Ticket Number: 
14915
Complainant: 
Glen Morgan
Respondent: 
Bailey Stober
Created Date: 
March 7, 2017
Status of Investigations: 
Case Closed with Reminder
Description: 

Two complaints were filed against Bailey Stober for PDC Case 14840  and PDC Case 14915 as follows:  

 

PDC Case 14840: The complaint alleged that Mr. Stober, as a 2015 candidate for Kent City Council, may have violated RCW 42.17A by failing to timely file a Candidate Registration (C-1 report) accurately disclosed campaign information and by failing to timely and accurately file Monetary Contribution Reports (C-3 report), and Campaign Summary Full Campaign Contribution and Expenditure reports (C-4 reports) disclosing contribution and expenditure activities, including in-kind contributions, loans and outstanding debts/obligations.

 

PDC Case 14915: The complaint alleged that Mr. Stober, as an exempt employee of the King County Assessor’s Office, may have violated RCW 42.17A.555 by using King County facilities to support or oppose a candidate or ballot proposition, both as an individual and in in his capacity as Chair of the King County Democratic Central Committee (KCDCC).

 

PDC staff’s review found that Mr. Stober’s 2015 Campaign for Kent City Council substantially complied with the C-3 and C-4 reporting requirements concerning the timely filing and disclosure of campaign contribution and expenditure information.  Based on the fact that the 2015 Campaign timely filed campaign finance reports, and the Attorney Generals Office has taken action concerning the failure to maintain campaign records, staff has determined that in this instance, Bailey Stober’s failure to timely file and accurately file PDC reports does not amount to actual violations warranting further enforcement.

 

However, PDC staff reminded Bailey Stober about the importance of timely and accurately filing C-1, C-3 and C-4 reports disclosing contribution and expenditure activities, including the reporting of debts and obligations, and especially maintaining the campaign books of accounts, as required by PDC laws and rules.

 

Based on this information and as noted above, the PDC has dismissed the two complaints for PDC Cases 14840 and 14915, in accordance with RCW 42.17A.755(1).