STATE
OF MINNESOTA
CAMPAIGN
FINANCE AND PUBLIC DISCLOSURE BOARD
FINDINGS
IN THE MATTER OF A COMPLAINT REGARDING
DAVID
OLE NATHAN JOHNSON
Procedural
Background
On
March 6, 2001, Barbara Nevin (“Complainant”), filed a complaint with the
Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board (“Board”) alleging that David Ole
Nathan Johnson (“Respondent”), candidate for the Minnesota Court of Appeals,
violated certain provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 10A.
The
Complainant alleges that the Respondent used office equipment and personnel belonging to
the law firm of Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz (“the Firm”) to conduct campaign
activity and failed to disclose that usage as in kind contributions and campaign
expenditures on its Report of Receipts and Expenditures. By
letter dated March 15, 2001, the Complainant further states that the estimated value of
the usage of the equipment and office personnel would be in excess of $3,000 per month.
The
Respondent was notified of the allegations and replied by letter dated April 2, 2001,
stating that the number of items used by his treasurer was minor. The Respondent further states that when he learned
of the usage he requested that his treasurer determine the reasonable cost of the items
and instructed her to reimburse the Firm for their usage.
The Respondent also states that he received only three or four phone calls relating
to the campaign at the Firm, used a few pieces of letterhead and envelopes, and sent five
to six faxes. He further states that no work
was done during office hours and if campaign activity was discussed it was after hours or
away from the Firm.
The
Board considered the matter in executive sessions on April 17, 2001. Neither of the parties presented testimony. The
matter was considered based on the compliant, the response and documents provided.
Based
on the record before it, the Board issues the following:
STATEMENT
OF THE EVIDENCE
1. The
Respondent was a candidate for the Minnesota Court of Appeals during the 2000 election,
and registered a principal campaign committee with the Board on August 14, 2000.
2. On August
23, 2000, a six page Report of Receipts and Expenditures covering January 1, through
August 21, 2000, was faxed from the Firm to the Board.
3. On
September 28, 2000, The Respondent faxed and mailed a one-page letter amending the report
from the Firm using the Firm’s letterhead.
4. On October
10, 2000, the Respondent reimbursed the Firm $44.07 for the cost of letterhead, fax,
copies and time used.
5. Since the
reimbursement to the Firm was less than $100, it was not required to be itemized on the
next Report of Receipts and Expenditures, but needed to be included with total
non-itemized expenditures and disbursements.
6. The Report
of Receipts and Expenditures covering January 1, through December 31, 2000, disclosed
non-itemized expenditures of $1,511.58.
7. The Complainant did not provide evidence to show the actual costs associated with the use of the Firm’s equipment and office personnel.
Based
on the above Statement of the Evidence, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS
CONCERNING PROBABLE CAUSE
There is no probable cause to believe that David Ole Nathan Johnson violated
Minnesota Statutes 10A, by failing to disclose all expenditures associated with his
campaign in election year 2000.
Based
on the above Findings, the Board issues the following:
ORDER
The complaint of Barbara Nevin regarding David Ole Nathan Johnson is dismissed in
all respects. The Board investigation of this
matter is hereby made a part of the public records of the Board pursuant to Minn. Stat.
10A.02, subd. 11.
Board staff shall provide copies to Barbara Nevin and David Ole Nathan Johnson.
Dated: April 17, 2001
Will
Fluegel, chair
Campaign
Finance and Public Disclosure Board