2nd Dan Pike PDC Investigation (List of Violations as submitted to PDC)

Todd Donovan
Address redacted to protect privacy

November 15, 2007

Philip Stuzman
Director of Compliance
Washington Public Disclosure Commission
711 Capitol Way #206
Olympia, WA 98504-0908

Mr. Stutzman:

I regret that I must register a complaint against the campaign of Daniel V. Pike, candidate for Mayor of Bellingham in 2007. I am aware that an earlier complaint was filed against Mr. Pike with the PDC in October. I have also filed a separate complaint against Mr. Pike in October with the FEC (for his soliciting and accepting foreign contributions). I file the present complaint as a registered voter in Bellingham, and as supporter of Mr. Pike’s opponent. If it is possible, I hope that this can be treated as a complaint filed by an anonymous citizen.

Here I draw attention to additional violations of Washington State campaign finance disclosure rules that occurred after the October complaint against Mr. Pike was filed with the PDC. I have waited until after the election to bring attention to this matter, because Mr. Pike has publicly (via newspaper interviews and radio) criticized myself and others as issuing ‘smear tactics’ when we have attempted to bring attention to his repeated violations of campaign finance rules.

Beginning on approximately October 24, and continuing through November 2nd, the REALTORS Quality of Life PAC of Olympia, WA began sending direct mail supporting Mr. Pike to Bellingham City Voters.

These Realtor ads appear to be well coordinated with the Pike campaign. They use the exact same graphics; use the candidate’s logo identical to that seen in the candidate’s own ads, and use design, layout and themes identical to candidate’s own mailings. The candidate mailings appeared nearly simultaneously with the REALTOR PAC mailings, so it is difficult to imagine that the REALTOR PAC had time to produce copy cat ads independent of the Pike campaign. The REALTOR PAC mailings also used high-resolution versions of images of Pike that were not available on the candidate’s website. Furthermore, the REALTOR PAC ads did not include any disclaimer (as required if these ads were independent expenditures) stating that the ads were constructed independently of the Pike campaign. Given all of this, I must assume that these REALTOR Quality of Life PAC mailings qualify as in-kind contributions to the Pike campaign. Examples of the three different REALTOR mailings, and one of Pike’s own mailings, are enclosed to illustrate these points.

I estimate that 3 separate REALTOR/Pike mailings were sent to the universe of voters in Bellingham – approximately 16,000 households. Households throughout the city reported receiving three separate REALTOR mailings for Pike. Households with multiple voters reported receiving multiple versions of each piece. With postage and production costs, this may equate to about $.50 cents per piece – or, at least $8,000 per mailing.

There was nothing appearing in the REALTOR’s PDC records, nor Mr. Pike’s PDC records, to disclose anything about how much Mr. Pike was benefiting from these advertisements. As of November 6th (the last day of voting), there were no LMCs disclosing any in-kinds from the REALTOR PACs to Mr. Pike, and the REALTOR PACs PDC records showed no evidence of independent expenditures on behalf of Mr. Pike. I should note that PDC records do show timely disclosure of th REALTOR PAC’s in-kinds and independent expenditures to other local candidates across the state, even to another local candidate in Whatcom County. Mr. Pike is perhaps, conveniently, not listed in their PDC reports. The magnitude of this undisclosed spending may be equal to about 50% of what Mr. Pike actually disclosed as expenditures. This is no trivial matter.

As the timeline filed with this complaint demonstrates, Mr. Pike has a recurring pattern of failing to disclose the full extent of the financial support he was receiving from major development interests. In the context of Bellingham politics, this is understandable. Both mayoral candidates were competing to define themselves as the more authentic slow growth candidate. Pike’s success in doing so was probably assisted by his ability to delay and obscure full disclosure of how much his campaign depended on the financial support of realtors and major local developers who are currently seeking to expand the city’s Urban Growth Boundary. For example, he disclosed only a $700 contribution from a REALTOR PAC. The true level of his support from REALTOR PACs - undisclosed – may exceed $20,000. Voters were never able to know this. As a previous PDC complaint against Mr. Pike likely notes, he delayed (until well after voting began) disclosing that a major fundraiser was funded by the developer seeking to expand the city’s UGA.

I request that the PDC investigate this matter, and to evaluate this matter, and the previous complaint, in the context of the timeline enclosed. I ask that Mr. Pike and/or the REALTORS be required to provide full disclosure of their expenditures, and that Mr. Pike’s campaign and/or the REALTORS be held accountable (with appropriate penalties) for denying the public full access to campaign finance information.

Please contact me if additional discussion is required. Again, if it is possible, I request that this be treated as an anonymous complaint given what happened to the last person to file a PDC complaint against the Pike campaign.

Todd Donovan
E-mail redacted


Partial Timeline:

September 18th. Bellwether/Harborside Bistro Fundraiser.

“Raised about $5K,” Pike in Cascadia Weekly (CW). Pike discloses the dontations in a timely manner, but lists no in-kind nor expenditure for the costs of the event, nor does he list anyone loaning the money for the event, nor donating for the event. The Bellwether’s regular policy is to pre-pay for events.

October 2nd or 3rd: When asked how he could afford a kickoff party at Bellwether, Pike says, “they donated it.”

October 3rd. Second Bellwether Fundraiser:

Pike reports donations in timely manner, but lists no in-kind donation nor expenditures for costs of the event, nor any loans or in-kinds to pay for the event. Bellwether policy is to pre-pay for events.

October 7th: Bellingham Herald (BH) Sunday front page story featuring candidates’ top contributions. Regarding Pike, they report:

“Campaign Contributions: $40,030 as of October 4. electronic filings with the state Public Disclosure Commission.
Top 5 Contributors: American Federal of State, County and Municipal Employees Local No. 114; Edith Pike; Laura Boynton, his wife; Washington Association of Realtors; Jerry Thon, President of Astoria Holdings.”

Had the fundraising events been reported as in kind contributions at the time donations from the events were reported, this published list of top contributors might have included a prominent local developer, (Mishiakov) and Fahri Ugurlu, rather than Jerry Thon and Laura Boynton.

October 15th. PDC reports due for period September 1 through October 9.

Pike files reports to PDC that list no disclosure about expenditures or in-kind donations to cover the costs of either event.

Pike files C4 that lists a total of just $1,147 in in-kind donations from September 1, to October 9th.

October 17th. County Auditor sends ballots to voters

October 18th. Voting begins.

October 19th. Britt complaint is filed with PDC re: Pike’s lack of disclosure.

October 20th. In response to complaint:

Pike states in Bellingham Herald “we haven’t received the bill for it yet” for the September event. Implies event was to be paid for by his campaign after previously stating it was donated. Nothing reported about who paid for the event.

October 24th. Auditor reports that a total of 8,540 ballots have been received.

This is approximately 15% of the ballots that will be voted. 3,823 ballots were received that day (most voted before that day)

October 24th, When asked about two fundraisers in Cascadia Weekly:

Pike states: “One was an in-kind contribution: one wasn’t.” He states his campaign funded the September 18th event, but we didn’t get a bill on that until October 2nd. We checked with the PDC in response to the complaint because my understanding was that we would file upon getting the bill: (Different date of bill reported here than in Bellingham Herald on October 20th

Also states, “ the second event was held in Oct. and I believe that was an in-kind. That was held Oct. 3 at the Bellwether and it was hosted by Steven Brinn and Ted Mishchaikov.” (Prominent local developers).

This is the first public disclosure of who funded the events.

October 26th. In response to complaint, Pike discloses a $2,006 expenditure to PDC.

Listed as expenditure to Harborside Bistro (part of Bellwether owned by Fahri Ugurlu), to cover September 18th event.

I assume that the Harborside Bistro, as a private business, has a right to change their policy and allow Mr. Pike to delay paying for the event. The effect of this allowed Pike to raise $5000 without having to cover the costs of the fundraising event. It also allowed him to spend $2,000 that otherwise would have had to have been used after September 18th if he paid for the event.

The shift from having the event a donation to an expenditure prevented the owner of the business from being listed as one of Pike’s top donors in the October 7th Bellingham Herald front page story. After finally receiving the $2006 payment from Pike for the event, Fahri Ugurlu quickly contributed $2000 to Pike (see October 30th below). This disclosed October 30th, nearly 6 weeks after the September 18th event hosted at Mr. Ugurlu’s establishment. Functionally, is this equal to a $2000 loan being made to Mr. Pike in mid-September, and then being forgiven in late October?

October 26th: In response to complaint, Pike discloses $3200 of in-kind donations to PDC.

Donations are listed as being for “food and beverages at fundraiser” held on October 3rd. The cost of this part of the event is divided across eight individual donors.

The effect of this violation allowed Pike – for ten days when votes were being cast – to avoid disclosing that he received an additional $3200 from an event hosted by major land developers. Thousands of votes were cast during this period.

As of November 4th, there is still no reported expenditure or donation to cover the cost of the venue. Moreover, the list of eight individuals paying separate shares for the October 3rd event is inconsistent with Pike’s earlier statement reported in the Cascadia Weekly that the event was hosted by well known local developers Steve Brinn and Ted Mischiakov.

October 26th: In response to complaint, Pike amends C4 filed on October 15th.
Now reports $4347 in-kind received from September 1 to October 9, including in-kind from well known developer.

October 29th: Pike files another amended version of C4 that was due October 15. Same totals as listed on October 26th.

October 24th through October 29th (approximately) First and second of city wide mailings by Realtors PAC on behalf of Pike. Ads use exact graphics, use candidate’s logo identical to that seen in candidate’s own ads, use design and layout identical to candidate’s own mailings. Use high resolution version of image of Pike and a child identical to low-res version of the image on candidate’s own website. No disclaimer (as required if an IE) that the ads were constructed independently of the Pike campaign. Appear to be additional unreported in-kinds which may be valued at $8000 each, ($16,000 total). No LMC disclosing any in-kinds from the Realtor PAC appear in Pike’s PDC records. Realtor PAC expenditure filings with PDC as of November 4th list no expenditure, no IE, and no in-kind identifying the Pike campaign.

October 30th. PDC reports are due.

C3 lists $2000 contribution from Fahri Ugurlu, owner of Harborside Bistro. This is the same person who was recipient of $2006 dollar expenditure on October 26th that covered the cost of the September 18th event.

Schedule B lists outstanding debt to Barron Communications of $8500 for TV ads.

November 1st. Auditor reports 18,737 ballots returned – approximately 34% of ballots that will be voted.

November 1st. Pike discusses e-mail sent by PDC with Bellingham Herald. Bellingham Herald reports in Headline, “Pike Cleared by PDC of Complaint.”

November 1st. Call to PDC spokesperson Lori Anderson and Randy Unruh. Anderson and Unruh say complaint was not dismissed.

November 2nd. Third City wide mailing by Realtor’s Pac for Pike. Ad uses exact same graphics, design and layout as candidate’s own mailings. Uses high resolution version of image identical to low resolution image on candidate’s website. No disclaimer stating it was constructed independently of the Pike campaign. Appears to be an unreported in-kind which may be valued at $8000. No LMC disclosing a last minute in-kind from Realtor PAC. Realtor PAC expenditure filings as of November 4th list no expenditure, no IE, and no in-kind identifying the Pike campaign.

November 2nd. County Auditor reports 20,881 ballots returned as of 9:05 am, approximately 38% of ballots that will be voted.

November 6th. Last day of voting – 100% of ballots voted.

No disclosure of Realtor Quality of Life PAC expenditures on behalf of Pike. No LMC , nothing in the PAC’s C-6s, no in-kinds reported by Pike campaign.

As all votes were cast, Pike reported total contributions of $46,700 and lists total expenditures of $43,950.

The unreported expenditure/in-kind via the Realtors totaled an estimated $24,000. Thus, spending equivalent to 54% of the total expenditures reported by Pike (and on behalf of Pike went unreported.

Note: I had to transcribe this document - as I could not upload it from the PDC site). Any typo errors are mine, not the author's).

1st Dan Pike PDC Investigation (List of Violations as submitted to PDC).

Elisabeth Britt
(Address redacted for privacy)

October 16, 2007

Mr. Phil Stutzman
Director of Compliance
711 Capitol Way #206
PO Box 40908
Olympia, WA 98504

Dear Mr. Stutzman:

In reviewing the PDC filings for Mr. Daniel Pike, candidate for Mayor in Bellingham, Washington, I’ve noted that there are a number of reporting errors, missing expenditures, seriously late filings, missing filings and a serious and deliberate misstatement of fact in his original C-1 filing.

As you can see in the official records posted on the PDC website, the majority of filings during the primary campaign were late. For example, his April filing was late by 10 days and frankly, I find it difficult to track his expenditures and filings given the chaos of his campaign filings. For instance, his Schedule B for June was filed five times beginning with 8/1 (the original late filing date), 8/15, 10/8, 10/12, and 10/15. Repeatedly incorrect and amended filings makes it difficult to determine if he has yet to file other important documents that would provide transparency for this campaign. . Other errors may become evident when all C-3’s are reconciled to Form A and C-4.

His Schedule A for October, dated 10/15/2007, lists a number of expenses, including website development. However, Mr. Pike is claiming an expense of $280.00 for what appears to be a completely redesigned website. This expense seems surprising low, considering the in kind expenses reported for website development during the primary. Photography expenses are also missing, and all the photographs on his website are new.

His Schedule A and B filings, dated 10/15/2007 for September and October, fail to list expenditures for three fundraisers. One, dated September 18, 2007 was held at the Bellwether Hotel and was an open bar fundraiser. I have heard that Peter Roberts, a realtor, paid for it and that the owner of the Bellwether Hotel or Harborside Bistro restaurant may have also paid for it. Truth is, I don’t know who paid for it and his PDC filings do not report in-kind contributions or expenses for the event so it is impossible for me to figure out who paid for it.

A second fundraiser was held on September 29th at the American Museum of Radio. Other than an in-kind contribution for catering from Jere Hawn, I find no other reported expense related to this event. The space was either paid for or donated, yet there is no mention of any other expenses related to this event in his reports. On October 3, a third fundraiser was hosted by developers. From what I can discern, all of the fundraisers were paid by special interests and must be openly disclosed to the public.

Finally, and I believe this to be a significant error, Mr. Pike sent you a letter on January 25, 2007 stating that “the starting point of his campaign was January 21, 2007, when he met with friends and decided to run for office...”.

However, on December 8, 2006, Mr. Pike attended a Christmas event hosted by the Whatcom County Democratic Party and handed out campaign flyers to the 200 guests that were in attendance. A copy of the flyer is attached for your review. It’s likely that this is the flyer for which he filed an expenditure dated 1/10/2007 on his Schedule B dated 10/8/2007. At the December party, he wore an engraved “Dan Pike for Mayor” name badge and told people present that he was a candidate for Mayor of Bellingham. Hence, he should have filed his C-1 on December 22, 2006, rather than on January 25th. His original filing was more than a month late and the letter he attached with his C-1 filing misrepresented his public actions and statements. In other words, his campaign began with a public lie.

Given the continued chaos of Mr. Pike’s campaign filings, the many and continuous errors, missing filings, missing expenditures and his deliberate misstatement of fact in his initial C-1, I ask that you immediately investigate my complaint and require Mr. Pike to bring his filings in compliance with state statutes and levy appropriate fines and penalties for his actions.

Sincerely yours,

Elisabeth Britt
e-mail redacted


Daniel V. Pike Violations of Public Disclosure Requirements

Summary of PDC Violations through October 16, 2007
PDC Form number/ PDC Document number / Dated Filed

1. PDC Form C1 Filed January 25, 2007:
Within two weeks of becoming a candidate. (You become a candidate when you raise or spend money, reserve space, or buy advertising, authorize someone else to take one of these actions for you or you make a public announcement or file your Declaration of Candidacy, which ever occurs first).

Violation: Mr. Pike incorrectly identifies the start date of his campaign as January 21, 2007. In a letter to the PDC dated January 25, 2007, Mr. Pike apologized to the PDC for not including his C1 Form with his F1 Form, which was filed with the PDC on January 9, 2007. Mr. Pike incorrectly identifies January 21, 2007 as his campaign starting point, when he met with friends and decided to run for office. In reality, Mr. Pike publicly announced his campaign for Mayor on December 8, 2006, when he distributed a post card announcing his candidacy for Mayor at a Whatcom Democratic Party function. His C1 and F1 Forms were due on December 22, 2006. Mr. Pike’s C1 Form was filed one month late. Please see attached copies of C1 and letter to PDC dated January 25, 2007.

Violation: Sponsor Identification. Mr. Pike does not provide his address or the address of the campaign committee on the “Pike for Mayor” post card he distributed on December 8, 2006 at the Whatcom Democratic Party holiday celebration. Please see attached copy of post card.

2. PDC Form C3, number 100203088 dated February 13, 2007:
Violation: Filed 1 day late.

3. PDC Form Statement of Miscellaneous Receipts Attachment to Form C3. PDC #100203086 filed February 13, 2007.
Violation: lists personal fund campaign contributions dated 1/10/2007 when C1 states that campaign did not officially begin until January 21, 2007.

4. PDC Form Schedule B to C4. PDC #100203083, filed February 13, 2007.
Violation: lists in-kind contribution dated 1/10/2007 for website development by Marion Beddill for $750.00, when C1 states campaign start date of January 21, 2007.

5. PDC Form Schedule A, #100203083, dated February 13, 2007:
Violation: lists miscellaneous expenses of $19.00 dated January 9, 2007, when C1 lists campaign start date as January 21, 2007.

6. PDC Form C3, # 100203086, dated February 13, 2007:
Violation: lists personal deposit of $62.24 dated January 10, 2007 when C1 lists actual campaign start date as January 21, 2007.

7. PDC Form C3, #100203084, dated February 13, 2007:
Violation: lists personal campaign donation of $100.00 by Mr. Pike dated January 16, 2007.

8. PDC Form C3 #100209228, dated April 20, 2007
Violation: deposit filed 10 days late.

9. PDC Form Schedule L to C3 or C4, #100209227, dated April 20, 2007.
Violation: lists personal loan from Genevieve Cohn dated 3/30/2007 for $180.00 without identifying whether loan is for primary or general election cycle or the details regarding the event held at the park facility.

10. PDC Form C3, #10021103, dated May 10, 2007:
Violation: deposit is 15 days late.

11. PDC Form C4, #100211305, 100211299, 10021110, 10211122, 100211120, 100211117.
Violation: filed out of sequence. C4 and amendments were filed 6 times. Which C4 is accurate?

12. PDC Schedule C3 #100211115 dated May 10, 2007.
Violation: lists contribution by Laura Boynton on 4/25/2007 with an aggregate amount of $1650.00 without previous record of $150.00 contribution.

13. PDC Form C3, # 100211103, dated 5/10/2007.
Violation: late deposit dated 3/22/2007 for a contribution of $75.00.

14. PDC Form C3, #100211105, dated May 10, 2007.
Violation: late deposit dated 3/26/2007 for a contribution of $75.00.

15. PDC Form C3, #100211102, dated May 10, 2007.
Violation: late deposit dated 3/21/2007 for a personal contribution of 150.00 by Dan Pike.
16. PDC Form C3, #100211104, dated May 10, 2007.
Violation: late deposit dated 3/14/2007 for a small contribution listed in section e.

17. PDC Form C3, #100211100, dated May 10, 2007.
Violation: 2 late deposits dated 3/5/2007 for 2 contributions of #37.50 each.

18. PDC Form Schedule A to C4, #100212945, dated June 4, 2007.
Violation: no purpose and expense description listed for expenditure of $25.88 reported on 5/1/2007.

19. PDC Form C4, #10021409, dated June 11, 2007.
Violation: line 8; previous line 8 is $10,676.14 not $14,533.36.

20. PDC Form C3, #100215324, dated June 18, 2007.
Violation: 2 contributions dated 6/1/2007 in the amount of $184.80 each received from Alfred and Winnie Adrian, address listed as 5201 Oakmount Crest, #16, Burnaby B.C. V5H 4S8: Federal election prohibits all candidates and political committees in this country from receiving contributions from foreign nationals (individuals, corporations, associations or other foreign business entities).

21 PDC Form C3, #100218403, dated July 16, 2007.
Violation: contribution dated 7/12/07 for $100.00 is listed as unknown.

22. PDC Form C3, # 100222584, dated August 15, 2007.
Violation: Candidate lists a personal loan of $500.00. This loan is listed twice, once on the form referenced above, and a second time on a C3 #100223225 filed 8/21/07 dated as received on 8/17/2007.

23. PDC Form C3, #100226329, dated September 16, 2007
Violation: Contributor occupation information is not included on C3 for Shirley Zuanich, dated 9/10/07.

24. PDC Form C4, #100230053, dated October 15, 2007.
Violation: line 8 of previous C4 reads $14,521.08

25. PDC Form C4, #100229636, dated October 12, 2007
Violations: previous line 8, May 14, 2007 reads $14,521.08 not $11,221.08.

26. PDC Form C4, #100230054, dated October 15, 2007.
Violations: Amended line 8 = $16,840.41, not $16,470.81.

27. PDC Form C4 Amendment, #100229639, dated October 12, 2007.
Violations: Amended line 8 from August 1, = $19,095.81 not $19,465.41

28. PDC Form Schedule L to C3 or C4 Amendment, #100229639, dated October 12, 2007.
Violation: personal loan from Dan Pike is shown as re-paid, but is represented on Schedule L as not paid.

29. PDC Form C4, #100230062, dated October 15, 2007.
Violation: line 8 of previous C4 $22,010.41, not $21,640.81

30. PDC Form Receipts Continuation Sheet (Attachment to C-3 Form), #100226933, dated 9/21/07.
Violation: contribution for Alice Litton dated 9/19/07 does not include address.

31. PDC Form C3, #100227316, dated September 25, 2007
Violation: late filing for pay pal expenditure of .29 on 1/26/07.

32. PDC Form C3, #100227367, dated September 26, 2007.
Violation: This should have been filed as an amendment. Candidate did not use a proper form. Late filing of deposit of candidate’s own personal funds dated 1/16/07. Not reported until 9/26/07.

33. PDC Form C3, #100227368, dated September 26, 2007.
Violation: This should have been filed as an amendment. Candidate did not use proper form. Late filing of deposit of candidate’s own personal funds dated 5/21/07. Late filing of candidate’s personal funds deposited.

34. PDC Form C3, #100227457, dated September 27, 2007.
Violation: late deposit of campaign contribution dated 4/8/07. 4 months late.

35. PDC Form C3, #100227455, dated September 27, 2007.
Violation: late contribution filing dated 5/21/07.

36. PDC Form C3, #100227456, dated September 27, 2007.
Violation: late contribution received on 4/9/2007. Contribution is 4 months late.

37. PDC Form C3 Amendment, #100228812, dated October 8, 2007.
Violation: late contribution received on 7/26/07. 3 months late.

38. PDC Form C3, #100227526, dated September 28, 2007.
Violation: occupation data is missing for Tom Pratum, along with city and state.

39. PDC Form Schedule L Amendment, 100228808, dated October 8, 2007.
Violation: Campaign loan from Laura Boynton dated 4/25/07 was previously listed as a campaign contribution on C3 #1002111115.

40. PDC Form Schedule A, #100230052, dated October 15, 2007.
Violation: filing reports 9/4/2007 reimbursement to Laura Boynton for child care so she can attend various events. This is not reported as a loan and may qualify as the personal use of contributions that is not directly related to the candidate’s election campaign. Expenditures of a candidate’s campaign funds should be directly related to the campaign.

41. PDC C4 Amendment, #100228817, dated October 8, 2007.
Violation: Report period listed from 1/9/2007 to 1/31/2007, when C1 lists campaign start date as January 21, 2007. Amendment is late.

42. PDC Form C3, #100228158, dated October 4, 2007.
Violation: occupation data for Gerry Wilbour and Kathrine Dalen. Need business name.

43. PDC Schedule A to C4 Amendment, #100228817, dated October 8, 2007.
Violation: miscellaneous expense of $18.90 dated 1/9/2007 is listed without identifying the purpose of expense and/or description. Expense is 9 months late. Expense was incurred before campaign start date of January 21, 2007. Amendment is late.

44. PDC Schedule C3 Amendment, #100228802, dated October 8, 2007.
Violation: lists a late deposit for $25.00 dated 1/27/2007. Amendment is late.

45. PDC Schedule B to C4, Amendment #100228817, dated October 8, 2007.
Violation: lists late in-kind contribution description by candidate. In-kind contributions took place before C1 listed campaign start date of January 21, 2007. Amendment is late.

46. PDC schedule A to C4 Amendment, # 100228819, dated October 8, 2007.
Violations: expense dated 2/1/2007 does not include purpose of expense and/or description. Amendment is late.

47. PDC Schedule L to C3 or C4 Amendment, # 100228819, dated October 8, 2007.
Violations: candidate did not attach Schedule L to original February 21, 2007 report. Amendment is late.

48. PDC Schedule B to C4 Amendment, #100228819, dated October 8, 2007.
Violation: amendment is late.

49. PDC Form Schedule A to C4 Amendment, #100228820, dated October 8, 2007.
Violation: potential late filing of expenditures dated 3/1, 3/3, and 3/9. Amendment is late.

50. PDC Form Schedule A to C4 Amendment, #100228822, dated October 8, 2007.
Violation: lists a miscellaneous expense of $6.00 without a purpose of expense and/or description.

51. PDC Form Schedule A to C4 Amendment, #100228822, dated October 8, 2007.
Violation: 4/1 event does not have a purpose of expense and/or description.

52. PDC Form Schedule A to C4 Amendment, #100228823, dated October 8, 2007.
Violation: 5/1 expenditure does not have a purpose of expense and/or description of expense for $86.50.

53. PDC Form C4 Amendment, #100229637, dated October 12, 2007.
Violation: Line 8 in previous C4 lists $14,521.08. Line 1 reports previous cash total as $11,221.08.

54. PDC Form Schedule A to C4 Amendment, #100229637, dated October 12, 2007.
Violation: The miscellaneous expense dated 6/1/07 does not have a purpose of expense and/or description.

55. PDC Form C4 Amendment, #100230054, dated October 15, 2007.
Violation: Amended line 8 = $16,840.41 not reported amount of $16,470.81

56. PDC Form Schedule L to C3 or C4 Amendment, #100230054, dated October 15, 2007.
Violation: potential late filings of Loans or erroneous filing of loan. Loan of $1,500 from Laura Boynton is reported as a loan, instead of a campaign contribution, as listed in an earlier report dated 4/25/07.

57. PDC Form Schedule L to C3 or C4 Amendment, #100230055, dated 10/15/07.
Violation: late filing of personal loan from Edith Pike, candidate’s mother dated 8/28/07.

58. PDC Form C4 Amendment, #100229639, dated 10/12/07.
Violation: line 8 from August 1, = $19,465.81 not 19,095.81.

59. PDC Form Schedule L to C3 or C4 Amendment, #100229639, dated October 12, 2007.
Violations: Mr. Pike claims to be repaid for loan of $500.00 dated 8/14/07, but is showing it as a debt still owed on this amendment.

60. PDC Form C4 Amendment, #100230062, dated October 15, 2007.
Violation: Line 8 of previous C4 is $22,010.41 not $21,648.81.

Bornemann PDC Investigation (List of Violations as submitted to PDC).

Elisabeth Britt
Address & Telephone Redacted for privacy

October 16, 2007

Mr. Phil Stutzman
711 Capitol Way #206
Olympia, Washington 98504

Dear Mr. Stutzman:

My review of Mr. Bellingham City Council member Terrill Bornemann’s PDC reports have revealed what appear to be violations of RCW 42.17.010 (1);42.17.080.(3).

Between the period of April 24, 2007, through October 6, 2007, C3 Forms filed by Terrill Bornemann document 94 contributions of which 88 (94%) were filed late in violation of the PDC reporting deadlines.

In terms of dollars contributed to Mr. Bornemann, late reports were filed for $8,015.00 (95%) of the $8,415.00 received during the same time period. Many contributions were reported two to three weeks late, some as much as 2 months late. I am including in my complaint, a summary of all contributions from April 24, 2007, through October 6, 2007 and an itemized list of Terrill Bornemann’s Violations of Public Disclosure Requirements.

Several other technical errors also appear on the C4’s, such as not filing for the correct office. (Mr. Bornemann filed for Community Council Member instead of City Council Member, 5th Ward; City of Bellingham). Finally, he listed incorrect information regarding a Primary and its result. I may be filing additional complaints, based on further research into Mr. Bornemann’s filings.

Given the nature of Mr. Bornemann’s history of late filings, his mistake in his initial filings regarding which office he is running for, I ask that you immediately investigate my complaint and levy fines and penalties as appropriate.

Sincerely,

Elisabeth Britt
enc:


Terrill Bornemann Violations of Public Disclosure Requirements

Summary of Violations on Form C-3:

Between the period of April 24, 2007 through October 6, 2007, C3 Forms filed by Terrill Bornemann document 94 contributions of which 88 (94%) were filed late in violation of PDC reporting deadlines. In terms of dollars contributed to Mr. Bornemann, late reports were filed for $8,015.00 (95%) of the $8,415.00 received in this same time period. Many contributions were reported 2 – 3 weeks late, some as much as 2 months late. A roster of all contributions from April 24 – October 6, 2007 is attached. (Source: Terrill Bornemann’s C3’s posted on WA PDC website).

Summary of Other Reporting Violations through 10/16/07:
(PDC Form Number/PDC Document Number/Date Filed
Violation details)

1. PDC Form C3/Document #100212410/Filed 5/30/07
Violation: Incorrectly identifies office sought as “Community Council Member when actual office sought is City Council Member, 5th Ward, City of Bellingham.

2. PDC Form C3/Document #100212410/Filed 5/30/07
Violation: 20 days late, confirms receipt of $3,115.75 within reporting period listed on Form C4 document #100214597, however, contributions are not reported on said Form C4.

3. PDC Form C3/Document #100212719/Filed 6/3/07
Violation: Incorrectly identifies office sought as “Community Council Member when actual office sought is City Council Member, 5th Ward, City of Bellingham.

4. PDC Form C3/Document #100212720/Filed 6/3/07
Violation: Incorrectly identifies office sought as “Community Council Member when actual office sought is City Council Member, 5th Ward, City of Bellingham.

5. PDC Form C3/Document #100212721/Filed 6/3/07
Violation: Incorrectly identifies office sought as “Community Council Member when actual office sought is City Council Member, 5th Ward, City of Bellingham.

6. PDC Form C3/Document #100212722/Filed 6/3/07
Violation: Incorrectly identifies office sought as “Community Council Member when actual office sought is City Council Member, 5th Ward, City of Bellingham


7. PDC Form C3/Document #100212725/Filed 6/3/07
Violation: Incorrectly identifies office sought as “Community Council Member when actual office sought is City Council Member, 5th Ward, City of Bellingham

8. PDC Form C3/Document #100213986/Filed 6/10/07
Violation: Incorrectly identifies office sought as “Community Council Member when actual office sought is City Council Member, 5th Ward, City of Bellingham

9. PDC Form C3/Document #100213992/Filed 6/10/07
Violation: Incorrectly identifies office sought as “Community Council Member when actual office sought is City Council Member, 5th Ward, City of Bellingham

10. PDC Form C4/Document #100214597/Filed 6/11/07
Violation: Filed 30 days late.
Violation: Line 2 fails to report $3,115.75 received within the reporting period 4/24/07 to 4/30/07 as evidenced by Form C3 Document #100212410 (see item 2 above).
Violation: Other entries on Form C4 Lines 4,7,8,18, and 20 are in error due to failure to report correct amount on Line 2.
Violation: Filed out of sequence. Reporting period of subject C4 is listed as 4/24/07 to 4/30/07, however subject C4 was filed after the C4 filed for the period of 5/1/07 to 5/31/07 (document 100214596).

11. PDC Form C4/Document #100214596/Filed 6/11/07
Violation: Incorrectly identifies office sought as “Community Council Member when actual office sought is City Council Member, 5th Ward, City of Bellingham

12. PDC Schedule A to Form C4/Document #100214595/Filed 6/11/07
Violation: Date of Deposit entry documents $3,115.75 was held for 35 days, then deposited on 5/30/07; violates reporting and deposit requirements.

13. PDC Form C4/Document #100218670/Filed 7/21/07
Violation: Filed 11 days late.
Violation: Line 2 reports only $890.00 cash received when the related Form C3 Document #100218671 (item 14 below) documents cash received in the amount of $1250.00.
Violation: Entries for Lines 4,7,8,18, and 20 are in error due to failure to report correct amount on Line 2.
Violation: Incorrectly identifies office sought as “Community Council Member when actual office sought is City Council Member, 5th Ward, City of Bellingham.
Violation: Incorrectly identifies that candidate participated in a Primary Election Unopposed. There was no primary for Bellingham City Council 5th Ward.

14. PDC Schedule A&B to Form C4/Document #100218670/Filed 7/21/07
Violation: Filed 11 days late.
Violation: Checks received as evidenced on Form C3 Document #100218671 (item 15 below) were not shown as deposited during reporting period.
Violation: 6 entries on Section 3 expenditures were not coded.
Violation: Late reporting of expense – expenditure dated 6/2/07 for “Food at Kickoff: when kickoff event was held in April of 2007.
Date of deposit entry documents $3,115.75 was held for 35 days, then deposited on 5/30/07; violates reporting and deposit requirements.

15. PDC Form C3/Document #100218671/Filed 7/21/07
Violation: filed 30 days late. See attached roster for specific late reports.
Violation: Incorrectly identifies office sought as “Community Council Member when actual office sought is City Council Member, 5th Ward, City of Bellingham.

16. PDC Form C3/Document #100221333/Filed 7/21/07
Violation: See attached roster – 8 contributions filed late, 1 filed 3 months late.
Violation: Incorrectly identifies office sought as “Community Council Member when actual office sought is City Council Member, 5th Ward, City of Bellingham.

17. PDC Schedule A to Form C4/Document #100221675/Filed 8/12/07
Violation: Filed 2 days late.

18. PDC Form C4/Document #100221676/Filed 8/1/07
Violation: Filed 2 days late.
Violation: Line 1 reports total previous cash of $6,120.75 when the amount reported from line 8 of the prior C4 is $4,870.75 (document 100218670, item 13 above).
Violation: Entries for Lines 8, 18, and 20 are in error due to failure to report correct amount on Line 1.
Violation: Incorrectly identifies office sought as “Community Council Member when actual office sought is City Council Member, 5th Ward, City of Bellingham.
Violation: Incorrectly identifies that candidate participated in a Primary Election Unopposed. There was no primary for Bellingham City Council 5th Ward.

19. PDC Form C3/Document #100223506/Filed 8/26/07
Violation: Incorrectly identifies office sought as “Community Council Member when actual office sought is City Council Member, 5th Ward, City of Bellingham

20. PDC Form C4/Document #100224672/Filed 9/6/07
Violation: Line 1 reports total previous cash of $6,550.75 when the amount reported from line 8 of the prior C4 of $6,550.75 is in error due to not reconciling with the prior C4 (see item 18 above).
Violation: Entries for Lines 8, 18 and 20 are in error due to not reconcile prior error (see item 18 above).
Violation: Incorrectly identifies office sought as “Community Council Member when actual office sought is City Council Member, 5th Ward, City of Bellingham
Violation: Incorrectly identifies that candidate participated in a Primary Election Unopposed. There was no primary for Bellingham City Council 5th Ward.

21. PDC Form C3/Document #100226283/Filed 9/16/07
Violation: See attached roster for 4 donations reported late.
Violation: Incorrectly identifies office sought as “Community Council Member when actual office sought is City Council Member, 5th Ward, City of Bellingham

22. PDC Form C3/Document #100226283/Filed 9/16/07
Violation: See attached roster – 8 contributions filed late, 1 filed 2 months late.
Violation: Incorrectly identifies office sought as “Community Council Member when actual office sought is City Council Member, 5th Ward, City of Bellingham

23. PDC Form C3/Document #100229810/Filed 10/14/07
Violation: See attached roster – 1 contribution filed late.
Violation: Incorrectly identifies office sought as “Community Council Member when actual office sought is City Council Member, 5th Ward, City of Bellingham

24. PDC Form C3/Document #100229808/Filed 10/14/07
Violation: 14 contributions filed late, 1 filed 1 month late.
Violation: Incorrectly identifies office sought as “Community Council Member when actual office sought is City Council Member, 5th Ward, City of Bellingham

25. PDC Form C3/Document #100229827/Filed 10/14/07
Violation: See attached roster – 2 contributions filed late, 1 filed 19 days late.
Violation: Incorrectly identifies office sought as “Community Council Member when actual office sought is City Council Member, 5th Ward, City of Bellingham

Washington State Public Disclosure Commission Announces a Third Formal Investigation into Mayor Dan Pike's Campaign Activities

The Washington State Public Disclosure Commission issued a letter on March 22nd formally announcing the Commission's intention to open a third formal investigation into Dan Pike's campaign activities.



The new complaint alleges that former Transportation Director, Dan Pike, used Skagit Council of Government facilities for political activity during his bid for Mayor of Bellingham campaign. The complaint alleges that a minimum of ten months of campaign related e-mail was sent to campaign supporters and to the Pike for Mayor Campaign from Mr. Pike's Skagit Council of Government e-mail account.



Tim Paxton, a resident of Bellingham filed the complaint in February, after a protracted struggle with Skagit Council of Governments for Mr. Pike's e-mail and web surfing records through a public disclosure request. Mr. Paxton received two separate disks of e-mail and a stack of printed e-mail over a two month period. But many of Pike's printed e-mail were redacted (blacked out) by Skagit Council government's (SCOG) attorney.



SCOG refused to fill Mr. Paxton's web surfing public disclosure request. In response, Mr. Paxton wrote the Attorney General and the Attorney General's Office issued a letter ordering SCOG to comply with the request as required by state law. At one point, SCOG attempted to charge Mr. Paxton $2,000 dollars for a copy of a record the Attorney General's Office reported only

costs pennies to produce.



Paxton is still fighting to obtain a copy of Mr. Pike's web surfing records. The Center for Justice, a Washington State non-profit Legal Association in Spokane has recently filed a public disclosure request with SCOG for web surfing records.The Center for Justice has a distinguished record of filing lawsuits against public agencies that do not comply with public disclosure or open meeting act laws.



Paxton requested a 45 day response from the PDC, as provided by law, but the PDC issued a statement to the state Attorney General's Office that the agency will not be able to comply with the request, due to the complexity and volume of Pike campaign complaints currently under investigation.



At the federal level, the Federal Election Commission is formally investigating a complaint filed by Todd Donovan that alleges Dan Pike accepted foreign campaign donations, in violation of Federal Election Law.



A second federal complaint was recently filed under the Hatch Act. The individual who submitted the complaint tells Latte Republic that the U.S. Office of Special Counsel is conducting a preliminary investigation to determine if the federal government will file a formal complaint against Mr. Pike. The Hatch Act complaint alleges that Mr. Pike used his Skagit Council of Government office to conduct prohibited political activity during his campaign for Mayor of Bellingham. The complaint also alleges that Mr. Pike's campaign was illegal from June 13, 2007 forward, and that Pike was not eligible to be a candidate for Mayor under the state and local employee provisions of the Federal Hatch Act.



Mr. Pike and Brett Bonner, a local KGMI radio talk show host, launched a three week media blitz to convince Bellingham Voters (who were actively voting) that the first complaint was nothing more than a dirty McShane campaign stunt. (The first PDC complaint against Dan Pike was filed by me in late October of 2007).



In what appeared to be an effort to humiliate, ridicule and embarass me, Bonner launched a series of personal attacks against me on his radio programs (which are summarized in a spiteful letter he posted to me on his KGMI blogs). His boisterous attacks include an unsupported allegation that I had violated federal campaign law when I served as treasurer for the Healthy Bay Initiative.



A second PDC complaint was filed by WWU Professor Todd Donovan in November of 2007. Donovan's complaint, in part, alleges that the Washington State Realtors provided significant financial support for the Pike campaign that was not reported to the PDC or members of the public. In the complaint, Donovan alleges that up to 54% of Mr. Pike's donations/expenditures may have been hidden from the public while votes were being cast. Professor Donovan is a statistician and internationally respected scholar on elections, campaigns and politics.



The Public Disclosure Commission opened an independent investigation to examine the in-kind/independent expenditure activities of the Washington Realtor's Association based on Donovan's complaint.



The PDC was in Bellingham two weeks ago to interview Mr. Pike and two other candidates who received financial support from the state Realtor's Association. Only one Candidate, Larry Farr, reported the Realtor's in-kind expenditures as required by law.



Meanwhile, I have been called a bitter, angry woman for filing the first complaint back in October of 2007.



If filing a complaint against a candidate for allegedly breaking campaign laws results in me being called a bitter, angry woman by members of this community, so be it.



I'll wear that label proudly



It's nice to know that future candidates will think twice before they ignore local, state and federal campaign laws.

The Center for Justice website is located at: http://cforjustice.org/

Latte Republic will publish copies of the PDC complaints later in the week.

Mayor Pike's Former Campaign Manager on taxpayer-subsidized "Retainer?"

Breaking news from Sam Taylor's Blogs regarding new hires at the City:

Comment from: Karl [Visitor]

And one more local position filled. A position directly under the Mayor, as I understand.The City Council must have had some say in this person's screening & hiring. The Mayor's assistant to affairs with the Port or something like that?A Bellingham woman with a name I can't pronounce. Can you tell us more about her position with the Mayor and City? Who does she work under? The Council or Mayor?

Permalink 03/19/08 @ 14:10 Comment from: Sam Taylor [Member]

Karl - I just called the mayor because I have no idea what you're talking about. He said that you might be thinking about Sati, his campaign manager? Pike is considering her for potential positions in the future and said he has talked or will talk with new CAO David Webster about a role she might play. As of now she has a contract with the city for $37,500 I believe for consulting work.
_________

Sati Mookherjee, Mayor Pike's former campaign manager, has been retained by Mayor Pike as a communications consultant, effective December 1, 2007, to provide a "Works and Communications Plan." Her current salary is $50 dollars an hour or $37,000 dollars a year.

A copy of her Consulting Contract can be found at: http://www.cob.org/cob/Contracts.nsf/($All)/04630360EC8E8A24882573CD000F5B79/$File/20080003.pdf?OpenElement. Ms. Mookherjee's business license reports December 1, 2007 as the business start up date. A copy of the brand new business license can be found at the WA state DOL site.

Why would Mayor Pike need a consultant to assist him with meeting coordination, facilitation, public relations, communcation and research? (When he already has a skilled City Communications Director and a number of other experienced public relations staff working for him)?

Is it appropriate for the Mayor to ask David Webster, (the newly appointed CAO), to find a suitable City position for Sati, his former campaign manager?

Other prospective City employees are required to apply for job positions through the City's highly competitive, non-discriminatory hiring process.

Why is Sati being treated differently than other probable job applicants? Shouldn't every qualified job applicant have the right to apply for the job that Sati may be considered for?

Almost half of the 2008 Neighborhood Association Small and Simple Grants Applications were recently denied by the Mayor, due to a lack of funds. (He could only approve $40,000 of the grant applications).

Yes, $37,000.00 dollars would go a long way in assisting the financially-starved neighborhood associations.

It's National Sunshine Week!

The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that serve them... The people insist on remaining informed so that they may maintain control over the instruments that they have created. —RCW 42.56.030

Other states value transparent government enough to impose steep fines on government officials who refuse to comply with public disclosure requests.

While the State of Washington's public disclosure laws are adequate, they lack incentives to ensure that public officials comply with the law. Unfortunately, posturing by government officials often prevents citizens and journalists from gaining access to public documents.

The Coalition of Open Government provides resources for citizens who are interested in learning more about Public Disclosure Laws and the Open Public Meetings Act in the State of Washington.

The Coalition tells us that "Sunshine Committee Voters approved the Public Disclosure Act by initiative in 1972. At the time, the act included only 10 exemptions from disclosure. Today, there are at least 300 exemptions (provided by Legislative staff). Attorney General Rob McKenna requested a bill during the 2007 Legislative session to establish a Blue-Ribbon Committee to review all exemptions to the Public Disclosure Act on an annual basis. State Bill 5435 became law on July 22, 2007 creating the Public Records Exemptions Accountability Committee. The "Sunshine Committee" will make recommendations to repeal or amend exemptions to the Public Records Act. The committee will be chaired by Thomas Carr, Seattle city attorney."

Newspapers in Education has a wonderful educational piece on Sunshine laws and Sunshine week, please click the link below to go to the site. It was created for use in the classroom, but contains a wealth of information for citizens who would like to learn more about public disclosure laws. http://www.washingtoncog.org/media/images/resources/newspapers_in_education.pdf

A list of additional resources and newspaper articles is located at the bottom of the page.

In honor of Sunshine Week, I am including for your review - excerpts from a letter released by the Washington State Auditor's Office regarding Open Public Meeting Act violations identified in a Washington State Auditor's Audit of State and local governments, boards and commissions. It is a great resource for individuals who are interested in learning more about potential Open Public Meetings Act violations. The complete document can be found here: http://www.washingtoncog.org/media/images/government/Open_Public_Meeting_Violation_List.doc
Washington State Auditor's Office
Open Public Meetings Act
Issues Identified 2004 – 2007

FINDINGS
Issues identified during the course of the audit significant enough to be included in the State Auditor's 2004-2007 Audit Report.

6/17/2005
Whatcom County Fire Protection District 14
In the previous audit, we issued a finding because the District did not retain public documents as required by law. The documents included minutes of the meetings of the Board of Commissioners and cash receipts. During the audit we determined some 2001 meeting minutes were not signed by the Board and did not indicate who attended Board meetings. Minutes for the 2002 meeting were missing. A resolution adopted in December 2003 was not mentioned in the meeting minutes.

MANAGEMENT LETTERS
(Issues identified in the audit that aren't significant enough to report as findings, but still warrant attention by the entity and are included in a separate letter to the entity)

2/2/2007
Whatcom County Fire Protection District No. 1
We found one bid opening was not documented as occurring during an open public meeting. We also found commissioners had been meeting to talk about personnel issues, but these meetings were not been announced and no minutes were taken.

15. 4/27/2007
Whatcom County Water District No. 7
We found no reference in meeting minutes to executive sessions. However, staff stated executive sessions were held.

8/4/2006
Skagit County Fire Protection District No. 13
We reviewed the District’s compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act and noted a resolution to increase the tax levy stated discussion regarding the increase took place during a Commission meeting; however the minutes from that meeting do not document that discussion. Discussions regarding purchase price of a piece of equipment were conducted in executive session; however purchase of equipment is not an allowable topic for executive sessions. We also noted two occasions in which the reason for executive session was not documented.

1/13/2006
Skagit Valley College
We noted four instances in which the College did not announce the reason for executive sessions at its Board meetings.

11/23/2005
Town of Concrete
We noted one instance in which the purpose of an executive session was not announced, four instances in which the reason given was not allowable, one instance in which no expected time to reconvene was given, and one instance in which the Council recessed in order to discuss an ordinance.

EXIT ITEMS
Issues identified in the audit communicated to the entity at the exit conference. Exit items typically are one-time occurrences; have been corrected by the end of the audit field work; and/or the tone of entity management’s response indicates the item will be corrected. We follow up in these areas in future audits.

In 281 instances, entities violated the Open Public Meeting Act by not stating or clearly documenting the purpose of executive sessions. The Act requires governing bodies to announce the purpose of executive sessions and to document the specific reason for executive sessions in meeting minutes.

In 168 instances, entities violated the Open Public Meetings Act by not documenting or stating in an open public meeting the expected duration of executive sessions. The Act requires the presiding officer to take both steps before convening an executive session.

In 31 instances, entities violated the Open Public Meetings Act by conducting an executive session for an unallowable purpose. In most cases the specific purpose stated for the executive sessions did not fit any of the purposes allowed by state law.

In eight, instances entities violated the Open Public Meetings act by going into executive session to discuss legal matters without an attorney present. State law requires the District's attorney to be present when public entities discuss potential litigation.

In 12 instances, entities violated the Open Public Meetings Act by conducting executive sessions before open public meetings officially began or outside of open public meetings. The Act requires an open meeting to be convened before an executive session can be convened.

In two instances, entities violated the Open Public Meetings act by taking action without a quorum present.

In nine instances, entities violated the Open Public Meetings act by taking action inside of an executive session. The law states executive sessions are allowed for the purpose of discussing personnel, but that salaries, wages and other conditions of employment generally applied to entity employees must occur in an open public meeting, as well as final action on the hiring and/or salary of an individual employee or class of employees or a decision to discharge an employee.

In eight instances, entities violated the Open Public Meetings act by not properly posting notice to the public for special meetings.

In seven instances entities violated the Open Public Meetings Act by not producing evidence minutes were taken or officially approved.

For additional information on Open Public Meetings Act Rules - please see:

http://www.washingtoncog.org/index.html

RCW and WACS - Open Public Meetings Act: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=42.30&full=true

RCW and WACS - Public Records Act:http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=42.56&full=true

Need help accessing public documents? wcoghelp@washingtoncog.org
Or, AGO: http://www.atg.wa.gov/Records.aspx

Related Newspaper Articles:

The Olympian - Sunshine makes Government stronger, more accountable: http://www.theolympian.com/opinion/v-print/story/389098.html

The Kitsap Sun - Open Government must be protected: http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2008/mar/16/editorial-open-government-must-be-protected/

The Spokesman Review - Executive Sessions do not have to go unrecorded: http://www.spokesmanreview.com/tools/story_pf.asp?ID=236143

The Seattle Times - Wistfully celebrating open government: http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/edcetera/2008/03/wistfully_celebrating_open_gov.html

Find out who rates well for government sunshine - The Politics Blog from the Olympian: http://www.theolympian.com/campaigntrail/story/389969.html

The Columbian - Secrecy at Camas- Washougal Port: http://www.columbian.com/opinion/news/2008/03/03122008_In-our-view-Secrecy-at-Camas-Washougal-port.cfm

The Seattle Times - When it comes to Open Government a Sledge Hammer is sorely needed: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2004252378_riley03.html
A popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy or perhaps both.–James Madison, 1822

Why Good People Violate Campaign Laws and Why Good People file Campaign-Related Complaints

(Latte Republic publishes comments and posts from guest authors and students. Please see Welcome to Latte Republic in the right hand column for additional information).

Dan Pike, Bellingham Mayor elect and Brett Bonner, KGMI morning talk show host, friend and Pike campaign supporter, called Britt’s Public Disclosure Commission Complaint against Pike "a dirty McShane campaign tactic,” and publicly announced to all of Whatcom County that “Dan Pike’s finance records are clean.”

Sam Taylor, The Bellingham Herald Government Reporter, printed a copy of an internal PDC e-mail leaked by Dan Pike announcing that Elisabeth Britt’s complaint would be dismissed by the PDC. A few days later, Britt receives a letter from the PDC announcing that the PDC is opening a formal investigation of the complaint, despite Dan Pike and the media’s claims to the contrary.

Meanwhile, thousands of voters are casting their ballots for Mayor, based on erroneous information circulated by the candidate, the media and local blogs.

This is the fourth campaign-related complaint Britt has filed in twenty years and the second complaint she filed during the 2007 campaign season. When asked why she filed the complaints, she answers, "because there is a clear, repetitive pattern of violations in the Bornemann and Pike filings."

Despite allegations by the media, Britt was not a member of the McShane Campaign Team nor was she pictured with the rest of the team on the McShane website. She did donate funds to the McShane campaign and donated a vegetable tray for a fundraiser at a local art gallery. She also doorbelled for Conservation Voters, a nonpartisan organization that had endorsed Terry Bornemann, an incumbent City Councilor.

For those readers who do not listen to local talk radio, Brett Bonner spent the better part of three weeks trash talking individuals who file campaign-related complaints; as if the individuals filing the complaints are the ones breaking the law. He wrote and posted a nasty e-mail attacking Elisabeth Britt, the woman who filed the complaint, on his blogs. He accused her publicly of violating federal public disclosure law while acting as treasurer for a local initiative in 2005, without providing any documentation to support his allegations. In other words, he went way out of his way to vilify Britt, a former legislative aide and long time community activist, in order to humiliate, shame and embarass her for filing a complaint.

During the media frenzy, Britt’s car was destroyed under mysterious circumstances and her family received nightly visits from vandals who destroyed campaign signs, overturned and stomped container garden plants and repeatedly vandalized lawn furniture, gardening tools and the family barbeque. the nightly visits lasted three weeks. The barbeque and outdoor fireplace are destroyed and the broken frames are still visible in the yard. The harassment and vandalism did not stop until she wrote the PDC and the media to formally withdraw her complaint. The PDC, after thoughtful deliberation, refused to pull the complaint and that announcement put an end to the nights of terror. Britt is a single mom. One can only imagine how frightened she was.

Britt also received threatening phone calls and was routinely attacked on The Bellingham Herald and KGMI Blogs for filing a complaint against Dan Pike. The complaint filed against Bornemann was all but forgotten as she was repeatedly accused of launching a personal vendetta against Dan Pike and only Dan Pike. The Bornemann complaint alleges that Bornemann filed 95% of his PDC reports late and includes a spreadsheet documenting the late reports.

Who is the criminal here? The candidate who committed the alleged illegal offenses or the individual who filed the complaint?

Currently, there are three formal complaints against Pike being investigated by the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission (PDC). The first was filed by Elisabeth Britt in October of 2007, the second, by Professor Todd Donovan, a WWU political science professor, was filed in November of 2007. In response to Donovan's complaint, the PDC opened a third formal investigation against the Washington Realtors for not reporting campaign expenditures on behalf of Dan Pike and other local candidates.

Last week, the PDC was in town interviewing Pike, Whatcom County Council member Sam Crawford and Larry Farr, a former candidate for Bellingham City Council regarding campaign expenditures made on their behalf by the Realtor's association. Only Farr reported the in-kind expenditure.

A fourth complaint by a third individual is currently under consideration by the PDC. In addition to the PDC complaints, two or more complaints have been filed at the federal level. One complaint, filed by Todd Donovan, alleges that Pike received and deposited campaign funds from foreign nationals. A second federal complaint has been filed under the state and local employees Hatch Act, alleging that Dan Pike was a covered employee while working as the Transportation Director for Skagit Council of Governments. The individual who filed the Hatch Act complaint asked to remain anonymous until the complaint is processed.

If the Hatch Act allegations are true, Pike’s campaign would have been illegal from June 13, 2007 on. Why? He sought and received the endorsement of the Democratic Party, a big no no according to the Hatch Act. What's the big deal about endorsements? The Hatch Act was adopted to protect citizens from political exploitation. Congress wanted to ensure that everyone, regardless of political affiliation, would receive the same level of service, without any political strings attached. The law applies to all federal employees and a number of local and state entities that receive federal grants and loans to fund programs.

The Hatch Act has been around since 1939 and I would be surprised to hear Pike claim that he didn't know about the law, since, as Transportation Director, he routinely monitored consultant contracts that contained strong language prohibiting any political activity by consultants employed by SCOG.

How far should a candidate go to win an election?

The news that Dan Pike may have hidden up to 54% of his expenditures comes as no surprise to me – not because Dan Pike is a bad person, but because there is little appreciation for, or thought given to the reasons why we have campaign reporting laws. Hence, citizens, like Britt and Donovan, who file complaints are vilified by the media, the public and the angry, self-righteous candidate. There are similar stories published daily across America. Angry candidates - vilified citizens.

Campaign finance laws are often viewed the same way that speed limit laws are viewed. If no one’s looking, what’s the harm in driving five or ten miles over the speed limit? If a traffic cop writes us a ticket, we go home and complain to family members that we were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

In light of Bellingham voter’s strong distrust of developers and realtors, I’m skeptical of Dan Pike’s story that he did not report the swanky fundraisers at the Bellwether Hotel because he had not been invoiced for the events. The political two-step financing shuffle that took place during the weeks following the filing of Britt’s complaint reveal several inconsistencies in Mr. Pike’s statement’s to the media about who paid for what; vs. what was actually reported in the PDC filings.

Which raises an interesting question: if a candidate can not file accurate reports, (if it was just too difficult) then perhaps it is safe for the public to assume that the candidate is an intellectual light weight and is not qualified to assume a position of responsibility that includes administering departments and complex budgets. After all, all but one of the other candidates managed to file accurate and timely reports. And, many of those candidates were first timers in the campaign world.

That said, Dan Pike appears to be a nice person who cares about Bellingham and has indicated that he would like to work hard on the community’s behalf. But, when good people miss the purpose of campaign finance laws and vilify individuals who file campaign-related complaints, we have a much larger social problem.

Campaign reporting laws exist because the public wants to know who is supporting candidates and ballot petitions. The Public Disclosure Commission is one of a handful of state agencies that was created by the will of the people through the adoption of Initiative 172 in 1972. It is a citizen driven process. The agency depends on citizens to file complaints to ensure that campaigns are open and transparent. In my opinion, too many politicians do not respect the fact that the people are the true source of power in this nation. We have a long standing tradition in this country, government by the people, for the people. Unfortunately, too many politicians withhold information and manipulate citizens to achieve their own agendas, which may or may not be in the best interests of the people they seek to represent.

But I’m not so sure this is what happened in Pike’s case. It appears that he thought he was clever enough to pull off the finance reporting maneuvers and outwit his opponent, Dan McShane; who, let's face it, never stood a chance in the final weeks of the election, because he was still playing by the rules.

Again, this appears to be a symptom of a larger cultural problem. Candidates from both sides of the isle are so focused on winning elections, they break campaign laws without feeling any remorse for the behavior. After all, all’s fair in love, war and politics.

The author of this post has asked to remain anonymous - High School Students and WWU Students are welcome to post on this site as long as they abide by Latte Republic rules.