Possible enforcement actions against Rep. David Smith and Rep. Pamela Gorman are expected to be on the agenda for the next meeting of the Citizens Clean Elections Commission.

The commission, which administers public campaign funding, will meet at 9:30 a.m. Jan. 27 in the boardroom at 1616 E. Adams St.

The commission last October asked an outside auditing firm to examine the campaign finance reports of Mr. Smith, R-7, who at the time was running for the Legislature.

The audit report was expected to be delivered to the commission on Jan. 20.

Colleen Connor, executive director of the Clean Elections Commission, said the Jan. 27 agenda could include a proposed settlement with Mr. Smith, but said a tentative agreement had yet to be reached.

The five commissioners had convened a special meeting on Oct. 13, 2004, to consider a proposed settlement with Mr. Smith but decided against voting on the matter until they could get more information.

Ms. Connor had negotiated a proposed settlement of $2,500 with Mr. Smith for allegedly exceeding the primary election spending limit for publicly funded candidates and failing to pay vendors directly for goods and services and subsequently failing to fully describe the nature of the goods and services for which payments had been made.

The commission began looking into Mr. Smith’s finances after receiving a complaint from a former opponent, Thom Von Hapsburg, who ran against Mr. Smith in the House District 7 Republican primary.

According to a statement of findings that Ms. Connor supplied to the commissioners, Mr. Smith exceeded the $16,980 primary spending limit by either $4,232.92 or $15,233.32. Ms. Connor said that the Smith campaign’s entries in the Secretary of State’s campaign finance reporting system weren’t clear as to how much exactly Mr. Smith spent during the primary, and whether he had yet received his public funding before paying for services. State law and commission rules prohibit publicly funded candidates from incurring debt.

If Mr. Smith is found to have exceeded the spending limit by even $1,698, he could be removed from office. ARS 16-942(C) states that “Any campaign finance report filed indicating a violation of section 16-941, subsections A or B or section 16-941, subsection C, paragraph 1 involving an amount in excess of 10 per cent of the sum of the adjusted primary election spending limit and the adjusted general election spending limit for a particular candidate shall result in disqualification of a candidate or forfeiture of office.”

Critics – including Barbara Lubin, executive director of the Clean Elections Institute, and Ann Flora, spouse and campaign treasurer for former District 8 House candidate Royce Flora – said the proposed $2,500 settlement was insufficient punishment to fit the offense.

The enforcement matter regarding Mrs. Gorman also arose out of last fall’s elections. Clancy Jayne, a former District 6 House member who lost his bid for re-nomination in the September GOP primary in which Mrs. Gorman advanced, alleged in a complaint to the commission that a consultant working for Mrs. Gorman appeared to spend far more than the $43,032.05 she paid to Bluepoint Consulting.

At the time, Mrs. Gorman said Mr. Jayne’s allegations were nothing more than sour grapes from losing the election. —