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