No-on-8 Co-chair Greg Dean says my charges are 'baseless'But I'm not so sure

Greg Dean, whom I've been acquainted with through work and politics for many years fired off a few comments under the recent post I did on the Association of County Commissioners dropping better than $45,000 into the No on 8 committee.

I questioned whether or not it was allowable in light of an Attorney General's opinion that said no to the question - "Can a municipality, county, or school district expend public funds to advocate a position on an election measure."

Suffice it to say, he didn't agree:

The answer is to question is simple: The contribution comes from NON-DUES revenue. It is not public money.

The County Commissioners Association checked with their attorney before deciding to use this NON-DUES money. The attorney's opinion was that according to SDCL 12-25-2, the use of these funds was above reproach.

PP, maybe next time you might think about getting both sides of the story before making accusing good people of breaking the law.

GREG DEAN
Co-Chair
NO on 8 Committee

ps -- Maybe the bigger story is the nearly $1 million of out-of-state money that has been spent on this campaign, mostly by Verizon (close to $900,000 out of their coffers alone).

pss -- Or maybe the bigger story is the fact that Alltel has been assessing a $.30/month surcharge over and above the $.75/month surcharge that the state allows, so that Alltel can pay for 911 equipment. The feds allow companies like Alltel to assess this kind of fee, but it is wholly hypocritical for the big cell phone companies to assess this kind of surcharge. Why is it OK to add a double tax (ie. a new 911 surcharge) to offset their costs but it is wrong to have the big cell phone companies pay a tax to bring tax fairness to the communications industry.

pss2 -- maybe the bigger story is the fact that the leading spokesman for the big cell phone companies, a state senator from mitchell, advocate increases in property taxes to make up the revenue shortfall for the counties.

and...

This is the same charge that was thrown out in the waning days of the 2004 election in an attempt to smear the SD Municipal League in the ballot issue to repeal the food tax. The Municipal League was using NON-DUES money to pay for expenses related to the campaign. The AG looked at the issue then and found their use of NON-DUES money to be a LEGAL use of the money.

If you, like PP, want to make baseless charges, that is up to you. Just have the integrity to stand behind your accusations.

and...

The difference is that the county association tracks the non-dues money seperately from the public money it receives as dues revenue.

PAC money comes from individual contributions, and there have been some individual contributions from county commissioners put forward into this campaign. I don't think a PAC could have accepted this money. PACs can only take contributions from individual contributors.

Like I said, "he didn't agree" with me. Although simply on his say so, I can't just brush it aside and concur that the charges are "baseless." Greg cited the 2004 food tax election in his favor and noted that "The AG looked at the issue then and found their use of NON-DUES money to be a LEGAL use of the money."

Unfortunately, I can't find where an AG's opinion exists on the topic. So, I'm forced to rely on what does - specifically Attorney General opinion 88-28 which seems to imply that it's possible that there might be trouble with it.

But let's take a look at Greg's argument - Specifically that the county association tracks the non-dues money separately from the public money it receives as dues revenue.

I'll certainly agree that the organization might take in additional revenue from other sources. Greg implies that they funds are co-mingled, but kept separate on the organization's books.

But with public funds and private funds all being plunked into the same bank account, that still leaves me with troubling questions, not the least of which is "where is the accountability?" Greg can say they're accounted for separately. But, aside from the fact that he's personally not privy to the financing for the SDACC, where's the proof?

As Ronald Reagan once quipped "trust, but verify." I'm certainly willing to trust. But in this case, there's no mechanism to verify.

But, even assuming Greg's explanation is valid (which I question) there are still significant public policy questions out there that this brings up.

For the sake of argument, let's say that the SDACC budget is $100k. $60,000 in taxpayer funded dues, $40,000 in other funds. If they went out and raised the $40,000, that's great. But you still have to recognize that they used at least a portion of the $60,000 in salaries, equipment, etcetera, paid for by the taxpayer to raise the $40,000.

It's my understanding that at least a chunk of the non-dues related income results from their annual convention revenue, such as exhibition booths and workshops for commissioners. And that revenue includes money charged to the commissioners who attend the workshops. So who pays the fees for County Commissioners to attend SDACC workshops? You guessed it. The County Commissioners would typically vote to pay for it as Commissioner expenses. Out of money collected from the taxpayers.

If I'm wrong, someone please let me know. Maybe I am, and I'm way off base. Maybe Greg's charge that my concerns are 'baseless' are true. Maybe. But in my heart of hearts, I doubt it.

Even if Greg is 100% right, I'm still left with a troubling question. If the SDACC can afford to spend over $40,000 out of their budget to tell taxpayers that they need to keep paying a tax - then something is wrong.

I don't think that the SDACC would be willing to admit that they can cut themselves off of the public dole, since their fundraising seems to indicate their success at it obviates the need for public financing.