STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In a matter of a complaint by

Paul F. Roy, Seymour                                                                                                                       File No. 2006-101

AGREEMENT CONTAINING CONSENT ORDER

This agreement, by and between Dianne Lombardi of the Town of Seymour, County of New Haven, State of Connecticut (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent) and the authorized representative of the State Elections Enforcement Commission is entered into in accordance with Section 9-7b-54 of the Regulations of Connecticut State agencies and Section 4-177(c) of the General Statutes of Connecticut. In accordance herewith, the parties agree that:

1.       The Respondent was the treasurer of the Koskelowski 2005 candidate committee, which was formed to finance the reelection campaign of Robert Koskelowski for First Selectman of Seymour in the November 8, 2005 municipal election

2.        The Complainant filed a complaint alleging that the Respondent committed numerous reporting errors and omissions in statements of receipts and expenditures filed for the committee on October 11, 2005, November 1, 2005 and January 10,2006, in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. 9-333j(c). The Complainant also alleged that the reporting of purchases for advertising space in a program booklet for a fundraising affair did not match the content of the program book, included anonymous ads and failed to report certain purchasers, in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat, 9-333j(c).

3.        Conn. Gen. Stat 9-333j(c) provides, in part:

                  (c) Contents of Statements. (1) Each statement filed under subsection (a), (e) or (f) of this section shall include, but not be limited to: (A) An itemized accounting of each contribution, if any, including the full name and complete address of each contributor and the amount of the contribution: …(C) an itemized accounting of each expenditure, if any, including the full name and complete address of each payee, including secondary payees whenever the primary or principal payee is known to include charges which the primary payee has already paid or will pay directly to another person, vendor or entity, the amount and the purpose of the expenditure, the candidate supported or opposed by the expenditure, whether the expenditure is made independently of the candidate supported or is an in-kind contribution to the candidate, and a statement of the balance on hand or deficit, as the case may be; … (F) for each business entity or person purchasing advertising space in a program for a fund-raising affair, the name and address of the business entity or the name and address of the person, and the amount and aggregate amounts of such purchases; (G) for each individual who contributes in excess of one hundred dollars but not more than one thousand dollars, in the aggregate, to the extent known, the principal occupation of such individual and the name of the individual’s employer, if any; … and (J) for each individual who contributes in excess of four hundred dollars in the aggregate to or for the benefit of any candidate’s campaign for nomination at a primary or election to the office of chief executive officer of a town, city or borough, a statement indicating whether the individual or a business with which he is associated has a contract with said municipality that is valued at more than five thousand dollars …

(2) Each contributor described in subparagraph (G),(H), (I) or (J) of subdivision (1) of this subsection shall, at the time the contributor makes such a contribution, provide the information which the campaign treasurer is required to include under said subparagraph in the statement filed under subsection (a), (e) or (f) of this section … if a campaign treasurer receives a contribution from an individual to or for the benefit of any candidate’s campaign for nomination at a primary or election to the office of chief executive officer of a town, city or borough, which separately, or in the aggregate, is in excess of four hundred dollars and the contributor has not provided the information required by said subparagraph (J), the campaign treasurer: (i) within three business days after receiving the contribution, shall send a request for such information to the contributor by certified mail, return receipt requested; (ii) shall not deposit the contribution until the campaign treasurer obtains such information from the contributor, notwithstanding the provisions of section 9-333h, and (iii) shall return the contribution to the contributor if the contributor does not provide the required information within fourteen days after the treasurer’s written request or the end of the reporting period in which the contribution was received, whichever is later … [Emphasis added.]

4.         The Respondent is a volunteer treasurer who served as Mr. Koskelowski’s treasurer in his 2003 campaign for First Selectman, and served as treasurer of state representative candidate committees in the 2000 and 2002 election cycles. Each such committee was audited by the Commission, and audit reports were issued to the Respondent identifying numerous findings of statutory non-compliance, which are in many instances repeated here, although the Respondent was advised that campaign finance reports should be prepared in a more thorough and accurate manner. See Municipal Audit Program (MAP) 2003, General Assembly Audit Program (GAAP) 2000 and 2002. The Respondent also served as treasurer of a 2004 state representative candidate committee and is presently serving as treasurer of a state representative candidate committee for the 2006 election cycle.

5.         For the instant campaign, the Commission maintains that there were thirty-six contributions of over $100 for which the Respondent failed to report the occupation and employer of the contributor, in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. 9-333j(c)(1)(G). The Respondent did not attempt to obtain the information and had previously been cited in the 2000 and 2003 audit reports for failing to report the same information.

6.         The Commission maintains that in ten other instances, the Respondent received and deposited contributions in excess of $400, but failed to report whether the contributor, or a business with which he is associated, had a contract with the municipality valued at more than five thousand dollars, in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. 9-333j(c)(1)(J). Such contributions totaled $6,775. Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. 9-333j(c)(2), as amended by Public Act 03-241, such contributions should not have been deposited without obtaining the information.

7.         Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. 9-333b(b)(10), the following is not a contribution: (10) The purchase of advertising space which clearly identifies the purchaser, in a program for a fund-raising affair, provided the cumulative purchase of such space does not exceed two hundred fifty dollars from any single candidate or the candidate’s committee with respect to any single election campaign or two hundred fifty dollars from any single party committee or other political committee in any calendar year if the purchaser is a business entity or fifty dollars for purchases by any other person;

8.         With respect to two advertising purchases for which the Complainant alleged the program booklet did not contain a corresponding advertisement, the investigation revealed that Richard Bruchal’s ad purchase was a full page ad “From a Friend” and Roberta King’s ad purchase was for her daughter’s business, Close to My Heart. However, the Commission maintains that both such purchases exceeded the permissible amount for purchases from an individual and should have been reported as contributions in Section B. The Commission maintains that the failure of the Respondent to do so in each instance constitutes a violation of Conn. Gen. Stat 9-333j(c)(1)(A). The Respondent was cited in the 2000, 2002, and 2003 audit reports for receiving advertising purchases in excess of the permissible limit for persons, and failing to report the entire amount as a contribution.

9.         The Commission maintains that the Respondent reported a $25 ad purchase as “From a Friend,” in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat 9-333j(c)(1)(F), which requires the name and address of an ad purchaser.

10.       Exemptions from the definition of contribution are strictly construed. It is concluded that an anonymous advertisement (an oxymoron) would not qualify for the exemption. “Advertise” is defined as: 1. To make a public announcement of, especially to proclaim the qualities or advantages of (a product or business) so as to increase sales. 2. To make known; call attention to: advertised my intention to resign. Source: The American Heritage ® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. The publicity inherent is inconsistent with the notion that an advertisement could be anonymous.

11.       The Commission maintains that the Respondent also received and reported a $100 advertising purchase from Seybridge Chiropractic Center but failed to include the business in the program booklet. When the exemption is not utilized properly, the acceptance of business entity funds constitutes a violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. 9-333o, and the acceptance of a prohibited contribution in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat 9-333x(10). The Respondent was previously cited in the 2002 and 2003 audit reports for accepting impermissible business entity contributions.

12.       The Commission maintains that on the statement of receipts and expenditures filed by the Respondent on January 10, 2006, three contributors are listed but no address is provided for them: Elizabeth Tift, Rosemarie Yitts, and Chris Drugonis, in violation  of Conn. Gen. Stat. 9-333j(c)(1)(A). The Respondent was cited in the 2000, 2002 and 2003 audit reports for failing to report the complete addresses of contributors.

13.       The Commission maintains that in the October 11, 2005 statement of receipts and expenditures, the Respondent reported $466.40 for the production of bill boards from the Seymour Republican Town Committee in Section K as in kind donation not considered a contribution. In fact, such donation is an in kind contribution and should have been reported in Section M. The failure to properly report a contribution is a violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. 9-333j(c)(1)(A). The Respondent was cited in the 2000 audit report for incorrectly reporting amounts in Section K (Receipts Not Considered Contributions) that did not meet the criteria for that section.

14.       The Commission maintains that the Respondent failed to include the complete address for payees Villa Bianca and Valley Publishing in the Expenditure Section of the January 10, 2006 report, and Hometown Publications in the November 1, 2005 report, in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. 9-333j(c)(1)(C). The Respondent had previously been cited in the 2002 audit report for failing to include the complete address for several payees.

15.       The Complainant alleges several instances of $25 contributors being reported in Section B, when they should have been reported in Section A (aggregate contributions from small contributors). Conn. Gen. Stat. 9-333j(c)(3) provides that small contributors under $30 may be aggregated but it does not provide that they cannot be itemized. The Respondent did not violate any law in providing more disclosure than required. Accordingly, that allegation is dismissed.

16.       The Commission maintains that on the January 10, 2006 statement of receipts and expenditures, the Respondent disclosed expenditures made to Robert Koskelowski and Dianna Koskelowski, and the purpose of the expenditure, but did not properly indicate that they were reimbursements. The Respondent had been cited in the 2003 audit report for failing to properly report reimbursements to campaign workers. In the instant case, because the payment was to the candidate and a family member, the failure to correctly report creates the impression of another statutory violation, payment of compensation to a candidate or his immediate family in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. 9-333i(g)(2)(L), even though that is not what actually occurred.

17.       The Commission maintains that in fifteen instances, the Respondent indicated that expenditures made by the Koskelowski 2005 candidate committee were “independent expenditures,” which means “an expenditure made without the consent, knowing participation or consultation of such candidate.” In the 2000, 2002, and 2003 audit reports, the Respondent was cited for improperly reporting expenditures of a candidate committee as independent of the candidate, and she was advised that an expenditure by a candidate’s designated funding vehicle could not be independent of such candidate. The Commission maintains that each incorrect statement as to the nature of the expenditure constitutes a violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. 9-333j(c)(1)(C).

19.       (18) is not on the report, a typo)     Connecticut General Statutes 9-7b(a)(2) provides that the Commission may assess a civil penalty of two thousand dollars or twice the amount of the improper contribution or expenditure for a violation of Chapter 150 of the General Statutes. Pursuant to Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies 9-7b-48, in determining the amount of a civil penalty, the Commission shall consider, among other mitigating and aggravating factors:

                                   (1)       the gravity of the act or omission;

                                   (2)       the amount necessary to insure immediate and continued compliance;

                                   (3)       the previous history of similar acts or omissions; and whether the person has shown good faith in attempting to comply with the applicable provisions of the General Statutes..

20.        It is found that the repeated failure to properly report campaign receipts and expenditures is a serious problem, depriving the public of accurate information about the financing of a candidate for public office; that the Respondent has been the subject of three prior audit reports; and the Commission maintains that the Respondent has failed to follow the advice provided by the audit staff of the Commission.

21.        The Respondent admits all jurisdictional facts and agrees that this agreement and Order shall have the same force and effect as a final decision and Order entered after a full hearing and shall become final when adopted by the Commission. The Respondent shall receive a copy hereof as provided in Section 9-7b-56 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies.

22.        It is understood and agreed that this agreement will be submitted to the Commission at its next meeting and, if it is not accepted by the Commission, it is withdrawn by the Respondent and may not be used as an admission in any subsequent hearing, if the same becomes necessary.

23.        The Respondent waives:

                                   (a)       Any further procedural steps;

                                   (b)      The requirement that the Commission’s decision contain a statement of findings of fact and conclusions of law, separately stated; and

                                   (c)      All rights to seek judicial review or otherwise to challenge or contest the validity of the Order entered into pursuant to this agreement.

24.        Upon the Respondent’s compliance with the Order hereinafter stated, the Commission shall not initiate any further proceedings against her pertaining to this matter, which includes the campaigns, campaign finance reports and audit reports cited herein.

25.        The Respondent states that the errors and emissions that are alleged in this matter and which are set forth in this Agreement were not intentional. The Respondent makes no admission of any violation as part of this Settlement Agreement, and is resolving this matter without a formal administrative hearing or trial to avoid the time, resources, costs and uncertainties of litigation.

 

ORDER

 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Respondent shall:

 

           1.   remit a civil penalty to the State Elections Enforcement Commission in the amount of one thousand five hundred ($1,500.00) on or before December 20, 2006

               2.    amend the relevant statement of receipts and expenditures to correct the errors identified in the consent agreement and order.

 

 

The Respondent                                                    For The State Of Connecticut

 

Dianne Lombardi                                                   Albert P. Lenge, Esq.

149 Derby Avenue                                                Deputy Director &

Seymour, Connecticut                                          Assistant General Counsel &

                                                                            Authorized Representative of

                                                                             the State Elections Enforcement Commission

                                                                             20 Trinity Street,   Suite 101

                                                                             Hartford, CT

                                                                                                                                                   Dated 12/20/2006

Adopted this 20th day of December, 2006 at Hartford, Connecticut

Stephen F. Cashman, Chairman

By Order of the Commission

Back To Home Page

Paid for and Authorized by the Seymour Democratic Town Committee

Rosalie Averill , Treasurer