My entry on the debate Tuesday between Al Garver and Ron Tussing spurred quite a bit of discussion below, much of it on the question of whether Garver improperly funneled campaign funds through his consulting business. I asked Garver about it yesterday, and he said that he incurred some expenses, including printing and miscellanenous items, before his campaign fund had been properly set up. He charged those expenses to his consulting business, then reimbursed the business when his campaign was up and going.
He said he submitted an invoice of the expenses to the commissioner of political practice when he filed his campaign report. That, he said, is why the commissioner dismissed a complaint filed against him without even bothering to notify him: There was simply no problem.
The conversation took place too late in the day for me to verify his account with the office of political practice, but that's his story.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
$1800 worth of 'some expenses'? Geeez, isn't that why a person sets up a campaign account FIRST THING????? Did he blow that $1800 in a day???? a week???? a month???? And still no campaign account???? I think the account should have been set up from the very start!!!! DUH. It don't take much time to open an account at a neighbrohood bank!!!! I'd say after $1800 is spent--your campaign IS up and going whether you have a proper bank account or not!!!!
Wow. Color me dense, Mary Jo, but assuming he's telling the truth here, exactly what would be unethical about handling this as he did?
An itemized breakdown of the reimbursed expenses should end the debate.
Mr. Garver's lofty description of what he described to Mr. Crisp as primarily printed materials sounds like the typically inflated language that many consultants use to describe the mundane.
he sure seems to make alot of "innocent" mistakes. I could buy it if it were one or two, but this seems sure seems to be a habit of his. The best blunder so far tho was when he said at the debate on Thursday...it will never be said that I don't tell people who they are and what they think...hahahahahahaha i am still laughing. OK so that wasnt an exact quote, but when I watch the community 7 broadcast, I am going to be watching for that one.
No thanks, Mary Jo. I'm not in the habit of seeking ethical advice from accountants, and I don't go to ethicists for bookkeeping advice.
I readily concede that comingling personal and business funds is generally a bad idea, but for a small business owner it's sometimes hard to avoid. I have done it myself, but I keep a record of it, straighten it out as soon as possible, and never try to deceive anybody about it.
On an ethical scale, how does that match up with attacking the integrity of political candidates without solid evidence of wrongdoing?
are you being deliberately obtuse, DC? It sure as hell looks like it.
Mark, I won't be throwing away any of that stuff. Were you planning to search my dumpster? Let me save you the trouble. If you would like a button or sticker of your own, all you have to do is ask for them!
Maybe I am deliberately obtuse. My wife sure thinks so. But Mary Jo is being disingenuous. When she posed her question, Garver smelled an allegation and asked what it was. If I'm thin-skinned, then so were 100 other people in the basement that night, because they all knew what was going on.
We're starting to argue in circles here, so I'll drop out of this, except to note that it's an interesting feature of Mary Jo's rhetorical style that she presumes any defense of Garver must be based on bias in his favor. That's as ludicrous as the rest of her allegations.
I am no fan of Mary Jo, but making sexual references is classless and Larry, you are devoid of anything resembling class.
are you thinking that being rude might make you look interesting or smart?
Quit while you are a behind, Larry
Why vote anyway, the City Council is a bunch of HOODLUMS!
I highly doubt that ANYONE like the Anon poster (Larry???) will be greatly intimidated by the likes of one mjf! She might be able to intimidate Garver, but not others! But that's just my opinion. So, nice try, mjf!
I highly doubt that ANYONE like the Anon poster (Larry???) will be greatly intimidated by the likes of one mjf! She might be able to intimidate Garver, but not others! But that's just my opinion. So, nice try, mjf!
Let's talk about class for a moment, shall we! Class is quiting your job and then writing a really, really, REALLY nasty editorial about your former boss! Folks, I gotta tell ya, now THAT'S class with a capital ASS! Who did that? Why, our very own mssssssssss. Faux! Yep, that's right! She did! She blasted judy mars, her former boss! What a clASSy broad! Hell, even judy didn't deserve this! Now, if Dave doesn't remove this one (which he probably will), you'll understand what true class is. Class is mary jo faux!
Uh oh! You better watch out! mjf's gonna GET you! She might write a nasty letter to the editor about YOU! She's just that kinda gal! Hey, Chiefy, you better watch out! mjf has got a bad case of the class!
stuck little piggies squeal loudest.
Ha ha 11:48. That was good!! I'd add "horse's behind" when speaking of Larry.
Quit while your a horse's behind, Larry!
David, Have you looked into the matter and determined if an actual complaint had been filed, and by whom, and if in fact it had been dismissed?
I haven't actually checked into the complaint. Bizarre as it sounds, with my schedule I have virtually no time whatsoever to do any reporting from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday. Hell of a fix for a reporter to be in. Has anybody else looked at this?
I went to the county elections office to look at Garver's primary report. I also obtained a copy of the same report from the state commissioner of political practices. The county report shows the payment to his business as a "reimbursement" but the state report shows it's a payment for "campaign design develop and structure" I'm not sure why the reports aren't identical. Seems like they should be or there should be an amended filing to make them both match. I don't understand that. I also looked through the file to find any submission of receipts as Dave says Al turned in. There is no evidence of a receipt submitted to the county. Maybe Al turned it in to the state and not the county. Still, when I got my copy from the state, no appendices of receipts came with it.
"making sexual references"??? Did someone actually DO that to poor msssssssssss. focks?! How DARE they! Why, msssssss. focks is the salt of the earth, Peter! Ooops! I used salt/peter and mary jo focks in the same sentence! I hope that's not too "sexual"! My bad! ha,aha,ha,aha,ha,ha,ha!
Post a Comment