A state Ethics Commission investigation of one complaint filed against Go Forward Pine Bluff may have uncovered other violations, according a letter from the commission to the person who filed the complaint.
Go Forward has denied the allegations.
Albert King Jr., political chairman of the Pine Bluff branch of the NAACP, filed an ethics complaint in early November against Go Forward, which, at the time, was campaigning to get a sales tax passed. The proceeds from the tax would have been used to fund Go Forward-supported projects.
King said Go Forward was improperly using an offer of free meals at a local restaurant as an incentive to get students at the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff to vote for the tax, which failed at the ballot box for a second time in one year.
“You can’t use food or anything else of value to buy votes or influence voting in Arkansas,” King said in his complaint.
Independent reporting for Pine Bluff & Jefferson County since 1879.
In a letter to King from Graham Sloan, director of the Ethics Commission, dated April 9, and passed along to The Commercial, Sloan said that, as his office was looking into the original complaint, other possible violations came to light.
“During the course of the investigation, evidence of another potential violation has been identified, and this letter (serves) as notice that the scope of the investigation being conducted in this case has been expanded to also include the issue of whether or not Go Forward Pine Bluff (GFPB) violated the registration requirement … by making a contribution to a ballot or legislative committee when 2% or more of its annual revenues, operating expenses, or funds were used to make a contribution or contributions or and if that contribution exceeds $10,000 in value.”
The letter stated that the commission is meeting today, and that members will decide whether probable cause exists for a finding that Go Forward violated the Disclosure Act for Public Initiatives … by failing to comply with the registration requirements of Ark. Code Ann. 7-9-404 by either:
“Receiving or spending more than $500 to expressly advocate the qualification, disqualification, passage, or defeat of a ballot measure; and or
“Making a contribution to a ballot or legislative committee when 2% or more of its annual revenues, operating expenses, or funds were used to make a contribution or contributions or and if that contribution exceeds $10,000 in value.”
The commission will also be looking into whether Go Forward complied with campaign reporting requirements and whether the restaurant tickets failed to include the required “paid for by” disclaimer.”
Robert Thompson, an attorney representing Go Forward, said Wednesday he could not comment specifically on the case since it was a pending legal matter, but he did say the organization was prepared to defend itself.
“We dispute the allegations in the complaints that have been filed,” he said, adding that he would be attending today’s hearing. “And we intend on vigorously disputing the allegations before the commission.”
Ivan Whitfield, president of the Pine Bluff chapter of the NAACP, said he was pleased the commission was looking into the case.
“I’m proud to know that they did take it seriously and have possibly uncovered other things that were done wrong,” Whitfield said.
King said he felt it was necessary to file the original complaint because of the way Go Forward handled the matter.
“I talked to a guy who said his friend on the UAPB campus said if you go vote for the Go Forward tax, you get a free meal,” King said. “I thought that was wrong. That was my only conflict with it.”
Sloan said that matters that come before the Ethics Commission are confidential and are only made public if the commission reaches a finding that a violation occurred. If the commission finds that there is probable cause that there was a violation, his office can issue a letter of varying degrees of seriousness as well as a fine ranging from $50 to $3,500. At that point, the accused party can pay the fine “like a speeding ticket” or they can push the matter to a hearing, during which they can bring in witnesses and “have their day in court, so to speak,” Sloan said.
After today’s meeting, the commission has up to nine months to reach a decision on the case, although Sloan said he would expect a quicker turnaround.
Because King filed the complaint, he was invited to attend the hearing. But he said Thursday that he would not be able to attend and that Whitfield was inquiring as to whether he could go in King’s place since both would be representing the NAACP.