13 Comments - Oswego Willy - Monday, May 16, 16 @ 2:41 pm: July 1st. That’s it. Last stop on the bus… - 47th Ward - Monday, May 16, 16 @ 2:48 pm: Regardless of what info he provides, I think this needs to go to a public hearing. He’s the Auditor General with a ten-year term. I like the guy, but this is a problem of his own making and he’s going to have to sort out and let the chips fall where they may. - Pot calling kettle - Monday, May 16, 16 @ 3:09 pm: A lot of political hay has been made on this, but I find it telling that no one on the Republican team ever saw any problems with Mautino’s reports before. The narrowed scope is an indication that the expenditures were not really an issue. The reports are also clear how the money was spent; unfortunately, some of those expenditures are not reported in an appropriate way. In the report for the last quarter of 2014, items tagged as “received by” Spring Valley City Bank have “15 phone bankers@$140 ea,33 walkers@$120 ea Committee for Frank J Mautino” and “44 poll watchers@$125ea 30 phone callers@$100 ea. 15 callers in Streator @$100 Committee for Frank J Mautino” listed under “Purpose/Beneficiary.” I would guess that the Board of Elections wants this type of expenditure shifted away from the bank. That will take some time, but I would also guess Mautino’s people will be able to make this fix before July 1. - A guy - Monday, May 16, 16 @ 3:18 pm: ===but I find it telling that no one on the Republican team ever saw any problems with Mautino’s reports before.=== you do know that the job he’s been hired into makes this a bit more relevant, don’t you? It is a bit surprising that a past opponent didn’t take a swing at this though. - Mama - Monday, May 16, 16 @ 3:30 pm: The question is, does Frank have records of the information they need? - Pot calling kettle - Monday, May 16, 16 @ 3:51 pm: ==this is a problem of his own making == Actually, this was created by the “Edgar County Watchdogs” who got their reports republished with very little checking by various “news” organizations around the state. (I know this because I called a few reporters after I had checked the BOE-filed reports.) Mautino’s reports are clear with respect to how the money was spent, but the details appear to be in the incorrect column (with respect to the bank stuff) or less detailed than the Board has now decided they need to be (with respect to the gas station). If there were serious problems, an opponent would have been all over this. One of the easiest ways to get stuff to use against your opponent is to browse disclosure reports. A local opponent would know that Mautino ran his own campaign and also supported the local county parties in three counties AND that Happy’s was the logical place to have workers gas and service their cars (the only service/gas station in town). Opponents would also know that local residents would know the same thing and understand how the money was spent. If I put on my tin foil hat, I wonder if this info was given to the ECW guys by some Raunerites who knew that it could get some wings if it were taken out of the local context and put into a media-scape at a time when reporters don’t have the time or inclination to check the background beyond asking the accused for comment. In this case, that works especially well, because the Auditor General is not likely to comment on political accusations, has just cleaned out his office, and has no campaign funds with which to pay some people to go through what records remain. But, that’s only when I put on my tin foil hat. - Big Muddy - Monday, May 16, 16 @ 4:14 pm: =Mautino’s reports are clear with respect to how the money was spent= Daft statement. Go read the reports and try again. Once you read a few years of Mautino’s quarterly reports you most certainly have even more questions than when you started. Any time you put “no one vendor was paid over $150.00″ you’ve admitted you know the rules but will not comply with them. Is that acceptable behavior for our Auditor General?? - A guy - Monday, May 16, 16 @ 4:58 pm: ===But, that’s only when I put on my tin foil hat.=== Might want to put on your glasses while you’re at it too. I like Frank. Always have. But this report is a mess with a lot of questionable bookkeeping in there. At the very least, and I mean the very, very, very least, it’s careless bordering on reckless. He’s got a lot of explaining to do here. - wordslinger - Monday, May 16, 16 @ 5:28 pm: What 47 said. Public hearing, regardless. - Arthur Andersen - Monday, May 16, 16 @ 6:17 pm: Agree with 47 and word 100 percent. Tell us Pot, do you regularly call reporters after you get curious about the origin of a story? I could be wrong, but that seems like maybe you have some skin in the game here. Something is not right when you assert that “you have read the reports are clear with respect to how the money was spent.” That’s simply incorrect. I’ve read the reports, and I’m as good with cipherin’ as the next guy, and they are a confusing, meandering, mess. I also think you’re giving the SuperStars credit where it’s not deserved in suggesting they would be able to execute a political smear this artfully. - Pot calling kettle - Monday, May 16, 16 @ 8:06 pm: After I read the original reporting by ECW, I was curious. So, I went to the BOE web site and read through all of the reports going back to the first one filed in the early 90’s. I added up all the money paid to the bank and separated the loans from the cash. The ECW’s numbers were misreported. When a Cicago TV reporter repeated those numbers, I contacted him and asked if he checked what he had been given. He had not. That made me curious, so I contacted others as well. It was January, and I was bored. - titan - Monday, May 16, 16 @ 9:27 pm: Rich - the board didn’t narrow the focus. The complaint only raised issue with those 2 sets of expenses - Bruce Rushton - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 1:21 pm: ==After I read the original reporting by ECW, I was curious. So, I went to the BOE web site and read through all of the reports going back to the first one filed in the early 90’s.== Point of clarification, it isn’t possible to go to the BOE’s website and check reports going back to the early 1990’s. Full digitization didn’t begin until, if I’m not mistaken, the early 2000’s. Earlier than that, you have to go to the BOE in person and look through microfilm. Otherwise, you’re looking through summaries, and the issues here have to do with what’s in detailed reports. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.