Archive for the ‘Integrity’ Category

Where did you sleep last night?

October 25, 2017

That is the question I sometimes ask when eligible residents are wanting to know what address to use when registering to vote. For most people, the answer is simple: your home address. That answer does not work for people who sleep in cars or under a bridge.

Fortunately, our voter registration form accommodates those voters by allowing registrants to “describe where you reside”; however, if you describe a place that the Post Office does not deliver mail to, then you will not receive your voter registration card and you will not be fully (100%) registered to vote.

If the place you live/sleep does not have an address the Post Office delivers to, then you need to provide us with a mailing address when you register to vote. That may mean you rent a post office box or talk someone into receiving your mail. The only way to receive your voter registration card is via the Post Office because the law prohibits us from handing you your card over the counter. Why? Because we use the Post Office to confirm you gave us a valid address.

Although you will never find the “where did you sleep last night” question in any election administrator’s handbook or the Code of Iowa, I have found that question helps eligible residents quickly decide where they should register to vote. When a registrant signs the voter registration form, they are affirming under the penalty of perjury that they “live at the address” they indicated on the voter registration form.

This year, I have received three inquiries about elected officials and where they are “living”. One inquiry was in the news and the other two were not. One inquiry concerned a member of the Cedar Rapids City Council and another concerned a member of the Iowa Senate.

I contacted the Senator after confirming the Senator’s voter registration address had changed to an address outside of the Senator’s district. The Senator had sold one home and had been living temporarily in an apartment outside the Senate district while a new home was being built. The Senator had already moved back into his/her Senate district at the time of my inquiry. Case closed.

Why did I follow-up on those two inquiries? The Code of Iowa (Chapter 69.5) states that county auditors have a duty to inform the Governor of vacancies in the Legislature, and vacancies occur when elected legislators no longer reside in their districts (Chapter 69.2).

I have no such duty to follow-up on inquiries about members of city councils. The city council is responsible for determining if a council position is vacant and twenty-five (25) registered voters of the city can petition the council and force them to determine if a vacancy exists.

I did not contact the Cedar Rapids city councilor. The councilor contacted me.

The councilor wanted me to know that s/he had always been a resident of CR even though his/her spouse owned a home outside of CR. I think the councilor even indicated s/he slept at the CR home every night. I told the councilor that the Council is responsible for determining if a vacancy has occurred on the Council, and since the Council has not notified me of a vacancy, one does not exist. Case closed.

Several years ago, I recall a former legislator boasting that he went to the residence of a legislative candidate and looked in the window of the home to see if the candidate was living in the residence. He reported he did not think the candidate was living there.

About four years ago, several people hired a private investigator to keep tabs on the living/sleeping habits of Marion’s mayor. The Marion City Council reviewed the evidence and concluded the mayor was a resident of Marion.

Every person registering to vote signs a voter registration form and attests to the accuracy of the information on the form under the penalty of perjury. Every person elected to a public office in Iowa takes an oath of office and swears to uphold the laws of Iowa and the United States (Chapter 63).

Our democracy is based upon geographic boundaries and we divide our geography into various political subdivisions. Where an elected official lives (and sleeps) matters. And the onus of whether a vacancy exists or does not exists resides with the elected official.

We can only hope that we are living among elected officials who have the integrity to resign from the office they hold if they are not “living” and sleeping (my criteria) within the political subdivision they were elected to represent. Don’t ask me to peek into a window. –Joel D. Miller – Linn County Auditor

Advertisements

Vote buying, campaigning, or official business?

September 15, 2017

At least one locally elected official has a hard time differentiating when he is performing his official duties versus campaigning. He cannot seem to keep his roles or his wardrobe straight.

I have seen a similar occurrence on Facebook, e.g., is that comment that a county supervisor just made a campaign comment or an official comment? If the comment was posted between 8am and 5pm, and they are Linn County elected officials, i.e., full-time elected officials, then the only comments they should be making are official comments.

So imagine my surprise when I received my Linn Newsletter this week and saw Supervisor Chairperson Brent Oleson on the front page presenting an oversized $20,000.oo Linn County check to the Good Ole Boys. And then realized he was wearing his Re-Elect Oleson Supervisor t-shirt. Come on Brent! Do you have any ethics?

And even if wearing campaign clothes is legal while giving away 20,000 tax dollars, why do you have to mix campaigning with official business? Don’t you remember me confronting you about wearing your campaign clothes to official Board of Supervisors meetings? Why did you think it was OK to present an oversized Linn County check wearing your campaign t-shirt?

Brent, there is something wrong with your What’s Right versus What’s Wrong meter. And you need to fix it! This photo of you presenting $20,000.oo makes it appear that you are buying votes. And that makes every elected official in Iowa look bad. -Joel D. Miller – Linn County Auditor
20170915111348225.pdf

Code of ethics checkoff

June 23, 2017

Recently, the Finance & Budget Department proposed a Code of Ethics for Linn County’s employees. Seems like a county founded in 1839 should have already had an Code of Ethics, then again, maybe it was not needed until now because all of our moral compasses were in alignment?

In any case, the attachment contains a proposed Code of Ethics. It’s not a very strong policy, e.g., it contains only one potential penalty and that is for theft. And it lacks definitions, e.g., what is “conscientious” performance of duty; what are private interests, private gains, preferential treatment, and special privileges? And how would the Code apply to a County Supervisor’s request for a couple loads of gravel from the Secondary Roads department for a local non-profit?

Please email your company’s code of ethics to mailto:Joel.Miller@linncounty.org I think you probably have some language in your code of ethics that we could borrow to improve the County’s proposed code of ethics, i.e., unless we are just going through the motions to checkoff that box. – Joel D. Miller – Linn County Auditor
20170623145302401.pdf

Put clients’ interests first

April 21, 2017

I clipped the except below from the Corridor Business Journal’s Morning Rush (4/20/2017).  For many years, I have used a Fee Only financial advisor to manage my personal investments and that advisor has always been required to put my interests ahead of his interests.

So I believe Attorney General Tom Miller is on the right tract to pursue getting this rule implemented and I support him in his effort.  -Joel D. Miller – Linn County Auditor

Iowa attorney general signs letter to lift ‘fiduciary rule’ delay

Iowa’s attorney general wants to speed up the process of implementing a rule that would require financial advisers to put clients’ best interests ahead of their own. Tom Miller is leading a group of eight Democrat attorneys general in urging the U.S. Department of Labor to lift its delay in implementing a rule that was set to take effect April 10, reports the Des Moines Business Record. The Obama-era “fiduciary rule” was delayed for 60 days to June 9 after President Donald Trump ordered the agency to review the rule to determine whether it would adversely affect Americans’ ability to gain access to retirement information and financial advice. In the letter to Acting Secretary of Labor Edward Hugley, the attorneys general said, “to the contrary, postponement of its application is costing investors tens of millions of dollars each day as advisors continue to give conflicted advice and the rule should be implemented without further delay.”

Complaint on Oleson for practicing without a license

June 2, 2016

Today, The Gazette mentioned that I filed a complaint against Supervisor Brent Oleson for practicing law without a license. The link below contains my complaint and an acknowledgement of the complaint by the Attorney Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Iowa.

I admit that I do not have much faith in the Disciplinary Board to slap Oleson’s hands since the profession polices itself. I took an oath of office to uphold the laws of Iowa so when I see something that is a potential violation of the law, I have a duty to report it to the proper authority. In this situation, the Disciplinary Board is the proper authority.

I recall Oleson telling me during office hours that he was doing “some legal work” after October of 2006 so I am guessing some local attorneys are aware of other potential violations besides my complaint. But will they file a complaint? Or have they filed a complaint? Or self-reported? That’s contingent upon the facts and their ethics. –Joel D. Miller – Linn County Auditor

Complaint and receipt of complaint filed on Oleson on 5-16-2016 .pdf

Inappropriate transfers of campaign funds?

May 21, 2016

Former Linn County Supervisor Linda Langston could not help herself.  She had to take one last shot at me with other people’s money when she closed her campaign account.  On 5/2/2016, she wrote check #1099 for $750 to Plumbers and Pipe Fitters Local 125.  Her check to Local 125 appears to be an inappropriate transfer of campaign funds.

On 5/11/2016, my opponent received check #1636 for $750 from the Plumbers and Pipe Fitters Local 125.  Due to the timing and amount of the contribution, it appears Langston may have used Local 125 as a conduit to funnel funds to my opponent.  “Strawman” transactions are inappropriate in political campaigns.

Were these transfers illegal?  I will let the Iowa Ethics & Campaign Financial Board decide.  Paid for by Miller for Auditor

Sourc

Oleson not authorized to practice law

May 11, 2016

In today’s Board of Supervisors meeting, Supervisor Brent Oleson and I had a back & forth on the issue of a yard sign – see minute 45 second 17.  As the conversation evolved, I said to Oleson, “You are not authorized to practice law,” and Oleson replied, “Yes, I am; I choose not to”.

I checked with the Administrator of the Iowa Supreme Court Commission on the Unauthorized Practice of Law and he wrote:  In regards to your inquiry concerning Iowa attorney Brent C. Oleson, this email will confirm that he is currently in inactive status here in Iowa. He went inactive on October 23, 2006. Due to his inactive status, he is not allowed to practice law in the State of Iowa. Nor can he represent that he is able to practice law in the State of Iowa. See Rule 32:5.5(b)(2).

Why bring this up?  Because Oleson stated in a public meeting in front of numerous Linn County employees, as well as, members of the public that he “authorized to practice law” when he clearly is not authorized to practice law in Iowa.  Oleson portrays himself as a legal expert.  He is not.

You can check the license status on Oleson and other attorneys here.  If I choose to file a complaint on Oleson, the complaint form is here.  -Joel D. Miller – Linn County Auditor

 

Maintaining the integrity of an election – candidates cannot be election workers

May 6, 2016

Candidates cannot be election workers unless you are a County Auditor.  And the exception for Auditors is based upon the Auditors’ statutory duty to administer elections.  A previous post explains how the Linn County Auditor will administer the June 2016 primary election.

In Linn County, we have about 600 eligible residents willing to serve as election workers aka precinct election officials (PEOs).  Frequently, one or more of those PEOs are related to a candidate on the ballot.  And PEOs related to candidates with opponents on the ballot cannot serve as election workers.  It’s not discrimination; it’s the law.

Further, candidates cannot work as PEOs when their name is on the ballot.  This includes being a PEO at the polls, at the absentee precinct, and working as rovers and transporters.  Again, it’s not discrimination; it’s the law.

Below is an excerpt from Code of Iowa section 49.16 stating the law:

No person shall serve on the election board at any election in which the person or any person related to the person within the third degree of consanguinity or affinity is a candidate to be voted upon in that precinct, and it shall be the responsibility of each person whose name is listed on the election board panel to notify the commissioner not less than fifteen days before any election at which the person is ineligible to serve by reason of this subsection. However, this subsection shall not apply in the case of any candidate or relative of a candidate seeking an office or nomination which no opposing candidate is seeking. Any candidate for an office or for nomination to an office to which two or more persons are to be elected at large is unopposed, for the purpose of this subsection, if the number of candidates for the office or nomination does not exceed the number of persons to be elected or nominated.

If you have any concerns or questions, please contact Joel D. Miller – Linn County Auditor.

Maintaining the integrity of an election when an Auditor is opposed on the ballot

May 3, 2016
Every four years, County Auditors across the State of Iowa must individually determine their level of involvement in the administration of elections when they on the ballot.
As Commissioner of Elections, an Auditor must fulfill his/her statutory requirements to administer all elections. The law does not excuse an Auditor from his/her duties when the Auditor is on the ballot or when the Auditor has an opponent on the ballot.
When an Auditor is administering an election, he/she is guided by their oath of office, professional ethics, and election law – specifically avoiding election misconduct as outlined in Code of Iowa sections 39A.2 through 39A.5.
In February 2007, I was elected Linn County Auditor.  Since taking office, I have faced opponents on the ballot in the 2008 primary, the 2012 primary, and the 2012 general election.  I have an opponent on the June 2016 primary election ballot.
For the June 2016 Primary Election, the Linn County Auditor’s Office will be staffed so that I can remove myself from any hands-on election activity. Specifically, I will not be:
  • Handling any voted or unvoted absentee ballots;
  • Accessing the ballot room without another employee present;
  • Accessing the election management system;
  • Accessing the voter registration system; or
  • Visiting polling places on election day.
In addition, my key card access to the ballot room has been deactivated by an employee of the Linn County Board of Supervisors and my I-Voters user name has been deactivated by an employee of the Iowa Secretary of State’s Office. 
Maintaining the integrity of every election is a duty that I take seriously regardless of whether or not I have an  opponent on the ballot.  -Joel D. Miller – Linn County Auditor

Campaigning on taxpayers’ time?

April 25, 2016

During the 10 January 2012 Linn County Compensation Board meeting, then Linn County Board of Supervisor Chairman Brent Oleson felt, “… the position of Board of Supervisor is full-time”.

The de facto community standard set by nine of ten Linn County elected officials is to NOT wear campaign attire into a County workplace during business hours.  And to my knowledge, no other Linn County elected official aside from Supervisor Oleson has violated that community standard.

If the position of Linn County Supervisor is a full-time position, then why did Oleson wear his campaign sweater(s) to official Board of Supervisor meetings on the following dates and during business hours, i.e., the hours he is supposed to be working for the taxpayers?

3/8/2016     2/23/2016     1/27/2016     1/8/2016     11/23/2015     11/12/2015     10/21/2015     8/26/2015

I might not have reviewed the videos of the Board of Supervisors meetings to see how often Oleson had worn his campaign sweater in the workplace if he had not attended the #BOSVACANCY meeting at 1pm last Friday (4/22/2016).  Once again, Oleson was wearing his campaign sweater during business hours and you can see him in his sweater in this CBS2 news story.

I have asked Oleson to NOT wear campaign attire to work.  I have asked Oleson’s peers to ask Oleson NOT to wear his campaign attire to work.

I feel Oleson has set a very bad example for the County’s employees by 1> campaigning in the workplace, 2> overtly showing County employees he is not working during business hours, and 3> overtly showing the taxpayers’ that he is not working during business hours.  And his actions are proving that the position of Supervisor is NOT a full-time position.

Maybe if you ask Oleson NOT to wear his campaign attire to work, he will listen?  Let the Board know what you think by sending them an email  and/or by participating in this anonymous poll.

By Joel D. Miller – Taxpayer – posted at 11:09pm on 4/25/2016 after County business hours. 

 


%d bloggers like this: