Document Actions
Wednesday: Operation McAllister
posted at 2007-06-27 22:39 | Last modified 2007-11-14 10:38
Today's state elections board hearing on Mary McAllister was, well, interesting, for want of a better word. Or maybe odd, or baffling, or...shoot, I give up.
What happened
Mary McAllister was under investigation after Dem watchdog Joe Sinsheimer filed a complaint alleging that the Fayetteville Dem used campaign funds to over-repay herself for personal loans she claimed to have made to her campaign fund.
When McAllister was called to testify under oath, she remembered pretty much nothing about any campaign transactions she'd conducted in the past few years. Even the more recent ones. She repeatedly answered questions one way, only to change her mind when board chair Larry Leake brought up proof to the contrary. Leake was charitable in his comment afterward that "Her memory probably leaves much to be desired."
Later testimony by SBOE investigator Kim Strach showed just how much. Strach testified that McAllister had in fact loaned her campaign $2500, but had misrecorded it as a loan repayment to the NC Democratic Party. The rest of the loans reported weren't right, either. As McAllister's new treasurer/CPA explained, if the campaign spent more in a cycle than it took in, McAllister put the overage down as a loan, just to balance the books.
Practically speaking, she probably did subsidize the difference (although there's always the chance that expenditures were over-reported or that other contributions came in but weren't reported). But she didn't have records of what she'd spent on what for the campaign.
Later, when McAllister reviewed her records, she said she believed in good faith that she was owed more than $5000. She took out $5000 for a conference, and wrote off the rest.
The outcome
The board ruled that McAllister would forfeit $5,669, plus another $3,100 in illegal or questionable contributions the audit turned up. Then there was also a $7000 penalty - reimbursement for the expenses the Board incurred in the investigation. Total pricetag? $15,769.
The scene
McAllister was accompanied at the hearing by several close friends and family members, including her son and daughter who came to support her. She also had support from Representatives Alma Adams and Earline Parmon, as well as fellow Cumberland Democrat Sen. Larry Shaw.
After the hearing was over, Adams shepherded McAllister through the throng of cameras, throwing a protective arm around her shoulders as she helped McAllister out to her waiting car.
The lawyer
McAllister's attorney Jonathan Charleston came closer today to getting ejected from an SBOE hearing than I've ever seen before. After badgering Kim Strach and implying that the state elections staff had tampered with his client's campaign reports, Charleston went on to defy the board's direction not to coach McAllister on every answer.
When Leake called him on it, Charleston proceeded to direct his client not to answer a question from Leake, but denied that he was telling her to plead the Fifth. (No, the question didn't appear to be incriminating.) Afterward, when I asked him why he did that, Charleston told me she had already answered the question (she hadn't), and that the hearing was done by that point (it wasn't).
I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one anywhere. But as someone who's covered plenty of legal proceedings, I can't help but think antagonism and defiance toward the folks deciding your client's fate might not be the best tactic for one of these hearings. One board member told me afterward that s/he "chose not to penalize her [McAllister] for her lawyer's mistakes."
The reaction
McAllister had no comment after the hearing.
Board chair Larry Leake said that while McAllister's bookkeeping and memory were poor, he and his investigators had "found nothing" indicating any kind of criminal intent. If he had, Leake said, he would have referred the case to Colon Willoughby. His comments are here.
Joe Sinsheimer said he was glad the board had taken up the complaint, and hoped the fine would send a message to lawmakers who still aren't taking transparency seriously. He also described the hearing as embarrassing, and said he wonders whether McAllister's memory deficiencies affect her work on the Appropriations committee.
Jonathan Charleston told reporters today's message was that the board had found no evidence of criminal wrongdoing or intent in his client's mistakes. He reiterated that she has been fully cooperative, and is ready to pay the penalty imposed. His full comments are here.
The unanswered question
In testimony today, Leake asked McAllister several times about an apparently unrelated $5000 "cash" deposit into her money market account. McAllister said under oath she couldn't remember the source or anything else about the deposit, except that she was sure it wasn't cash.
Kim Strach testified that the bank records show it was, in fact, a cash deposit. Of course, Strach also testfied the bank had made some pretty serious errors on other counts, so a grain of salt seems called for.
But, still... Granted the money was personal, not campaign funds, which means she doesn't really have to account for it. But why is a 72-year-old non-profit director and lawmaker unable to remember a $5000 deposit, especially if it was cash? And why were the FBI, the SBI, and the IRS all in attendance today?
Comments? Drop me a line.
