4-6312-16361-CV

STATE OF MINNESOTA

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Curt Flug,                                     Complainant, vs.   Bob Gustafson,                                      Respondent.

FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND MEMORANDUM

The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on January 25, 2005, before a panel of three Administrative Law Judges:  Kathleen D. Sheehy (presiding judge), George A. Beck and Allan W. Klein.  The hearing record closed on January 25, 2005, at the conclusion of the hearing. 

Curt Flug (“Complainant”), 29009 Machmeier Court, Lindstrom, Minnesota 55045, appeared on his own behalf without counsel, but with assistance from Tony Peterfeso.  Bob Gustafson (“Respondent”), P.O. Box 395, Chisago City, Minnesota 55013, appeared on his own behalf without counsel. 

NOTICE

This is the final decision in this case, as provided for by Minn. Stat. § 211B.36, subd. 5.  A party aggrieved by this decision may seek judicial review as provided in Minn. Stat. § § 14.63 to 14.69.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1.           Did Respondent violate Minn. Stat. § 211B.06, by preparing and disseminating campaign material that contained false statements that Respondent knew were false or that he communicated with reckless disregard of whether they were false?

2.           If so, what remedy, if any, is appropriate?

Based upon the record in this matter, and for the reasons set out in the attached Memorandum, the panel makes the following:

 

FINDINGS OF FACT

1.           Respondent is a Chisago County Commissioner.  He has served continuously as a Chisago County Commissioner since he was first elected in 1991.  Respondent successfully ran for reelection against the Complainant on November 2, 2004. 

2.           On December 15, 2004, and January 12, 2005, the Complainant filed complaints with the Office of Administrative Hearings alleging that several statements in campaign material prepared and/or distributed by Respondent contained false statements.

(1) “Former law enforcement officer”

3.           In a campaign advertisement prepared by the Respondent and placed in the Chisago County Press on October 28, 2004, Respondent stated that he served as a “special officer with the St. Paul Police Department.”  A photograph of Respondent in what appears to be a police officer’s hat and uniform accompanied the written material.[1]

4.           In Respondent’s campaign filing statement published and distributed prior to the November 2, 2004 election, Respondent stated that he was a “former law enforcement officer.”[2]

5.           Respondent was never employed as a licensed peace officer or law enforcement officer in the State of Minnesota.  In April of 1974, Respondent worked as a security guard for Security and Alarms, Inc.  At that time, it was the policy of the St. Paul Police Department to commission security guards as “special police officers” and to issue them identification cards as a means of authorizing them to carry firearms while on duty.  The authority of security guards to protect property and keep the peace was limited to the location and scope of their employment.  They were specifically restricted from exercising any authority or wearing any badge of office outside of those limits.  At the request of Security and Alarms, Inc., the St. Paul Chief of Police commissioned Respondent as a “Special Police Officer” on April 26, 1974.[3]

6.           During the 1970s and early 1980s, Respondent obtained certificates of training and appreciation from various law enforcement correspondence schools, such as the “American Police Academy,” the “National Law Enforcement Academy,” and “Universal Detectives.”[4]

(2) “Appointment to State Fraud Investigators Association”

7.     In Respondent’s campaign filing statement published and distributed prior to the November 2, 2004 election, Respondent stated that he had been “appointed to the State Fraud Investigators Association.”[5] 

8.     Complainant alleged in his December 15, 2004, complaint that Respondent’s statement regarding his appointment to the Minnesota Fraud Investigators Association was false because “there are no records of any Fraud Investigators Association ever existing.”

9.     According to its website, the Minnesota Fraud Investigator’s Association is an organization of approximately 100 individuals from within the State of Minnesota that fights “fraud, waste and abuse in social service programs.”[6]  Its primary focus is to detect, eliminate and prosecute those who fraudulently obtain government benefits.  The association is made up of members primarily from state and federal agencies.[7]

10.  Respondent attended a training seminar put on by the Minnesota Fraud Investigators Association in May of 1995.[8]

11.  In 2001, Respondent was a member of United Council of Welfare Fraud, Inc., which is a national organization.[9]

(3) “Volunteer county recreation director.”

12.  In Respondent’s candidate profile that ran in the Star Tribune prior to the November 2, 2004 election, Respondent stated that he volunteers as the county recreation director.[10]

13.  In approximately 1989, the Chisago County Board of Commissioners eliminated the County’s recreation director position and placed the recreation department under the supervision of the County’s Engineering Department.  The Engineering Department budgeted approximately $1,275 per month for county recreation services in 1990.[11]  Thereafter, Respondent agreed to fulfill the former recreation director’s duties on a temporary basis for up to 20 hours a week at $5.00 per hour.[12] 

14.  In 1991, Respondent and other persons formed Chisago County Recreation Association (CCRA), a non-profit corporation providing youth and adult community recreation programs in Chisago County.  Respondent served as the director of CCRA and both Robert Meyer and Mike Cunningham served terms as president.[13]  Since Respondent has been a Chisago County Commissioner, he has not received a salary or wages for his recreation services from the County.[14] 

15.  In 1999, after an audit and an investigation by the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office into CCRA’s financial recordkeeping and non-profit status, CCRA dissolved.[15]  That same year, Respondent and his wife incorporated Chisago County Recreation (CCR), a for-profit company providing youth and adult community recreation programs.[16]

16.  Respondent is the director, owner and operator of CCR.  CCR organizes, coordinates and directs adult and youth recreation programs throughout Chisago County.  Respondent is not paid a salary for his services as director.  CCR contracts with various cities and townships within the County for its recreation services.  Payments made to CCR by cities and townships in 2004 ranged from $200 to $2,500.[17]  CCR also charges entrance fees of approximately $400 for adult softball league teams.  These fees and payments collected by CCR cover CCR’s costs of purchasing equipment and supplies, paying umpire fees, certifying and insuring coaches, and paying office expenses.[18] 

17.  The record is not sufficient to draw any conclusions as to whether CCR made a profit or a loss in any given year.[19]

(4) Kelly Gustafson’s “Tribute to My Dad” advertisement

(a) Respondent volunteered as the County’s recreation Director for the last 15 years and, in doing so, saved the County taxpayers over $100,000 annually. 

18.  On or about July 8, 2004, Respondent’s son, Kelly Gustafson, submitted an advertisement to the Chisago County Press entitled: “A Tribute to My Dad.”  The advertisement ran in the paper on July 8, 2004.  The advertisement listed Respondent’s contributions to Chisago County over the past 30 years.  Included in the list was the statement that Respondent has volunteered as the County’s recreation director for the past 15 years and, that in so doing, has saved the County over $100,000 per year in salaries (director and secretary) and office costs. 

19.  Records from the Chisago County Press show that the “Tribute to My Dad” advertisement was paid for in cash and the name “Bob Gustafson” appears in parenthesis on the line listing the party responsible for placing the advertisement.[20]

20.  Prior to the November 2, 2004 election, Kelly Gustafson mailed copies of “A Tribute to My Dad” to a limited number of family members, friends and residents of Chisago County.[21] 

(b)  Respondent gave the County Park Department $5,000 to build a new field at Ki-Chi-Saga park.

21.  The “Tribute to My Dad” advertisement also claimed that Respondent gave the County Park Department $5,000 to help build a new field at Ki-Chi-Saga park.[22]

22.  Laird Mork, the Chisago County Park Director, affirmed that the Respondent did donate $5,000 to Chisago County Parks for the completion of an additional ball field.  Respondent was recognized for his donation by induction to the County Park Division’s “wall of honor.”[23]

23.  In approximately the late-1990s, Respondent received a plaque from the County Board of Commissioners in recognition of his years of service promoting park development and recreation programs for youth and adults, and his “Level V monetary contribution enabling the completion of the additional ball field at Ki-Chi-Saga park.”[24] 

(5) “Attended more meetings on behalf of the County than the other Commissioners combined.”

24.  In a campaign advertisement prepared by the Respondent that ran in the Chisago County Press in October 2004, Respondent stated that he had “the responsibility for attending more meetings on behalf of the county than the other four commissioners combined.”[25] 

25.  In 2004, Respondent was appointed to 28 committees and was an alternate on three committees.  The other four commissioners were appointed to a total of 60 committees and were assigned to be alternates on 17 committees.[26]  Specifically, Commissioner Walker was appointed to 18 committees, Commissioner Montzka was appointed to 8 committees, Commissioner Olseen was appointed to 19 committees and Commissioner Robinson was appointed to 15 committees.

26.  The frequency with which committees met varied, with some meeting monthly or bi-monthly, and others meeting quarterly or only on an “as needed” basis.  Nineteen of Respondent’s 28 committees met either monthly or bi-monthly.  Only 13 of the other four commissioners’ committees met monthly of bi-monthly.[27] 

27.  Given the frequency with which Respondent’s committees met, Respondent was responsible in 2004 for attending more meetings on behalf of the County than the other four commissioners combined.[28]

(6) Mr. Flug “collected $45 per diem for every committee meeting he attends.”

28.  In a campaign advertisement prepared by Respondent that ran in the Chisago County Press in October 2004, Respondent stated that the Complainant had collected a $45 per diem for every committee meeting he attended.[29] 

29.  During 2004, Complainant submitted per diem requests of over $1,000 for approximately 25 meetings.[30]

30.  From July 2003 to September 2004, Complainant served on the County’s Land Use Steering Committee to help draft the County’s Comprehensive Plan.  Neither the Complainant nor any other member of this committee received per diems for their service.  The committee was established with the understanding that the members would be volunteers.  At the time the committee was created, it was anticipated that it would meet monthly.[31]

(7) Complainant “begged” Respondent to appoint him to the County Planning Commission.

31.  In late 1999 or early 2000, Respondent called the City Administrator for the City of Lindstrom, Mark Karnowski, and asked him if he had a recommendation for a candidate to fill a vacancy on the Chisago County Planning Commission.  Mr. Karnowski recommended the Complainant.  Respondent thanked Mr. Karnowski for his recommendation, called the Complainant to determine his interest in the position, and thereafter recommended that Complainant be appointed to fill the vacant County Planning Commission position.[32]

32.  A one-page campaign flyer prepared by Respondent’s nephew, Greg Stewart, and mailed to Chisago County residents in September 2004, stated that Respondent appointed the Complainant to the County’s Planning Commission only after the Complainant “begged” him to do so.[33]  The flyer was entitled, “Questions Being Asked By People In Our Community!” and contained the following disclaimer: “Paid for by Greg Stewart, P.O. Box 258, Chisago City, MN  55013.”

33.  According to records of the United States Post Office, Respondent’s home address is the street address listed for the boxholder of P.O. Box 258.[34] 

(8) “Presidential invitation to participate in round table discussion with White House staff.”

34.  In a campaign advertisement prepared by the Respondent that ran in the Chisago County Press in October 2004, Respondent stated that he was “invited to Washington D.C. by the president to participate in a round table discussion with White House staff” on nursing home and prescription drug costs.[35] 

35.  In Respondent’s 2004 campaign filing statement, he stated that “President Clinton had invited me to Washington D.C. to participate in a round table discussion with two of his staff regarding nursing home costs and prescription drug prices for seniors and the uninsured.”[36]

36.  In October 1999 and October 2000, Respondent was appointed to the National Association of Counties’ (NACo) Health Steering Committee.  NACo is a national organization representing county governments in the United States.[37]  Appointments to NACo’s policy steering committees are based on nominations it receives from state associations of counties.[38]  The steering committees are comprised of approximately 50-60 county officials who meet several times during the year to examine issues concerning local government.[39] 

37.  In March of 2002, Respondent attended NACo’s annual Legislative Conference in Washington D.C. along with other county commissioners.  During the conference, Respondent participated in a roundtable discussion.  And on July 18, 2002, Respondent received a letter from Eric Ciliberti, a White House staff person, thanking him for his participation in the roundtable discussion.[40]

38.  Respondent was not invited to Washington D.C. by the President of the United States to participate in a roundtable discussion on nursing home and prescription drug costs or other health care issues.  

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, the panel makes the following:

CONCLUSIONS

1.           Minn. Stat. § 211B.35 authorizes the Administrative Law Judge panel to consider this matter. 

2.           Minn. Stat. § 211B.01, subd. 2, amended in 2004, defines “campaign material” to mean “any literature, publication, or material that is disseminated for the purpose of influencing voting at a primary or other election, …”  The advertisements, candidate filing statements, and flyers at issue in this case are campaign material within the meaning of that statute.

3.           Minn. Stat. § 211B.06, subd. 1, provides, in part:  “A person is guilty of a gross misdemeanor who intentionally participates in the preparation, dissemination … of … campaign material with respect to the personal or political character or acts of a candidate … that is designed or tends to elect, injure, promote, or defeat a candidate for nomination or election to a public office …, that is false, and that the person knows is false or communicates to others with reckless disregard of whether it is false.”

4.           The burden of proving the allegations in the complaint is on the Complainant.  The standard of proof of a violation of Minn. Stat. § 211B.06, relating to false campaign material, is clear and convincing evidence.[41] 

5.           The Complainant has shown by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated Minn. Stat. § 211B.06, subd. 1, by preparing and disseminating campaign material that contained false statements that Respondent knew were false or communicated to others with reckless disregard of whether they were false. 

6.           The Complainant has established that the following statements in campaign material prepared and/or disseminated by Respondent are false and that Respondent knew they were false or communicated them to others with reckless disregard of whether they were false: (1) “former law enforcement officer”; (2) “invited to Washington D.C. by the president to participate in a round table discussion with White House staff”; (3) Complainant “collected a $45 per diem for every committee meeting he attended”; and (4) Complainant “begged” Respondent to appoint him to the County planning commission.

7.           The Complainant has failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that the other statements contained in campaign material and identified in the complaints are false and that Respondent knew they were false or communicated them to others with reckless disregard of whether they were false.

8.           These Conclusions are reached for the reasons discussed in the Memorandum below, which is incorporated into these Conclusions by reference.

Based upon the record herein, and for the reasons stated in the following Memorandum, the panel of Administrative Law Judges makes the following:

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent pay a civil penalty of $2,000 by April 8, 2005, for violating Minn. Stat. § 211B.06.[42] 

 

Dated this 8^th day of February 2005.

 

                   

/s/ Kathleen D. Sheehy

KATHLEEN D. SHEEHY

Presiding Administrative Law Judge

 

                   

/s/ Allan W. Klein

ALLAN W. KLEIN

Administrative Law Judge

 

 

/s/ George Beck

GEORGE BECK

Administrative Law Judge

 

 

 

 

MEMORANDUM

Minnesota Statutes § 211B.06 prohibits the preparation and dissemination of false campaign material.  Complainant argues that Respondent prepared and distributed campaign material that contained statements that were false and that Respondent knew were false or communicated to others with a reckless disregard of whether they were false.  Each of the specific statements at issue is discussed separately below.

“Former Law Enforcement Officer”

In various pieces of campaign material, Respondent stated that he is a “former law enforcement officer” and that he served as a “special officer with the St. Paul Police Department.”  Respondent has never been a licensed peace officer in the State of Minnesota.  Instead, Respondent was employed as a security guard in the mid-1970s.  Respondent was commissioned as a “special officer” at the request of his employer (Securities and Alarms, Inc.) and solely for the purpose of being authorized to carry a firearm.  By stating that he was a “special officer with the St. Paul Police Department” and a “former law enforcement officer” and by including a picture of himself in what appears to be a police officer’s hat and uniform, Respondent intentionally implied that he had been a licensed peace officer at some point in his career.  Complainant has established by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated Minnesota Statutes § 211B.06 because he knew these statements were false or communicated them to others with reckless disregard of whether they were false. 

“Appointment to State Fraud Investigators Association”

In various pieces of campaign material, Respondent stated that he had been “appointed to the State Fraud Investigators Association.”  Complainant alleged in his December 15, 2004 complaint that Respondent’s statement that he had been appointed to the Minnesota Fraud Investigators Association was false because “there are no records of any Fraud Investigators Association ever existing.”  However, records submitted by the Complainant during the hearing established that the Minnesota Fraud Investigators Association does in fact exist.  According to its website, it is an organization of approximately 100 individuals, primarily from state and federal agencies, whose main focus is the elimination of fraud and waste in government benefit programs.  Therefore, Complainant has failed to establish, as it alleged in its complaint, that Respondent’s statement is false because the Association never existed. 

At the hearing, Complainant argued that the statement was false because Respondent was never a member of the Association or appointed to the Association.  Respondent was a member of a national welfare fraud association, and records submitted by the Complainant established that Respondent did attend a training seminar put on by the Minnesota Fraud Investigators Association in May of 1995.  Neither the Respondent nor the Complainant submitted evidence as to how one becomes a member in the Minnesota association and whether appointment is part of the process.  The burden of proof is on the Complainant.  The panel concludes that the Complainant has failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent’s statement that he was appointed to the Minnesota Fraud Investigators Association is false and that Respondent knew it was false or communicated it with reckless disregard or whether it was false.

“Volunteer director of the Chisago County Recreation Association”

In campaign material, Respondent stated that he volunteers as the County recreation director.  Complainant alleges that Respondent’s claim that he volunteers in his position as director of Chisago County Recreation (CCR) is false because it implies that he receives no money for his services when in fact, according to the Complainant, Respondent’s private company makes a profit on the fees and payments it collects from teams and local cities and townships.  Both the Complainant and the Respondent submitted numerous documents concerning payments made to CCR and expenses paid out by CCR.  In the end, the documents submitted were insufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent does make a profit from his CCR endeavors such that calling himself a volunteer would be a false statement.  The panel concludes that the Complainant has failed to establish that this statement by Respondent is false and that Respondent knew it was false.

Kelly Gustafson’s “Tribute to My Dad” advertisement

Complainant alleges that two statements contained in Kelly Gustafson’s “Tribute to My Dad” advertisement are false. 

First, in order for the Respondent to have violated Minn. Stat. § 211B.06 with respect to this advertisement it must be established that he participated in its preparation or dissemination.  Respondent maintains that his son, Kelly Gustafson, wrote the advertisement on his own, submitted it to the local newspaper, and mailed it to family and friends in Chisago County.  The material is campaign material because it was “disseminated for the purpose of influencing voting.”[43]  Records from the County Press show that the “Tribute to My Dad” advertisement was paid for in cash and the name “Bob Gustafson” appears in parenthesis next to the term “cash sale” on the line listing the party responsible for placing the advertisement. 

Complainant alleges that the claim in Kelly Gustafson’s advertisement that Respondent has volunteered as the County’s recreation director for the past 15 years and that, in so doing, has saved the County over $100,000 in salaries and office costs is false.  Even assuming that the evidence is sufficient to find that Respondent participated in disseminating this advertisement, the Complainant has failed to establish that either the claim that Respondent volunteered as the recreation director or that the Respondent has saved the County over $100, 000 is false.  As discussed above, the Complainant failed to put forward sufficient financial evidence regarding CCR’s operations to conclude that Respondent use of the word “volunteer” is false.  In addition, Complainant failed to submit sufficient evidence regarding the cost of running the County’s former recreation department to conclude that Respondent’s claim the he has saved the County over $100,000 in the past 15 years is false.  The evidence that in 1990 the County only budgeted $1,275 a month for recreation activities after it eliminated the recreation director position and placed the department under the authority of the Engineering Department is simply not sufficient to determine what the costs of running a County recreation department would have been over the last 15 years.  Therefore, the Complainant has failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that these statements in the “Tribute to My Dad” advertisement are false and that Respondent knew they were false.

The Complainant has also failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that statement in the “Tribute to My Dad” advertisement that Respondent gave the County Park Department $5,000 to build a new field at Ki-Chi-Saga park is false.  Laird Mork, the Chisago County Park Director, affirmed in writing that the Respondent did in fact donate $5,000 to Chisago County Parks for the completion of an additional ball field.  And Respondent was recognized for his contribution with a plaque from the County Board of Commissioners and induction to the Park Division’s “wall of honor.” 

“Attended more meetings on behalf of the County than the other Commissioners combined.”

In a campaign advertisement, Respondent stated that he had “the responsibility for attending more meetings on behalf of the County than the other four commissioners combined.”  The records submitted by both parties showed that the Respondent was appointed to 28 committees while the other four commissioners were appointed to a total of 60 committees.  However, the frequency with which the committees met varied such that 19 of Respondent’s committees met monthly or bi-monthly, whereas only 13 of the other four commissioners’ committees met monthly or bi-monthly.  Respondent demonstrated that, given the frequency with which his committees met, he was responsible for attending more meetings on behalf of the County than the other four commissioners combined.  Therefore, the Complainant has failed to establish that this statement is false and violated Minnesota Statutes § 211B.06.

Mr. Flug “collected $45 per diem for every committee meeting he attends”

In a campaign advertisement prepared by Respondent that ran in the Chisago County Press in October 2004, Respondent stated that the Complainant has collected a $45 per diem for every committee meeting he attended.  The Complainant established that he did not collect a $45 per diem for the meetings he attended on behalf of the County’s Steering Committee between July 2003 and September 2004.  This committee was charged with drafting the County’s Comprehensive Plan and was set up as a volunteer committee with the understanding that no member would receive a per diem.  At the time the committee was created, it was anticipated that it would meet monthly.[44]  The Complainant has established by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent’s statement was false and that he knew it was false or communicated it with reckless disregard of whether it was false.

“Complainant “begged” Respondent to appoint him to the County Planning Commission”

A one-page campaign flyer prepared by Respondent’s nephew and mailed to Chisago County residents in September 2004, contained the statement that Respondent appointed the Complainant to the County Planning Commission only after the Complainant “begged” the Respondent to do so.  At the bottom of the flyer in very small print was the following disclaimer: “Paid for by Greg Stewart, P.O. Box 258, Chisago City, MN  55013.”  According to Post Office records, the street address listed for the boxholder of P.O. Box 258 is: 10756 Lake Street, Chisago City, Minnesota 55013.  This is the Respondent’s home address.[45]  Respondent denied generally that he participated in preparing or disseminating this campaign flyer, but he offered no explanation as to why his home address was listed as the boxholder address for P.O. Box 258.  The panel concludes that the Post Office records are sufficient to establish that Respondent participated in the preparation and dissemination of this campaign flyer. 

The panel further concludes that the Complainant has established by clear and convincing evidence that the claim in the flyer that Complainant “begged” to be appointed to the County planning commission is false and that Respondent knew it was false.  According to the evidence presented at the hearing, Respondent called the City Administrator for the City of Lindstrom for a recommendation of a candidate to fill a vacant position on the planning commission.  The City Administrator recommended the Complainant, and Respondent thereafter recommended to the Board of Commissioners that the Complainant be appointed to the planning commission.  Respondent presented no evidence to refute this account.  The panel concludes that the Complainant has established that the statement in Respondent’s campaign material that Complainant “begged” to be appointed is false and that Respondent knew it was false or communicated it to others with reckless disregard of whether it was false.

“Invited to Washington D.C. by the president to participate in a round table discussion with White House staff”

In various campaign material prepared by the Respondent, Respondent claimed that he had been invited by “President Clinton” or by “the president” “to participate in a round table discussion with White House staff” on nursing home and prescription drug costs.  These statements are not true.  At most, Respondent attended a conference of the National Association of Counties (NACo) in Washington D.C. with other county commissioners.  At this conference, Respondent participated in a round table discussion on health care issues.  In his campaign material, Respondent greatly exaggerated this experience to imply that the President of the United States personally selected him to participate in discussions with White House Staff.  These statements falsely inflated Respondent’s experience and were designed to promote his candidacy.  Complaint has established that these statements are false and that Respondent knew they were false or communicated them with reckless disregard as to whether they were false.

Having found that the Respondent violated Minn. Stat. § 211B.06, the panel may make one of several dispositions.[46]  The panel may issue a reprimand, may impose a civil penalty of up to $5,000, and may refer the complaint to the appropriate county attorney for criminal prosecution.  In this case, the panel has decided to impose a total civil penalty of $2,000. 

With respect to the false claim of being a police officer, the panel views Respondent’s conduct to be deliberate and unapologetic.  In fact, Respondent continued to insist at the hearing that he was a police officer, even after admitting that it was a security company that employed him when he was commissioned a “special officer.”  The panel also concludes that the claim of being a police officer had some impact on the voters given the esteem in which most people hold members of law enforcement agencies.  In addition, this claim required effort on the part of the Complainant to counteract, including contacting the Minnesota Peace Officer Standards and Training Board to determine if Respondent was ever a licensed peace officer.  The panel concludes that a penalty of $1200 is appropriate for this violation. 

With respect to the false presidential invitation claim, the panel views this statement to be ill-advised puffery on the part of the Respondent, but concludes that it probably had only minimal impact on the voters.  The panel concludes that a penalty in the amount of $300 is appropriate for this violation.  Finally, with respect to the “$45 per diem” statement and the “begging” statement, the panel views these to be negligent and ill-considered, but concludes that their impact on the voters was probably minimal.  The panel concludes that a penalty of $250 for each of these violations is appropriate.

K.D.S., G.A.B., A.W.K.