A Detailed Look at Aldermanic Campaign Finance Reports
Last week I started looking at the latest round of campaign finance reports from the city’s 28 aldermen. Today I got around to finishing up my review of their contents and what it all means. Before I get into each I want to explain some background info.
Quarterly reports are due to the Missouri Ethics commission on the 15th of the month following the quarter. For example, the current quarter from July 1 – September 30 (aka 3rd Quarter) is due on October 15th. Since October 15, 2006 falls on a Sunday the report can be received up until 5pm on Monday the 16th. However, the report is supposed to be postmarked “before” the deadline. Thus, a report mailed on October 16, 2006 is technically late. However, a report postmarked on October 14, 2006 is timely.
On July 15, 2006 reports from the 2nd quarter (April 1, 2006 – June 30, 2006) were due by all elected officials, anyone out campaigning to become an elected official, “continuing committees” such as ward committees and political action committees. You might think I’m talking down to everyone by explaining the dates for the 2nd quarter but when you see the mistakes being made by these aldermanic committees then you’ll understand why I’m being as detailed as possible, even on some very common sense things.
The aldermen also seem to be very confused when it comes to reporting for elections. The theory behind “campaign finance” reporting is that if you are receiving and spending money you are campaigning not for the prior election but for the upcoming election. This is a very basic concept that seems to stump many. Also, even if you are not taking in or sending out any campaign funds you are still campaigning for the next election simply by virtue of having a campaign committee.
I called the Election Commission to get some clarification around reporting and what is allowed and what is not allowed. For all you aldermen out there, treasurers and future candidates consider this a basic course in reporting.
First, as indicated above, the report is always for an upcoming election. The exception is the “30 Days Following a General Election” report which covers the 12 days prior to the general election as well as the 25 days after the general election (it is due 30 days after the general, hence the name). Let me run through some examples to explain how these should work.
Here is a list of all 28 aldermen, in numerical order by ward, and notes on their reports:
1 – Charles Quincy Troupe
Quarterly report due 7/17/2006, not filed as of 7/26/2006
2 – Dionne Flowers
Quarterly report due 7/17/2006, not filed as of 7/26/2006. Also, quarterly report due April 15 not yet filed. Flowers is up for re-election in March 2007.
3 – Freeman M. Bosley, Sr.
Quarterly report due 7/17/2006, not received until 7/20/2006; Report was not signed by candidate. Indicates “N/A” next to election date but that should be 3/2009 for this cycle. Shows zero activity which is hard to believe due to the recall effort but maybe he didn’t find it necessary to raise money or spend money campaigning.
4 – O.L. Shelton
Only current alderman with no active campaign committee! No reports to file at all, perhaps O.L. is the smartest of the bunch? Shelton is up for re-election in March 2007.
5 – April Ford-Griffin
Quarterly report received on Monday 7/17/2006. Submitted “limited activity” report which indicates no more than $500 was received or spent during quarterly reporting period. A limited activity report is common for many committees.
6 – Lewis E. Reed
Quarterly report due 7/17/2006, not filed as of 7/26/2006. Reed is up for re-election in March 2007.
7 – Phyllis Young
Quarterly report due 7/17/2006 received on 7/18/2006, postmark date unknown. Shows $600 raised this election (since April 2005); over $26K spent this election cycle; just under $25K on hand.
8 – Stephen Conway
Quarterly report received early on Friday 7/14/06. Shows no receipts for this election, spent $475 this election, under $4K on hand. Properly shows election date for this campaign as March 2007. Conway is an accountant by trade so naturally I’d expect his reports to be accurate. Conway is up for re-election in March 2007.
9 – Kenneth Ortmann
Quarterly report due 7/17/2006 received on 7/18/2006, postmark date unknown. For this election cycle (4/2005 – 3/2009) shows -$15K+ raised, $17K+ spent; still has over $45k on-hand. That is some serious cash!
10 – Joseph Vollmer
Quarterly report due 7/17/2006 received on 7/19/2006, postmark date unknown. Report shows committee paid $30 late fee to state, presumably for the prior quarter report that was filed late. Report shows committee received $441.23 in in-kind contributions from A-B Products during the quarter (date of contribution is not reported). This appears to be a violation as campaign limits for aldermen are $325 per election. Shows under just $14K raised, spent $2,400; on hand $13K . Vollmer is up for re-election in March 2007.
11 – Matt Villa
Quarterly report received on Monday 7/17 but shows the period as 4/12/06 through 7/11/06, rather than the accepted 2nd quarter of 4/1/06 through 6/30/2006. $7,169 on hand.
12 – Fred Heitert
A limited activity report was received early on 7/3/2006. In fact, all of his reports are “limited activity” going back to 2001! This means through the 2003 election he really had no activity in his campaign. I went through all the reports available online and all are limited activity so I haven’t a clue how much, if anything, he has is his campaign warchest. I’m guessing not much. Heitert has been on the Board of Aldermen since the late 1970s, being first elected in April 1979. As the lone [admitted] Republican he has the least seniority. Heitert is up for re-election in March (primary) and likely hasn’t run a campaign in decades, perhaps someone in the 12th should start getting their ducks in a row to challenge him.
13 – Alfred Wessels, Jr.
Report received early on 7/13/2006. However, date of election missing (should be 3/2009 in this case); show $14K on hand, little activity otherwise.
14 – Stephen Gregali
Quarterly report due 7/17/2006 received on 7/18/2006, postmark date unknown. Submitted “limited activity” report which indicates no more than $500 was received or spent during quarterly reporting period. A limited activity report is common for many committees. As of 2nd quarter ’03 reported in July 2003 had $12,500 on hand; limited reporting since. Gregali is up for re-election in March 2007.
15 – Jennifer Florida
First, I need to apologize to Ald. Florida for an error on my part from last week. I had mistakenly indicated she did not report a $25 contribution from Ald. Kirner. However, in re-reading Kirner’s report I see they were using a single line to indicate contributions they made to two different campaigns. The $25 contribution in this quarter was made to another committee, not Florida’s.
Ok, on with the look at the current report: The quarterly report due 7/17/2006 was received on 7/18/2006, postmark date unknown. The report shows the correct upcoming election and has it correctly marked as a primary.
I had previously reported a discrepancy in Florida’s reports from 2004. I just reviewed all reports from 2004 forward to do a basic audit to confirm my earlier report. All are OK except for two, as previously indicated. In the July 2004 report for the 2nd quarter it indicates receipts of $9,670 of which $9,370 was monetary and $300 was in-kind. Here is what I wrote then and it remains unchanged:
I calculated $5,680 in itemized contributions for the three month period. Yet, on page 3 of the above report, it says $6,355 were received (Contributions and Loans Received, Line #8). This difference is $675.
The prior page, a “report summary”, shows total receipts for the period of $9,670. Again, the itemized detail only totals $5,680 by my calculations.
Their own report from the period indicates on one page that $6,355 was received while on the summary page $9,670 was received, both including $300 of in-kind contribution. The total difference between the detail provided and the highest number reported is $3,990. So does it exist? If so, who was it from? If not received, we need to see the “cash on hand” balance drop by this amount (less $300 in-kind) because cash was adjusted based on the highest number.
The next quarter, reported in October 2004, was as if that $9,670 never existed — the beginning balance for receipts was the same as the prior quarter. From this report through the 2005 election this actually make her total receipts look lower than they actually were. On the positive side the reports correctly switched to zero for receipts and contributions following the 2005 general election.
16 – Donna Baringer
Quarterly report received on 7/17/2006. Submitted “limited activity” report which indicates no more than $500 was received or spent during quarterly reporting period. A limited activity report is common for many committees. One of the few reports to get everything right including the next election date marked as a primary. As of 12/31/05: 18K+ raised; $4,800 spent; $14K on-hand. Baringer is up for re-election in March 2007.
17 – Joseph D. Roddy
Report received on 7/14/2006. The report correct lists next election as 2009 but incorrectly marks it as a general election rather than primary. Roddy was just re-elected in April 2005 yet his reports do not reflect the change from the previous election cycle (2001 – 2005) to the current election cycle (2005 – 2009). As a result his reports erroneously indicate just $36K raised and $65K spent on this election. I reviewed a few reports from the last year and confirmed he has not raised or spent this kind of money since the general election in April last year. The $11K on-hand is presumably correct.
18 – Terry Kennedy
Quarterly report due 7/17/2006, not filed as of 7/26/2006. The 1st Quarter report due April 15 was not received by the Missouri Ethics Commission until May 22, 2006 — over a month late! No report is shown for the 3rd quarter of 2004 which was due October 15, 2004. I had to go back to the 30 days after General Election report from 2003 to find something other than missing reports or limited activity reports. At that time the report show $500 was raised and $1,266 was spent (I assume for the 2003 race) with only $385 on-hand. Kennedy is up for re-election in March 2007.
19 – Michael McMillan
N/A, now running for License Collector. I will cover McMillan when I look at other city-wide offices.
20 – Craig Schmid
Quarterly report due 7/17/2006 received on 7/18/2006, postmark date unknown. Submitted “limited activity” report which indicates no more than $500 was received or spent during quarterly reporting period. A limited activity report is common for many committees. Incorrectly lists election as the prior election in 4/2003, not the upcoming election in 3/2007. I had to go back to March 2003 to see that Schmid’s committee had $4,700 on hand. Schmid is up for re-election in March 2007.
21 – Bennice Jones King
Quarterly report received on 7/17/2006. Submitted “limited activity” report which indicates no more than $500 was received or spent during quarterly reporting period. A limited activity report is common for many committees. In looking through prior reports to find how much cash the committee had on hand I found some interesting stuff. This is by far the most suspect of all the committees.
The 2nd quarter report submitted in July 2005 indicates a negative $722.94 cash on hand and $6,237.14. First, the way the reports are set up you cannot possibly have negative cash on hand — at worst you can have zero. Unless of course you wrote checks and your account is overdrawn. I’m not clear in this case. For sake of argument lets just say they are in debt to the tune of $6,960.08. Ouch. But, things look up throughout the next few reports! The next quarterly report in October 2005 is a “limited activity” report, as is the following in January 2006. But, magically in the 1st quarter report from April 2006 they have received donations totaling $650 which is what they show as their cash on hand. Debt? Zero! Can someone with Ms. Jones-King please explain to me how you get from nearly $7,000 in debt to having $650 in the positive with “limited activity” in between time? I need to know the secret because I’ve got this pesky mortgage debt I’d like to get rid of…
22 – Jeffrey Boyd
The only alderman to file reports electronically rather than manually, bonus points! However, they didn’t file the report until the morning of 7/19 — two days late. All is in order including the correct next election date. Report shows $27,920 raised this election cycle with only $599 spent so far. Cash on hand is $28,146.27. Boyd is up for re-election in March 2007.
23 – Kathleen Hanrahan
Report received on time on 7/17/2006. Report mistakenly lists date of election as April 5, 2005 rather than upcoming election. Report shows $3,915 raised (all in this quarter), $2,584 spent with $5,859 cash on-hand; and debt of $9,366. Maybe Hanrahan should have a conversation with Jones-King about how to erase that debt?
24 – William Waterhouse
Report received well in advance of the 7/17/2006 due date by arriving on 7/10/2006. However the report is missing some key information including next election date and the candidate’s signature. Shows $2,566 on-hand; zero raised. Looks like they used the editable PDF forms which allow you to type in them, much neater than most of the handwritten forms. Waterhouse is up for re-election in March 2007.
25 – Dorothy Kirner
The report was received early on 7/14/2006 and includes the correct next election date. However, the cash on hand section is left blank! The report also lists activity from July even though the quarter is April-June.
26 – Frank Williamson
Quarterly report due 7/17/2006 received on 7/19/2006, postmark date unknown. It appears no report was filed at all for the first quarter. Report indicates the election date as “N/A”, the wrong answer. One contribution is listed in the amount of $650 but I can’t make out the name. The legal limit is $325. This may have been two people giving the maximum allowed but they should have written two checks, not combined onto one. Shows $7,300 received this quarter; $2,205 in expenses and ending cash on hand of $13,294. However, they also had $150 in contributions to other campaigns which they did not subtract from their cash on hand. Reporting period is random dates and not the exact quarter. Williamson is up for re-election in March 2007.
27 – Gregory Carter
Quarterly report due 7/17/2006 received on 7/18/2006, postmark date unknown. Report is missing election date. Raised zero since last election (April 2005), spent $540 leaving $1,184 on hand.
28 – Lyda Krewson
Quarterly report received early on 7/14/2006. Shows correct upcoming primary election and unlike most, is neatly typed. To my surprise Krewson has raised a mere $250 this election cycle! In the same nearly four years spent nearly $12K plus another $6500 in contributions to other campaigns. Despite the lack of fundraising, Krewson’s committee still has $18,675 on-hand. Krewson is up for re-election in March 2007.
I looked at many reports and don’t know that I caught all the errors. A common mistake that I didn’t cite often enough was the reporting period. Rather than indicate say April 1, 2006 – June 30, 2006 you’ll see things like April 9, 2006 – July 12, 2006. The fact some cannot grasp the dates for the quarter is scary considering they are running the city’s business.
The campaign reports are all public record but I didn’t link to each and every report simply due to lack of time. You are free to look up the same reports on your own time, click here for the Missouri Ethics search page.
– Steve
Of course Lyda Krewson’s report is typed and in order: she rocks!
Lyda is one of the most competent and professional aldermen/women we have. I don’t always agree with her but she addresses issues in a fair and even handed way.
I guess the fact that she is an accountant by trade helps makes her reports better, too!
HC
While timely reporting of campaign finance reports shows good political management skills, shouldn’t we be focusing on their performance in leadership, vision, and other things that impact on the daily lives of their constituents?
Since they’re all pretty much guaranteed re-election anyway, how important are campaign finance reports?
Campaign finance reports ensure we are not living in the 1850’s when politicians were bought by others.
Not to say some are not now, but at least with the reports, once can get an idea of where the money is coming.
Without these reports it would be impossible to enforce donation limits.
Doug,
The only alderman who isn’t guaranteed re-election is me, your Virtual Alderman.
All the rest of them have their seats pretty much sewn up for life, especially if they avoid taking up any controversial positions.
As long as they defend the status quo, honor the tradition of aldermanic courtesy, and make nice with the seniors, they’re pretty much guaranteed re-election.
As an incumbent alderman, you gotta be real bad to lose your seat. Condemn out a senior citizen voter and you’re asking to be recalled.
Voters care about new dumpsters, not campaign finance reports.
Random thoughhts . . . TMI (but I’m glad someone cares enough to look) . . . Is being a day late the politician’s fault, the post office’s or the bureaucrat’s (and does it really matter in the bigger scheme of things)? Three months late, that’s a problem, but a day or two on routine paperwork – that doesn’t get my heart rate up.
Bottom line, we elect and pay these people to look at the bigger picture, to set a direction for their wards and the city at large. They’re not perfect (I’m not either), and the pay isn’t that of a full-time position. I’m much more interested in what doesn’t make it onto these reports (the under-the-table stuff), and I doubt that will be as easy to dig up . . .
[REPLY I tend to agree — it was a bunch of info, most of the issues are really non-issues and what is not reported is probably the bigger issue.
Still, I think it is good to look at each report on an on-going basis to see if suspicious contributions are made that may present a conflict of interest.
Where I disagree is that they are working for the big picture. That just doesn’t happen often. They are focused on dumpsters and other minor local issues within their ward boundaries. Outside their ward is someone else’s issue to deal with. – SLP]
Part of the problem we have is that there is really no established formula for measuring the performance of an alderman.
And, since their re-elections are virtually guaranteed, isn’t this whole discussion basically moot anyway?
A progressive candidate shows up once in a blue moon (read Steve Patterson), and he isn’t just running againt one alderman. Instead, he has to beat the whole entrenched machine.
Just imagine what would happen if one of the real aldermen were to endorse an upstart challenger to an incumbent.
Compare what progressive citizens want from an alderman, to what they actually receive, and you will find a vast chasm.
The problem for progressices is that the majority of voters (read seniors) are on the side of the incumbent politicians.
Besides, outside of the South Grand area, how much of the city even cares about a progressive agenda?
Most city voters just want a new dumpster every three years. As long as aldermen make good on dumpster maintenance, they’re in good shape.
What if we can provide a new dumpster + urban development, honesty, and direct access?
Now, that might be a lot of service for 2x,xxx per year, but its called public office for a reason. If your alderman is only replacing dumpsters, then run against him and go door-to-door. Steve has proven that the little guy and put up a hell of a fight. Do we need trash men occupying positions of power, I am not so sure. We need leaders who run the Ward like a corporation, with the residents being the Board. If he or she doesn’t even replace the dumpsters, or does anything against the wishes of the Board, then he or she, should be ran out of office like Kenny Lay or Steve Case. The best way to determine Aldermanic performance is to have more people at Neighborhood Association Meetings, and get them talking. Then demand your Alderman attend these meetings. Call him/her, email him/her, and do not stop this process.
I agree that the situation in St. Louis is pretty bad when some Aldermen have been in office for almost twice the time I’ve been living.
While doing grunt work for the Florida recall campaign, I have heard some of those arguments: why care, politics are dirty, etc? Well some of us want to be proud of our City, and it’s sometimes hard to do so with such blatant disregards for democracy and accountability. People need to rise up and seize the opportunity. It a slate of “new” people could run for 2007, and get elected, that would be excellent.
Doug,
It would be very funny to see an upstart challenger in a race for alderman addressing the folks at a neighborhood meeting (mostly seniors). I can hear him/her telling them that he/she supports an urban vision for St. Louis, and that dumpster maintenance should be the responsibility of a public administrator, and not an elected official.
The old folks in the room would sit in their chairs, stupefied, and then vote for the incumbent.
I am sure these older folks can remember the trolly systems. Hell my 100-year-old aunt lived on the same street as me, and never owned a car her entire life. She worked for Ameren until she retired.
With explanation, I believe anyone can understand the benefits of urban design.
We only have a limited amount of space. We need efficient, urban designs, thus the reduction of car usage. This way we can maximize land usage and provide a better quality of life. We can then reduce the need for road widening, which will ensure pedestrian accessibility.
This is one angle.
When this discussion was purely about campaign finance, I wasn’t going to comment, as I thought the post was good information, but didn’t need my comment. But, now that the discussion has migrated to the role of public servants, I’d like to add a few thoughts.
If I were an alderman, I would try to bridge these roles. It is obviously an expectation of some residents that the alderman be involved in very localized issues, such as dumpsters, alleyway, and street light. You hear this not only on the blogs, like Doug’s, but also at the various neighborhood association meetings. The alderman is the spokesman for the ward, and is the sole elected official with responsibility for the ward, and thus has a responsibility to the residents to represent them with the various city departments. To that end, one of the first actions I would take as an alderman would be to review the distribution of resources, such as paved alleys, dumpters, street lights, commercial lighting, parking lots, etc.
But, I agree with Steve and others, that that is not enough. If we were still a big town, and not the small city we are now, I would say that the previous form would cover just about everything necessary. But, with our growth and specialization in areas, we do need a grander vision. Another of the first actions I would take would be to push for an updated comprehensive development plan. A two year effort with the involvement of the neighborhood associations could push St. Louis in the right direction. To that end, I would work with the neighborhood associations within my area to help them create their portion of that development plan. You have to look at the big picture, and then focus on the details to put the puzzle together.
Basically, the job of the alderman is whatever the residents think it should be. And, that is the type of alderman I would strive to be, and what I would advise any alderman to do.