The Citizens Clean Elections Commission postponed possible enforcement action against a newly elected member of the House when her primary election opponent expanded upon earlier allegations that she violated election laws and regulations.

The commission, which administers public campaign finance funds, met Nov. 16 on an agenda that included consideration of a complaint Rep. Clancy Jayne, R-6, filed Oct. 18 saying Pamela Gorman had violated a number of provisions of the Clean Elections Act and commission rules.

Before the meeting started, Mr. Jayne filed what he called an addendum to his complaint. He ran third in the in the GOP primary for the district’s two GOP nominations, which were won by Mrs. Gorman and Rep. Ted Carpenter, who both then won the general election.

In other enforcement matters, the five commissioners accepted the findings of agency Executive Director Colleen Connor that Warde Nichols and Steve Yarbrough had not violated the Clean Elections Act or commission rules.

In his newest complaint, Mr. Jayne said Mrs. Gorman couldn’t possibly have sent out the number and quality of mailings that she did without having spent more money than she reported having in her campaign treasury.

Mrs. Gorman’s campaign finance reports filed with the Arizona secretary of state report that she received a total of $54,806.77 in public campaign funds from the commission, of which she paid a total of $43,032.05 to a campaign consultant. Bluepoint Consulting, in turn, produced nine separate mailings touting Mrs. Gorman’s candidacy.

“I had a $70,000 [privately funded] campaign and I could only do two mailings,” Mr. Jayne told a reporter following the commission meeting. Mrs. Gorman’s “were slick, four-color mailers on card stock. There were 17,000 [high-propensity] voters in District 6. To even reach 14,000 of them with nine mailings would have easily cost $100,000. Either someone ‘ate’ part of the cost of the mailings or she spent more money than she reported.” “High-propensity” voters are those who have shown a history of actually casting a ballot.

Mrs. Gorman said Mr. Jayne’s allegations are nothing more than sour grapes.

“If I had spent my money the way Mr. Jayne did, I’d think it would have cost a lot more to run a successful campaign, too,” Mrs. Gorman said. She declined to detail her criticism of Mr. Jayne’s campaign spending. “I think anyone can see that just by looking at the reports.”

Mrs. Gorman said the cost of the mailings was somewhat lower than usual because she developed the “themes and wording” of the mailings herself. And, she said, Bluepoint Consulting creates mailings for candidates throughout the country, and therefore gets a price break on the volume of printing business it subcontracts out to at least three printers.

“I would think if Mr. Jayne’s allegations had any substance, he would have filed them with his original complaint,” Mrs. Gorman said. “Instead, he filed a supplement at the last minute to deny me due process. It’s just political grandstanding.”

Mrs. Gorman has five business days from Nov. 16 to respond to Mr. Jayne’s newest allegation, which, if the commission finds to be true, could result in Mrs. Gorman’s removal from office.

Mr. Jayne said, “A thorough forensic audit will tell who paid how much for what.”

The commission tabled consideration of other allegations against Mrs. Gorman until she has time to formally respond to Mr. Jayne’s newest complaint.

Mr. Jayne filed his first allegations against Mrs. Gorman on Oct. 18. In that original complaint, Mr. Jayne said his opponent violated a commission rule by conducting campaign finance activity through more than one account; that Mrs. Gorman had failed to make direct payment to providers of goods and services; that she had not provided detailed descriptions of services provided by a consultant; and that she had violated the $110 limit on a single petty cash expenditure. Ms. Connor, the executive director of the commission, stated in a memo that she had found violations on all but the first matter.

In her response on the first set of allegations, Mrs. Gorman said she nor her campaign had intentionally violated any regulations regarding payments and reimbursements for providers of goods and services and that, once informed of the problem with details on the payments to a consultant, had submitted additional invoices and details about goods and services the consulting firm provided.

Reps. Nichols, Yarbrough Did Not Violate Rules

In other enforcement matters, the commission accepted Ms. Connor’s findings that Mr. Nichols and Mr. Yarbrough, both Republicans who won re-election to the House in District 21, did not violate the Clean Elections Act or rules when Mr. Yarbrough paid the full cost for postage on a joint campaign mailing and then Mr. Nichols later reimbursed Mr. Yarbrough’s campaign for half the cost.

Ms. Connor said commission rule R2-20-703(C) specifically allows for joint expenditures as long as each candidate pays his proportional share of the cost.

The commission’s next meeting is scheduled for Nov. 30 —