Wednesday, December 27

What Does A Model Animal Control Program Look Like?


All I can say is, thanks for folks like the Horse Creek Wildlife folks and other who are trying very hard to fill the void and do something about the additional problems created by the lack of participation by, and lack of concern of, our local government, i.e. the Mayor, the County Legislative Body, the County Sheriff’s Department, and the Apathetic Citizens.

What should the goals of this Hardin County ‘model’ unit, be?

Primary goal is the prevention and eradication of rabies by education of the public concerning local and state laws, promoting animal owner responsibility, and by protecting the public from stray or dangerous animals.

Secondary goal is to provide service to the citizens and animals through impound of stray animals and other animal related issues, issuing warnings or citations as necessary, investigation and prosecution of animal cruelty and abuse cases, and to strive toward the ultimate goal of elimination of the need to euphemize healthy, surplus and unwanted animals.
In order to reach those goals we must develop both short and long range plans to address the County Government’s written, and the citizens unwritten, responsibilities for animal control in Hardin County and the Disaster Animal Response Team (DART) efforts.

BACKGROUND

Tenn. Code Ann. Section 68-8-104 is part of the Tennessee Anti-Rabies Law. Section -103 makes it unlawful for a person to own any dog or cat that is six months of age, or older, that has not been vaccinated for rabies.

Hardin County, not unlike elsewhere in the region, has a problem with too many stray dogs. This problem is aggravated in Hardin County because when one, for whatever reason or excuse, want to get rid of a companion animal, legally, one has no place to take the animals, too.

Instead, the animals are either taken into, or out of, Savannah, who has a responsible animal control program, and dumped, like so much trash, or dumped on the road along the way, where they often roam in packs, hungry, sick and parasite-infested, in some of Hardin County’s most picturesque surroundings.

They often are seen lying beside the road because they’ve gotten too close to passing vehicles. That’s just a cruel thing. Remember, that litter of adorable puppies can easily end up as homeless and unwanted dogs.

Rural spay/neutering programs that sterilize the pets of low-income folks are a must, in order to help animals and pet owners in need. We need to reduce the number of homeless animals in Hardin County. That is what animal control is really all about.

The private or non-profit animal rescue organizations want their position to be a volunteer organization that assists animal control. They don’t want to be animal control. That’s the government’s job.

According to a recent article in the Tennessean, over two-thirds of the Counties in Tennessee have some sort of government-funded animal control activity. That should mean that Hardin County does not have to re-invent the wheel. See what works and go for it. duh!

Animal control costs money, and usually doesn’t get funded in a way that allows them to be really proactive, so they’re generally reactive. We must make the investment to catch up.

One has the right to expect our county government to enforce the laws that are on the books, investigate cases of animal cruelty, like abandoning animals to live or die as a stray. It is understood that it takes money to do this, but it also takes goodwill.

Animal advocates say the assistance that government-funded animal-control programs offer is inadequate and can’t keep up with growth. Fact: Those who do the job, can only do so much. My biggest frustration is that our county government is woefully lagging behind the times in taking the leadership role and the funding responsibility for animal control in Hardin County.

Hardin County does little in the way of offering even the basic service of responding to calls about stray dogs – a problem that local officials know, and say, plagues the community.

Metro Nashville, Rutherford and Williamson counties have been pointed out by the Animal Control Association of Tennessee as examples to follow. All offer a variety of services, from adoptions and spay and neutering clinics to education.

`
As noted in Tenn. Code Ann. §5-1-120. Power to regulate stray animals. -

Counties, by resolution of their respective legislative bodies, may license and regulate dogs and cats, establish and operate shelters and other animal control facilities, and regulate, capture, impound and dispose of stray dogs, stray cats and other stray animals.

Do you really think that the State of Tennessee would delegate this 'power to regulate,' if the State of Tennessee did not intend for the County Legislative Body to use it, to carry out the county's responsibility for rabbis and animal control?

No sign of even the most basic efforts to regulate stray animals in Hardin County, by Hardin County Government. So, what to do?

Tenn. Code Ann. Section 68-8-104 provides:

(a) In addition to but not as a substitute for or in any way detracting from the vaccination requirements of this chapter, authorization is granted for the adoption of local laws or ordinances to require the registration of dogs or cats in counties or municipalities.
(b) Any local laws or ordinances implementing animal registration shall include methods for the collection of registration fees and shall require the expenditure of these funds to establish and maintain a rabies control program, also commonly known as an animal control program. In addition to various animal control activities, the rabies control program shall ensure that dogs and cats are properly vaccinated in accordance with this chapter and that biting animals or rabies suspects are observed or confined in accordance with this chapter and rules of the department [of health].

Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-8-104(a) & (b).


What level of animal control would be considered adequate for Hardin County? Do we want to spend the money for a full blown animal registration program? It’s a high maintenance program. Takes manpower and facilities, both.

At a minimum, the local legislative body should establish, or aid in the establishment of, and operate, or aid in the operation of, shelters and other animal control facilities.

Our local legislative body has, and has had for at least the last decade, the authority to regulate, capture, impound and dispose of stray dogs, stray cats and other stray animals. They NeedUse It!! Duh!!
Respectfully submitted for your consideration.
Uncle Ted

There Is No One Making Us Do It - Animal Control

If one were to take the time to go back and check the audio tapes for the county commission meetings over the last two decades, one would find that the phrase, "there is no one making us do it," would be found to be the most often given reasoning for the county commission not doing anything about the conditions of our local jail.

The same attitude applies to the condition of our educational infrastructure, our schools. This same attitude applies to stray animal and rabies control in Hardin County. Can’t you just hear them say, ‘We know that we have the responsibility, but ‘there is no one making us do it.’

I think it gets down to ‘Want To’ or ‘Don’t Want To.’ They ‘want to’ spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on inviting folks to spend some of their vacation time with us and/or to move to Hardin County. I think they should be required to put a disclaimer on ever ad they run.

The disclaimer would say something like;


WE ONLY PROVIDE SAFETY AND WELFARE SERVICES THAT SOMEONE IS MAKING US DO. WE MINIMIZE OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES SO YOU WILL PRETTY MUCH BE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR OWN SAFETY. WE MAKE NO EFFORT AT ANIMAL CONTROL SO YOU WILL PRETTY MUCH BE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR OWN WELFARE IN THE EVENT YOU HAVE AN ENCOUNTER WITH ANY OF THE PACKS OF STRAY, AND MOSTLY UNVACCINATED, ANIMALS THAT ROAM HARDIN COUNTY.

SHOULD YOU DECIDE TO RELOCATE TO HARDIN COUNTY TO RAISE YOUR FAMILY, YOU ARE ADVISED THAT MOST OF OUR PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES ARE ANTIQUATED AND YOUR CHILD WILL PRETTY MUCH NOT BE IN THE BEST OF LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS. THIS HAS BEEN NECESSARY IN ORDER TO KEEP OUR PROPERTY TAXES ARTIFICIALLY LOW IN ORDER TO ATTRACT YOU OR TO MOTIVATE YOUR RELOCATION TO HARDIN COUNTY, WHERE WE PROVIDE ONLY MANDATED SERVICES AND THEN ONLY WHEN SOMEONE IS MAKING US.

Now, about the ‘Don’t Want To’ and animal and rabies control in Hardin County.

The City of Savannah spends in excess of $87,000.00 for their animal control program this fiscal year and that is down from the average of $125,000 to $135,000 per year for the last few years. Hardin County has budgeted $2,500.00 per year for the last two years and I’m not sure what that is spent on or who spends it. The County can do better, if we wanted them to.

The budget committee will say, "even though a basic program would benefit the entire community and would improve the overall image of Hardin County, we don’t want to, and won’t, spend the money to support even a basic program. We have other priorities and besides, there are just a few folks actually complaining about us not doing anything and there is no organized effort to make us do it."

"The do-gooders will do it, if we don’t." No problem, right? A tough question, indeed. One that forces each citizen to grapple with his own character, his priorities in this life, and his commitment to the cause of community welfare.

We seem to have many who apparently sit in their living rooms moaning and complaining about the state of our affairs of governance, but who remain too afraid or too lazy to get off the sidelines and join the folks on the field, or to even cheer the team on from the stands.

In the end it's simply reprehensible for citizens to be standing on the sidelines pretending to be concerned and responsible citizens, yelling at those on the field that the game is lost, when in fact the game is not over, it has just begun, again.

Granted, not everyone has the talent, resources or character needed to engage on the field in this rough and tumble contest of wills, with so much at stake for both sides. However, it seems to us the duty of every responsible citizen is to either suit up and get on the field of play or get into the stands and support the home team. Bringing a friend or two to the game wouldn't hurt either.

Quitters never win. Winners never quit. Let's roll.

Our County Government is responsible for the safety and welfare of the citizens, first and foremost. All of their other tasks and functions fall under one of these two primary responsibility.

It is time for the citizens of Hardin County get out of their moaning and complaining mode to do their duty and hold our County Government responsible for not meeting all of their responsibilities or performing all of their duties.

It would be clear that it is not a "unconcerned" local government that is the root cause of these shortcomings, but rather the person they see in the mirror that has, by simply doing nothing, allowed our local government to wither from their responsibility for the safety and welfare of the citizens of Hardin County.

So, what could the County Legislature do, if they were of a mind to do anything? The statutes allow that Counties, by resolution of their respective legislative bodies, to license and regulate dogs and cats, establish and operate shelters and other animal control facilities, and regulate, capture, impound and dispose of stray dogs, stray cats and other stray animals.

But, then again, they are not going to do anything, until someone or something makes them. So be it?

Respectfully submitted for your consideration,

Ted

Tuesday, December 26

Whitehorn Strikes Again

Submitted to The Courier as a Readers Write Article

You know, no matter how much we think things will change, they seem to stay the same. The December meetings of our Board of Commissioners points this out, again.

Due to family illness, I was unable to attend the Commissioner’s Thursday night planning meeting and of course due to the totally inadequate public notice for the Jail Committee meeting, that was held on December 3rd, the only opportunity to exercise my right to participate and get the answers to any questions that I might have had concerning the letting of the construction contract for the Jail, was at Monday’s official/regular monthly meeting.

Other than three somewhat routine housekeeping items, the only other item on the very short agenda was the ‘Discussion and Possible Action on Bid Invitation for [the] Hardin County Jail Project.’ No problem, there should be plenty of time for any ‘discussion', right? Wrong.

There were only two points that concerned me, at this phase of the project.

1. Based on my past experience in the development of commercial and industrial projects, the time that was going to be allowed for the bidding process seemed extraordinarily short, unless you already have an idea who the contractor is going to be. Put the plans out for bid on the 19th of December and opening the bids on January 16th.

That is only 28 day, during the Christmas and New Years holiday season, which actually works out to 19 working days, for the general contractors to get the plans to their sub-contractors, get their bid prices for all labor and material costs back, pull together the total bid package, arrange bonds and to finalize their bids on a estimated 10 Million Dollar, plus/minus, somewhat specialized project.

2. Were the plans for the Jail Project, complete plans? Were they for a turn-key project, which means when the contractor complete the construction, he hands the Sheriff the keys and the County can start operations in the new Jail/Sheriffs Department/Courtroom. Bare in mind that the last time we got an estimate for the cost of the Jail Project, most of the furniture, fixtures and equipment had been left out.

Well, to make this as short as possible, after about only 4 or 5 minutes of the Chairman/Mayor trying to explain something about I should have been there on Thursday night, when the TLM representative was there, and had assured the Commissioners that the time frame was not a problem, Commissioner Whitehorn interrupted and called for ‘the question,’ which stops any further discussions of the matter and prevented even the asking of question #2.

Of course this is just another example of Mr. Whitehorns’ history of telling me to set down, shut up and let things work out the way he wants them to, and I will be a lot better off.

Most folks that know me, know that that set down and shut up thing ain’t gonna happen and for you folks that keep telling me to work with the Commission and use my experience for the good of Hardin County, perhaps you will share with me just exactly how one goes about doing that with this kind of reception to legitimate concerns.

As a matter of information, the entire meeting from opening to adjourning lasted about 30 minutes. It’s not like there wasn’t time for the advertised ‘Discussion’ of the Bid Invitations. If one does the math, the taxpayers paid each commissioner $100 for Monday night’s meeting which lasted 30 minutes.

Respectfully submitted for your consideration,

Uncle Ted

Thursday, October 19

The Tennessee Democratic Party/Randy Rinks Campaign - Nasty Gram

Without referring to Randy Rink the first time, The state democratic folks .sent out a flyers with the following theme:

ACCUSED CRIMINALS DEPEND ON VANCE DENNIS
TO RETURN TO OUR STREETS WITH LITTLE TIME SERVED FOR THEIR CRIMES.
DENNIS DOESN'T SHARE OUR VALUES.
CRIMINALS HAVE TETURNED TO OUR STREETS MORE QUICKLY BECAUSE OF VANCE DENNIS.

Four small children and several other adults were also in the kitchen. Another bag of crack cocaine was on the floor near the refrigerator. The woman was arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced to 14 years in prison.
"VANCE DENNIS GOT HER CONVICTION OVERTURNED ON APPEAL."

Wait a minute here. It was three (3) Judges speaking for the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee at Jackson that determined that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction when they reversed and remanded the case to the trial court for dismissal of the charges.

If the Criminal Justice System determined that there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction and ordered the trial court to dismiss the charges, who is this Tennessee Democratic Party in Nashville, TN to brand anyone a criminal?

Would the Tennessee Democratic Party suggest we just go ahead and hang the woman because, after all, ‘the woman was arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced to 14 years in prison, on insufficient evidence?

These folks make a point of saying "Vance Dennis got her conviction overturned on appeal." Well, dah!! Had Vance Dennis not appealed the trial court’s wrongful conviction, an injustice would have occurred.

As an attorney and sworn defender of the Constitution, is that not was what he was suppose to do? Get justice. Somehow, the Tennessee Democratic Party and Randy's campaign folks want to make something bad about that. Won’t Work.
If that is the best they can do, well.
Respectfully submitted for your consideration
Uncle Ted

Did Not Prohibit Credit Card Payments? Wanna Bet?

Say What, Director Rawlins

The minutes of the September 13th, 2006 meeting of the Registry reflects what I thought I heard at the meeting.

"Director Rawlins noted that the statute did not prohibit a candidate from listing a credit card as a payee at the time the reports in question were filed."


This statement is just not true.

As noted earlier, "In reality most of the changes made to the Financial Disclosure Act of 1980, via the Comprehensive Governmental Ethics Reform Act of 2006, merely codified and amplified some of the Registry’s existing Rules, while giving a more explicit explanation of the original intent for the Campaign Financial Disclosure Act of 1980."

"Tennessee’s Campaign Financial Disclosure Act of 1980 was enacted to promote public disclosure of campaign contributions and expenditures. As the agency responsible for administering this act, the registry is to ensure the timely and accurate disclosure of campaign finance information for the benefit of the public." (Comptroller of Treasury - Performance Audit - 1998)

Now, about this ‘the statute did not prohibit a candidate from listing a credit card as a payee at the time the reports in question were filed,’ comment by Director Rawlins. Not!

The 1980 Act itself just says ‘and the purpose thereof.’ The Campaign Financial Disclosure Rules, last revised in Feb. 1999, Chapter 0530-1, Section 1-.04 and titled Expenditures from Campaign Contributions says:

"When providing the purpose of an expenditure or category of expenditures as required by T.C.A. §2-10-107(a)(2)(B), a candidate shall provide a brief description of why the disbursement(s) were made. . . .credit card payments shall not be deemed sufficient".

In the Ethics Act of 2006 the statute was further amplified with:
"The purpose thereof which shall clearly identify that it is an allowable expenditure . . .The words ‘reimbursement’, ‘credit card purchase’, ‘other’ and ‘campaign expenses’ shall not be considered acceptable description for purpose. Any purchase made with a credit card shall also be disclosed as a payment to the vendor providing the item or service. Credit card payments to separate vendors shall be disclosed as separate expenditures."

(Isn’t ‘A Brief Description of Why the Disbursement Was Made,’ meant to accomplish the same function and goal, as ‘Clearly Identify That It Is An Allowable Expenditure?’)

Is there an argument that the General Assembly intended a lower disclosure standard than ‘allowable expenditures’, since the inception of the Act in 1980? It has meant the same thing all along. A brief description of ‘why’ the disbursement was made has meant all along to show that it is an allowable expenditure. Duh!!

Credit Cards Payments. The TREF Rules, last revised in 1999, are quite clear - "credit card payments shall not be deemed sufficient." The Ethics Act further amplified the Rule and is quite clear- The words ‘reimbursement’, ‘credit card purchase’ shall not be considered acceptable description for purpose.

The Question: Does the words, "American Express - Monthly Bill", in fact, have any other meaning and was it not meant to say the same thing as "Reimbursement Credit Card Purchase(s)?" Which, of course, shall not be considered acceptable description for purpose, by law.

Respectfully submitted for your consideration

Uncle Ted

Minutes of September Meeting - Rinks Complaint

Minutes of Meeting - REGISTRY OF ELECTION FINANCE

The Registry of Election Finance met Wednesday, September 13, 2006, at Suite 1614 of Parkway Towers, 404 James Robertson Parkway, Nashville, Tennessee.

Attending the meeting were board members :

Karen Dunavant,
George Harding,
William Long,
John McClarty,
Lee Anne Murray and
Marian Ott.


Page 6 of 7

Sworn Complaint against Randy Rinks

A sworn complaint was filed by Ted Cook against Rep. Randy Rinks concerning his reporting of campaign expenditures and the amount of some of his campaign expenditures on campaign financial disclosure reports covering the years 2003 through 2005.

Mr. Cook personally appeared before the board and explained that a citizen or voter can not make a determination of Rep. Rink’s expenditures because the purposes given are very vague including an expenditure to a credit card company listing a credit card as a payee. Mr. Cook further explained his concern that the reports in question were not returned to Rep. Rink’s by the Registry for correction because the descriptions given for some of his expenditures were so vague.

Director Rawlins informed the board that the campaign financial disclosure statements referenced in the complaint refer to reports that have been on file for over 180 days. Therefore, the reports are deemed to be sufficient, absent a showing of fraud. Director Rawlins noted that the statute did not prohibit a candidate from listing a credit card as a payee at the time the reports in question were filed.

On motion by McClarty, seconded by Long, the board voted unanimously to dismiss and take no action in this matter.

Friday, October 13

Sunday, October 8

Response to the Rinks Courier Article

Just because one can understand the reasoning behind the Courier’s desire to put a positive spin on all of the candidates profiles they do during the elections, does not mean one can understand their propensity to gloss over or their reluctance to cover potentially negative issues that come to the surface, even during the election seasons.

Particularly issues that might negatively impact one of Hardin County’s movers and shakers and ‘favored sons.’

You know, sometimes what you don’t say can leave the impression that what you do say, is all there is say about it. Not so, and the Randy Rinks’ puff-piece article in the Candidates On The Issues, in last week’s Courier, is a good example.

First, I need to let it be known that, personally, I like Randy and can appreciate the fact that time in grade has a lot to do with getting things done, or not done, in Nashville. Just ask our State Senator, Lt. Governor Wilder.

We all seem to understand that sometimes "it is not what you know, but who you know" and how to deal with that thing they call ‘Government’ and Randy certainly knows how to work politics and the system in Hardin County and Nashville.

And now for the rest of the saga. On the good side, the Courier did get Randy to do something none of the rest of us have been able to do. That was to make some kind of comment about ‘his campaign financial disclosure statements’ which are ‘an ethics issue which some critics have been gnawing’ on.

I guess the are referring to me as one of the gnawers, but that is just not so. This ethics issue first came to light last November when an investigation by one of the TV stations in Nashville looked into the Disclosure Statements that were filed by the member of the committee that was drafting the Ethics Reform Act of 2006.

Why should I even be concerned about an ethics issue, when I live in Hardin County where politics and ethics are rarely considered in the same thought process?

I don’t know about you, but if ones’ ethics come into question with an appearance of impropriety, that’s the smoke. I want to know if there is a fire, an actual impropriety, and if there is, should we sacrifice our fundamental ethics principles for political power.

Should we, as citizens, have any interest in an appearance of impropriety by our elected representatives or do we shrug it off with the attitude of, that’s just the way it is, that’s politics?

Ethics (from the Ancient Greek "ethikos", meaning "arising from habit") is a major branch of philosophy. It covers the analysis and employment of concepts such as right, wrong, good, evil, andresponsibility.

Now back to matter at hand. The Courier noted that ‘A formal complaint Hardin County resident Ted Cook filed against Rinks with the Tennessee Registry of Election Finance was dismissed.’ What wasn’t said was that it was summarily dismissed, without the statutorily mandated investigation of ANY Sworn Complaint that is filed.

Their rational was that there was a time limitation of 180 days from the date of the filing of the Disclosure Statements AND for the filing of any Sworn Complaint and mine was filed 184 days.

Hardly a conclusive dismissal after a hearing on the merits of the facts in the Sworn Complaint. The documents were filed after it became obvious that the Registry had failed to perform their duty to ensure compliance with the Disclosure Act.

I have confirmed, through this exercise, that the Tennessee Registry of Election Finance is nothing more than a hand-maiden for those politically powerful folks in Nashville and have generally failed at their job or purpose to enforce compliance with the Disclosure Laws for the benefit of the public.

Most of the folks that know me, know that I would not sign a Sworn Complaint unless I was 100% sure of my facts and allegations. If you want to read about the saga of the Sworn Complaint you should check out my Blog called ‘Ted’s Tablet’ on the internet. You can Google it.

The Courier says "Rinks contends his campaign financial disclosure statements which have been questioned complied with the law in effect at the time they were filed. Later financial disclosure documents comply with a more detailed reporting requirement now in place, he says." These statements are just not true.

In reality most of the changes made to the Financial Disclosure Act of 1980, via the Comprehensive Governmental Ethics Reform Act of 2006, merely codified and amplified some of the Registry’s existing Rules, while giving a more explicit explanation of the original intent for the Campaign Financial Disclosure Act of 1980.

"Tennessee’s Campaign Financial Disclosure Act of 1980 was enacted to promote public disclosure of campaign contributions and expenditures. As the agency responsible for administering this act, the registry is to ensure the timely and accurate disclosure of campaign finance information for the benefit of the public." (Comptroller of Treasury - Performance Audit - 1998)

Now, about this ‘complied with the law in effect at the time they were filed’ comment by Randy, quoted in the Courier. Not!

The 1980 Act itself just says ‘and the purpose thereof.’ In the Campaign Financial Disclosure Rules, last revised in Feb. 1999, Chapter 0530-1, Section 1-.04 and titled Expenditures from Campaign Contributions it says: "When providing the purpose of an expenditure or category of expenditures as required by T.C.A. §2-10-107(a)(2)(B), a candidate shall provide a brief description of why the disbursement(s) were made. . . credit card payments shall not be deemed sufficient".

In the Ethics Act of 2006 the statute was amplified with "The purpose thereof which shall clearly identify that it is an allowable expenditure . . .The words ‘reimbursement’, ‘credit card purchase’, ‘other’ and ‘campaign expenses’ shall not be considered acceptable description for purpose. Any purchase made with a credit card shall also be disclosed as a payment to the vendor providing the item or service. Credit card payments to separate vendors shall be disclosed as separate expenditures."

Isn’t ‘A Brief Description of Why the Disbursement Was Made,’ meant to accomplish the same function and goal, as ‘Clearly Identify That It Is An Allowable Expenditure?’

Is there any argument that the General Assembly intended a lower standard than that since the inception of the Act in 1980. It has meant the same thing all along. A simple ‘why’ the disbursement was made has meant all along to show that it is an allowable expenditure. Duh!!

There can be no argument that the statutes are explicit about using campaign contributions, which are tax free, for personal uses, which are taxable. That’s a crime and we can do better.

Since we’re talking words, let’s try two more. Credit Card. The Rules, pre 2006, are quite clear - credit card payments shall not be deemed sufficient. The Ethics Act is quite clear- The words ‘reimbursement’, ‘credit card purchase’ shall not be considered acceptable description for purpose.

The Question: Does the words, "American Express - Monthly Bill", in fact, have any other meaning and was it not meant to say the same thing as "Reimbursement Credit Card Purchase(s)?" Which, of course, shall not be considered acceptable description for purpose, by law.

As you can see, our Rep. Rinks is just flat wrong when he puts forth the comment that his disclosure statements ‘complied with the law in effect at the time they were filed.’ He is also just flat wrong when he puts forth the comment that his ‘Later financial disclosure documents comply with a more detailed reporting requirement now in place.’

Over the last few years Rep. Rinks has used $32,000.00 to $40,000.00 of his restricted campaign contributions for ‘Monthly Bill’ or ‘Utilities’ to ‘American Express.’
That just begs the question, why has the Registry not only allowed, but put out on the internet, what is obviously a violation of the Disclosure Act? When you’re a hand-maiden, that is what you do and then you summarily dismiss any Sworn Complaint that is filed so you don’t have to address the issue.

Respectfully submitted for your consideration
Ted G. Cook
Hardin County, Tennessee

Friday, October 6

Response to TREF on Return of Sworn Allegations

From the desk of
Ted G. Cook
470 Hard Rock Road
Savannah, TN 38372

October 6, 2006

Drew Rawlins
Executive Director
Registry of Election Finance
404 James Robertson Parkway, Suite 1614
Nashville, TN 37243-1360

In Re: Your return of my Sworn Allegations
Filed Pursuant to T.C.A. §2-10-203(k)(1) & (2)

Dear Mr. Rawlins:

I am returning my original sworn complaint because it was filed with the appropriate party, the Registry, as the following will explain.

You note in your letter that, "As you can understand, this matter can not be handled by the Registry or the Registry staff." Quite frankly, Mr. Rawlins I have no such understanding, since the new section (k)(1) and (2) were added to the statutes effective February 15, 2006 and I do not much appreciate being treated to a dose of the typical bureaucratic mumbo- jumbo.

You reliance on, and referring me to, the Attorney General Opinion U91-125 about ‘ouster proceedings’ is not the least bit helpful. For one thing, the AG opinion, of 15 years ago, was based on the state of the law in November, 1991.
Prior to Ethics Act of 2006, T.C.A. §2-10-203(k) read in its entirety as follows:

(k) Any member of the registry of election finance who violates the oath of office for such position or participates in any of the activities prohibited by this part commits a Class misdemeanor, and such violation or participation shall be grounds for removal from office.

You of all folks should know, that the passage of the Ethics Reform Act of 2006 updated a substantial portion of both the Disclosure Act of 1980 and the Registry Act of 1989 and requires more accountability from those that serve for the benefit of the public, thus (k)(2) was added. That accountability would include the Registry and yourself. Have you not heard about any of this?

T.C.A. §2-10-203(k)(2): Unless otherwise provided by law, any member of the registry who violates the oath of office for such position or participates in any of the activities prohibited by this chapter commits a Class a Misdemeanor. If a sworn allegation is made that a member has violated the oath of office for such position or has participated in any of the activities prohibited by this chapter, then upon a unanimous vote of the remaining members, the member against whom the sworn allegation is made may be suspended from the registry for such purposes and for such times as the remaining members shall unanimously determine, but no such suspension shall extend beyond final disposition of the sworn allegation. The accused member shall not participate in the suspension vote. If a member of the registry is found guilty of or pleads guilty or nolo contendere to a violation of the oath of office for such position or participates in any of the activities prohibited by this chapter, then such member shall be deemed to be removed from office.


Can you see where one might get the impression that the Attorney General Opinion of 15 years ago did not take into consideration this new and improved alternative to a judicial ‘ouster proceeding?’

There is no reference in this article to having to file for a T.C.A. §8-47-101 et seq., ‘ouster proceeding,’ in order to deal with the members of the Registry who put themselves into a position covered in T.C.A. §2-10-203(k)(1) & (2). As a matter of fact, I searched the whole 2006 Act and there is no reference to T.C.A. §8-47-101 et seq. or ‘ouster proceedings’, at all. Not one time.

The old statute used the words "shall be grounds for removal from office," and the Attorney General’s ‘ouster proceedings’ was right on, since that was the way the did things in 1991, while the new statute uses the words shall be deemed to be removed from office, and would require only 1.) found guilty of or 2.) pleads guilty or nolo contendere to a violation. That would make it a legislative removal, not a judicial removal.

One could assume that when the members plead guilty or nolo contendere to the obvious violation that are referenced in the Sworn Allegations, there would be no need for a judicial finding of guilt. Why do you think the General Assembly added then upon a unanimous vote of the remaining members, [that found guilty thing] the member against whom the sworn allegation is made may be suspended from the registry for such purposes.

Just when would you suppose that this vote of the remaining members would take place if an ‘ouster proceedings’ as put forth in the Attorney General’s Opinion U91-125, has any bearing on the Sworn Allegations. If they are not suppose to be filed with the Registry, why would the new 2006 Act say "If a sworn allegation is made . . . , then upon a unanimous vote of the remaining members, . . ." I believe they are talking about the remaining members of the Registry.

Mr. Rawlins, you have gotten opinions from the Attorney General seventeen (17) times, according to the AG’s web pages, over the last 5 years on a lot of different matters. In light of the recent changes to the statutes that relate to the Registry and your job, I am really surprised that you would take it upon yourself to make the misleading pronouncement you made in the return of my allegations, when all you had to do was to refer it to the Attorney General for investigation, if the Registry could not deal with it because it charged all of the members.

Yet I have not been able to find where you have ever requested an opinion on the Registry’s self-imposed180 day statute of limitations for filing a sworn complaint. If you have such an opinion, I would appreciate seeing a copy of it or even a reference will do.

While you are at it, if you would please send me any Attorney General opinion or findings that allow the Registry, or yourself, to waive the statutory requirement of disclosing the ‘why’ (pre-2006) or ‘specific purpose’ (instructions on disclosure statement) or ‘clearly identify that it is an allowable expenditure.’ (Post 2006 Act)


Respectfully submitted for your consideration and action.

Ted G. Cook
470 Hard Rock Road
Savannah, TN 38372

Wednesday, October 4

Response from TREF in re: Sworn Allegations - Not My Job

Snail Mail - Post Marked September 29, 2006



September 28, 2006

Dear Mr. Cook:


The Registry is in receipt of your letter dated September 22, 2006 concerning the removal of the Registry members present at the September 13, 2006 pursuant to T.C.A. §2-10-203(k). As you can understand, this matter cannot be handled by the Registry or the Registry staff. I have enclosed a copy of Attorney General Opinion U91-125 stating that the Attorney General, a District Attorney General or a group of ten or more citizens may institute an ouster proceeding against a member of the Registry.

Based on this opinion, I am returning your original sworn complaint so that it may be filed with the appropriate party. If you have any questions, please free free to contact our office.

Sincerely,
/s/ Drew Rawlins
Executive Director

NOTE: Could things have changed since this 1991 Opinion? They added (k)(2) with Ethics 2006 in Feb 2006. I think Mr. Rawlins needs to request an update from the Attorney General. Not me, I'll go with the plain language of (k)(2).

Saturday, September 30

Effect of Ethics 2006 on Description of Purpose


In reality most of the changes made to the financial disclosure act, merely codified the Registry’s existing Rules, while giving a little more explicit explanation of the direction of their original intent for the Act.

An example would be:

In the Campaign Financial Disclosure Rules, last revised in Feb. 1999, Chapter 0530-1, Section 1-.04 and titled Expenditures from Campaign Contributions it says:

When providing the purpose of an expenditure or category of expenditures as required by T.C.A. §2-10-107(a)(2)(B), a candidate shall provide a brief description of why the disbursement(s) were made. . . .credit card payments shall not be deemed sufficient.

The Ethics Act of 2006, effective 2/15/06 added to (B):

The purpose thereof which shall clearly identify that it is an allowable expenditure under §2-10-114. The words ‘reimbursement’, ‘credit card purchase’, ‘other’ and ‘campaign expenses’ shall not be considered acceptable description for purpose. Any purchase made with a credit card shall also be disclosed as a payment to the vendor providing the item or service. Credit card payments to separate vendors shall be disclosed as separate expenditures.

Hasn't ‘A Brief Description of Why the Disbursement Was Made,’ meant to accomplish the same function and goal, to ‘Clearly Identify That It Is An Allowable Expenditure?’

Is there any argument that the General Assembly intended any lower standard than 'clearly allowed' standard, since the inception of the Act in 1980, and just added a ‘Clearly Identify’ as somehow, a higher standard. It has meant the same thing all along. A simple 'why' the disbursement was made, has meant all along to show that it is an allowable expenditure? Is there a problem, here?

Since we’re talking words, let’s try two more. Credit Card.

The long standings Rules are quite clear - credit card payments shall not be deemed
sufficient.

The Ethics 2006 is still quite clear- The words ‘reimbursement’, ‘credit card purchase’ shall not be considered acceptable description for purpose.
The Question: Could the words, "American Express - Monthly Bill", in fact, have any other meaning and was it not meant to say the same thing as, "Reimbursement Credit Card Purchase(s)? " Which, of course, can not legally be considered as an acceptable description for any purpose.
There is nothing in Ethics 2006, or any where else in the rules, that allow the Registry of Election Finance to waive any part of the statute or rules, for any reason. They Can't, BUT, They Do.
The Registry is suppose to enforce not waive. That's A Fact, Jack!!
Stay tuned,
Uncle Ted

Redress of Grievance - What's That?

Cook contends that the Registry of Election Finance erred by unlawfully and summarily dismissing the Sworn Complaint at it's monthly board meeting of the members of the Registry, because the filing of the nonfraudulent complaint is constitutionally protected, as a petition of Redress of Grievance. Requires notice and opportunity to prepare to be heard.

As the United States Supreme Court has held, the right to petition for redress of grievances is "among the most precious of the liberties safeguarded by the bill of rights." See United Mineworkers of America, District 12 v. Illinois State Bar Association, 389 U.S. 217, 88 S.Ct. 353, 356, 19 L.Ed.2d 426 (1967). Inseparable from the guaranteed rights entrenched in the first amendment, the right to petition for redress of grievances occupies a "preferred place" in our system of representative government, and enjoys a "sanctity and a sanction not permitting dubious intrusions." Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516, 65 S.Ct. 315, 322, 89 L.Ed. 430 (1945). Indeed, "[i]t was not by accident or coincidence that that rights to freedom in speech and press were coupled in a single guarantee with the rights of the people eaceably to assemble and to petition for redress of grievances." Id. at 323. Moreover, the Supreme Court has held expressly that the first amendment right to petition protects the individuals right to file an action with a "reasonable basis" in a state tribunal. Bill Johnson's Restaurants, Inc. v. NLRB, --- U.S. ----, ----, 103 S.Ct. 2161, 2169, 76 L.Ed.2d 277 (1983).


Cook has genuinely attempted to protect his rights through the orderly pursuit of justice--the filing of a citizen complaint with a reasonable basis, with the proper authorities.


NOTE:

Likewise, we [the U.S. Supreme Court] consider it irrelevant to the applicability of the right to petition that its exercise might have the effect of causing professional injury to the official about whom complaints are made, or even that the complainer may be aware of or pleased by the prospect of such injury. Whenever substantial charges of any credibility are made, a shadow of doubt, at least, may fall upon their object. This effect follows too naturally from its cause for its presence to vitiate the propriety of the use of First Amendment rights, if those rights are to retain meaning. The possibility that a citizen who feels himself to have been abused by a particular federal official may take satisfaction when the official gets his perceived due is too human for First Amendment protection to depend on its absence.

Accord Bill Johnson's Restaurants v. NLRB, --- U.S. at ----, 103 S.Ct. at 2169.
Respectfully,

Adequate Notice to Cook and/or Public???

QUESTIONS:

Was there any notice as would have fairly informed either the complainer, or the public, that the Registry was going to consider summarily dismissing the Sworn Complaint without the statutorily required investigation?

No. The Public Notice contained only, "Item 6. Sworn Complaint against Randy Rinks" with no indication of what action might be taken on the Sworn Complaint.

No. Since statutorily, the only actions that the Registry could have taken was to either;

1. Make a finding that the Sworn Complaint was false or filed for the purpose of harassment and levy the statutory civil penalties for the filing, after notice and opportunity to be heard to the complainer; or

2. Determine, not if, but when and how that the Registry was going to investigate the Complaint pursuant to the TREF Campaign Finance Disclosure Rule 053-1-1-.11, with an Informal Show Cause Hearing, with it’s notice and opportunity to be heard to Rep. Rinks; or

3. Exercise the TREF’s statutory power to conduct a contested case hearing pursuant to the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act, with it’s required notice to all parties concerned.


Did the Registry make any effort to contact Cook about the matter, before their meeting?.

NO. The only communication was initiated by Cook, by phone, to the Executive Director who advised Cook that he did not necessarily need to attend the monthly meeting. It would be just going to be routine. Well! Alrightty.
Submitted for your consideration,
Uncle T
Ted

180 Days - My Ass - Part II

What is this 180 day period all about and what is it not?

One needs to see also the Attorney General's Opinion No. 05-172 which discussed the application of the 180 day time period in 2-10-206(a)(4) to Statement of Local Candidates.

In the last paragraph of the Opinion it refers to this 180 day time frame as ‘time restrictions on the Registry’s ability to review statements.’

It does not follow that without any obvious review and just because statements are deemed sufficient by the passage of time, that makes them, in fact, sufficient. Because passage of time does not change the fact that insufficient statements are still, in fact, insufficient and will remain insufficient until they are changed.

Said another way, just because the Registry does not make the call during the 180 day time restriction on the Registry’s ability to review and challenge the statements, does not off-set the fact that by law, expenditures descriptions for monthly payments of credit card are still prohibited as being insufficiently described.

This insufficient description does not become sufficient just because the Registry says so, by the passage of time, because that, ‘says so,’ is in direct conflict of the ‘says no’ in the statutes and rules.

The Registry was created to ensure compliance with the Disclosure Act, not to waive compliance or the intent of the General Assembly. In any case the Registry summarily dismisses Sworn Complaints that basically challenged this waiver of sufficiency, based on factual violations within the words on the face of the statements.

The questions then become, do they just not know any better or did they do it, knowingly and with intent?


Respectfully submitted for your consideration.

Uncle Ted

Where's The Potential Fraud?

Appearance of Impropriety


Fraud Defined - In the broadest sense, a fraud is a deception made for personal gain, although it has a more specific legal meaning, the exact details varying between jurisdictions. Many hoaxes are fraudulent, although those not made for personal gain are not best described in this way. Not all frauds are hoaxes - electoral fraud, for example. In the broad legal sense a fraud is any crime or civil wrong for gain that utilizes some deception practiced on the victim as its principal method.

In the criminal law of common law jurisdictions it may be called "theft by deception," "larceny by trick," "larceny by fraud and deception" or something similar.


Campaign Expenditure Disclosure Discussed

Instructions on Reporting Campaign Expenditure Form. - The complete name and address of each payee, as well as the purpose and amount of the expenditure(s) must be listed here. The purpose of an expenditure must be a specific description (e.g., meals, advertising, travel, etc.). General phrases, such as "expenses" or "miscellaneous" shall not be sufficient for providing a purpose.
Why do you think we require candidates or officeholders to disclose the disbursement of their campaign funds with specific descriptions that provides a brief description of why the disbursement(s) were made, which shall clearly identify that it is an allowable expenditure?

Wasn’t the Disclosure Act of 1980 the results of the politicians playing fast and loose with their tax-free ‘campaign’ contributions and using them for taxable non-politically related purposes. At that time I believe there were court cases that said in general that this, in fact, was a potential deception made for personal gain and was therefore unlawful. IRS said so, too.

By failing to review the statements filed by the politicians and officeholders to any degree of certainty and allowing these folks to file, unchallenged, insufficient and illegal descriptions of the purpose of the expenditures, the Registry has failed in their statutory purpose. The Registry has failed to ensure compliance or to enforce this part of the Disclosure Act. A violation of their oath of office and the laws of the state.

In fact, the Registry, with only the passage of 180 days from the date of filing of the statement, now deems them sufficient, even for the investigative purpose of a Sworn Complaint that establishes the clear and unequivocal fact, the insufficiency of the statements and therefore potentially deceptive with it’s obvious appearance of impropriety.

Without further disclosure or description, these are the very type of disclosure descriptions that the Disclosure Act was intended to outlaw. And they did. What assurances do we, the citizens, have that an ‘American Express - Monthly Bill’ description is not a deception made for personal gain, a "theft by deception," a "larceny by trick," a "larceny by fraud and deception" or something similar.

By all means, no one should conclude that there has been any showing of fraud and none was alleged in the Sworn Complaint, nor should there have been. NO citizen, or even our representatives , is guilty of anything, just because of some allegations. Just not being done where you can tell, oneway or the other.
Respectfully submitted for your consideration.
Uncle Ted

Wednesday, September 27

What is Newsworthy Outside Hardin County?


If I could take a few minutes of you time, I would like your opinion, please.

It has now been clearly established on the record that, despite the intent of the new Ethics Reform Act, the politically appointed members of the Registry of Election Finance, in Nashville are still nothing more than hand-maidens for the powerful politicians that appoint them. That’s a fact, and I can prove it.

Consider the following:

In November, 2005 during the ethics reform exercise by the General Assembly, a item on one of the Nashville Stations (News Channel 5), and their internet site, raised concerns about my own District 71, State Representative, Mr. Randy Rinks, and his propensity to expense, among many other things, the monthly payments of his American Express Card with his campaign contributions, without any explanation of the purpose of the campaign expenditure, which is not allowed under the statutes, the rules or the IRS Code.

The virtually unexplained campaign expenditures account for substantial portion of $40,000 to $60,000 per year in total campaign contributions. Even in non-election years.

Understandably, Rep. Rinks was unwilling to provide his American Express bills to the reporter, but was quoted as saying that he would, to the Registry. Well, guess what? The Registry never ask for or received them, even though they, the Registry, who have a statutory duty to review all filings to ensure compliance with the Campaign Finance Disclosure Act, anyway. They have ignored Rep. Rinks' Sworn Disclosure Statements, for years.

Well, even after the media spotlight, things rock along and the Registry makes no documented inquiry or investigation into the matter. On February 8, 2006 Rep. Rinks files his Supplemental 2005, (1/1/05 to 12/31/05) Campaign Financial Disclosure Statement in which he lists an expenditure of $15,039.92 to AMERICAN EXPRESS for his MONTHLY BILL, again.

Before the new Comprehensive Governmental Ethics Reform Act of 2006, which rewrote a lot of the Campaign Financial Disclosure Act of 1980 and the Registry of Election Finance Act of 1989, among others, disclosure statement filed with the Registry for 180 days [now 2 years effective February 15, 2006] were considered sufficient, as to compliance with the Campaign Financial Disclosure Act, at least, by the Registry, absent a showing of fraud.

It is worth noting at this time that the Ethics Reform Act of 2006 was passed by the General Assembly, of which, of course, Rep. Rinks is a member, on February 6, 2006 (two days before the filings)and signed by the Governor on February 15, 2006 (7 days after the filings). Those dates will be handy, later.

It is also worthy of note that Rep. Rinks was a member of the Joint Legislative Ethics-Reform Committee that drafted and approved the Comprehensive Governmental Ethics Reform Act of 2006. Ya think he would know anything about Campaign Financing or Financial Disclosure Statements?

With no known action by the folks at the Registry of Election Finance during the 180 period, on August 11, 2006 there was a Sworn Complaint filed, in accordance with the statutes, that alleged that the statements filed by Rep. Rinks does not conform to law or rules and specifically noted the payment of the credit card bill with no description other than "monthly bill," which, of course, violates the statutes and the published Reporting Rules of the Registry, which had also been approved by the General Assembly, some time ago, and by, you guessed it, Rep. Rinks.

Well, wouldn’t you know it, at the regularly scheduled monthly meeting of the Registry of Election Finance, on September 13, 2006, as to "Item. 6 - Sworn Complaint against Rep. Randy Rinks," all of the member voted, without notice, to summarily dismiss the Sworn Complaint.
The summary dismissal was allegedly because it was not filed within the 180 day period of the Registry's review and contained no allegation of fraud.
This summary dismissal violates the statutory DUTY of the Registry TO INVESTIGATE ANY SWORN COMPLAINT and ignores the fact that there is no statutory or rule requirement for the filing of the Sworn Complaint within this 180 days or to allege or prove fraud, in order for the Sworn Complaint to comply with the Statutes and Rules.

As part of the Ethics Reform Act of 2006 the Legislature added a new section in the Registry Act that now allows Sworn Allegation to be filed against the individual members of the Registry who don’t do their duty and/or violate their Oath of Office to do their Duty, the Constitutions of the United States and/or Tennessee, or the statutes and rules applicable to the Campaign Finance Disclosure Act or the Registry of Election Finance Act, which will lead to members, statutorily, being deemed as removed from office, if the sworn allegations are proven or admitted to.

The completed Sworn Allegations were mailed priority mail on Friday, September 22, 2006 and signed for last Monday. We'll have to wait a few days to see how the Registry deals with these sworn allegations. Probably ignore them, left to their own devices.

The Law says investigation by the Registry. The members of the Registry says, No Thank You. Unprecedented summary dismissal by the Registry, as not timely filed (184 days vs 180 days) or alleging or showing fraud.
Again, the Statutes only require, ‘does not conform to law,’ allegations, which it doesn’t on it’s face. The Registry says, it says considered sufficient absent ‘a showing of fraud’ and you haven’t shown fraud, even though the statutes do not require you to show fraud or prove anything, just allege. Who do you think will win that debate?
Converting campaign contributions to non-campaign expenditures is unlawful gain. Unlawful gain, usually involves some sort of deceptive practice, and that is fraud. These folks wouldn’t recognize fraud, if it bit them on the butt.

That seems news worthy to me, but not to The Courier, here in Hardin County. What say you? Is any of that newsworthy or not?

Respectfully submitted for your consideration.
Uncle Ted

Sunday, September 24

Update - Source of Contributions - Rinks - 2006 Reports


I went ahead and sifted through Rep. Rinks’ First Quarter, Second Quarter and Pre-Primary Reports for 2006.

The total contributions during this period were $15,900, with $400 (2.52%) as Unitemized Contributions.

This sifting exercise yielded the following for Rep. Rinks’s itemized contributions of $15,500 or 97.48% of total contributions since the first of the year.

Nashville - $8,350 - 53.87%
Other 37*** Zips - $1,000 - 6.45 %
Out of State - $2,200 - 14.19%
Home District #71 - NONE - 0%
Memphis - $2,450 - 15.81%
Other 38*** Zips - $1,500 - 9.67 %


Now, if one takes the 2005 figures and add them to the 2006 figures, one should get the breakdown for the 2006 election cycle contributions through the Rinks’ Pre-Primary reports. They would look like this: Unitemized contributions $5,925 or 9.13% of total contributions; and

Nashville - $25,750 - 43.68%
Other 37*** Zips $9,050 - 15.35%
Out of State - $8,800 - 14.93%
Home District #71 - $6,250 - 10.10%
Memphis - $6,150 - 10.43%
Other 38*** Zips - $2,950 - 5.00%

We report, you decide.

Respectfully submitted for your consideration.
Uncle Ted

Source of Contributions - Rinks - 2005


The following was gleamed from the posting by the Tennessee Registry of Election Finance on their web site, which I have found to be dubious, at best, and borderline problematical, to say the least.

I sifted through Rep. Rinks’ Supplemental Report for 2005, an in between election year, and separated the contributions by zip codes in order to get a general ideal of the source of the contributions. Yielded some interesting indications. At least to me.

The total contributions were $48,975, with $5,525 (11.28%) as Unitemized Contributions

This sifting exercise yielded the following for Rep. Rinks’s itemized contributions of $43,450 or 88.72% of total contributions..

Nashville - $17,400 - 40.05%
Other 37*** Zips - $8,050 - 18.53%
Out of State - $6,600 - 15.10%
Home District #71 - $6,250 - 14.38%
Memphis - $3,700 - 8.52%
Shelby County Zips - $1,450 - 3.34%

Assuming (which I really hate to do) that the unitemized contribution percentages are about the same as the itemized contribution, the numbers still reflect that only 14.38% of Representative Rinks's financial support can be traced to his home district.

Could that figure make one wonder where his true representative loyalties reside?

We report, you decide.

Respectfully submitted for your consideration.
Uncle Ted

Let's Compare Reported Credit Card Expenditures

In an effort to be fair, balanced and thoroughness, with the data available, I wondered which group, the Republicans (Repubs) or Democrats (Demos) were more effective at reporting their credit card expenses for campaign expenditure reporting purpose.

Well, it took awhile, but, I made it through the all of the 2005 reports that are available online and in general the Repub’s fair much better at their reporting of credit card expenditures and only 2 of them (Montgomery and Overbey) had credit card charges on their reports.

Monty did pretty good, not a lot of ‘whys’ in the description (TRAVEL - $528.40 & RECEPTION - $268.89), but Overbey just said REIMBURSEMENT - $216.32.

It would be a fair statement that my representative, Rep. Rinks, still leads the pack, by a bunch, at not disclosing credit card purposes, ($15,039.92 in 2005)), followed by Rep. Hargrove, who just grouped $7,941.31 as tickets, air travel, car rental, meals & postage, on his VISA.

So, one could say, that all the Repub’s have less than $1,000 in ill defined credit card expenses and Randy, himself, has over $15,000, totally undefined.

If we just compared the top two, it would be $1,000 Repubs. and $23,000 for the Demos. and this is for an ‘in between election’ period, known also as an off year report.

I’m also working on a breakdown of the sources of Rep. Rinks contributions that should be posted shortly. The preliminary figures are quite revealing.
Respectfully submitted for your consideration,
Uncle Ted

Saturday, September 23

Absent a Showing of Fraud - How and By Whom?

2-10-206(a)(4) - The duties of the registry include. . . (4) Review all filled statements to ensure compliance with the respective disclosure laws. Statements filed with he registry for more than two years [180 days prior to 2/15/06] shall be deemed to be sufficient, absent a showing of fraud . .

As noted earlier, the only mention of 180 days in the statues is in this Part 2 - Registry of Election Finance Act of 1989. The reference to 180 days is mentioned only one (1) time in that section that applies only the to the duties of the Registry to review and ensure compliance. It is the intent of the general assembly for the Registry to ensure enforcement of these statutes.

Didn’t and Doesn’t Happen. That's a fact, Jack!

Basically, if the Registry has not asked for corrections or further documentation in 180 days, it is deemed sufficient, absence a showing of fraud, by the Registry. This compliance sufficiency is put forth and based exclusively on the premise that the Registry has actually preformed its duty and reviewed the statement to ensure compliance with the Campaign Finance disclosure laws, within that 180 days.

First - 2-10-206(a)(4), in Part 2, concerns the duties of the Registry and has nothing to do with the filing of a sworn complaint alleging that a statement filed regarding an election does not conform to law or to the truth . . . which is found at 2-10-108(a), in Part 1 of the statute. Part 1 is known as Campaign Financial Disclosure Act of 1980 and relates to ‘Financial Disclosure’ and Part 2 is known sd Registry of Election Finance Act of 1989 and relates to ‘Registry of Election Finance.’

Second - The Sworn Complaint is only required to allege that a statement regarding an election for which the complainer was qualified to vote does not conform to law or to the truth. Those elections to which these statements regarded, are the 2006 Primary Election and General Election of 2006. One of those elections has not even taken place and the Sworn Complaint was filed about a month after the 2006 primary, in which the Complainer did, in fact, vote.

There is no requirement in the statute, rules or case law for the Sworn Complaint to be file with an allegation of fraud, let alone be required to show fraud, before the Registry is required to revisit the statement’s compliance sufficiency via an investigation.

I find nothing in the statutes, rules or case law that even discusses, let alone allows or authorizes, the members of the Registry, sitting in a regularly scheduled monthly meeting, to dismiss any sworn complaint for any reason, let alone because the complainant did not specifically allege or show the fraud, particularly without any notice.

The only direct reference to a sworn complaint and the duties of the Registry is in 2-10-206(a)(7) which makes it a DUTY of the Registry to investigate any alleged violation upon sworn complaint or upon its own motion and the Registry has the power to conduct a contested case hearing in determining whether an actual violation has occurred.

Where the results of its (the Registry) investigation (the duty required investigation) indicate a criminal act may have occurred, the registry shall (that means required too) refer the matter to the appropriate district attorney general for criminal prosecution.

Why would the statutory scheme have the low standard of ‘indicate a criminal act may have occurred’ for the Registry to refer for criminal prosecution and the Registry require the much higher standard of ‘a showing of’ or ‘proof of" fraud for a Sworn Complaint, when the statutes requires only the allegation that the statements does not conform to law or the truth?

Why would the statutes require the candidate to maintain his campaign records for a year after the election, [now 2 years] if the statutory scheme was to bar a Sworn Complaint or bar any review for the possibility that it does not conform to law or to the truth, after 180 days?

It says on the face of the statements, for years 2003, 2004 and 2005, that Rep. Rinks paid for his monthly bill for his American Express Card, bought gifts and flowers, paid a lot to food and beverage establishments, and made a lot of ‘donations,’ with his campaign contributions, with no required ‘why’ explanations provided and none required by the Registry of Election Finance. Sounds like a Dereliction of Duty, to me.

An investigation is required to ascertain if these and his other unexplained campaign expenditures conform to the law or to the truth. Were they political or legislative expenditures and how the hell did the Registry miss these if in fact the reviewed them to ensure compliance with the disclosure laws?

Respectfully submitted for your consideration

Uncle Ted

Friday, September 22

A 180 Days, My Ass

Cook would submit that the 180 day statute of limitations period utilized by the Registry as a restriction on the authority and/or ability of the Registry to allow the Sworn Complaint, lawfully filed by Cook, to proceed to an investigation, is totally misplaced and absurd.

FACT: The only mention of this 180 day period in Part 1 or Part 2 is in Part 2 - Registry of Election Finance Act of 1989. The reference to 180 days is mentioned only the one (1) time in this section, which applies only the to the duty of the Registry to review all filed statement in order for the Registry to ensure statutory compliance sufficiency.

Basically, if the Registry takes no action in 180 days, its deemed sufficient as to any Registry to review and ensure compliance.

2-10-206(a)(4) - The duties of the registry include . . . Review all filed statements to ensure compliance with the respective disclosure laws. Statements filed with the registry for more than two (2) years [180 days prior to 2/15/06] shall be deemed to be sufficient, absent a showing of fraud or the existence of an ongoing investigation related to such statement:

2-10-206(a)(7) - The duties of the registry include . . . Investigate any alleged violation upon sworn complaint . . . [Note: no reference to 180 days and it is a DUTY to investigate, not an option]

2-10-206(a)(8) - The duties of the registry include . . . Preserve all reports or statements for five (5) years from the date of filing absent any pending investigation by the Registry of Election Finance or any other law enforcement agency or absent any administrative or court proceeding:
[ Note: Why would you be required to keep records for five years if you couldn’t do anything about them after 180 days?]

2-10-207 - The registry has the power (4) In determining whether an actual violation has occurred, conduct a contested case hearing and (8) Where the results of its investigation indicate a criminal act may have occurred, the registry shall refer the matter to the appropriate district attorney general for criminal prosecution.

2-10-108 (a) - Sworn complaint alleging that a statement filed regarding an election does not conform to law or to the truth or a failure to file.
NOTE: [NO LINKAGE OF THE 180 DAYS REFERRED TO UNDER DUTIES OF THE REGISTRY TO THIS SECTION AND NO REQUIREMENT TO SHOW FRAUD.]

See also : Rule 0530-1-1-.02 BOOKKEEPING PROCEDURES

(7) A candidate . . . shall maintain all bank statements, cancelled checks and other accounting records and required documentation listed in item 5 for a campaign account for at least one (1) year after the date of the election to which the records refer, except in the case of such accounting records used in completing a supplemental campaign financial disclosure report which shall be maintained for at least one (1) year after the date that the report to which the records refer is filed. . . .

[ Note: Why would one be required to keep records for at least (1) year, [now 2 years], if no one but the Registry could do anything about them after 180 days, without proving fraud, first? What the hell is the Registry to, if a Complaintent has to prove fraud, before the Registry does their investigation?]
I say again, 180 day, my ass!!!
Respectfully submitted for your consideration
Uncle Ted

Thursday, September 21

The Sworn Allegations

Sending this off on Friday, September 22, 2006. It's so new that they will have to day, Well, Hotdam.


From the desk of
Ted G. Cook
470 Hard Rock Road
Savannah, TN 38372

September 22, 2006


Chairperson Murray and All Members
Tennessee Registry of Election Finance
404 James Robertson Parkway, Suite 1614
Nashville, Tennessee 37243

In Re: Sworn Allegations filed against the
Individual Members of the Registry
Pursuant to T.C.A.§2-10-203(k)(1)&(2)

Dear Madam Chairman,

What follows is another fine example of the fact that there is abuse of the Financial Disclosure and Campaign Financing laws, not only in Hardin County, but, in the Nashville, as well.

Your expedited attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated.

SWORN ALLEGATIONS

Pursuant to Section §2-10-203(k)(1) and (2) of the Tennessee Code, I hereby file these sworn allegations against those members of the Tennessee Registry of Election Finance, (Collectively referred to as ‘the Registry’) who were present at the September 13, 2006 scheduled monthly meeting of the members and voted for the summary dismissal of the Sworn Complaint that was filed against Representative Randy Rinks, (District 71), dated August 11, 2006, for violation of the requirements of Section §2-10-107 of the Tennessee Code and Chapter 0530-1-1 of the Rules of the Tennessee Registry of Election Finance.

There have been no allegations, or findings, that the Sworn Complaint is false in any way or that it was filed for the purpose of harassment. There have been no civil penalties assessed nor attorney fees awarded.

There was no notice, phone calls, e-mails or any other communication or correspondence generated by the Tennessee Registry of Election Finance that the agenda would or could included a possible or potential action to dismiss the Sworn Complaint. Simply noting "Sworn Complaint against Randy Rinks" as an agenda item is not sufficient notice as would fairly inform the public of potential dismissal. That’s a sunshine law violation, so in reality the action taken by the Registry are void for lack of proper notice to Cook or anyone else.
NOW, THEREFORE In support of these sworn allegations, I would, under oath, believing them to be true and correct statements, allege as follows:

Alleged Violations of the Federal and State Constitutions

The members of the Registry knowingly, and unlawfully, summarily dismissed the lawfully filed Sworn Complaint of Cook for the purpose of preventing, and did, in fact, prevent, Cook from exercise Cook’s right to petition the government for redress of grievances and to enjoy the benefits of the petition, granted and guaranteed, by and under, both Constitutions; also

The Registry knowingly and unlawfully dismissed the lawfully filed Sworn Complaint of Cook for the purpose of denying Cook the benefit of or to prevent Cook from enjoying Cook’s right, to equal protection under the law and due process, granted under both Constitutions.

Generally. The members of the Registry who were present, at the September 13, 2006 scheduled monthly meeting of the Registry, and voted for the summary dismissal of the Sworn Complaint that was filed against Representative Randy Rinks, (District 71), willfully abandoned their duty to investigate any sworn complaint and did abdicated the Registry’s duty and responsibility, for the enforcement of the Campaign Financial Disclosure Act and the Registry’s rules. They have simply refuse to adhere to or enforce the Campaign Finance Disclosure Laws of the State of Tennessee, or even the intent of the Campaign Finance Disclosure Laws of the State of Tennessee.

Alleged Violations of State of Tennessee Laws.

The Registry knowingly and unlawfully dismissed the lawfully filed Sworn Complaint of Cook for the purpose of preventing Cook from exercise Cook’s right to the results of the statutorily mandated investigation under this title and committed a Class A misdemeanor, in so doing (T.C.A. §§ 2-19-103)

The individual members of the Registry willfully violated provisions of this title made for the protection of elections and committed a Class A Misdemeanor, in so doing. T.C.A. §2-19-113

The individual members of the Registry knowingly made or consented to false or entries ‘not deemed sufficient, by law, on an election document and further published these election documents on the internet, leaving the false impression and/or representation of the Registry’s assurance of compliance with the Disclosure Laws, and committed a Class D Felony, in so doing. T.C.A. §3-19-109

Summary of Allegations

Having first been charged, by Cook, with obvious sanctioned neglect of it’s duty to review all filed statements to insure compliance with Tennessee’s Campaign Disclosure laws and rules, the Registry, knowingly, and in an attempt to not to have to respond to these allegations and possibly in an effort to shield Representative Rinks from an investigation, unlawfully took it upon itself to summarily dismiss, without notice, the Sworn Complaint filed by Cook, dated August 11, 2006.
This is activity constitutes a prohibited activity and meets the requirements of T.C.A. §2-10-203(k)(1) and (2), for removal from office.

The members, unless they wish to challenge these allegations, should be deemed to be statutorily removed from office for violation of their oath of office and/or for their participation in an activity prohibited by this chapter.

The Registry has allowed, without question or correction, Representative Rinks, and others, to report their expenditures of campaign funds, for at least the last three years, in a format that the statutes, and the Registry’s rules promulgated by the Registry, itself, defined as ‘not deemed sufficient’ and in so doing, abdicated and abandoned their oversight responsibility and duties as members of the Registry to ensure compliance with the Campaign Finance Disclosure Laws, along with their oath of office.

WHEREFORE, The undersigned respectfully requests that the proper authorities causes an independent investigation of the above allegations, and upon an agreement or a finding of violation of the above-referenced statutes and Constitutions, the members of the Registry be deemed to be removed from office.



Respectfully submitted,


Ted G. Cook
470 Hard Rock Road
Savannah, TN 38372
731-925-4753
e-mail: tedgcook@charter.net

You Say There Is No Recourse From The Registry of Campaign Finance Actions - WRONG

Well check this out.
PUBLIC ACTS, 2006 - Chapter No. 1
Amend Tennessee Code Annotated
Comprehensive Governmental Ethics Reform Act of 2006


SECTION 25: Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 2-10-203, is amended by deleting subsections (h) through (k) and substituting instead the following:

[The following Section (k)(1) and (2) were added to 2-10-203 - Registry of election finance - Creation- Appointments - Qualifications - Administration.]
2-10-203(k)(1) Every member of the Registry of Election Finance shall before they proceed to business take an oath or affirmation to support the Constitution of this state, and of the United States and the laws of this state and also the following oath: I ________ do solemnly swear (or Affirm) that as a member of this Registry of Election Finance, I will, in all matters, vote without favor, affection, partiality, or prejudice; and that I will not propose or assent to any action, measure, or resolution which shall appear to me to be contrary to law.

2-10-203(k)(2) Unless otherwise provided by law, any member of the registry who violates the oath of office for such position or participates in any of the activities prohibited by this chapter commits a Class a Misdemeanor. If a sworn allegation is made that a member has violated the oath of office for such position or has participated in any of the activities prohibited by this chapter, then upon a unanimous vote of the remaining members, the member against whom the sworn allegation is made may be suspended from the registry for such purposes and for such times as the remaining members shall unanimously determine, but no such suspension shall extend beyond final disposition of the sworn allegation. The accused member shall not participate in the suspension vote. If a member of the registry is found guilty of or pleads guilty or nolo contendere to a violation of the oath of office for such position or participates in any of the activities prohibited by this chapter, then such member shall be deemed to be removed from office.

Effective Date of Section 25: February 15, 2006
You just know that I'm going to have to give this a shot. Oh, yah!

Monday, September 18

Odd Things About Rep. Rinks' 2006 Filings


I noticed that one of the comments on one of the political blogs was that they didn’t spot anything highly odd in Rep. Rinks' 2006 campaign expenditures reports. That is in line with the Registry view, that they all look alike after a while.

Probably because I haven’t seen a lot of these reports, except Rinks, which I have damn near memorized, I really didn’t have a lot of practical experience in the details of the oversight of the campaign disclosure laws.
But, I have taken the time, before and after I filed the complaint, to make a through study and analyses of the statutes and everything else I could get my hands on. Filled up a huge Election Finance research file.

Ain’t being kinda retired GREAT. Oh, yah!

I digress, other odd things about Randy’s 2006 campaign expenditures. The following are a few of the odd things that I spotted, from an academic standpoint. First let me make the point that the new and improved ‘Comprehensive Governmental Ethics Reform Act of 2006" (just kidding about the new and improved part) added in T.C.A. 2-10-107(a)(2)(B) . . ., and the purpose thereof which shall clearly identify that it is an allowable expenditure under 2-10-114"

One of the best ones,again, is NASHVILLE CITY CLUB - $439.87 - FOR DUES / SUBSCRIPTIONS. Say what? I’d like to see that receipt, please. The ammended 2-10-114(b)(2) (those pesky ‘specifically prohibited’ things)(F) says ‘Dues, fees, or gratuities at a country club, health club, or recreational facility, unless they are part of a specific fund raising event that takes place on the organization’s premises;’ A nightclub may fall under the umbrella of a ‘recreational’ facility, ya think. Para. (H) covers ‘or other form of entertainment’ unless it is an expense associated with a legitimate campaign or officeholder activity.

How about that DONATION of $500.00 to LOVE, SALLY, CLEVELAND, TN (Not 71st Dist.)? Campaign or officeholder activity?

Then of course we have GIFTS of $174.46 to HICKORY FARMS and $424.31 FOR FLOWERS to SAVANNAH FLORIST.

It really makes me wonder when I find that one of the most successful restaurant in Hardin County, named SHAWS RESTAURANT, was the beneficiary of a $238.95 DONATION from Rep. Rinks. Again, would that be a campaign or officeholder activity?

You can’t tell from the ‘disclosure’ statement, but, don’t you just have to wonder why Rinks RETURNED CONTRIBUTIONS’ to Mr. JOHNSON, GARY of MORRISTOWN, TN?
There was that $1,500.00 Monetary Contribution For the November 2006 General election on January 19, 2005. It must have taken them that long to figure out that the contribution was problematical with a limitations issue or maybe he just wanted SOME of his money back. Go figure.
Hay, that is just the First Quarter 2006 Reports for the 2006 election cycle's which began right after the last election, but with the new disclosure statements and more specific staturoy disclosure requirements.
You know, I have voted for Randy for the last 10 year and I basically like and appreciate him. He deserves the opportunity to defend on not defend any of his actions that he chooses, but he should also address my concerns if a forthright and direct way.

Respectfully submitted for your consideration.
Uncle Ted

Its Aloose on the Internet

These were my comments to Mr. Hobbs article on his blog page - Election Finance Registry Fails to Investigate Rep. Rinks' Questionable Campaign Spending

Bill

As I understood the why the Tennessee Registry of Election Finance dismissed my 'complaint' was basically three fold.

First, Rep. Rinks' 2005 Supplement, a 'between election' year, as dated February 08, 2006, (one week before the new 'ethics' law was signed by the Governor), and the way Mr. Rawlins computed the time, my complaint was four (4) days past the 180 day time frame of the old statute, and therefore Rep. Rinks' Supplement had to be considered sufficient, although the time frame, as of February 15, 2006, is now two (2) years.

It was put forth that the Registry's hands were tied, unless I was prepared to allege and prove fraud, at the meeting.

I tried to explain that in the broadest sense, a fraud is a deception made for personal gain and that was applicable to converting campaign contributions to personal use.

I tried to explain that it was not my responsibility to allege or prove fraud, but was told that unless I was prepared to prove fraud, that day, my complaint was going to be dismissed. Duh!

Second, the Registry could not assess penalties for anything that wasn't encompassed in the statutes themself and their rules had no bearing. Mr. Rawlins tried to explain to me, and his puppets, that that was the reason the Registry couldn't or didn't raise the issues themselves.

This was after I pointed out to these folks that their own rules forbid these type of 'contributions' and their totally obscure purpose descriptions and had the Registry review for these reports for compliance, they should have returned the filings for correction, themself, within the 180 days.

Third, and my favorite, was put forth by the Chairperson,"Mr. Cook, you have to understand that Rep. Rinks' filings are not any different that the rest of the filing we get.'

One could accused the Registry of being not only complacent, but "in denial", about the failings of their system.

Posted by: Ted Cook at September 15, 2006 09:44 PM

The Memorandum Cover to TREF

From the desk of
Ted G. Cook
470 Hard Rock Road
Savannah, TN 38372

MEMORANDUM

September 12, 2006

From: Ted G. Cook, Complainer
To: Chairperson Murray and Other Members of the Registry of Election Finance


In re: Agenda for your September monthly meeting -
Item 6. Sworn Complaint against Randy Rinks

Greetings Ladies and Gentlemen,

Recognizing that your agenda appears to be quite lengthy and by the time we get to the reference Item 6, we will probably all be ready to call it a day, I am taking the liberty of faxing the attach information for your review in considering the actions to take in regard to my Sworn Complaint.

There are several questions posed within the attached report that I would like go get answered during the debate on the action to take, if any.

I look forward to attending your meeting tomorrow and will make myself available, if you have any further need.

Respectfully submitted for your consideration.

Ted. G. Cook
470 Hard Rock Road
Savannah, TN 38372
UPDATE
Boy, was this a waste of time? Not really. Someday, the questions will be ask, What Did You Know, When Did You Know It and What Did You Do About It? It will be in their files andrecords for September 13, 2006. I promised the folks that I would be back and I like to keep my promises.