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
