| Author | Post |
|---|
PinalRes
Member
| Joined: | Mon Nov 3rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 4th, 2008 06:38 am |
|
"PinalRes, the process is entirely simple, if you're willing to drive a little. You simply go to Florence to the elections office and you can get copies of all that stuff. As to why the local papers do not carry such things, I don't think The AJ News would carry such things if you paid them. The Independent would, but only if you took a copy to them. But those reports go for a lot of pages, so it would take a lot of work to print them in a usable manner, and I don't know if they would be willing to do that."
Thanks for the info. I knew that they were public records. I just was not sure if they made you jump through any hoops like filling out requests in advance. Do you go there and get the documents on the same day? Do you make photocopies or do you have to pay for that to be done by the staff? I am curious about everyone's final reports, not just the judicial candidates. Obviously, there is not time now, but even post-election reports can be interesting reading to geeks like myself.
Also, I did not see that O'Neill "endorsement" flyer. If you have one and can scan it, please do.
As for the newspapers, I still think that the total dollars raised, five biggest donors, five biggest expenditures, etc. would make an excellent article in any election cycle, but I am no journalist.
|
Pale Rider
Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 20th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 3rd, 2008 11:50 pm |
|
PinalRes, the process is entirely simple, if you're willing to drive a little. You simply go to Florence to the elections office and you can get copies of all that stuff. As to why the local papers do not carry such things, I don't think The AJ News would carry such things if you paid them. The Independent would, but only if you took a copy to them. But those reports go for a lot of pages, so it would take a lot of work to print them in a usable manner, and I don't know if they would be willing to do that. As to posting such things on line, Pinal County doesn't really want the public to know those things, and figures most people will not take the time to get the facts for themselves. So thank God there is something like this Public Forum available.
|
PinalRes
Member
| Joined: | Mon Nov 3rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 3rd, 2008 10:43 pm |
|
"Pale Rider, you are right, but you left out some things. One of those things is Fuller's campaign finances. At first it looks ok, but as you study it things don't completely add up. A candidate is allowed to raise $15,670.00 of personal monies. Personal money can include money given by his family--parents, grandparents, spouse, children, siblings, or any in-laws. Otherwise an individual may only give $390.00 to a candidate or his or her committee. Fuller had $5600.00 given by 4 family members, each donation being considerably more than $390.00. That is all fine and good and legal. But the kicker is that once a candidate has raised $15,670.00, he must inform his opponent within 24 hours. I checked and found that Fuller made his disclosure on August 21, 2008."
Did you get the documents yourself at the county elections office? If so, was it a pretty simple process? I never understand why local newspapers do not publish these documents in full. Occasionally, you get snippets in the newspapers, but never full disclosure. Unless I missed it.
At the very least, the county elections office could post these campaign finance documents online like Maricopa County has for years.
|
Pale Rider
Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 20th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 31st, 2008 12:29 am |
|
Well, he's at it again! Fuller has mailed out a last minute flyer claiming the endorsement of The Hon. William O'Meil. Is he totally without principles and character? And he is still touting what a great prosecutor he was, which is undoubtedly true. But that still doesn't qualify him as a judge. He should stick to prosecuting criminals, and leave the judgeship to someone who knows the law.
|
Pale Rider
Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 20th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 7th, 2008 06:09 pm |
|
The most disturbing question raised by Steve Fuller is, how can someone who is ignoring the law, and being dishonest, in his campaign be expected to be a fair and honest judge if he is elected.
|
Committee for Honesty and Integrity
Member
| Joined: | Thu Aug 21st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 27th, 2008 05:44 pm |
|
| Everything you say is true, but no one seems to care. Go figure.
|
Gideon
Member
| Joined: | Sat Aug 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 11:48 pm |
|
Pale Rider, you are right, but you left out some things. One of those things is Fuller's campaign finances. At first it looks ok, but as you study it things don't completely add up. A candidate is allowed to raise $15,670.00 of personal monies. Personal money can include money given by his family--parents, grandparents, spouse, children, siblings, or any in-laws. Otherwise an individual may only give $390.00 to a candidate or his or her committee. Fuller had $5600.00 given by 4 family members, each donation being considerably more than $390.00. That is all fine and good and legal. But the kicker is that once a candidate has raised $15,670.00, he must inform his opponent within 24 hours. I checked and found that Fuller made his disclosure on August 21, 2008. But from the looks of his financial reports to the county, he should have made that report about 3 weeks earlier, if he is counting family money as part of his personal money. If he is not counting it as personal money in his disclosure to his opponent, how can he count it as personal money which is exempt from the $390.00 limit? If it is personal money in the one case, then it must also be personal money in the other case.
Another thought that comes to mind is, why did Fuller choose to run in the one race where another Republican had already filed? He says it is because Jana Vanderpool is vulnerable. What makes her vunerable? Is it her honesty and integrity? Then I get to thinking--he worked as a county prosecutor for a Democrat and with Democrats. Was he simply running to keep a viable Republican from being in the race? Why are we being asked to vote for a candidate who raises so many disturbing questions?
|
Pale Rider
Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 20th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 05:57 pm |
|
Why is it that so little attention is being paid to the judge's race in Pinal County? Steve Fuller, who is running for Superior Court Judge for Division 6, has engaged in some extremely questionable activities in his campaign. The most obvious and blatant has been his continuing claim of endorsement by Judge Bill O'Neil. Not only is that a false claim, as evidenced by a letter from Judge O'Neil to the Commission on Judicial Conduct, dated July 20, 2008, but it also has the effect of accusing Judge O'Neil of illegal conduct, and questioning his honesty and integrity. That forces one to ask the question of whether Fuller is ignorant of the law or just doesn't care. In either case, it's not a great confidence builder. Of equal concern is his conduct in regard to Pinal County Policy and Procedure 1.30 which states that a county employee shall not "be a candidate for nomination or election to any paid partisan public office, to take any part in the management of any political campaign or recall effort." Now Fuller, who was a Pinal County prosecutor, did resign, but not untill 15 days after he filed to run for judge. In those 15 days, he collected 467 signatures on his Nomination Petitions. But what is really shocking is that after resigning he began working for the county on a contract basis as a prosecutor. Isn't working for the county working for the county?!! But that isn't all. In his paper work to set up his campaign committee he listed his wife as the chariman. But his wife is a county enployee and did not resign anything. Once again; ignorance of the law, or sheer indifference?
So here is the issue. Here we have a man who is running for Superior Court Judge who is willing to compromise a sitting judge for his own advantage, and who also is either ignorant of the law, and thus failed to do due diligence, or has a flagrant disregard for the law. These are hardly the qualifications one looks for in a sitting judge!
|
Current time is 09:11 pm | |
|
|
|