Complaint Filed with Georgia Government Transparency and Campaign Finance Commission

Transcription

1 Complaint Filed with Georgia Government Transparency and Campaign Finance Commission against DeKalb District Attorney Robert James P.O. Box 2534 Decatur, Georgia There are 15 independent grounds for this complaint against Robert James for failures to comply with the requirements of the Campaign Finance Act. The documentary support, or in some instances the lack thereof, can be found in the records filed with the Georgia Government Transparency and Campaign Finance Commission and available on the Commission s website. Failure to File Personal Financial Disclosure Statements 1. Mr. James failed to file a Personal Financial Disclosure Statement covering his financial activity in Mr. James failed to file a Personal Financial Disclosure Statement covering his financial activity in Mr. James failed to file a Personal Financial Disclosure Statement covering his financial activity in Mr. James failed to file a Personal Financial Disclosure Statement covering his financial activity in Failure to File Affidavits of Public Officer 5. Mr. James was appointed to the Judicial Nominating Commission by Governor Deal on or about January 20, and continues to serve on the Judicial Nominating Commission. 2 As a member of the Judicial Nominating Commission, Mr. James is required to file an affidavit by January 31 of each year confirming that such public officer took no official action in the previous calendar year that had a material effect on such public officer s private financial or business interests. (O.C.G.A (a)(3)). Mr. James failed to file an Affidavit of Public Officer covering his activity in Mr. James failed to file an Affidavit of Public Officer covering his activity in Mr. James failed to file an Affidavit of Public Officer covering his activity in Mr. James failed to file an Affidavit of Public Officer covering his activity in

2 Substantive Errors in Campaign Contribution & Disclosure Reports 9. Mr. James underreported his campaign committee s indebtedness on his September 30, 2012 disclosure report. Mr. James made a total of $23, in personal loans to his campaign committee in 2010 and Mr. James loaned his committee: - $3, on September 8, ; - $8, on October 19, , - $12, on October 25, , - $ on March 21, Total debt: $23, Mr. James stated in his September 30, 2012 disclosure report that his total debt was $23,000 (and mislabeled this debt as General 2012 debt when such debt was incurred in 2010 and 2012). Mr. James did not disclose any repayment towards any of these four loans between September 8, 2010 (when the first loan was made) and September 30, 2012 (the date of the disclosure report). The correct amount of the debt was $23, and not $23,000.00, thus Mr. James underreported the debt. 10. Mr. James June 30, 2013 report is erroneous for two reasons: a) Mr. James reports the campaign committee s debt as $20,000. The amount of the debt should have been $23, (see # 9 above) because Mr. James did not report any repayment of the campaign committee s debt from September 30, 2010 (when the first loan was made) through June 30, 2013 (the date of the disclosure report). As such, Mr. James reported the incorrect amount of debt. b) The second reason that the June 30, 2013 report is erroneous is because Mr. James campaign committee s cash on hand in the June 30, 2013 report is incorrect. Mr. James reported the committee s cash on hand in the December 31, 2012 disclosure report to be $4, The next report the June 30, 2013 disclosure report stated that the beginning cash on hand was $0.00. Mr. James stated the incorrect amount of cash on hand and does not account for the use of or location of the purported cash on hand ($4,379.59) from December 31, 2012 until June 30, Mr. James December 31, 2013 report is incorrect for four reasons: a) Mr. James report shows zero cash on hand. As stated in # 11 above, Mr. James either should have reported some amount of cash on hand in the December 31, 2013 report or explained 3 Per his September 30, 2010 amended disclosure report. 4 Per his October 25, 2010 amended disclosure report. 5 Per his October 25, 2010 amended disclosure report. 6 Per his March 31, 2012 disclosure report.

3 where the $4, from the December 31, 2012 report went (yet there is no explanation in his disclosure reports about use of the money). b) Mr. James report shows $1,000 in expenditures ($ of which was to repay Mr. James for some of the previous loans). Mr. James campaign committee made these expenditures without any contributions into the campaign committee, yet the campaign committee had previously reported $0.00 cash on hand (which, as stated above, likely was not correct). c) Mr. James reported a cash on hand balance of negative $1, in this report, which is the $1,000 in expenditures on this report. This amount is incorrect because it fails to account for the $ expense from the June 30, 2013 report (and cannot be reconciled with the cash on hand from the December 31, 2012 report). d) The December 31, 2013 report underreports the amount of the campaign committee s debt. The campaign committee made a payment of $ to Mr. James to repay part of the debt on July 31, 2013, which is the first debt payment the campaign committee reported, so the campaign committee s debt should be $23, ($23, [see # 9 above] - $ payment). The campaign committee, however, discloses either $20,000 or $19,500 in indebtedness (both figures are used in the report). 12. The January 31, 2014 report is erroneous because it a) reports no cash on hand and b) reports no debt. There should be some amount of cash on hand and $23, in debt. 13. The June 30, 2014 report is erroneous because it a) reports no cash on hand and b) reports no debt. There should be some amount of cash on hand and $23, in debt. 14. The January 31, 2015 report is erroneous because it a) reports no cash on hand and b) reports no debt. There should be some amount of cash on hand and $23, in debt. 15. The June 30, 2015 report is erroneous because the report states that the committee has $19,500 in debt when the campaign should have reported $23, in debt. The June 30, 2015 report also is erroneous because the total reported contributions, expenses, and cash on hand do not account for other transactions during the 2016 campaign cycle (after the November 2012 election).

4 Robert James violated his oath of office as District Attorney. Robert James took an oath to faithfully and impartially discharge his duties, (OCGA ) yet he has not done what he is obligated to do and what he affirmed he would do. Mr. James has been focusing intently on prosecuting DeKalb CEO Burrell Ellis for alleged corruption, and perjury but Mr. James has neglected his own ethical obligations and failed to provide transparency into his campaign funds. It is time that DeKalb County residents learn about Mr. James own glass house. Further, it is possible that Mr. James has sought to intentionally withhold from DeKalb County voters key information that may influence their voting decisions, namely the source(s) of his financial support and management of his personal finances. The enclosed complaint form filed with the Georgia Government Transparency and Campaign Finance Commission details Mr. James ethical lapses and transgressions. Mr. James is required to file a personal financial disclosure form, yet he has failed to file the form that would provide details about his own finances for the last four years. It is ironic that Mr. James has garnered so much attention and been focused on bringing down CEO Ellis when Mr. James has not been candid and forthcoming about his own finances. Mr. James failure to file the personal financial disclosure is even more troubling given that Mr. James allegedly has had personal financial trouble previously, yet he purports to have had the financial wherewithal to loan his campaign for DA more than $23,000 (as explained in the enclosed filing). Something does not seem to add up with Mr. James finances. Given that Mr. James has failed to provide the required financial affidavits, people could be led to one conclusion: Mr. James does not want DeKalb citizens to know about his finances (or lack thereof) or to provide a paper trail for how he could loan his campaign more than $23,000 (and his campaign has not paid him back more than $19,500). The DeKalb Board of Ethics is the right place to bring a complaint for Mr. James not being honest and upfront with DeKalb residents and voters. Mr. James failure to file correct campaign finance reports is one more basis of Mr. James lack of candor with DeKalb County voters. Therefore, I respectfully urge this Board to inquire further into Mr. James own ethical lapses and wrongdoings.

5

6