March 23 2000 Meeting Minutes

Minutes

MARCH 23, 2000

MEMBERS PRESENT: Dudley Cruea, Chairman of the Indiana Election Commission {"IEC"), S. Anthony Long, Tim Henderson, as proxy for Butch Morgan, and Joseph M. Perkins, Jr.

MEMBERS ABSENT: Butch Morgan.

STAFF ATTENDING: Candy Marendt, Co-Director, Election Division, Office of the Indiana Secretary of State ("Election Division"), Spencer Valentine, Co-Director, Election Division, Kristi Robertson, Co-General Counsel IEC and Election Division, Dale Simmons, Co-General Counsel IEC and Election Division; Pam Potesta, Co-Director, Campaign Finance, Election Division; and Michelle Thompson, Co-Director, Campaign Finance, Election Division.

ALSO ATTENDING: Raymond Crawford, candidate for state representative, William Nelson, candidate for state representative, and Robb McGinnis, Keith McGinnis, Dan McGinnis, and Jack Black, representatives of Election Systems and Software, Inc.

1. CALL TO ORDER

The chair called the March 23, 2000 meeting of the IEC to order in Room 233, Indiana State House, 200 West Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana. He noted that proper notice of the meeting had been given, as required by state law, and that all Commission members were present. The chair noted that Tim Henderson was sitting on the IEC as the appointed proxy for IEC member Butch Morgan.

Copies of the meeting notice, agenda and appointment of proxy are incorporated by reference in these minutes. (Copies of all documents incorporated by reference are available for public inspection and copying at the Election Division office.)

2. LEGISLATIVE UPDATE

The chair recognized Ms. Robertson who indicated that she would briefly update the Commission on recent legislation. Ms. Robertson reported that House Bill 1024 had passed the legislature and has been signed by the Governor. She explained that this bill was an omnibus bill that clarified that an oath of office could be taken before January 1 for newly elected candidates. She further explained that the bill also removed the requirement for voting systems vendors to provide supplemental documentation under Indiana law. She explained that Senate Bill 114 updated references to election dates. She also explained that Senate Bill 118 clarified that the Secretary of State was the state certifying official. Finally, Ms. Robertson explained that Senate Bill 117 contained the constitutional public question about appeals to the Indiana Supreme Court.

3. APPROVAL OF THE MARCH 3, 2000 MINUTES

The chair noted that each Commission member had previously received a draft of the proposed Commission minutes for the March 3, 2000 meeting. There being no corrections, Mr. Long moved that the March 3, 2000 minutes be approved as submitted. Mr. Terrell seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, the chair called the question, and declared that with four members voting "aye" (Mr. Cruea, Mr. Long, Mr. Henderson and Mr. Perkins), and no member voting "nay", the motion was adopted.

4. REPORT BY CO-DIRECTORS

The chair recognized Ms. Marendt who addressed the Commission on the continuing operations of the Election Division in providing information and assistance to the circuit court clerks in preparation for the May primary. She also advised the Commission that the Election Division had selected a contractor to merge existing voter registration files and was in the process of soliciting bids from contractors for the dual registration elimination program.

5. VOTING SYSTEMS

The chair recognized Mr. Valentine who directed the attention of the Commission to three memos prepared and signed by the co-directors recommending approval of voting systems. He indicated that the first system recommended for approval is the ES&S Model 550 Optical Scan Card Tabulator. He advised the Commission that the application of ES&S for this voting system was in order; that the voting system had been submitted to the Independent Testing Authority and approved; that the voting system had been previously and successfully demonstrated to the Commission; and that the vendor had submitted the appropriate supplemental documentation under Indiana law. Mr. Valentine then recommended that the Commission approve the voting system.

Mr. Long moved that the ES&S Model 550 Optical Scan Card Tabulator be approved for marketing and use in the State of Indiana. Mr. Perkins seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, the chair called the question, and declared that with four members voting "aye" (Mr. Cruea, Mr. Long, Mr. Henderson and Mr. Perkins), and no member voting "nay", the motion was adopted.

Mr. Valentine then indicated that the co-directors recommended approval of the ES&S Model 100 Precinct Tabulator for Optical Scan Ballots. He advised the Commission that the application of ES&S for this voting system was in order; that the voting system had been submitted to the Independent Testing Authority and approved; that the voting system had been previously and successfully demonstrated to the Commission; and that the vendor had submitted the appropriate supplemental documentation under Indiana law. Mr. Valentine then recommended that the Commission approve the voting system.

Mr. Long moved that the ES&S Model 100 Precinct Tabulator for Optical Scan Ballots be approved for marketing and use in the State of Indiana. Mr. Perkins seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, the chair called the question, and declared that with four members voting "aye" (Mr. Cruea, Mr. Long, Mr. Henderson and Mr. Perkins), and no member voting "nay", the motion was adopted.

Mr. Valentine then indicated that the co-directors recommended approval of the ES&S Model PBC 2100 Precinct Tabulator for Optical Scan Ballots. He advised the Commission that the application of ES&S for this voting system was in order; that the voting system had been submitted to the Independent Testing Authority and approved; that the voting system had been previously and successfully demonstrated to the Commission; and that the vendor had submitted the appropriate supplemental documentation under Indiana law. Mr. Valentine then recommended the voting system for approval.

Mr. Long moved that the ES&S Model PBC 2100 Precinct Tabulator for Optical Scan Ballots be approved for marketing and use in the State of Indiana. Mr. Perkins seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, the chair called the question, and declared that with four members voting "aye" (Mr. Cruea, Mr. Long, Mr. Henderson and Mr. Perkins), and no member voting "nay", the motion was adopted.

Mr. Valentine indicated that because of the legislative change described in the legislative update that voting system approvals in the future will not require the supplemental documentation and that the removal of this requirement should streamline the process of approving voting systems.

The chair then recognized Ms. Robertson who stated that ES&S and staff were working on the issue of Commission approval of software changes for voting systems that had previously received Commission approval. Ms. Robertson stated that the staff should be in a position at the next meeting to make recommendations to the Commission on this issue.

The chair then recognized Mr. McGinnis, a representative of ES&S, who stated that ES&S was interested in obtaining approval of minor software changes from the Commission, rather than having to submit each minor incremental change to the Independent Testing Authorities for approval. He asked the members of the Commission if it would help if they brought the voting systems before the Commission to demonstrate the minor software changes.

The chair then recognized Ms. Robertson who stated that the issue of software changes to previously approved voting systems had come before the Commission previously. She indicated that some voting system vendors who had made minor changes to their software for previously approved voting system were not required to resubmit their voting system with the software change to the Independent Testing Authority for approval. However, she stated that staff had not had the opportunity to study the issue to advise the Commission on a comprehensive approach to the issue.

The chair then recognized Mr. McGinnis once again. He stated that he felt that the primary focus for the Commission was to assure that the tabulating systems are working correctly. He stated that the software changes in issue for ES&S voting systems are ones that do not affect the tabulation portion of the software system.

The chair requested ES&S to provide staff with detailed information on the changes. The chair stated that once that was provided the Commission would discuss the issue and determine whether or not it is appropriate to resubmit the voting system with the software changes to the Independent Testing Authority for approval.

6. CAMPAIGN FINANCE ENFORCEMENT

The chair then announced that the Commission would consider campaign finance enforcement issues and requested all those present to testify in cases before the Commission to stand for the administration of the oath. Ms. Robertson administered the oath to those present to testify.

A. NELSON FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE COMMITTEE, CASE NO. 00-4561-94

The chair recognized Ms. Potesta who stated that this was case number 00-4561-94. She stated that the Nelson for State Representative Committee filed its report on March 2, 2000 and received notice on March 11, 2000. She stated that this is the first time that the committee has been before the Commission and that the committee has a proposed civil penalty of Three Hundred Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($302.98).

The chair recognized William Nelson who stated that he was running for Indiana House, District 66. He stated that he went to the Secretary of State's office in January of this year to fill out some paperwork and was under the impression that he had filed all the necessary paperwork until he received a letter on February 27, 2000 that he had committed some type of infraction so he filled out the paperwork identified in that letter and submitted that on February 28, 2000. He stated that he then received a registered letter notifying him of today's proceeding and that he did not understand it. He stated that he no one had given him any money to run for office.

The chair then explained to Mr. Nelson that he was nonetheless required to submit a timely statement of organization identifying the chairman and treasurer of his candidate committee. The chair asked Ms. Robertson to identify the deadline for filing the statement of organization. Ms. Robertson said the deadline was within seven days after the end of the February 18, 2000 filing deadline for filing a declaration of candidacy.

Mr. Nelson stated that no one had told him about this filing deadline. The chair asked Mr. Nelson whether he was given a campaign finance manual. Mr. Nelson responded that he was not given a campaign finance manual. The chair explained that the declaration of candidacy that Mr. Nelson signed contained a statement: "I understand all the campaign finance laws and know when to file a report." Mr. Wilson stated that he had kept all the paperwork given to him.

The chair recognized Ms. Thompson who stated that, as required by statute, after the last day for filing the statement of organization, she opened a committee for all candidates who did not file a statement of organization. At that time, she mailed to each candidate who had not timely file their statement of organization an instruction manual, a campaign finance schedule and a statement of organization so that the candidate could amend the committee that she had opened as required by law. She stated that this mailing is the packet of information that Mr. Nelson is identifying as being received from the Election Division.

Mr. Long then requested to examine the documents that Mr. Nelson had with him. Mr. Long stated that the statement of organization was filed March 2, 2000 and it was due February 25, 2000 since the deadline for filing a declaration of candidacy was February 18, 2000. Mr. Long asked whether Mr. Nelson filed his declaration of candidacy at the Election Division. Ms. Robertson stated that it was appropriate for a candidate to file a declaration of candidacy at either the Secretary of State's office or at the Election Division, but that the Secretary of State's office doesn't handle campaign finance filings or issues. Mr. Nelson stated that he had filed his declaration of candidacy with the Secretary of State..

Mr. Long asked the Election Division staff whether Mr. Nelson would have received the entire package, including the campaign finance manual, had he filed his declaration of candidacy with the Election Division. Mr. Valentine stated that campaign finance manuals are available at the Election Division for all candidates who file at the Election Division and request a manual. Mr. Valentine also stated that Mr. Nelson had also indicating that the Secretary of State sent him to get the necessary forms to file a statement of economic interest required of candidates seeking legislative office in Indiana. Mr. Long asked where they would send Mr. Nelson for those forms. Ms. Robertson stated that the Secretary of State would send a candidate to the principal clerk of the Indiana House of Representatives for a candidate for the house and the principal secretary of the Indiana Senate for a candidate for State Senate. Ms Robertson stated that candidates would be required to file the statement of economic interest with the principal clerk or the secretary and bring the receipt of such filing to the Secretary of State's office, or to the Election Division, before a candidate's declaration of candidacy would be accepted for filing. Mr. Valentine stated that if Mr. Nelson was told that he had made the necessary filing that such a statement would be correct as far as what it takes to declare candidacy, however, filing a declaration of candidacy then triggers the campaign finance laws and the filings required pursuant to campaign finance law.

Mr. Nelson stated once again that he had raised no money for his campaign. Mr. Valentine stated that raising money did not trigger campaign finance law filing requirements. Mr. Long stated that a candidate is required to file a statement of organization and campaign finance reports irrespective of whether they raised money for their campaigns. Mr. Nelson asked how new candidates would become aware of these requirements.

Mr. Long stated that our mailing to him went out the 28th and he filled out his statement of organization and we received it on March 2nd and that the candidate appeared to do everything he was prompted to do. Mr. Valentine stated that there is a notice contained in the declaration of candidacy that might be relevant to the Commissions deliberations in the case. A copy of a declaration of candidacy was then forwarded to the chair who asked Mr. Nelson if he read the following statement which appears on the declaration which Mr. Nelson signed: "I am aware of the provisions of IC 3-9 regarding campaign finance and the reporting of contributions and expenditures." The chair noted that on the back of the declaration of candidacy is a list of the dates when a candidate is required to file campaign finance reports. Mr. Nelson stated that he did read that but he had no contributions so did not think those requirements pertained to him. The chair replied that the form Mr. Nelson failed to file was not the form for reporting contributions but the statement of organization. Mr. Nelson stated he had read the form provisions about familiarity with IC 3-9 but that did not mean anything to him. Mr. Long responded that the statement on the declaration of candidacy, paragraph 9 says: "I have filed a campaign finance statement of organization for my principal committee with the Indiana Election Division, the appropriate County Election Board, or both." Mr. Long noted that this statement was right above the signature line on the declaration of candidacy. He observed that the statement went further to say: "This paragraph applies to a candidate for state office, a legislative office, or to a local office if the local office receive compensation of at least $5,000 per year." Mr. Valentine asked whether the declaration also indicated the dates for filing the reports and the chair responded that it did.

The chair then closed the hearing. The chair moved that the proposed fine be reduced to Seventy Five Dollars ($75.00) plus the investigative costs in the sum of Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($2.98) for a total of Seventy Seven Dollars and Ninety Eight ($77.98). Mr. Long seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, the chair called the question, and declared that with four members voting "aye" (Mr. Cruea, Mr. Long, Mr. Perkins.and Mr. Henderson), and no member voting "nay", the motion was adopted.

B. COMMITTEE TO ELECT RAYMOND CRAWFORD, CASE NO. 00-462-95

The chair recognized Ms. Potesta who stated that this was case number 00-462-95. She stated that the Committee to Elect Raymond Crawford filed its statement of organization on February 28, 2000 and received written notice on March 4, 2000. She stated that this is the first time that the committee has been before the Commission and that the committee has a proposed civil penalty of One Hundred Fifty Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($152.98).

Raymond Crawford said that he had been instructed by the local party to present his CFA 1 as well as his CAN 2. Mr. Crawford stated that he presented both his CAN 2 and CFA 1 to the Secretary of State for filing, however, he did not notice that the clerk at the Secretary of State's office did not date stamp his CFA 1 before giving it back to him. He said he immediately filed his CFA 1 with the Election Division by fax after he was notified that it had not been previously filed. Mr. Crawford stated that it was ultimately his mistake for not noticing that the CFA 1 he had handed to the clerk at the office of the Secretary of State had not been date stamped. Mr. Crawford offered his apologies to the Commission.

Mr. Long asked whether Mr. Crawford filed his CFA 1 with the office of the Secretary of State at the time he filed his declaration of candidacy. Mr. Crawford stated that he had tendered his CFA 1 with his CAN 2 and received a file-marked copy of his CAN 2 back from the clerk who received both the CFA 1 and CAN 2, however, he failed to notice that his CFA 1 had not been file-marked by the clerk when the clerk returned his copies.

The chair then closed the hearing. Mr. Long moved that the case be dismissed for the reason that Mr. Crawford appears to have made the effort to comply with the campaign finance laws and that there was no reason that the filing error had not occurred as he has represented it and that there was no harm done. Mr. Perkins seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, the chair called the question, and declared that with four members voting "aye" (Mr. Cruea, Mr. Long, Mr. Perkins, and Mr. Henderson), and no member voting "nay", the motion was adopted.

C. COMMITTEE TO ELECT JERRY FULK, CASE NO. 00-4113-98The chair then recognized Ms. Thompson who stated that the Committee to Elect Jerry Falk case, case number 00-4113-98, was continued from the last meeting. She stated that the Commission had asked Mr. Falk to send a letter explaining the disbursement of the money that his last report had shown remaining in the committee. She stated that Mr. Fulk had complied as requested and that the letter was in the package of material provided to the Commission.

The chair asked whether the committee had now been closed and Ms. Thompson indicated that it had. The chair then closed the hearing. Mr. Long moved that the case be dismissed since Mr. Fulk had satisfactorily explained the disposition of remaining funds. Mr. Perkins seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, the chair called the question, and declared that with four members voting "aye" (Mr. Cruea, Mr. Long, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Henderson), and no member voting "nay", the motion was adopted.

D. ALAMONG FOR STATE REPRESENTAIVE, CASE NO. 00-4341-97

The chair then recognized Ms. Thompson who stated that this case was before the Commission on a motion to reconsider. She stated that Mr. Alamong was fined in 1999 for his 1998 annual report. She stated that when Mr. Alamong did not pay his fine, she turned the matter over to the Attorney General. She stated that the Attorney General sent Mr. Alamong a letter and, at that point in time, he sent a letter to the Attorney General's office and the Attorney General's office told him to contact the Commission. She explained that Mr. Alamong was requesting that the Commission reconsider imposing the fine previously imposed by the Commission. She explained that Mr. Alamong's final campaign report along, with a letter from him requesting that the Commission reconsider imposing the fine, was included in the package of material provided to the Commission.

Mr. Long asked whether this committee was now closed. Ms. Thompson stated that it was. Mr. Long then asked whether this was the second time Mr. Alamong was before the Commission on a campaign finance issue and Ms. Thompson replied that it was.

The chair then closed the hearing. Mr. Long moved that the proposed fine be reduced to Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) plus the investigative costs in the sum of Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($2.98) for a total of Five Hundred Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($502.98). Mr. Perkins seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, the chair called the question, and declared that with four members voting "aye" (Mr. Cruea, Mr. Long, Mr. Henderson and Mr. Perkins), and no member voting "nay", the motion was adopted.

The chair then opened the discussion as to how to dispose of the remaining campaign finance cases on the Commission's docket for this date for which no person was present. Mr. Long suggested that the disposition of these cases could be made in one motion. The chair then closed the hearings on cases numbered 4557-91, 4558-92, 4559-93 and 4563-96. Mr. Long then moved that all of the committees identified with those case numbers, which, according to the summary provided by staff (which summary is incorporated into these minutes by reference), have never before appeared before the Commission, have their fines reduced to 25% of the proposed fines, plus the costs of investigation. Mr. Perkins seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, the chair called the question, and declared that with four members voting "aye" (Mr. Cruea, Mr. Long, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Henderson), and no member voting "nay", the motion was adopted and the cases were disposed of as set forth in detail below.

E. MILAN KESIC FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE, CASE NO. 00-4557-91

The record showed that the Milan Kesic for State Representative committee has had no prior appearances before the Commission and has a proposed fine of Fifty Dollars ($50.00) plus investigative costs in the sum of Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($2.98).

Mr. Long moved that the proposed fine be reduced to Twelve Dollars and Fifty Cents ($12.50) plus investigative costs in the sum of Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($2.98) for a total of Fifteen Dollars and Forty Eight Cents ($15.48). Mr. Perkins seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, the chair called the question, and declared that with four members voting "aye" (Mr. Cruea, Mr. Long, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Henderson), and no member voting "nay", the motion was adopted.

F. HAYES FOR STATE SENATE COMMITTEE, CASE NO. 00-4558-92

The record showed that the Hayes for State Senate Committee has had no prior appearance before the Commission and has a proposed fine of One Thousand Dollars ($1000.00) plus investigative costs in the sum of Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($2.98).

Mr. Long moved that the proposed fine be reduced to Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250.00) plus the investigative costs in the sum of Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($2.98) for a total of Two Hundred Fifty Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($252.98). Mr. Perkins seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, the chair called the question, and declared that with four members voting "aye" (Mr. Cruea, Mr. Long, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Henderson), and no member voting "nay", the motion was adopted.

G. WOOLERY FOR STATE SENATE COMMITTEE, CASE NO. 00-4559-93

The record showed that the Woolery for State Senate Committee has had no prior appearance before the Commission and has a proposed fine of One Thousand Dollars ($1000.00) plus investigative costs in the sum of Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($2.98).

Mr. Long moved that the proposed fine be reduced to Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250.00) plus investigative costs in the sum of Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($2.98) for a total of Two Hundred Fifty Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($252.98). Mr. Perkins seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, the chair called the question, and declared that with four members voting "aye" (Mr. Cruea, Mr. Long, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Henderson), and no member voting "nay", the motion was adopted.

H. SPOTT FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE COMMITTEE, CASE NO. 00-4563-96

The record showed that the Spott for State Representative Committee has had no prior appearances before the Commission and has a proposed fine of Six Hundred Dollars ($600.00) plus investigative costs in the sum of Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($2.98).

Mr. Long moved that the proposed fine be reduced to One Hundred Fifty Dollars ($150.00) plus investigative costs in the sum of Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($2.98) for a total of One Hundred Fifty Two Dollars and Ninety Eight Cents ($152.98). Mr. Perkins seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, the chair called the question, and declared that with four members voting "aye" (Mr. Cruea, Mr. Long, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Henderson), and no member voting "nay", the motion was adopted.

H. ADMINISTRATIVE DISSOLUTION OF COMMITTEES

The chair recognized Mr. Simmons who stated that IC 3-9-1-12 sets forth a procedure by which the Commission may administratively dissolve committees if they meet certain criteria. He explained that the Commission would have to find that a committee met the following criteria: 1) that no campaign finance report has been filed by the committee in the last three (3) years; 2) that the committee owes no debt except either a fine the Commission has imposed or a debt to the candidate for a candidate's committee; and 3) that the last campaign finance report received by the Commission showed that the committee had cash of less than One Thousand Dollars ($1,000) remaining in the committee's account.

Mr. Simmons further explained that, in addition to these criteria, the Commission may waive any outstanding penalties assessed against a committee subject to administrative dissolution if the Commission further finds that: 1) there is no evidence known to the Commission that the committee continues to function as a committee by continuing to receive, or expend, money; 2) further efforts to collect fines previously imposed by the Commission would be wasteful or unjust; and 3) the Commission finds no evidence that dissolution of the committee will impair a contract entered into by the committee or impede collection of a debt from the committee.

Mr. Simmons then indicated that in the packet provided to the Commission, Ms. Thompson had prepared a summary of committees which may fit these criteria. He stated that the report set forth the date that the last report of the committee was received by the Election Division and the balance of funds showing on the last report filed. Mr. Simmons stated the last campaign finance reports filed by the committees listed in the summary were attached to the summary. Mr. Simmons then indicated that Ms. Thompson could answer questions regarding these committees and that he could answer any questions regarding the procedures for dissolving these committees. Mr. Simmons indicated that orders were available for the Commission to sign to dissolve these committees in the event the Commission determined that it was appropriate to do so.

The chair then recognized Ms. Thompson who stated that notice of today's hearing was sent to the chairman and treasurer of each of these committees.

Mr. Long then moved that all these committees be administratively dissolved and that the orders prepared by counsel containing the appropriate findings for the following committees be approved: Baranard for State Representative, Maintaining our Neighborhoods, Ethics in Government, and Evans for House District 94. Mr. Perkins seconded the motion.

Mr. Long observed that the Citizen for Chochos committee showed a debt of Nine Hundred Dollar ($900.00) over and above what he owed to himself. He stated that the report showed that the debt was owed to Personal Service Corporation from Springfield Illinois. Ms. Thompson indicated that she would check with this creditor and determine if the account was closed. Mr. Long then moved to table any further action with respect to the Citizens for Chochos committee until Ms. Thompson could report back to the Commission on the status of the outstanding debt. Mr. Perkins seconded this motion. There being no further discussion, the chair called the question on the two pending motions by Mr. Long, and declared that with four members voting "aye" (Mr. Cruea, Mr. Long, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Henderson), and no member voting "nay", the motions were adopted and the cases were disposed of as set forth in detail below.

The Commission then made the statutory findings supporting administrative dissolution as indicated hereinabove, and incorporated those findings in the following Orders for the following cases:

a) Barnard for State Representative, cause number 4001-99, Order 2000-89.
b) Maintaining Our Neighborhoods, cause number 4018-100, Order 2000-90.
c) Ethics in Government in Care of Greg Lawson, cause number 4075-101, Order 2000-91.
d) Evans for House District 94, cause number 4265-102, Order 200-92.

Copies of said Orders are incorporated by reference in these minutes.

G. COMMITTEE TO ELECT MARK STRUBLE, CASE NO. 99-4170-64

The chair recognized Ms. Robertson who indicated that the Committee to Elect Mark Struble, case number 99-4170-64, was the subject of earlier Commission action, however, the tape of the Commission meeting were unclear. She stated that when Ms. Thompson, Ms. Potesta and she examined their notes of the meeting they determined that, according to their notes, the proposed penalty against the committee was reduced by the Commission during the Commission's meeting, however, the Commission's written order assessed the full amount of the proposed fine. She stated that when Mr. Struble came in to the Election Division to pay the fine staff realized that their notes reflected a different amount than the Commission's written order. Ms. Robertson stated that she was bringing this matter to the Commission's attention to determine if the Commission wanted to amend their previous written order to reflect the action taken at the Commission's meeting on the case. Ms. Thompson stated that Mr. Struble paid the full amount of the fine and her notes reflected that the Commission indicated that they reduced his fine by one-half at their meeting. Ms. Robertson stated that the Commission could issue a new order correcting their previous order as they have done in the past. Ms. Robertson stated that they would prepare a new order reflecting a reduced fine and that the Commission could address the issue at the next meeting. The chair indicated that they would take a vote on the matter at the next meeting and that it seemed only fair that the Commission vote to reduce the fine. Mr. Long agreed. The chair then asked if there was a procedure for issuing a refund of the overpayment of the fine. Ms. Robertson responded that the campaign finance fund is non-reverting, however, the Election Division would be able to provide a refund to Mr. Struble if the Commission were to order the original fine reduced by adopting an amended order at the next meeting.

H. STATUS REPORT

The chair recognized Ms. Thompson who stated that the packet provided to the Commission contained a list of committees that had not paid the fines assessed against them by the Commission. She stated that these fines have been turned over to the Attorney General for further collection procedures.

Mr. Perkins asked what prompts the fines being turned over to the Attorney General. Ms. Thompson stated that the committees have 30 days to pay their fines and that she had no set time to turn them over to the Attorney General but that she turned them over to the Attorney General some time after the 30 days.

I. ADOPTION OF ORDERS 2000-35 THROUGH 2000-93

The chair recognized Ms. Robertson who stated that Orders 2000-35 through 2000-93 were the orders which reflect the vote of the Commission on the campaign finance cases presented at the last Commission meeting. Ms. Robertson stated that the orders were ready for signature at the pleasure of the Commission.

Mr. Long then moved to approve the tendered orders. Mr. Perkins seconded this motion. There being no further discussion, the chair called the question and declared that with four members voting "aye" (Mr. Cruea, Mr. Long, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Henderson), and no member voting "nay", the motion was adopted and the orders where forthwith executed by the Commission.

Copies of said Orders are incorporated by reference in these minutes.

7. LITIGATION UPDATE

The chair recognized Mr. Simmons who stated that there were three cases on the agenda for update. He stated that there was nothing new to report on the Leaf v. Abell and the Majors cases. He stated that, as has been reported to the Commission in the past, there are pending Motions for Summary Judgement in these cases. Mr. Simmons then stated that the Springer case has now been dismissed and that a copy of the order dismissing the case was part of the packet of materials provided to the Commission.

8. OTHER BUSINESS

The chair recognized Ms. Robertson who stated that there tendered Order 2000-90 reflects the vote of the Commission in the Terry Goodin candidate challenge case. She explained that the order reflects the findings and order of the Commission in overruling the candidate challenge in that case.

Mr. Long then moved to approve tendered Order 2000-90. Mr. Perkins seconded this motion. There being no further discussion, the chair called the question and declared that with four members voting "aye" (Mr. Cruea, Mr. Long, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Henderson), and no member voting "nay", the motion was adopted and the order was forthwith executed by the Commission. A copy of Order 2000-90 is incorporated into these minutes by reference.

The chair then recognized Mr. Valentine who stated that there may not be enough business to justify a meeting of the Commission in April. The chair indicated that if there was not enough business the Commission could cancel the meeting. Mr. Long indicated that the issue of when to set a deadline for the filing of candidate challenges still needed to be discussed by the Commission. Mr. Long asked about upcoming deadlines for candidate challenges. Ms. Robertson stated that the deadline for the Commission to rule on any challenges before the general election this year is September 8, 2000. Ms. Robertson stated that staff could prepare a proposed order before the May meeting to distribute to the Commission members before that meeting so that the Commission could consider it at their next meeting. Mr. Long stated that he would like any Commission action to deal with all filing periods for all candidates. Mr. Long stated that the Commission would need to determine the minimum amount of time before the deadline to require the challenge to be filed and that he felt that, for example, a 72 hour deadline would be cutting it awful close. Mr. Valentine indicated that one of the considerations for the Commission was whether to the Commissions action on this issue should go through a rules-making process or whether it should be accomplished through an advisory opinion. Mr. Long stated his preference for establishing a policy with an advisory opinion. Mr. Long stated that a gentleman in his district had contacted him about filing a candidate challenge. Mr. Long stated that he advised this person about how to file a candidate challenge and this person did file his challenge before the deadline set for Commission decision, however, the Commission was unable to schedule a hearing on the challenge. Mr. Long stated that if the Commission established a deadline for filing candidate challenges and notified the legislature then perhaps the legislature would pass appropriate legislation establishing deadlines for filing candidate challenges.

Mr. Valentine then requested whether the Commission wanted to hold or cancel their April meeting. Mr. Long indicated that he felt that they did not have to hold a meeting but that they should keep it scheduled in case something came up. The chair agreed.

9. ADJOURNMENT

The chair asked if there was any further business. There being no response, Mr. Henderson moved, seconded by Mr. Perkins, that the Commission adjourn. There being no further discussion, the chair called the question, and declared that with four members voting "aye" (Mr. Cruea, Mr. Long, Mr. Henderson and Mr. Perkins), and no member voting "nay", the motion was adopted. The Commission then adjourned at 11:35 a.m.

Respectfully submitted,