Denver Administrative Law Judge Michelle Norcross issued that ruling Thursday on Patterson’s complaint that recall petitioner Al Head was in violation of the Fair Campaign Practices Act by not disclosing contributions and expenditures.
The recall committee can challenge Norcross’ decision at the Colorado Court of Appeals.
|
Advertisement |
Head and two other men tried to recall Patterson this summer over allegations he exerted undue influence over Montrose Regional Airport finances.
Patterson denied the allegations and said he believed the recall efforts were tied to JetAway Aviation’s attempts to obtain a fixed-base operator contract at the airport.
JetAway and Head’s business are located on the same property. The aviation company is embroiled in litigation with the county over the FBO contract, but denies involvement in the recall attempt, which failed when the county clerk determined there weren’t enough signatures to get it on the ballot.
Head is suing Montrose County Clerk Fran Tipton-Long in district court for reinstatement of stricken signatures.
According to Norcross’ ruling on Patterson’s complaint, the recall committee argued it was not obligated to file disclosure reports once it was decided by the clerk there would be no recall election.
She rejected the argument, noting Head’s appeal of the clerk’s decision. Norcross said “an unsuccessful petition does not change the committee’s status as an issue committee,” and under Secretary of State regulations and state statute, the committee was required to report expenditures and contributions.
She later noted recall efforts were still taking place.
Norcross said Patterson had proved through a preponderance of the evidence that the recall committee had not filed the required disclosures with the SOS for July, August and September last year, even though it had recognized the need to do so by registering as an issue committee last June.
The committee did file a July report showing a contribution of $14,300 from real estate company Kienholz & Miller, and an expenditure of the same amount.
But Norcross said the committee failed to maintain a separate account as reported in one of its filings and that the committee admitted as much.
The order said it was clear Head’s legal representation from Ireland & Stapleton was a “contribution” that should be disclosed, regardless who had paid for the attorneys or whether they were pro bono.
Norcross also found the evidence showed the committee paid for the printing of petitions, but did not include that in its July report.
She said it was clear there was at least one advertisement in the Daily Press urging voters to sign the recall petition and she noted “robocalls” made to the same effect.
“However,” she further noted, “there is insufficient evidence to determine whether the committee or a third person paid...or whether these expenditures are included in the $14,300 expenditure disclosed in the July 12 report.”
Norcross said if she were to adopt Head’s argument, it would place the committee in “a position to exert influence over the outcome of its initiative and never be required to disclose who is contributing to those efforts or what campaign activities the group is undertaking.”
Norcross could have fined the recall committee $50 per violation, per day. She chose not to impose that penalty on the committee’s failure to file reports since September 2007, finding a good-faith belief “that its ongoing reporting obligations stopped when the clerk and recorder determined there would be no recall election. ...There is no evidence that the committee intentionally tried to withhold information from the public about its activities simply by refusing to file a report.”
But she did find the committee liable for a $50 daily fine for its failure to disclose the costs of its legal services and printing costs. Norcross assessed the fine for the 195 days from July 12, 2007 to Jan. 23, for a total of $9,750.
She declined to award Patterson attorney’s fees.
Patterson and his attorney David Reed said they hoped the ruling would lead to the disclosure of who is paying for the recall.
“They were found guilty of failing to report,” Reed said. “Just because the fine is entered against them doesn’t relieve their obligation to still now report. They’re not getting off the hook with this. The court has clearly found they are in violation.”
• Be respectful of others, the writer and the subjects in the story.
• Be relevant. Keep your comments on point.
• See the guidelines for TalkAbout. Perhaps your comment is best for that community forum, available from the home page, instead of commenting on a particular story.
Comment posters are responsible for the opinions they express and the accuracy of the information they provide. We urge comment writers to treat this as a public forum where manners matter. We encourage a collegial, non-insulting tone. All readers comments must be approved by our staff before posting to the Web site. Be aware, in accordance with the Communications Decency Act and provisions upheld in judicial appeal, that you are responsible for comments posted on this Web site. Montrose Press is not liable for messages from third parties.
DO NOT POST:
* Potentially libelous statements or damaging innuendo.
* Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
* Personal attacks, insults or threats.
* The use of another person's real name to disguise your identity.
* Comments unrelated to the story.
Opinions, advice and all other information expressed in montrosepress.com's reader comments represent the individual's own views and not necessarily those of the Montrose Press. Montrose Press does not endorse and is not responsible for statements, advice or opinions offered by anyone other than authorized Montrose Press spokespersons.
Thank you for your comments!