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