An email from Mimi Larson to her MFD pals:
Dear Friends:
I will have one more MFD email in me before Tuesday! But this email is about following the rules. It’s been an issue at the heart of the 2 year divisive debate about the about the district’s long range facilities plan. There have been numerous accusations on the part of LDV that the district did not follow rules when it developed the LRFP.
I believe these criticisms are inaccurate. LDV may not like the decisions. But their countless false accusations about not following the rules, and two failed lawsuits, keep taking away the focus from the real debate — how we must improve our kids’ education.
And yet at the same time, it seems as if LDV and their leaders have not always followed the rules. We already know about LDV’s attorney, who got tossed off their case because of unethical behavior. Board member Gary Glass was equally guilty, as he was working to help sue himself as a member of the board. Read on and let me describe some other questionable activities.
Despite our differences, I am one of Harry Welty’s most loyal readers, and I have been watching his efforts to raise money for some television ads for the four challengers. By the way, there is nothing wrong with Harry trying to help the candidates he supports, and it would be great if everyone worked as hard for their causes as Harry does.
But as someone who wears several hats when trying to stay involved in the education debate, I feel there is always something fishy about the way Harry helps his candidates. Let me explain why:
1) Any television ad produced and shown on behalf of a candidate falls under one of two categories — a candidate expenditure or an independent expenditure.
2) Someone produced a commercial that included a photo shoot of the four challengers. In other words, the challengers cooperated with the filming of the commercial. So this commercial cannot be called an “independent” expenditure.
3) Since this commercial is a candidate expenditure, how is Harry making sure that the expenditures stay within the law? Is he running all of the money through each of the candidate’s campaign committees, rather than just giving them all to one candidate (which wouldn’t be legal)? Is he making sure that no person has contributed more than $300 per candidate during 2009? Are the donors writing checks to the television stations and then informing the candidates that these contributions have been made for them? Or is Harry not worrying about any of these questions, since the election is just a few days away and there is a lot of work to do?
I know this much — Harry controls Let Duluth Vote, which has operated as a ballot question committee for the last 18 months but has never registered as Minnesota law requires. Harry controls Vote Like It Counts, which raises money by selling merchandise and then supports candidates, yet hasn’t registered or probably even reported those activities as required by law. Is there any reason to believe he is actually following the disclosure laws now, as he is raising money for ads that the candidates themselves helped create?
Hopefully, Harry has some easy answers for this. Since he reads my emails, let me apologize to Harry in advance if my questions have simple and legal answers. If he is following the laws to a T, fantastic — it is a welcome change. (By the way, I am sure his apology to the school district is still being drafted).
But if he is not following the laws, or just hasn’t been paying attention to the laws (his excuse when he was called out by the News Tribune last spring for the work Let Duluth Vote was doing), every Duluthian should condemn Harry’s actions. Like them or not, there are good reasons that sunshine laws exist.
Now, as I demand sunshine from Harry, let me provide a little of my own. I have been involved in 2 advertising efforts that will surface this weekend. One is related to MFD and will be an ad that runs tomorrow in the News Tribune. This ad does not endorse any candidate, it simply states the facts about the LRFP, Plan B and the other ideas being promoted as an alternative to the LRFP (such as stopping the plan). It also summarizes what the candidates themselves have said about their stance with the LRFP. We have asked an attorney about the ad, and it is perfectly legal for MFD to pay for this ad. It’s the correct way to do an issue ad.
The second ad effort is one I was involved with as a taxpayer and mom, and it didn’t involve MFD or any candidate. It is an independent expenditure on the part of hundreds of us who privately (i.e. without organizational representation) support certain candidates for school board. It is an ad that did not go through campaigns, rather paid for by individuals who want to show support. That’s the correct way to do an independent expenditure.
Maybe Harry will provide us the same amount of sunshine, one of these days.
Enough of this — time to get to work!
Mimi
Comment One. I’m so glad MDF is checking with attorneys. There’s no better way to insure honor and integrity.
Comment Two. The real debate shouldn’t be about how Mimi’s side tried to pull a fast one by hiding behind our children’s well being. If her side hadn’t pulled a fast one the focus of this school board campaign would be our children.
Comment Three. I’m not allowed to make comment 3 because something I signed in order to return the donations made by our supporters for something I’m not allowed to blog about. Mimi, on the other hand is free to comment about *********. Whether she knows that my tongue is tied behind my back I don’t know. When I made the most veiled reference to the subject in a post titled “Must bite tongue, Must bite tongue” which quoted a public document the School Board’s attorney fedexed me a letter warning me that the post could get me hauled into court. The verbiage has been removed and the title changed to read: “Bit my tongue. Bit my tongue.”
Comment Four. My blog posts requesting donations for a TV ad ask for them to be made to the candidates featured in the ad. My personal donations to candidates to date stand at $300 from me and $300 from my wife to Maureen Booth. These are the maximum expenditures we are allowed to give any individual candidate. I could give each candidate a similar donation and have offered contributions to other candidates. Amazingly, Mimi’s allies have so blackened my reputation that none of the other candidates I support seem willing to accept my offer of a donation. Her presumption that I run Let Duluth Vote with the kind of iron fist that Dr. Dixon runs the School District is so far off kilter it makes me smile to read it.
Comment Five. Vote Like It Counts is something I set up because the few remaining people with the stomach to continue meeting with Let Duluth Vote needed me to keep my distance from them. Putting up a ten foot pole between us was my decision not theirs. Most of them appreciate my work but fear my heavily criticized actions will cause them no end of grief. Who can blame them. Duluth woke up on Thursday to see that the Editorial Board of the Duluth News Tribune considers anyone who agrees with me that voting rights are worth fighting for is nothing but one of my gangbangers.
Vote Like It Counts is an assumed name I registered at the Minnesota Secretary of State’s offices to legally spend money to fight the forces of darkness that have hijacked Duluth. It is a single proprietorship whose aim is to sell books and ask for a little margin over the cost of publishing and mailing them out to buyers. That margin in addition to helping fight the forces of darkness could be used to repay people who have lent a lot of money to the cause. One of the people who has lent money to the fight to restore our voting rights has the initials HRW. That’s me. I will be writing a book. Will I make money on it? If everyone in Duluth, bought the book for $10 I might break even. As a legal entity VLIC is one and the same as Harry Welty. I haven’t figured out all the tax implications yet but Mimi can’t prevent people from giving me (VLIC) money to do with as I please. I may only be permitted to give individual candidate’s $300 but my first amendment rights (other than those pinched shut by an *********** that I’m forbidden to write about) are still mostly intact.
Comment Five. Apology accepted.
