PDC clears Peterson

The state of Washington’s Public Disclosure Commission has cleared two complaints, made by an Edmonds resident, against Edmonds City Councilman Strom Peterson. One of the complaints also additionally involved the city of Edmonds, the mayor, plus two other members of the council.

One of the official complaints, made Sept. 3 by Raymond J. Martin, charged that the city had used city resources to “promote and protect the interests of their specially chosen political candidate.” The candidate in question was Strom Peterson, who is running for Position 2. Martin stated that Peterson used the city’s website to assist his campaign for Edmonds City Council.

The PDC acknowledged that elected officials, their employees and persons appointed to or employed by a public office or agency are prohibited from using or authorizing the use of public facilities, directly or indirectly, for the purpose of assisting a candidate’s campaign. However the ruling stated that this prohibition “does not apply to activities that are part of the normal and regular conduct of the office or agency.”

In the PDC’s official response to the complaint, Doug Ellis, assistant director, stated that while the complaint “alleges that the City of Edmonds, Mayor Gary Haakenson, and Councilmembers D.J. Wilson and Ron Wambolt may have been responsible for Mr. Peterson posting promotional material on the city’s Web site, we are viewing (the) allegations as a complaint against Mr. Peterson.”

The allegations pointed to the city of Edmonds’ Web site. Within the biography information posted for City Council members, the complaint cites that Peterson’s content amounted to a “campaign brochure” as the wording matched a statement also on Peterson’s campaign Web site.

“PDC staff has reviewed Mr. Peterson’s statement, posted on the city’s Web site … and has concluded that there is insufficient evidence that the material posted by Mr. Peterson is a prohibited use of public facilities to promote Mr. Peterson’s election campaign,” Ellis wrote.

The response further punctuates that PDC staff does not believe that in this instance, the content posted by Peterson was a prohibited use of public facilities to assist his campaign. “Therefore, the PDC will not be opening an investigation into this matter.”

Ellis further stated that the prohibition does not prohibit officials from communicating with the public concerning the issues they are working on and their goals while in office. “It is important, however, that this type of communication not be used to campaign for reelection, and it would be prudent for the city to establish standards for what is expected on the biography page of its Web site.”

In a separate response to the same Edmonds citizen, the PDC cleared all charges of Peterson’s alleged failure to file Campaign Summary Receipts and Expenditures Reports in a timely fashion. Each of the four points made in the official complaint were struck down.

One point regarding a report unavailable for public viewing was the result of a “problem with the PDC viewing file.” Another point charged that contributions were not reported in August or the first half of September. However, the PDC states that three reports were filed in August and two in September. Two other accusations claim that contributions received July 28 and 29 plus one received July 15 were not reported. The PDC reports that the July contributions, required to be deposited within five business days, were deposited Aug. 3. The July 15 contribution was deposited nine days late, on July 31. The collaborative report was filed seven days late, on Aug. 10.

“The Michael Meeks accounting firm, which handles Mr. Peterson’s reporting, assured PDC staff that procedures are in place to properly and timely report … campaign finances. The late reporting noted … is not evidence of a material violation that warrants a formal investigation,” stated Ellis’ formal response.