Josh, I've reviewed the papers and what Pageone says isn't as clear as alleging Conway did that. Pageone just points out the potential he could have and that the ethics commission did NOT, as Conway said they had, say Mongiardo had not stated a cause of action. What it said was that if Conway's 'compensation' suggested in M's complaint was campaign contributions rather than outright gifts, the ethics commission didn't have jurisdiction. All facts stated below are from Pageone's account:
When Dr. Dan filed the complaint there were 4 members of the commission, two GOP and two Dem. At the first meeting where the matter was discussed, no action was taken.
Then another Democrat was appointed. pageone does not SAY this person was a contributor to Conway or a supporter, but 'has the question' whether he might have been. Similarly pageone 'has the question' whether Conway might have been the 'Constitutional officer' who nominated the 5th person.
Apparently the LexintonHerald began to look into this but when the ethics complaint was dropped, stopped. However, pageone notes that the Conway campaign's description of why it was dropped differs from the letter Conway and Dr. Dan got about why it was dropped (Conway said Dr Dan hadn't stated a cause of action, the commission said good, bad or indifferent, the matter was one they had no jurisdiction to hear.)
so there are questions to be raised, not answers to just be spread around. I add one more question: Why did one of Conway's pertinent disclosures identify the large investment of energy stock at issue while the other didn't? And for this I cite a different authority; Marion County line:
http://www.marioncountyline.com/2010/06/conway-stall.html unfortunately at the time they linked the Appalachian news express by someone named Russ Cassady which link is now dead, and that is where the conflicting disclosure documentation was (and I am speaking from memory here.) I'm REMEMBERING reading there that one of Conway's disclosures had the info and the other covering the same period did not. This needs digging.
However, I think it is worth making this a project and will work on digging up the Appalachian news article, or failing that, Jacks' actual disclosures reported in that article (these are not the same disclosures that were due early this summer.) If you recall, Jack filed for an extension to file his later, summer, disclosures at the end of June (and they made a huge deal of Rand's failure to file for three days until Rand got them in.) Conway got an extension to file until the end of AUGUST on this so his having gotten hundreds of thousands from utility companies as an investor was further removed from the stink of his ethics complaint on conflict of interest in negotiating utility rates.
Beyond just forwarding what jake posted, however, I don't have a neat statement and the question is more "Who nominated the tie breaking member of the ethics commission who determined it had no jurisdiction over Conway's ethics complaint, and was the nominating party, or the nominated party, a Conway supporter? Or perchance did Conway nominate the tie breaking member himself?"
It seems to me the following facts can be determined:
1. Jack's disclosures with or without information on his huge purchases of energy stocks. (I'm remembering from that now dead link that that they contradicted each other. We have to be careful not to pickup 'amended' filings, but the originals.)
2. I'd like that Appalachian newspaper article, it had a lot more in it.
3. We should be able to find out who the members of the commission were when Dr. Dan filed his complaint, and by process of elimination figure out who the new guy was.
4. We should be able to find out if the new guy was a donor to Jack.
5. I would like to find out who nominated him but that might require information requests which I hope the campaign is doing, but which might or might not get a return of information before the election, so I don't want to wait on it.
I will spend some time today working on trying to get some of this info (1-4). Meanwhile, the pageone story should be passed to media, but we need to be careful to say it raises questions, not imply it provides all the answers.
coooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool
