I have two questions I want to make clear:
1. Does the committee support cash gifts to elected officials? Yes or no?
2. Questionable motives for running aside, why is the committee endorsing someone who (at best) was very careless about the moral implications of taxpayer dollars?
Starting in February of last year my opponent and her fiance aggressively lobbied for between $50k-$200k of the district's discretionary ARPA funding to renovate their private building (a dozen requests in less than five weeks), at one point bringing me an envelope with $500 cash, supposedly as a "business donation during COVID" (February 2022).
(Click here to download PDF.)
I was uncomfortable with the ethics of accepting the money, notified several fellow officials and city employees, and returned it.
A couple months later my primary opponent registered in the district and decided to run.
Following the committee's unusual decision to endorse my opponent on February 9th — unusual in that they rejected the Executive Committee's recommendation for endorsement, unusual in that I am the incumbent, and unusual in that there was no debate or discussion justifying their decision - I made our history more widely known on social media and in personal communications with committee members.
My opponent and her fiancé have both publicly acknowledged giving me the envelope with $500 cash (at the same time they were lobbying for ARPA funds) and maintain that it was charity for my business.
As the timeline and screenshots will show, the couple immediately stopped patronizing my business after attempting to donate $500 cash to it, ultimately dropping all pretense of support and civility as it became clear their building would not be funded by our district's ARPA funding.
Disappointingly, the committee has so far declined to comment or investigate further, and so I am left asking (via more public avenues) my questions about where they stand on the ethics of cash gifts.
It seems not only that there are no consequences for such ethically questionable actions, but that the committee is actively endorsing this behavior.
By failing to act decisively, the committee now invites the speculation that seats and influence are for sale.
We hope their silence is temporary.
In the meantime, we won’t be.
We’ll continue raising the bar for what it means to be transparent in local government and accountable to voters — renouncing backroom politics and dubious self-serving influences.
Uticans deserve leadership that can’t be bought and someone who is willing to do what’s right even when it’s unpopular amongst the powers that be.
