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
No comments:
Post a Comment