As reported by Jack, the Auditor has rejected (pdf) Lucinda Tate’s request for certification as a publicly-funded candidate.
As it turns out, it’s for a technical violation of the code and administrative rules for the system. It seems that Tate filed certain paperwork in the wrong sequence.
The rejection does note that there is an active investigation into the now-infamous problems with signature sheet and donations gathered by Vladimir Golovan for Tate’s campaign and that of Emilie Boyles, but it does not directly state that incomplete investigation as the reason for the denial.
Sure is amazing how right Phil Stanford was when he said it would be a cakewalk to qualify for these public funds, ain’t it?
You’re right — that’s as ludicrous as the contentions that VOE would (a) attract lots of new blood into municipal races and (b) restore integrity to the electoral process.
Sten got his free money, though, and that’s important.
Well, not that anyone remembers, but despite being a VOE supporter, I wanted the Council to refer it directly to the voters, which would have meant no one was using it during this cycle, including Sten.
I argued at the time that there was a political smog around passing it just in time to use it oneself.
To make this work, you would need a much different qualification scheme, and some “passive traffic controls” to weed out obvious fakes.
Politically, you would need clear and obvious majority support (which this never had), and some way to fund it other than property taxes.
But that’s all water under the bridge now. It’s going to get voted down if it isn’t voluntarily repealed first.
No doubt, Sten & Blackmer screwed the pooch on this one. However, the VOE concept is a good one, and it would reduce the influence of the fat cats at City Hall. I hope VOE survives in some improved form, though it is doubtful the voters can be convinced that is worth the price. It’s too bad VOE was carefully crafted and sent to the ballot in the first place.