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).