I told Andrew T. Murphy that I thought the incomplete information about the Rakestraw's $100 contributions was the most substantial issue raised in his letter, and that I'm less concerned about whether she properly reported loans from her husband or took money from a candidate committee that may not have been up to date on its reports.
He responded by e-mail and gave me permission to publish it:
"I agree that the thirteen (13) $100 contributions are the most egregious, at least concerning what Councilwoman Rakestraw failed to report.
"In regards to the loans, I concede that it's obvious Mr. Rakestraw is the one who made the loans to the committee. That said, campaign finance law is very clear about the paperwork and procedure needed to accept loans. In my opinion, her Committee's failure to submit the necessary paperwork means that the committee has had access to $3,500 in funds which it should not have been able to use.
"Lastly, regarding the contribution from Mr. Skenes, I believe the onus is on both parties. Mr. Skenes' Committee had a duty and responsibility to continue filing disclosure reports if it intended to continue accessing it's campaign funds. And Mary Rakestraw's committee had a duty to ensure that the committee she was accepting money from was in good standing. Let me provide an example for clarification. Committees are prohibited from accepting contributions from political committees not registered within North Carolina. Presumably in such a case, the treasurer of the accepting committee has to verify that the committee contributing money is registered and in good standing with the appropriate board of elections. Why would the Committee for Mary Rakestraw not be required to do the same thing in this instance?
"What I find discomforting about these irregularities is not that they are major mistakes, but that they happened at all. Apparently, Mr. Rakestraw didn't know that $100 contributions needed to be reported with more specificity, didn't know that loans required submission of a loan proceeds statement, didn't know that a committee giving money to his wife was in questionable standing with the Board of Elections.
"In my humble opinion, any improper contribution, even one dollar, is a violation of the public trust and deserves scrutiny. And regardless of the magnitude of these mistakes, I believe laws were broken, or at least disregarded.
"All of this begs many questions: What else did Mary Rakestraw's committee not know? What else went unreported? Why should the public entrust the city's $450 million budget to an elected official that can't keep track of a fraction of that amount? Why should the public expect Mary Rakestraw to uphold Greensboro's laws when she disregards laws while running for office? Why didn't Mary Rakestraw find these discrepancies herself?
"Andrew Murphy
Stand Up Greensboro PAC"
1 comment:
That's a lot of what's and why's.
Why didn't Andrew Thomas Murphy vote in the Greensboro City Council elections in 2003, 2005, and 2007?
Post a Comment