Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutElection Violation Complaint Records - resolved without litigation - - 7/21/2020Glendale 711 A R I Z O N A ELECTION COMPLAINT FINDINGS Complaint No.: EC20-002 Complainant: Charles Foy Date Filed: July 21, 2020 Respondents/Committees: Jerry Weiers, Weiers 2020 Ian Hugh, Committee to Elect Ian Hugh Ray Malnar, Elect Ray Malnar WEIERS 2020 Allegation Complaint EC20-002 alleges that mailers stating, "Paid for by Weiers for Mayor. Authorized by Jerry Weiers" and street signs stating they were paid for by "Weiers for Mayor do not comply with A.R.S. § 16-925 regarding advertising and fund-raising disclosure statements because: • The committee, Weiers for Mayor, was terminated on May 24, 2017 • The current committee, Weiers 2020, cannot use the mailers or street signs because they do not properly identify who paid for them Respondents Response Mr. Weiers' response was received July 13, 2020. Mr. Weiers indicates the error on the mailer was inadvertent and leftover mailers have been discarded. He tried to cancel any remaining mailers that were going out but was too late to stop one final piece from being mailed. Mr. Weiers states that It would be irrational to suggest that a voter receiving a mailer that said "paid for by Weiers for Mayor and authorized by Jerry Weiers" would not know who sent the mailer. Mr. Weiers states the street signs are from a previous campaign cycle and the disclaimer accurately reflects who paid for the signs. Although he does not believe there is any legal requirement to rebrand old material, the information is being updated on the signs. Page 1 of 5 Complainant's Reply Mr. Foy's reply was received July 17, 2020. Mr. Foy states he is not convinced that Mr. Weiers made a simple mistake with regards to the allegations and should be assessed the maximum penalty allowed by statute for the willful nature in not complying. Findings A.R.S. § 16-925(A) requires that a person making an expenditure for an advertisement or fund- raising solicitation, include the words "paid for by", followed by the name of the person making the expenditure for the advertisement or fund-raising solicitation. Mr. Weiers admits that an inadvertent error was made in the information provided on the mailers. He has discarded remaining copies of the mailer and did attempt to cancel further distribution of incorrect mailers. The street signs do include the words "paid for by" and are followed by the name of the person making the expenditure but identify Mr. Weiers' previous committee name used for the 2016 election cycle. He has corrected the disclosure information on existing signs. Pursuant to the Arizona Secretary of State's 2019 Elections Procedures Manual, when deciding whether to dismiss a complaint, a filing officer may take the following factors into account: • Whether there is a small dollar amount at issue; • The insignificance of the alleged violation; • The vagueness or weakness of the evidence; • Whether the alleged violation has been remedied and not likely to be repeated; and • Whether the alleged violation was unintentional I find the alleged violations were unintentional and are insignificant. In the case of the mailers, Mr. Weiers has attempted to remedy the situation. He has remedied the issue with the street signs. Neither is likely to be repeated. Therefore, the complaint against Jerry Weiers and Weiers 2020 Is dismissed. COMMITTEE TO ELECT IAN HUGH Allegation Complaint EC20-002 alleges the Glendale's Comeback Team - Mayor Weiers - Hugh Vice Mayor street signs that indicate they were paid for by Weiers for Mayor and the Committee to Elect Ian Hugh are in violation of A.R.S. § 16-925 regarding advertising and fund-raising disclosure statements because: • The candidates' current committee are Weiers 2020 and the Committee to Elect Ian Hugh 2020 • The current committees may not use the signs without proper disclosure • Mr. Hugh is not the Vice Mayor Page 2 of 5 Respondent's Response Mr. Hugh's response was received on July 7, 2020. Mr. Hugh provided documentation that his committee's name is "Committee to Elect Ian Hugh." He explained the term "Vice Mayor" had originally been either covered with spray paint or duct tape. Dud tape on some of the signs had been removed by persons unknown. He had now covered the "Vice Mayor" with red duct tape on all of the signs. Complainant's Reply In his reply, Mr. Foy states Mr. Hugh has taken appropriate action to resolve the complaint. Findings Mr. Hugh filed a statement of organization for a committee entitled "Committee to Elect Ian Hugh" on June 8, 2017 and an amended statement of organization on July 20, 2017. A.R.S. § 16-925(A) requires that a person making an expenditure for an advertisement or fund- raising solicitation, include the words "paid for by", followed by the name of the person making the expenditure for the advertisement or fund-raising solicitation. The signs referenced in the complaint indicate the signs were "paid for by the Committee to Elect Ian Hugh." The "Committee to Elect Ian Hugh" is Mr. Hugh's current candidate committee. Mr. Hugh, although not currently Vice Mayor, has served previously as the Vice Mayor of the Glendale City Council. Mr. Hugh stated the term "Vice Mayor" was originally spray painted over on some of the signs and others had dud tape placed over the term "Vice Mayor' but some of the duct tape had been removed. He confirmed that the term "Vice Mayor' was covered on all of the signs on July 7, 2020. Pursuant to the Arizona Secretary of State's 2019 Elections Procedures Manual, when deciding whether to dismiss a complaint, a filing officer may take the following factors into account: • Whether there is a small dollar amount at issue; • The insignificance of the alleged violation; • The vagueness or weakness of the evidence; • Whether the alleged violation has been remedied and not likely to be repeated; and • Whether the alleged violation was unintentional I find that the Committee to Elect Ian Hugh is the current name of the committee and there is no violation of A.R.S. § 16-925(A) as alleged. The alleged violation regarding the use of the term "Vice Mayor' is insignificant. Mr. Hugh has remedied the situation and it is not likely to be repeated. Therefore, the complaint against Ian Hugh and the Committee to Elect Ian Hugh is dismissed. Page 3 ar 5 ELECT RAY MALNAR Allegation Complaint EC20-002 alleges street signs declaring "Glendale's Comeback Team -Mayor Weiers - Ray Malnar City Council" that indicate they were paid for by Weiers for Mayor and Ray Malnar are in violation of A.R.S. § 16-925 regarding advertising and fund-raising disclosure statements because: • A sticker placed after "Ray Malnar" is covering "for a Better Glendale 2016" • The candidates' current committees are Weiers 2020 and Elect Ray Malnar • The current committees may not use the signs without proper disclosure Respondent's Response Mr. Mainer's response was received on July 13, 2020. Mr. Malnar states "I am not aware of any legal requirement that all old material must be freshened with new disclaimers" or "requirement in the law that I have seen, that directs me to trash or dispose of any leftover campaign materials." Mr. Malnar said he did cover the disclaimer on the recycled signs with the correct 2020 committee name before installing the signs. He is not sure if the tape wore away on some of the signs or if someone peeled them off. He has gone back and reattached stickers with the corrected disclosure. Complainant's Reply In his reply, Mr. Foy states Mr. Malnar has taken appropriate action to resolve the complaint. Findings A.R.S. § 16-925(A) requires that a person making an expenditure for an advertisement or fund- raising solicitation, include the words "paid for by", followed by the name of the person making the expenditure for the advertisement or fund-raising solicitation. The signs referenced in the complaint contain a statement that the signs were "paid for by Ray Malnar." There is a sticker that appears to be peeling away that indicates the sign was "authorized by Ray Malnar" and may be covering the phrase "for a Better Glendale 2016" but cannot be confirmed based on the photographic evidence provided. Pursuant to the Arizona Secretary of State's 2019 Elections Procedures Manual, when deciding whether to dismiss a complaint, a filing officer may take the following factors into account: • Whether there is a small dollar amount at issue; • The insignificance of the alleged violation; • The vagueness or weakness of the evidence; • Whether the alleged violation has been remedied and not likely to be repeated; and • Whether the alleged violation was unintentional Page 4 of 6 I find that Mr. Malnar did provide updated disclosure information on his streets signs but it either wore away or was removed. Mr. Malnar has remedied the situation and it is not likely to be repeated. Therefore, the complaint against Ray Malnar and Elect Ray Malnar is dismissed. Complaint EC20-002 is dismissed and the matter is closed. Given under my hand and seal this 27"' day of July, 2020. (Seal) Attachments: EC20-002 Respondents' Responses Complainant's Reply Jul ower, MMC Glendale City Clerk cc: Jerry Weiers, Weiers 2020 Ian Hugh, Committee to Elect Ian Hugh Ray Malnar, Elect Ray Malnar Michael Bailey, Glendale City Attorney Page 5 of 5 Complaint #EC20-002 •20iLL 6 me 0?CITY CLEW Glendale July 6, 2020 Via Email Ms. Julie Bowers City Clark City of Glendale 5850 W. Glendale Avenue Glendale, AZ 85301 Re: Arizona State Election Law Violations; Weiers 2020; Elect Ray Molnar; Committee to Elect Ian Hugh 2020 Dear Ms. Bowers: It has come to my attention that city of Glendale 2020 Candidates Jerry Weiers, Ray Mahar, and Ian Hugh, along with their respective candidate committees, "Weiers 2020,^ "Elect Ray Molnar," and "Committee to Elect Ian Hugh 2020,^ appear to be in violation of Arizona Revised Statute 16925-A.1. with regards to campaign mailers, and campaign street signs. To wit: Violation #1— Utilizing U.S. Mail, campaign advertisements as seen in attached photos #1 & #2 #3 were sent on behalf of Glendale Mayor Candidate, Jerry Weiers, that do not comply with Arizona RevisedStmate 16915. -Advertising and fund-raising disclosurestatersems: A. Aperson that makes an expenditure fnr an advertisement or fund-raising solicitation, other than an individual, shall include the following disclosures in the advertisement or solicitation: 1. The words ' paid for by", followed by the name of the person making the expenditure for the advertisement or fund-raising solicitation. The mail pieces state, Paid for by Weiers for Mayor, Authorized by Jerry Weiers. There is no such campaign committee currently registered with the city of Glendale. The Campaign Committee "Weiers for Mayor" was terminated on May 249 2017. The current committee, "Weiers 2020," cannot use these mailers as they do not identify a proper "paid for by." Violation #2 —A number of 'street sign' type advertisements declaring "Weiers for Mayof' have been posted throughout the city of Glendale and along the borders of neighboring jurisdictions in violation of Arizona Revised Statute 16925. -Advertising andfund-raising disclosure Campaign Finn" law Vb1e,iW weim 2wocommiatt June 29,1020 Page 20f9 statements A. A person that makes an expenditure for an advertisement or fund-raising solicitation, other than an individual, shall include the following disclosures In the advertisement or solicitation: I. The words' paid for bye', followed by the name of the person making the expenditure for the advertisement or fund-raising solicitation. These signs as shown in attached photo's 93, 44 & #5 clearly indicate they were "Paid for By Weiersfor Mayor..." and not the current committee,"Weiers 2020.^ Thecurrentcommittee may not use these signs for advertising unless the proper Paldfor By is disclosed. Violation #3 - A number of `street sign' type advertisements declaring "GLENDALE'S COMBACK TEAM—MAYOR WEIERS—HUGH VICE MAYOR"with "Paid for by Weiers for Mayor & Committee to Elect Ian Hugh" have been posted in the Cactus District of the city of Glendale and along the borders of neighboring jurisdictions in violation of Arizona Revised Statute 16-925. -Advertising and fund-raising disclosure statements: A. Aperson that makes an expenditure for an advertisement or fandsaising solicitation, other than an individual, shall include the following disclosures in the advertisement or solicitation: 1. The words ' paid for by", followed by the name of the person making the expenditure for the advertisement or fund-raising solicitation. These signs as shown in attached photo's #6 & #7 clearly indicate they were "Paidfor By Weiers for Mayor & Committee to Elect Ian Hugh..." (Committee to Electlan Hugh 2016 was terminated on 6/8/17) and not the current committees, "Weiers 2020;' and "Committee to Elect Ian Hugh 2020." The current committees may not use these signs for advertising unless the proper Paid for By is disclosed. Additionally, Ian Hugh is not the Vice Mayor. Violation #4 -A number of 'street sign'type advertisements declaring "GLENDALE'S COMBACK TEAM— MAYOR WEIERS— RAY AMLNAR CITY COUNCIL" with "Paid for by Weiers for Mayor & gay Malmar (with the remaining covered by a sticker of some type)" have been posted in the Sahuaro district of the city of Glendale and along the borders of neighboring jurisdictions in violation of Arizona Revised Statute 16-925. -Advertising and fund-ralsing disclosure statements: A. Aperson that makes an expenditure for an advertisement or fund-raising solicitation, other than an individual, shall include the following disclosures in the advertisement or solicitation: 1. The words ' paid for by ",followed by the name of the person making the expenditure for the advertisement or fund-raising solicitation. These signs as shown in attached photo's clearly indicate they were "Paid for By Weiersfor Mayor & Ray Molnar (with the remaining covered by a sticker o(sometype" and I believe reads "Ray Malnar for a Better Glendale 2016" — which was terminated on 1/12/17) not the G "nn Finanee Lew Violation Weiers 2020 Camminu lure 29, 2020 Page 3of9 current committees, "Weiers 2020," and "Elect Ray Malnar." The current committees may not use these signs for advertising unless the proper Paid for By is disclosed. It is therefore requested this complaint be forwarded to the Office of the Glendale City Attorney and then referred by that office to an outside entity (i.e. Maricopa County Attorney) due to possible conflict of interest (City Attorney employment is controlled by the Mayor and City Council) for review, follow-up action, potential issuance of a formal complaint for each of the listed multiple violations of A.R.S. 16.925-A.1 to the Welers 2020, Elect Ray Maluar, Committee to Elect Ian Hugh 2020 Committees under the authority of Arizona Revised Statute 16-938E. 16-938.8. Only after receiving a referral from the filing officer, the enforcement officer may: 1. Conduct an investigation using the enforcement officer's subpoena powers, except that the enforcement officer shall not compel a person to fde campaign finance reports unless the enforcement officer has determined that the person is a committee. 1. Serve the alleged violator with a notice of violation. The notice shall state with reasonable particularity the nature of the violation, shall specify the penahy imposed and shall require compliance within twenty days after the dale of issuance of the notice. The enforcement officer shall impose a presumptive civil penalty equal to the value or amount of money that has been received, spent or promised in violation of this article and articles 1, 1.11 1.2,L3,1.4, 1.5 and 1.6 of this chapter, except that after a finding of special circumstances, the enforcement after may impose a penalty of up to three times the amount of the presumptive civil penalty, based on the severity, extent or wilful nature of the alleged violation. If the notice of violation requires a person to file campaign finance reports, the reports are not required to be filed until the enforcement officer's notice of violation has been upheld after any timely appeat I would contend these violations are wilful and subject to an increased penalty. 1 await your prompt response to this complaint. Respectfully submitted, i Charles Foy registered Voter Attachments Cana9ugn Finance Lew Vwlabm wce 2020 Camm c . 29,2MPag W9 Photo #1 q y..'w una o- aWaas Fw ^^n W' a°'^L' W e q F+�.^• i yeu'n nwen N+xiPwAs u ws w nw+ lxyr4M.•rtae'f 41.Wu ¢ i9n. 4v Y+n cF uw w.H+NW a.A � �ieaxiS NH�_�nat ww Nw fow.ue M•'4Y ex maNx9 � a� vw�y �'N9nru,ry�4��m+Mrt. vb icv., ab sF.e..s=. x_wyyuy .x..wm F.x u•as wya+nv=^•v ew.aea«y ..w w_w��yrs4 wua .. F. mew w�ws ao.• ys — �. s°ss «.. e.sa.. w. 4M ^^•` wr+aPxs „Fa...,>,F, mw.,� w y�Fww Nf..W,Hw Y++^Y°". •x xY Fe. xrry wssa:rs Photo #2 JERRY IS a' L` P PFSMRYSin � Vi16LWE YM R4Na W � W 'In411�WYIIIINn1YIPlr4^IMN•nWNnllll•All' JERRY IS P PFSMRYSin y�q��MeN.•mvun• Vi16LWE YM R4Na W � W f.IwvINa PSS906a61i IVVYI^•I�IP•AMPvINPvIIVIgWIpN�•nYhirnr cmpupi P�Vml ti w km=CommiW Ju 29,MOPeg6ef9 Photo #5 N t 1 i � ... .:. ,_ _ •� .... I MAYORV C' C KZ HUGH MAY Ulst6Ct 20 Campaign Finerce Law Vwletlm Weima 2030 Cummium lune 39,1030 Pogo I a9 Photo 410 X i'r`Y a � la , CmrL*p Ron= late Violation weie.a 2020 Con.n,mea J=29, 2010 Page 9 aft All 13031J_ i3m 934 CITY CEEB( Glendale City Clerk July 13, 2020 Delivered by Email Re: Campaign Disclosure Complaint To Whom it May Concent: I am in receipt of complaint EC 20-002. Those portions of the complaint that speak to the campaigns of Ray Malnar or Ian Hugh are not being responded to here, as I understand they are responding separately. The main thrust of the complaint is that our campaign has produced materials that have the old disclaimer Information with my prlor committee name instead of the current disclaimer information with my current committee name. That Inadvertent error is in fact an actual error, albeit certainly not one that rises to the level of requiring punishment or penalty. In each and every case, where possible, we have corrected the error, including ordering stickers and placing them onto all of the road signs that we can find, ordering stickers and placing them on all of the remaining yard signs in our possession, and scrapping leftover copies of direct mail pieces that were to be used later in the campaign. These steps come at an obvious financial cost, so any potential penalty can and should consider the expense we have already incurred. We also endeavored to cancel any remaining mailers that were going out with improper disclosures, but were too late to stop one final piece from being mailed. o-06]naWthw mlll q O ♦0000®ae The fact is that after using Mayors for Wei ers for years, we collectively never spotted the error on these pieces. REGARDING OLD TEAM SIGNS: The old team signs with Ian Hugh and/or Ray Malnar are signs from the previous campaign cycle, and the paid for disclaimer on them accurately reflects the wmmittee name of the campaign that paid for them. We do not believe there is any legal requirement to re -brand old material that is being used In subsequent campaigns. Nevertheless, we are taking steps to correct it as an extra precaution. But we do believe it is an overreaction on our part and that those signs are not in violation of any laws or rules. I also understand from Ray Malnar, that he actually put stickers over our old paid for disclaimers with our current committee names, and that he did so before putting them up, so there should be absolutely no complaints whatsoever regarding those old signs. REGARDING NEW TEAM SIGNS: We did print a small quality quantity of additional team signs with Ray Malnar, those had the old disclaimer for my campaign and have been corrected with special stickers ordered for those signs. REGARDING THE PURPOSE OF DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS Those who wrote the laws felt it was In the Interest of voters to know who is paying for a campaign message, and to be able to find who, in turn, was funding those who are paying for that message. Accordingly, paid for disclaimers are designed to provide voters with that information, and the newest Iteration of those laws also requires the addition of a statement showing who authorized the message. It would be irrational to suggest that a voter would look at a mailer with a disclaimer that says Paid for by Weiers for Mayor and authorized by Jerry Welers, and not know who sent the mailer. While a complaint would be justified if a piece had no disclaimer and left voters in the dark, or deliberately misled voters regarding the identity of the sender, for instance putting Robertson for Mayor on a piece that was paid for by Weiers for Mayor, this complaint is simply not justified and should be dismissed. This is not to suggest that campaigns should not make their best efforts to get It right—they certainly should. But we did make our best effort, even if we came up just short on execution. And we have made a tremendous effort to correct our error and do not anticipate it occurring again in the future. VIOLATIONS IN PRIOR YEARS If there Is any question regarding the severity of the infraction or what sort of penalty would be appropriate, we would remind the Clerk's office of a complaint we filed four years ago against the campaign of Mark Burdick, who mailed a late attack on me, that was extremely negative in both imagery and verbiage. In order to distance himself from the attack, Burdick did not put any disclaimer at all on the piece, leaving the voters truly in the dark as to who could have sent the attack. I do not recall the final outcome, but it was somewhere between no financial penalty and perhaps $500 or some token amount And that was for an infraction that actually violated both the letter and the spirit of the law, while utterly failing to inform the voters in any way. P[r]Sab' ITR Our inadvertent error came in spite of our making our best effort to fully comply with the rules, we have made every effort to correct the error and ensure that it does not happen again, we have incurred real costs is so doing, and we request that the complaint be dismissed with no further action given the total absence of any harm done to any voter in Glendale by the error. Should your office disagree and want to proceed, we would formally request an Informal settlement conference at your first opportunity. Many thanks for your attention to this matter. We standby if you have any questions and look forward to a speedy resolution. Respectfully, Jerry Weiers Welers 2020 Bower, Julie From: Sent Monday, July 6, 2020 5:13 PM To: Bower, Julie Subject: Re: Campaign Violation Attachments: lans statement of organization.pcif Julie, My campaign name is Committee to Elect Ian Hugh - am attached statement of organization. Thanks, Ian On Monday, July 6, 2020, 2:52:10 PM MST, Bower, Julie <jbower@glendaleaz.com> wrote: Councilmember Hugh, Please see the attached complaint regarding your candidate committee, Committee to Elect Ian Hugh. Thank you, Julle Julie K Bower, MMC City Clerk city aerksoffim jbowertPglendaleazcom P 6239302030 5850 W. Glendale Ave_, Ste. 455 A a I Glendale, AZ 85301. weimprotre 1W lives of the people weserve eaeryaay. Community • hlte" • Excellence • Innovation • Learning CITY OFGLENDALE Q Awkaxn O STATE OF ARI�l9g(gtig[jTy ¢`GD,YMITTEEIDN]11gER pamwedpoppee0on COMMITTEESYYAATEINENT Dex: �nnnm� OF ORGANIZATION 17-03 CGMMITiEE TYPE (onoom ane): mCeMldaM . �n.nmre Narsa PegMred): Committee to Elect Ian Hugh Tml ar Ma name B ofXce) Candidate lnfonraaon. CmdlaeM's Name(revukea: Ian Hugh constants s mal aaaress (natural 8641 N. 48th DPN6 Creditors's emag winners(isayrog: shugh76(cDYah22c0m _ eandldre'e phone number(reauala): 623.999-4052 Cerkiletc'E x°bsile Grate§: — Gd'mSouPhr(aeoveme): ❑Gwemor !T aeaNar)f Of Sate OAtMrrxy Genertl 06Mte Treasurer a SuperrmerAma of plADe lnsIWW ❑axle MMe Mspe in cowerrion Commissioner a SNB aero% O sloe swum or Rapresenlaivee ODlslnulre4Wrea1: nCompygka DDa0ielSapPaaaMey.— __— _— ❑j cayrto,Cmm: Glendale_ 0minimi inasairs a04IMS £leaipn Cyae for Once Soognt (year me electron WD Mke Pil (MWOM: 2020 J PerryalplMM1on: N!A ❑ Gemocrat ❑ Green 0 UPMladan D RepuMkan a DDer. _ (requirM xrpMManoMcm) / �Pollgml Aopon CommAxelPAC1 � -- Commircee Hama (mgwreal: Committee to Elect Ian Hugh— (it a emared• must lMaUde tremors name) Pofinmi FUKyMn missasat): QCorMnCullain❑�a�neleRWhGlnaepandMG[pvn0larraa (manor any Itut apply) ❑9alld Wasne Eanen(flyaaes ReceP Espeollita a sponsclshy) Informattion: $pensees name or nkMrama(reaxmd):-- (Xep➢Malale) SporaoR mYxp edtlrau (masXrea'. _ Sponsors emeD edaess(reitianD. _ - $ponaofsplpnemlmaaldasN). — — 6pmaorcxaMlxlllarry):—._ spe aISU a ❑aeparala Segregated FUM M e CoryoMiM. LIC•PeM hO. or Union n ggncaMa) 6lmdng dmnmmee(mual also somPxx sanal Soni eommmae registration) —Mega PAG(must Knowe prod of Mage PAG s to flap oaoer)(ammlaso wisquoorut onM ❑PPxleai Pam Committee to EW Ian Hugh _ Comrmaba Name Onto : — - _ — ,(m W t aloe" Rarty, national JvrscWaen: ❑s'taM PaM laser ameba Pmaaf querpcatlan purmam10 A.RS§1"DI or§169M) ❑ Coumy Perry (must xoMde aaM at quallfiralion. pursuad xAR.6. § 18902 m § 1B BDs) jj Mledae DNDIIX Party(mrP1lnGMde Proof of crgenkabon pxauamx ARB.§ 16923) ❑Gky or Toven parry (mqM excuse pol d qualXlcatlan Oursvanlld AA9. § 164M "s tfi-aM) SpmxlSxlut ❑SMPdin§ Comfnl6ee larval also ComPlete sePar3MslanGas§ aammAxe mglon""i -- — ——�NI10ne SF.axlary of9lax FNNNdn lV6na m Smt6ommy5 724 JUL U rm 9G4 CITY CLEIK Glendale City Clerk Sent by email Monday, July 13"' RE: Campaign Finance Violation I am in receipt of the complaint filed against my campaign for reusing old campaign signs that have the original paid for disclaimer on them. I believe I was also lumped into a complaint against the mayor for new versions of that same sign that had an updated disclaimer for me, but mistakenly used his old committee name for his portion. 1 don't believe I've done anything wrong and would like you to confirm that. I pulled the old signs out of storage, which were paid for by the committee whose name appears on them. I am not aware of any legal requirement that all old material must be freshened with new disclaimers. In fact, such a requirement would be impractical and unreasonably burdensome if you applied it to the use of leftover palm cards or printed materials for example, upon which a candidate could not reasonably be expected to hand correct thousands of cards with new paid for information. Nor would that serve the truth or Inform the public very well, because they were, in fact, paid for by the old committee. And there Is no requirement in the law that I have seen, that directs me to trash or dispose of any leftover campaign materials from one cycle, instead of using them again in the next cycle. It is entirely reasonable and to be expected that old material will have the old disclaimer, and new material will have the new disclaimer. That said, and out of an abundance of caution, I actually DID go to the trouble of covering the old disclaimer for both me and the Mayor with the correct 2020 committee names before Installingthem. Whether the tape wore away on some of the signs or someone intent on causing trouble peeled some off, I can't say. But yve gone back with cellophane tape and redone those that were vandalized. As for the new signs that were printed this year, they feature my 2020 campaign committee name and are in full compliance with the law. If I am misreading the law, or there is an additional requirement I need to meet please let me know, and I'll do my best to comply quickly. Otherwise, please dismiss this complaint at your earliest opportunity. Thank you, Ray Malnar Glendale, AZ 85306 i July 17, 2020 Via Email Ms. Julie Bowers City Clerk City of Glendale 5850 W. Glendale Avenue Glendale,AZ 85301 Re: Arizona State Election Law Violations—Complaint #20.002 Dear Ms. Bowers: Having received, and reviewed, the response to Complaint #20-002 that I filed against Weiers 2020 on July 6, 2020, I am not convinced that Weiers 2020 made a simple mistake with regards to the allegations in the complaint. Mr. Weiers in his response states in part, "That inadvertent error is in fact an actual error, albeit certainly not one that rises to the level of requiring punishment or penalty." Mr. Weiers is a seasoned and long serving elected official having participated in at least eight (8) of his own campaigns for elected office. The `paid for by' requirement has been in effect for each of those eight campaigns — m this was not a new requirement. That would lead a reasonable person to believe his `actual error(s)' on both the signs, and mail pieces, was in fact `wilful' on his part. Mr. Weiers states in his response, "We do not believe there is any legal requirement to re -brand old material that is being used in subsequent campaigns." If that indeed is his belief (and I adamantly disagree), his revelation that, ..... we are taking steps to correct it as a precaution.. P Clearly, if he, and the campaign, have done nothing wrong, his `steps to correct' would be moot. Mr. Weiers states in his response, "It would be irrational to suggest that a voter would look at a mailer with the disclaimer that says Paid for by Weiers for Mayor and authorized by Jerry Weiers, and not know who sent the mailer." Irrational or otherwise, the statute is clear in that it states: Arizona Revised Statute 16925. -Advertising and fund-ralsing disclosure statements: A. A person that makes an expenditure far an advertisement or fund-raising solicitation, other than an individual, shall include the following disclosures in the advertisement or solicitation: campaign Fiw eLaw Yolazim Weiers 2020 Commute July 17.2020 Page 2 ofa 1. The words ' paid for by ", followed by the name of the person making the expenditure for the advertisement or fund-raising solicitation. That is not the case in these instances. Additionally, this directly addresses Mr. Weiers assertion that this was `an actual error' and not, " ... to the level of requiring punishment or penalty." If indeed these mail pieces were in fact `authorized by Jerry Weiers' he should have noticed the error on the proofs he `authorized' and had them corrected. Again — `wilful' on his part. Mr. Weiers, in addressing `voladons in prior years' is both interesting and troubling. Mr. Weiers points out that a prior candidate (with zero campaign experience before the one referenced), and Weiers (who has been involved in at least 8 on his own behalf), committed what he believes `.. . violated both the letter and spirit of the law ..." Interestingly, having no information on a mail piece, and false information on a mail piece, is not different in the eyes of the statute. Neither identifies the party who sent the mail piece. Mr. Weiers goes on in his response to state, "Our inadvertent error came in spite of our making our best effort to fully comply with the rules, we have made every effort to correct the error and ensure that it does not happen again, we have incurred real costs is doing so, and request that the complaint be dismissed with no further action given the total absence of any harm done to any voter in Glendale by the error." Clearly, Mr. Weiers believes that because HIS error caused HIS campaign to spend money to correct errors HE made, the City should forgive any further penalty. It was not the LLtywho was wronged in this case. It was every voter in Glendale who received the mailer via U.S. Mail in otherwise, and every voter who observed the street, yard, and other signage with incomect/false information. Mr. Weiers and/or Weiers 2020 should be assessed the maximum penalty allowed by statute for the `wilful nature' in not complying. With regards to Mr. Weiers request for an `informal settlement conference,' I am adamantly opposed to such `informal settlement conference' and request you follow the statute as outlined: 16-93&E. Only after recerving a referral from the filing afcer, the enforcement officer may: - 1. Conduct an investigation using the enforcement officer's subpoena powers, except that the enforcement officer shall not compel a person to file campaign finance reports unless the enforcement officer has determined that the person is a committee. Serve the alleged violator with a notice of violation. The notice shall state with reasonable particularity the nature of the violation, shall specify the penalty imposed and shall require compliance within twenty days after the date of issuance of the notice. The enforcement officer shall impose a presumptive civil penalty equal to the value or amount of money that has been received, spent or promised in violation of this article and articles 1, 1.1,1.2,1.3, 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6 of this chapter, except that after a finding of special circumstances, the enforcement off icer may impose a penalty of up to three times the amount of the presumptive civil pemdoy based on the severity, extent or wilful nature of the alleged violation. If the notice of violation requires a person to file campaign finance reports, the reports are not required to be filed until the enforcement officer's notice of violation has been upheld after any timely appeal. Campaign Fir eLaw Violation Weiers 2020 Committee July 19, 2020 Page 3 of3 In regards to Mr. Hugh's response, it appears he has taken appropriate action to resolve the complaint. In regards to Mr. Malnar's response, it appears he has taken appropriate action to resolve the complaint. However, Mr. Mahar, as a sitting City Council member should be directed to avail himself of the current Campaign Finance booklet for clear and concise directions as to what is allowed and not allowed. In closing, if indeed you are acting as the enforcement officer in this matter as defined in the statute, I suggest that you have a distinct Conflict of Interest in making any decisions on the validity of the complaints listed in 1120-002. I therefore request this complaint be referred out of Glendale to either the office of Maricopa County Attorney, or Arizona Attorney General. Respectfully submitted, Charles Foy City of Glendale Registered Voter