Secretary of State Jason Gant continues to violate the public trust. He's been so busy inserting his incurably partisan self into local primaries that he hasn't managed to get all of the pre-primary campaign finance reports up on time. As of yesterday morning, David Montgomery reported that the Secretary of State's office was missing pre-primary reports from 28 of the 97 Legislative primary candidates on Tuesday's ballot. That's 32%. By later in the day, Montgomery reports Gant had gotten the missing down to 16 candidates, 18% of those due.
Some of the missing are tardy filers (who are in violation of state law for not submitting their information by May 25). But some of the missing are from candidates who filed paper returns that Gant's office hasn't yet managed to transcribe into the public database. Those paper filers may have avoided the problems I heard from one candidate who said he was almost made late by the online reporting system's repeated deletion of data.
Yes, the online searchable database will be a boon to political reporters and campaign transparency once Secretary Gant knocks the kinks out of it. But now is the time for that boon. This isn't practice at Teen Republicans camp. This is the big show! Candidates! PACs! Fat-cat money! Fate of the Republic! You bang out kinks like dropped data and confusing data entry fields in trial runs months prior to the election so snafus like this don't deprive the public of vital information when they need it most.
Citizens need this information, and Gant isn't getting it to us. Bob Mercer notes that back in the old days—i.e., 2010—our last Secretary of State, Chris Nelson, got all the scans of paper finance reports up much faster than Gant is doing now. Secretary Gant is surely sick of hearing how much better Chris Nelson did his job... but maybe that's a sign, Jason, that you need to quit playing politics and do your job.
p.s.: Gant is apparently even slower at paying his bills than he is at posting pre-primary finance reports. According to the Gant for Secretary of State campaign committee's year-end report for activities in 2011, Gant has $60,249 in cash on hand, but the campaign still owes $173,306. Also worth noting: even after winning the election and taking office, the Gant campaign took $2,205 in unitemized donations and spent $2,102 on advertising and $3,878 on travel. Let's hope Gant is running the Secretary of State's office with a bit more fiscal restraint.
pp.s.: Former Secretary of State, now Public Utilities Commissioner Chris Nelson makes one appearance in the pre-primary campaign finance reports. He has contributed $250 to über-bidnessman John Teupel's campaign for District 31 House.
When Gant's office sent out instructions for submitting the 2011 campaign finance reports, they covered only the online system. It did not delete data; it refused to accept it. Only after I e-mailed the office was I informed that I could submit paper copies of the report. However, the SOS office has known since early this year that the online system had serious bugs.
As for Gant's tardiness, it is ironic that he sends out a press release acknowledging the court's overturning of his rejection of candidate registrations with "This court case arose because of errors on Mr. Johnson’s nominating petitions which were turned in far too late for my office to offer corrective advice. Fortunately, we were able to help more than a dozen candidates who experienced similar problems, which is why we stress so strongly that candidates turn in their petitions early."
That statement reeks of Pat Powers, whose thinking and diction are difficult to disguise.
It must be frustrating for everyone working with or for Gant and Powers that their actions have put the SoS office in such a poor light.
I think we all knew that Gant and Powers got their jobs because they were with the in crowd. Too bad that now we are finding the "in" to mean:
in-competent
in-cestuous
in-appropriate
in-ept
in-capable
in-cahoots
Jason and Pat need to figure out that they don't work for the party anymore, they work for the people of South Dakota. Just not sure that they agree with that.
Who is in charge of the oversight of Gant and the SoS office? Ultimately, this incompetence lands on their desk(s).
Recall petitions? ¿
Jana, great post!
Jana, that sounds like a rhetorical question. :-) Since SOS is elected, I assume he answers directly to us. Alas, John, recall is not an option. South Dakota pioneered initiative and referendum, but we do not allow recall of state officials. I think we can only recall mayors.
The legislature can impeach him (and I've heard a few rumblings...)
Impeachment?! We can do that to the SOS? And you've heard rumblings? Wow to both!
Perhaps it is unrealistic of us to expect young Mr. Gant to ship shape up that whole office all so quickly. Let's give him a little time to get it done before we castigulagate him with castigulagations.
Grudznick, I believe that most people would agree that Gan's predecessor had the office in pretty good shape when he left.
There's still way too much party-love over people-love every where. See: Wisconsin, June 5, 2012.
SD won't impeach a SoS. It will be hard to get Gant Powers out in 2 years, even. Who's going to run against them?
Give him a little time? He's had a year and a half to get ready for the primary. This is a real election, with real consequences. We don't have any more time to practice. We elect public officials with an expectation that they can handle the job on day one.