Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Enforcement Hearing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission dismisses two campaign‑report complaints after hearing over disputed fax delivery
Summary
After a contested hearing about whether a receipts-and-expenditures report was faxed by the filing deadline, the commission concluded the complainant had not met the required proof standard and dismissed complaints 786 and 787; a previously assessed $400 civil penalty for the candidate remains in place.
The Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission on Jan. 22 dismissed two complaints that alleged a candidate and treasurer failed to timely file a receipts‑and‑expenditures report, concluding the complainant did not meet the agency’s burden of proof.
The contested hearing combined complaints 786 and 787. The commission’s compliance staff presented evidence that the commission’s fax activity log did not show receipt of the July 29, 2024 receipts‑and‑expenditures report during the filing deadline window and that the earliest internal record of receiving the report was Aug. 9, three days after the election. The director testified that the commission’s fax activity report showed no incoming fax from the phone number listed on the respondents’ fax journal for the deadline date; staff also said it had asked the Secretary of State’s office to check its logs and that office had no matching record.
Respondents presented a fax activity report from their sending machine that indicated an “OK” transmission from the phone number (316) 260‑4605 at 4:15:17 p.m. on the filing deadline. Treasurer Melissa Stout told commissioners she had used a personal or business fax machine that reported successful transmission and later, when staff said the filing was not received, resubmitted the report from a commercial fax service.
The hearing officer summarized the procedural posture and instructed parties on the applicable clear‑and‑convincing burden of proof. After hearing testimony from the executive director, the respondents and argument from staff and respondents, commissioners voted that the complainant had not established the required facts by clear and convincing evidence. The chair read a clarifying statement after the vote to make clear that, as a result, the complaints were dismissed and there would be no new fines arising from these complaints.
Commissioners noted a separate civil penalty of $400 assessed earlier against the candidate remains in place; staff told the candidate he may submit a penalty‑waiver request for the prior assessment if he chooses and that the commission can consider that request independently of the dismissed complaints.
Hearing officer Earl Glenn was authorized to draft the dismissal order with conflict counsel Jesse Burris assigned to prepare the written dismissal for the commission’s file.
