APOC fines local man

Campaign flyer violated several laws

March 3, 2006

DARRELL L. BREESE/Frontiersman reporter

JUNEAU - The Alaska Public Offices Commission ruled that the Mat-Su Property Owners Association violated five campaign and contribution laws when it distributed a flyer encouraging voters to support candidates for the school board and borough assembly during the October election.

The organization was fined $75 as a result of the finding. The fine could have been higher, but one of the commission members suggested eliminating the recommended $150 fine, before a compromise was reached cutting the penalty in half.

Wasilla resident Myrl Thompson, who filed the complaint after the flyer was inserted into the Sept. 26, 2005 edition of the Anchorage Daily News, was troubled by the reduction.

&#8220I am satisfied with the process and believe the ruling was fair,” Thompson said, &#8220but the penalty could have been a little bit more. Even Link Fannon (president of the Mat-Su Property Owners Association) said that the $150 fine was extremely fair.”

Thompson spent nearly the same amount of the fine having Fannon served with the official complaint.

&#8220It cost me $35 for the service fee and another $10 for mileage,” Thompson said. &#8220It's a little disheartening to think it cost almost as much to file the complaint.”

Fannon and his organization believe they were in compliance with APOC regulations when they published the election flyer a week before the Oct. 4 borough election. He indicated that he had a member of his group call Nancy Freeman, financial disclosure administrator with APOC, about their advertisement to determine if there would be a problem and were told there would be none.

Freeman didn't recall the conversation and added that if members of Mat-Su Property Owners Association did call and identify themselves as part of a non-group entity as they should have, she would have referred them to the APOC executive director.

&#8220I don't deal with non-group entities like the Mat-Su Property Owners,” Freeman said, &#8220so I would not have responded to their question had they identified themselves. If it was an unidentified caller with a general question, I might have commented. I get so many questions and calls, especially around election time. I don't recall having a conversation with anyone from their organization about the ad in question.”

Annette Harpster, treasurer for the association, confirmed her conversation with Freeman in an e-mail sent to APOC Oct. 1. In it she states she specifically asked if there was a problem with the organization publishing the flyer supporting both candidates and ballot propositions.

It was because of that conversation that the committee reduced the fine.

Despite the low fine, Thompson believes the fine will send a message to similar small organizations wanting to enter the campaign and support candidates.

&#8220This will force compliance in the future,” Thompson said. &#8220It will keep them from illegally influencing elections and possibly establishing a conduit for illegal campaign contributions.”

Thompson is still concerned that he hasn't been able to acquire a copy of the contribution reports from the organization that paid for the publishing of the flyer.

&#8220I know they have since met the registration and notification requirements,” Thompson said. &#8220APOC has just been too busy to get things published about this case.”

Fannon said that if he knew the property owners association would have to go through the entire disclosure process, it would have passed on endorsing any candidate. He believes his organization acted appropriately and in compliance with advice it received from APOC.

&#8220The case was all about some forms that weren't filed properly, that is all,” Fannon said. &#8220It was not that we acted illegally. Once we knew we had to file the forms and reports, we did. There was no attempt to do anything wrong or make an illegal campaign contribution.”

Fannon was troubled with the time it took to resolve the issue.

&#8220With the checks and balances involved in the process, things move slowly. It's been almost six months since this all began,” Fannon said. &#8220But in reality, $75 is nothing compared to the $1,500 fine that we possibly could have been given. I'm happy that we can put this whole issue behind us.”

Contact Darrell L. Breese

at 352-2267 or darrell.breese@ frontiersman.com.