Check out the entire report here.
More on this as I read through it.
ps. Mike, remember when you said “Please check back to Minnesota Democrats Exposed for more information on Nobles’ report…the complete report…” Well yeah, nanny-nanny-boo-boo.
Summary:
- Secretary of State Mark Ritchie did not misuse state resources when he organized civic education events and collected contact information from the participants. The events were appropriate activities of the Secretary of State’s office, and the contact information fulfilled a public purpose.
- Secretary of State Mark Ritchie did not violate Minnesota law when he provided the contact information to his campaign since the information is “public data” under Minnesota law.
- Secretary of State Mark Ritchie did not fulfill his legal obligation to make a full and timely response to a request for information from the Legislative Auditor.
Emphasis mine.
Update: Alright, obviously this is very very good for Secretary Ritchie. No written reprimand etc. The third point is the negative again it states: “Secretary of State Mark Ritchie did not fulfill his legal obligation to make a full and timely response to a request for information from the Legislative Auditor.” (again my emphasis) But in the report (page 8 of the PDF) Ritchie responds to this charge.
“I respectfully disagree with your opinion that our office did not provide a full and timely response to your request for information. The Office of the Secretary of State received your letter of November 2 requesting a response to your questions by November 12. This office responded quickly, truthfully, and completely to those questions on November 9.
In addition, I provided the information to your office on November 20 in response to one question that dealt in part with the activities of my volunteer campaign committee. The Office of the Secretary of State is separate from my campaign activities, making it inappropriate for OSS staff to answer your questions on behalf of my campaign. This information was accurate, supplemental to the comprehensive responses provided by the OSS staff, and was in no way inconsistent with the November 9 response. ”
So basically Ritchie is saying: ‘You asked my state staff these questions, they were answered by the time you wanted. My campaign then responded on the 20th to questions that they had answers too as well.’
The Legislative Auditor’s response is:
“We were never given any indication by anyone at the Secretary of State’s office that additional information would be forthcoming. In fact, we were told specifically that the November 9 letter contained “all of the information that is known by the Secretary of State’s office.” However, on November 20, Mr. Ritchie sent the Legislative Auditor an e-mail…”
Basically “No one told us there was going to be anymore.” And I think it also dampens the point of the third conclusion. Ritchie’s SOS office fulfilled it’s legal responsibility to respond promptly, it was the campaign that responded after the LA’s request, and it should be noted that the campaign wasn’t asked to provide anything, they just did it on their own.
In the end, this is really good news for Secretary of State Ritchie.
Loading ...
Truly a mixed bag, as Ritchie did get dinged by the legislative auditor:
“However, Mr. Ritchie did not fulfill his legal obligation to make a full and timely response to a request for information from the Legislative Auditor.” Source: Legislative Auditor’s Report.
That’s all you have Mikey?
He dragged his feet on the request to look into the allegations that he was dismissed of?
Well, he needs a one way ticket to Gitmo.
I’ll help you out Sean:
“The fact that Mr. Ritchie did not acknowledge his action in the written response we received on November 9 created suspicion and led to our decision to require Mr. Ritchie and his staff to be interviewed under oath. We think it is a serious breach of responsibility for a public official not to fully and promptly respond to a request for information from the Office of the Legislative Auditor. OLA is the investigative office of the Minnesota Legislature, with responsibility to ‘see that all provisions of law respecting the appropriate and economic use of public funds are complied with…,’ and authority to ‘investigate allegations of noncompliance by employees of departments and agencies of the state government….’
During our interview with Mr. Ritchie, we asked several questions about the November 9 and November 20 responses. Mr. Ritchie acknowledged that he was aware that the request for information from the Legislative Auditor was part of an investigative process and that he had a legal obligation to respond. He acknowledged knowing that the information was due by November 12 and reviewing drafts of Mr. Black’s response before it was sent to us.
During their interviews, both Mr. Ritchie and Mr. Black told us there were two responses because they thought both ‘the office’ and ‘the campaign’ needed to respond to the Legislative Auditor’s request. But, as noted above, this rationale was not presented in the November 9 letter, or at any other time before we interviewed Mr. Ritchie and his staff. Moreover, Mr. Ritchie never provided us with a convincing explanation as to why he waited eleven days after the formal written response was delivered (and eight days after the deadline) to OLA to acknowledge that he personally provided the civic education information to his campaign.” Source: Legislative Auditor’s Report, January 8, 2007
After all this that’s all there is? Can MDE’s credibility go much lower? The mainstream press will see the truth relative to the crap that MDE has peddled for the last several months and totally understand that MDE is nothing more than a GOP shill and hack machine, not worthy of the electrons it uses.
Mike time to get a real job.
I’m not even going to attempt to point out the moral failings of a group of people that celebrate the mere chastisement of an elected member of the state government who, although was found not to have violated the law, was certainly guilty of deliberately lying to the people of this state on more than three seperate occaisions.
After all, President Clinton did the very same thing before the entire country.
A lying Democrat is not only only nothing to get excited about…it’s a given.
The question is how the citizens of this state can be expected to trust our elections to a proven liar.
In the mean time, you Democrats enjoy another of your boys having “gotten away with it” a-gain.
I agree 100% Swiftee.
Every Democrat, wherever they are, is a liar. This is just common knowledge. Everyone knows every Liberaloser nationwide are all souless communists.
That’s why the American people are turning out in droves to vote against their agenda. The numbers of Republicans that have showed up at the polls is astounding, and sends a clear message to the American people.
We have, in fact, accomplished the permanent Republican majority those of us on the right have dreamed about for so many years. :razz: