“[G]uilty as charged!” crowed Jill Duvall in a New-Plains.com article today.
Not exactly. “Guilt” and “charges” relate to prosecutions under a criminal statute. Ms. Duvall conflates criminal law with civil law. For future reference, Ms. Duvall might keep in mind that crimes put an individual at risk, based on evidence found beyond a reasonable doubt, of the loss of their freedom through incarceration.
The Fair Campaign Practices Act allows for sanctions involving civil penalties based on a preponderance of evidence – a much lower standard.
Let’s look at the Judge’s ruling;
“Given Mr. Buchanan’s testimony that the time he spent on assessing and presenting the county’s financial issues was minimal and only a small part of his effort, the ALJ selects $1,000 as a conservative estimate of that portion of the contract price improperly expended to support Ballot Issue 1C.
The ALJ thus orders Commissioner Rowland, as an individual responsible for the improper expenditure, to reimburse the county general fund the amount of $1,000 within 30 days of the date of this order.”
The BOCC hired Mr. Buchanan on a unanimous vote. Mr. Rowland is taking the financial hit because Duvall singled him out in her complaint.
From the ALJ Decision in the case;
“During the meeting [where Mr. Buchanan was hired], the BOCC’s attorney explained that no public funds could be used to encourage voters to vote for or against a ballot issue, and one of the commissioners read aloud the state law governing use of public moneys for ballot issues. Exhibit B, p. 6. Mr Buchanan, who was also present at the meeting, stated that he completely understood the concern, but assured the BOCC that when such concerns had been raised before he “passed with flying colors by the Secretary of State every time.” Exhibit B, p. 7.”
Subsequently, to Mr. Rowland’s detriment, the entire BOCC mistakenly relied upon Mr. Buchanan’s assurance. A good measure of Mr. Buchanan’s character would be whether he offers to make Mr. Rowland whole for the cost of that reliance.
Moreover;
“There is no convincing evidence that Buchanan, any county commissioners, or any other county official who spoke during the meetings overtly asked voters to vote for Ballot Issue 1C.”
“Despite the BOCC’s efforts to not be seen as urging voters to support Ballot Issue 1C, many meeting attendees believed that was exactly what was intended. Five members of the voting public who attended one or more of the meetings testified at the hearing. These witnesses observed that the overriding theme of the town hall meetings was that the county was in dire financial straits and needed more revenue. Because the witnesses knew that the BOCC had placed Ballot Issue 1C on the ballot, the witnesses viewed the town hall meetings as a sales pitch for the mill levy increase even though neither Buchanan nor the commissioners specifically recommended its passage. As several witnesses observed, the “elephant in the room” was the proposed tax increase.”
And those 5 members of the voting public were (?) – all registered Democrats, including past and present Elbert County Democrat Party officials.
- Jill Duvall – Complainant
- Lark Fogel – Attorney for the Complainant
- Jim Duvall – Witness
- Tony Corrado – Witness
- Bill Thomas – Witness
- Susan Shick – Witness
- Paul Crisan – Witness
The ALJ did not mention the partisan nature of this lawsuit in his fact findings – no mention of the “donkeys in the room” next to that “elephant.”
My conclusions?
- This was a political hit job using an adjudication forum for a political end. Did the ALJ discount testimonies from these hyper partisan sources to reflect their well-known bias?
- If Buchanan had incorporated pro and con arguments into his materials, as noted in the decision the entire exercise would have fallen under an exception to the FCPA, and there would have been no case. As one purportedly experienced in these matters, Buchanan should have known this. Therefore, by his omission, did Buchanan set the BOCC up to fail?
- Since Ballot Issue 1C failed, no consequential damages from any community reliance on pro 1C representations – which the ALJ did not conclusively find to exist anyway – could have occurred. Is this a case of “no harm no foul?”
- The Left, “coincidentally,” today suggested that a commissioner recall is in order. The Left will return to this case frequently in the coming months and years as proof that their entire Leftist view of Elbert County is correct. Low-information voters will lap it up.