessary.  The reports have been corrected to the best of my abilities to do so.  Thus, the reports are being posted below on my campaign website for full disclosure.