Tinney, Scott: Alleged violation of RCW 42.17A.235, .240 & WAC 390-16-105 for exceeding mini reporting limits & failing to file campaign contribution & expenditures reports (EY22, NOV22 )

Case

#113805

Respondent

Scott Tinney

Complainant

Janice Montgomery

Description

The Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) completed its review of the complaint filed October 21, 2022. The complaint alleged Scott Tinney may have violated WAC 390-16-105 and and RCW 42.17A.235 and .240 by exceeding the expenditure limit for mini-reporting and failing to timely disclose contributions and expenditures.

PDC staff reviewed the allegations; the applicable statutes, rules, and reporting requirements; the responses provided by the Respondent; the applicable PDC reports filed by the Respondent; and other relevant information, to determine whether the record supports a finding of one or more violations.

Based on staff’s review, we found:

On July 15, 2021, Scott Tinney filed a Candidate Registration declaring his candidacy for re-election as the Lewis County Clerk, selecting the Mini Reporting option.
On April 5, 2022, Mr. Tinney filed a Personal Financial Affairs Statement for the period January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2021.
The Mini Reporting option is available to candidates who will raise and spend no more than $5,000, in addition to the amount spent on their filing fee, and who will receive no more than $500 from any one contributor other than themselves. A candidate who chooses mini reporting is not required to file C-3 and C-4 reports, disclosing contribution and expenditures, but must file a registration statement and keep records of their contributions and expenditures.
The complaint alleged Scott Tinney may have exceeded the mini-reporting limit due to “his 2017 campaign cost more than $5000, as evidenced by his 2017 PDC reports. Since he is actively campaigning with so many of the same materials it is questionable that he would qualify as a mini reporter for his 2022 campaign.” As well, the complaint alleged “there are so many large signs, and a Facebook comment from the candidate that more are coming; clearly, Mr. Tinney is not using only large signs he had from his previous campaign but has purchased more large signs this year.” And “the parade vehicle covered with many smaller signs, which are commonly not reusable from a previous campaign.” Ms. Montgomery also stated “he is adding to whatever supply of big signs he already had from the previous campaign, but his previousreporting failed to report how many signs he purchased, so there was no way for me to guess how many more signs & T-posts he was buying."
Scott Tinney responded to the complaint and stated, “The total expenditures made for my [current] campaign is $4,464.82, and the total amount of contributions received is $1,925.00 with the largest contribution being $250.00.”
As to the questions about the number of signs purchased for each race I will share the following information:

2017 campaign, those that read Vote for Scott Tinney

250 yard signs with 250 metal stakes

11 4x8 signs

2 4x6 banners

Total cost $2,473.87

2022 campaign, those that read, Re-Elect Scott Tinney

100 yard signs

20 4x8 signs

Total cost $2,137.47

Also, as to the photos attached to the original complaint showing me wearing 2 different colored shirts. I would like to assure Ms. Montgomery that both of those shirts are more than 5 years old. There were no campaign shirts made or purchased for the current election.
PDC staff noted, guidance provided on the PDC website from May 02, 2019, “How to report use of old campaign signs,” indicates if the signs were originally used in a prior run for the same office, there is not a reporting requirement although the PDC does recommend the candidate make a note for their own records that the signs were purchased, and reported, in a previous campaign.
On May 07, 2017, Scott Tinney registered with the PDC as a candidate for Lewis County Clerk under full reporting. After reviewing applicable 2017 campaign reports filed by Mr. Tinney, PDC staff noted the expenditure and in-kind contributions for sign costs were reported as required. A full review of reports filed for the 2017 campaign was not conducted because the scope exceeds PDC statute of limitations per RCW 42.17A.770.

Based on these findings, staff has determined, in this instance, the alleged violation of exceeding the expenditure limit for mini reporting does not amount to a violation warranting further investigation. The C-3 and C-4 reports of contributions and expenditures are not required for filers under the Mini Reporting option. Mr. Tinney was a mini filer, not required to file C-3 and C-4 reports.

Based on this information, the PDC finds that no further action is warranted and has dismissed this matter in accordance with RCW 42.17A.755(1).

Disposition

Case Closed with No Evidence of Violations

Date Opened

November 02, 2022

Areas of Law

RCW 42.17A.235, RCW 42.17A.240, WAC 390-16-105