- meeting of the Monroe County Election Board. It is difficult for us to see if someone's hand is up on
- the monitors because of their placement. So excuse me we would appreciate it if you would let us know
- if a hand comes up if someone wants to speak because it's difficult to see that and for future meetings
- to be really nice to have that back in front of us so we can see it. So I will then call this meeting to order.
- if I haven't already done that. So we have candidate challenges. So we'll just begin by letting the
- challenger state their case on the first one, which would be the one for the Clear Creek Township Trustee.
- Good afternoon, members of the election board. My name is Chrissy Gales and I am the chair of the Monroe
- County Democratic Party. I'm appearing today on behalf of the party to respectfully request that the
- board uphold the challenge to the candidate filing submitted by Ms. Thelma Jeffries for Clear Creek
- Township Trustee. Indiana law requires candidates to submit accurate and complete filing documents under
- penalty of perjury as a condition for appearing on the ballot.
- These disclosures exist to ensure transparency and to provide voters and election officials with truthful
- information about those seeking public office. In their most recent filings, Ms. Jeffries indicated
- that she has no occupation and no income. Given her role as the incumbent township trustee, this statement
- raises legitimate questions about whether the filing accurately reflects her current economic status.
- When required disclosures appear incomplete or unclear, review by this board is both appropriate and
- necessary.
- The Office of Township Trustee is one of the most direct and consequential roles in local government.
- Because this position involves stewardship of public resources and direct service to vulnerable members
- of our community, transparency and accountability are essential. Clear and accurate disclosures help
- maintain public trust in those entrusted with these responsibilities.
- This challenge is neither partisan nor intended to be punitive. It is about ensuring that all candidates
- are held to the same legal standards and that the integrity of the filing process is preserved. The
- statutory deadline to amend the Can 12 filing passed at noon on February 13th. At this point, the filing
- cannot be corrected. The only remaining question before the board is whether the filing was accurate
- when it was submitted.
- Given that Ms. Jeffries failed to list her position as the Clear Creek Trustee, which provided her with
- income in 2025, it is Ms. Jeffries' responsibility to show this election board that she correctly completed
- her CAN 12. Based on the record before you, the board must either uphold the challenge and remove her
- name from the ballot, or dismiss the challenge and allow her candidacy to proceed.
- Public trust in our elections depends on consistent standards, honest disclosures, and equal accountability
- for every candidate. Upholding this challenge affirms that commitment. Thank you. Ms. Jeffries, do you
- wish to speak?
- supposed to sign this in yes I'm Kelly Jeffries trustee at Clear Creek Township okay
- The first thing I need to do is apologize. And this is a misunderstanding. When I turned in all my forms
- for reelection, Angie said, well, there's one more that you need to fill out. And so she got that form
- for me, Form 12.
- I understood her to say, it doesn't apply to you. You can put N.A. on each line and sign the back of
- it. And I don't know if she was still at the counter. I think she turned around for a little bit, but
- she saw me, I'm sure, start with the N.A. on each line. And then I flipped the paper over and signed
- it and she notarized it.
- So the only thing I can think of is she probably used the word if, and if it doesn't apply to you, you
- can put N-A on each line, but I didn't hear that word.
- to Angie, you are referring to the Angie who works in Election Central? Okay, and you're saying that
- she directed you to put in A, and because of that you didn't read? No, no, I'm not saying you are, but
- I'm saying does that mean that you then did not read to know what you were putting in A, too?
- spouse for 50 years. I didn't think any of it applied to me. So. An employer to mean a job somewhere.
- Yes. If I I mean if I had read that. I guess legally I'm really not employed. I'm a public servant.
- have been for 36 years so I'm just I'm just sorry that I didn't I was speaking to another lady that
- was with me and talking to her about running for the township board and that was Kat Reynolds and she
- was with me and she did end up running for the township board but
- All I can say is I'm sorry, and I'm not blaming Angie at all. It's me. So I'm just sorry for not really
- taking the time and reading all of it.
- what I've understood the instruction on the on the form. I just want to clarify that in our office we
- have said that for if it does not apply to you to do put in a so it could have been a miscommunication
- it could have also been just the miss of one word
- Um, and then also I wanted to say that there is an individual with their hand up online. Okay. We can't
- read that. So whoever is, has their hand up online, go ahead. Uh, yes. Hi, this is trying to interact.
- Randolph. Um, I'm actually only raising my hand because, uh, Ms. Giffins, I think your mic was up.
- off and I would we online weren't able to hear what you were saying and if it's on there's a technical
- issue happening. Thank you. I don't know if my mic's working better now but I had it it's working better
- now. Okay I had asked Miss Jeffries if this was the 10th time that she had filed for office and it would
- have been the 10th time that she had completed either this form or something very similar to it.
- I did not realize that an employee from Election Central would be named in this. Is it possible that
- she has a prepared statement or? I can ask really quickly. Question while you're doing that. Is there
- a primary challenger for this position?
- and let Kylie make that reach out to that. As far as the public knowing my salary and everything that's on
- the annual report that's published every year. So it's not something that was hidden or intended to
- be hidden. So she did say the same as what I had said. She said in all of the encounters she has said
- if it does not apply to you, then to put in a.
- And you're saying you missed the word if. I said if, it doesn't apply to you. Put NA on each line. And
- I thought she meant, you know, to make sure you put NA on each line that was on there, so I did. But
- what I heard was,
- It doesn't apply to you, put N.A. on each line. Yes, go ahead. It does look like she thought she was
- supposed to put N.A. on every line because then after the N.A. And then the title.
- Kelly Jeffries on the first line and Clear Creek Township Trustee on the second. Sorry, what? It's on
- your KN12. It has your name and then it's asked the elected office what you're seeking. And you first
- put NA on both of the first two lines.
- I don't know. I don't know. That's not on my copy at all. So somebody else in a clerk's office completed
- that? Not the clerk's office. Well, it would have been the election. Yeah. That means somebody altered
- your form. I don't know. We need to ask Angie
- This is hearsay if it doesn't come directly from Angie. And at this point, I would like for people to
- be sworn in as they testify. That's what's supposed to happen according to the law. Relax. We can get
- her here. We can get her here. Ms. Jeffries testify under oath either, which is what I thought the law
- says is supposed to happen here.
- Take your time. So you were working. Take your time. Go ahead whenever you're ready. Can you hear me?
- Oh, there it goes. I think we can fix this issue. I do think in looking at the Election Administrator's
- Manual the witnesses were supposed to be sworn in and so at this time if the Chair is agreeable I can
- swear in both Ms. Giles and Ms. Jeffries at the same time and then I'll ask some follow-up questions
- after that oath.
- Ms. Jeffries and Ms. Giles, can you raise your right hand please? Do you swear that the testimony that
- you are going to provide or that you have provided at this meeting is the truth? Okay, so now you've
- taken the oath and we've kind of done this out of order. You should have taken the oath before your
- testimony. Does the administration of that oath change in any way the testimony that you've already provided?
- And I'm going to state for the record that both witnesses have taken the oath and then affirmed that
- the oath in a way changed their testimony. Thank you. So the question actually turns out to be, is there
- any law as to who writes down the name on a sheet as long as it's? For me, the issue is when it was
- written down, if it was written down after.
- Ms. Jeffries left the office. That is not the way protocol should go. It should have been done before
- she signed anything. Would you like me to go and have the office closed, the door locked, and bring
- up the individuals? Is there only one person in the office?
- process of processing this report. As much as I hate to do that, it probably would be beneficial to
- have whoever took this form be here. You can do that. Now, go ahead. It looks like it's on.
- Let me reset these mics. They've got something going on and they're not releasing properly. Do that
- and we'll let them get the people up here and also get a clarification while that's going on. So we'll
- be recessed until 1.52. Okay, I have 1.52. I'll call the meeting back to order. I'll be waiting for
- them to get here.
- We are going to move on to the second challenge. So Ms. Giles, if you would like to speak to the second
- one, please.
- second filing challenge that we were interested in pursuing today is in relation to Miss Dawn Durnall
- filing for Richland Township Trustee. It would appear that there was no discernible notary seal on the
- copy of the filing that we received after some discussion with
- Ms. Ferris, it appears that it's possible that the original filing had a physical seal on it that just
- did not copy well in the copying procedure. And if that is the case and there is the notary seal on
- the original filing, then I intend to withdraw my challenge for that filing. I have that copy, the original
- right here, if you want to come check it. Is that allowed out of your office?
- the paper? Yes. Yes. Yes. It is evidence. Okay. But I would have thought that Mr. Nell would supply
- her own evidence. I mean, that satisfies my challenging question. I'm comfortable to withdraw my filing
- challenge for this one. Thank you. Yes. Thank you. All right. So now we will we will await their arrival
- and continue. Yes, go ahead.
- In the meantime, I can answer maybe the question you proposed about the candidate or who fills out this
- form. Go ahead. Sorry. In looking at the statutes, all the statutes reference the individual running
- for office. So the section, a candidate for a local office shall file a statement. Another statute says
- the individual.
- So it does make it sound like the candidate is the individual who does have to fill out the form. And
- I also would point out that the form is on the back. There's an affirmation to be completed by the candidate.
- And so if someone else was filling out the form or added information, the candidate would still have
- to affirm that the information set forth in the statement is true and complete. And so I think that
- affirmation is there because the individual filling out the form is
- supposed to be the candidate. She has signed it. Correct. Signed. And then while I was looking in those
- code sections, I did want to draw your attention to one other, which has a definition of employer, which
- I think is pertinent to this question. So according to Indiana statute 3898,
- A statement must set forth the following information, the name of the employer, the nature of the employer's
- business. And for purposes of the subdivision, employer means any person from whom the filer or the
- filer spouse receives more than 33 percent of the filers or the filer spouse's income. Can we ask?
- question. Absolutely. Absolutely. So Miss Jeffries earlier you said that you didn't view yourself as
- employed. Do you get a W-2 from the Clear Creek Township Trust and a W-2 is only issued by an employer,
- correct? Right. It was, it's an old law and I had it written down.
- An elected official is not an employee. It is tax-wise. Labor-wise, it's not. Ms. Turner-King, could
- you verify what was just said? Ms. Jeffries indicated that there's an old law, but I don't know if it's current.
- indicating that an elected official is not an employee? I can. It might take me a minute to try to figure
- out where that might be. Federal. It's federal. Does that only apply to federal employees then? Federally
- elected officials, does it apply to? It didn't say federal employees. I can start digging in federal
- code, but I don't know how quickly I'll find that.
- The whole thing boils around whether or not that classifies as an employer or not by law. So that's
- why we need to have an answer to that when we can.
- What's the disadvantage to having election central in the new building versus the old building? It's
- not a two-block walk anymore.
- So I did locate in federal code in the equal employment opportunity section and within the definition
- section it does state the term employee means an individual employed by an employer except the term
- employee shall not include any person elected to public office in any state or political subdivision
- of any state by the qualified voters thereof or any person chosen by such officer to be on such officers
- personal staff
- or an appointee on the policymaking level, or an immediate advisor. And then it lists a whole bunch
- of other, but I think the question's answered. However, that's in the civil rights equal employment
- opportunity section of federal code. And I'm not sure, without some further research, how that code
- section interplays with what is in Indiana state code.
- because the code section itself pertaining to CAN 12 defines employer in a way that I do think includes
- public official if indeed the income for which Ms. Jeffries receives as trustee accommodates for 33%
- of her income. Well, the question, though, sounds like does federal law supersede state law in this?
- Typically it does, yes. But it's not in a code section that I would normally expect to find it. It's
- just in the definition section of that equal employment opportunity. Thank you. Ms. Jeffries, you have
- someone who's come to sit beside you with that. Is that moral support or does she wish to add something
- to the? Both. She was with me. When you filled it out? When I filled it out.
- I think that would be some interesting information to have added to this.
- and nothing is on there. And it doesn't have the name up on the top. Yeah, they just got here. Okay.
- Ms. Ferris, would you have your employees? Yeah, go ahead. I'm sorry. Go ahead. Could we have this read
- into the record that the statement that copy that Ms. Jeffries just shared with us does not have either
- her name or the position she was seeking on the copy that she was given?
- Go ahead. I was going to say both Kelsey Rubio and Angela Flick are both here. They are both the full-time
- individuals from the office. On this, I also want to state in the past with my predecessor, if there
- was an amendment that needed to be changed, you would make that and then put your initials next to it.
- let Clerk Brown know about this also, and I noticed that the initials are missing on this one. And when
- looking back at this document, I realized that this is the one that we had with Kelsey. She had asked
- me about this, and it was connected to her filing, had her signature on the back, so we knew it had
- connected to her. Yeah. That there was an omission of the initials by the person who
- completed the candidate who had made the amendment yes made the amendment to the paper so what do you
- what do we need to do there well I think um I'm not sure it was miss Jeffries indicating that miss Reynolds
- would be providing
- Additional statements or as both parties presented their case and you're now deliberating like I don't
- know where we are in the hearing If you have something to add to this it would be this would
- be an appropriate time I think I would have to administer an oath first. Thank you. Please do. Can you
- please raise your hand? Oh You're right one Can you say your name?
- Ms. Reynolds, do you swear or affirm that the information you're about to provide to the election board
- will be true and accurate? Yes, ma'am. For the record, Ms. Reynolds has taken the oath. Oh, go ahead.
- If you have something to add to her. I heard pretty much the same thing Thelma stated. And when I filled
- mine out, I took it to mean, was there a conflict of jobs?
- With Elma filled that out, she saw that part. I think she was seeing no, there was no conflict of her
- being trustee or anything on that part. It was an honest to God mistake in my mind. Thank you. Welcome.
- Are you reading code?
- I reached out to both of the attorneys at the Indiana election division and this is about the employer
- and the statement must set forth the following information for the preceding calendar year so it would
- be a year before or 2025 since she filed in 2026.
- name of the employer, the nature of the employer's business. For this subdivision, the employer means
- any person from whom the filer or the filer spouse received the income. And that's what we were talking
- about earlier. I was trying to ascertain whether it could be misconstrued as outside employment since
- they're asking about your spouse as well.
- I had also reached out to Matt, the attorney, the Democratic attorney. I have a copy of his email back
- to me that I'd be happy to share. This is dated February the 4th, 2026 at 4.30 p.m. and he said the
- CAN 12 defines what an employer is and then he said at the end, he said, if an elected official who
- is filed for reelection or filed to run,
- for another office received more than 33% of their income in 2025 from the salary for the elected office.
- Then he assumes that meets the definition of an employer. And the other attorney indicates in a message
- to me that it may vary depending upon the facts. And Miss Jeffries, I'm trying to just ascertain what you
- what you thought you were responding to when you put not applicable on your employer. Does that make
- sense? In a way, yes. When you reached out and put not applicable, did you see the part where it was
- asking you for the name of an employer? No.
- legal counsel a question? Sure, go ahead. It is my understanding that the people in the election office
- are not to serve as the police, but they're also not the people that are legally required to provide
- information about what goes on a form. Is that correct?
- my response is that the person legally required to provide what is on the form is the person affirming
- to it, which would be the candidate. Thank you. So we waited for the ladies to come from Election Center.
- Do we have something from them?
- if you want to bring them onto the record also. But like I said, going back, looking at this, I realized
- that this was one of the situations that we had handled in the office and then clarified that with you
- guys. If you guys want to ask more questions, I mean, it's completely up to them. I asked them to make
- themselves available to this meeting if you had any questions for them. Yeah, why don't we swear them
- in in case somebody wants to ask them a question?
- Hello, can you both please raise your right hand? Can you state your name, please? Ms. Rubio and Ms.
- Flick, do you swear or affirm the information you're about to provide the election board will be true
- and accurate? Please let the record reflect. Both witnesses took the oath. So a question I would have
- is, does one of you remember working with her paperwork
- I'm sure you had, you both did. If I may chair, it might be beneficial if they move to a mic so that
- the recording picks us up. I need to sign. After it wouldn't hurt. I would like to add just one thing.
- My packet to turn in the
- registration forms and everything. We got off the internet and it didn't print the form 12. That's why
- I didn't have it when I turned it all in. Thank you. What I'm after from you two is, do you recall about
- the name being put on when it would, if you remember, just enlighten us, please. I asked Kylie when
- I was scanning the forms in the next day,
- process them to add to the county website the day after they filed. So she wasn't in the office anymore
- when we realized her name was not on it. I asked Kylie if I should add it, and she told me yes, and
- I just forgot to initial that I added her name in office. So that was your writing for her name? Yes,
- that's my handwriting. And the precedent had been that if the candidate had left and some information needed to
- clarifying information to identify the candidate for whom the form belonged that you would add that
- name and the office you didn't you didn't respond to anything else and and you just neglected to initial.
- That is correct. Yes.
- Oh, I'm sorry, Kyle, if you start to say something, go ahead. No, you're fine. I was going to say, also,
- moving forward, we could set a policy with the election board on this, since this was something from
- the predecessor of my position. Just that way, we have better clarification. Everybody's on the same
- board. Then we probably would be good to have a checklist of things to look at before someone who files
- leaves the office. I mean, which of us hasn't needed a checklist at some point in time in our life?
- I was looking at something earlier
- and now I can't remember where I saw it, but it was about whether or not it rendered someone ineligible
- for the office. You know, and we had the last challenge that we had and the last challenge that we had,
- the defense was that the candidate made a mistake.
- that was otherwise eligible to run for that office. So that's where I am in terms of. So there's precedent
- that someone made a mistake. There's a precedent that even though they may have signed saying, I affirm
- under penalty of perjury that everything is true,
- was a different person in your chair if the person did not understand what they were signing and or
- had made some kind of mistake that that did not disqualify them from being a valid candidate for office.
- So it still, it seems to me that still the question boils down to the disagreement or the disparity
- in state and federal law as to whether or not this is considered to be an employer or not.
- Okay, the other attorneys that board member Githin spoke to said it is unclear if an inaccurate,
- I'm sorry, please excuse me. It is also it is unclear if an inaccurate but timely filed candidate can
- form his grounds for upholding a challenge because he's not seen that before. So you're making history,
- Ms. Thelma.
- I'm in a situation like this to, if it's unclear, to let voters make decisions. So I'm going to kind
- of go a little bit with the old business comment, and if we have someone in the
- audience that would like to make a comment on this would like to comment I would be willing to take
- that. Sure Langdon I've worked at the election central I've done their jobs. It is so easy for and not to
- anything and any disparage for them. To make mistakes themselves. Training is not always the best. And
- I experienced that myself, especially when these girls are unfamiliar with the forms and they've only
- done so many elections. And same goes with the candidates. They fill out the forms but they come back
- and if they're not doing this every day, that muscle memory
- It's just not there. So I see no problems with the voters being able to make that decision, whether
- or not she is, you know, qualified for the job and let it be up to the voters. Thank you. Thank you.
- Anyone else? Well, then I think we probably, we don't have time before you print the primary ballots to
- get more of a clarification than what we already have. Is that correct? Deadline is noon on Thursday.
- The deadline would be noon on Thursday. I think if you would have to notice a meeting with 48-hour notice
- according under open door unless you recessed, you could recess and state a later date and time now.
- So I mean, you could recess to tomorrow or sometime between noon on Thursday. I'm just looking for what?
- is out there. I think it's important that voters know what's going on. And basically, Ms. Jeffries
- unfortunately did not pay attention
- That's important for an elected official in her position because she is the front line for folks in
- Clear Creek Township. And I'm also a bit upset that things are happening like that in the clerk's office.
- I think it's the candidate's responsibility to know what form they're to fill out. I think it's the
- candidate's responsibility to fill it out correctly. And this isn't just a simple situation of
- not understanding that she should have or should not have filled out this stuff about an employer, she
- didn't even read the form well enough to say the name of the person seeking the office and the office
- to which she was elected. Those clearly are important parts of stuff. And to me, I at least want the
- voters to be aware of this. I think that that is fair to the voters in Clear Creek Township.
- And so with Mr. Kochivar saying it is unclear and there does not appear to be a precedent for an inaccurate,
- which is where we are, it's inaccurate, but timely filed form is grounds for upholding a challenge.
- And so if there is no precedent, then as you say, then we could leave it to the voter. It's not like
- this is not a public hearing.
- I'm inclined to let the voters make the decisions as opposed to. So I think at this point in time, we
- may be ready just to take the question. So go ahead. If you're asking for a motion. Go ahead.
- I kind of am. My motion would be that because it is an inaccurate but timely filed, it was timely filed.
- Inaccurate but timely filed form.
- that we dismiss the challenge. That's a motion, so I'll make a second so we can get a vote. Would you
- call the roll? Let's just do this. Clerk Brown? That's clear. The motion is to deny the challenge, correct?
- Yes. So I vote yes on denying the challenge. I'm sorry.
- I'm too many things thinking. Call the roll. Call the roll. Okay. Clerk Brown. Yes. Danny Shields. Yes.
- No. Motion passes. The challenge is denied. Have any other business that we need to deal with? I don't
- think we have anything on the agenda.
- There's nothing else on this agenda, mainly just wanted to make sure that this was focused solely on
- the hearing, and then the rest will be on next week's agenda for the actual election board meeting.
- Thank you. She withdrew the other challenge. Oh, she withdrew, sorry. Yeah, the other challenge was
- withdrawn, yes. You're right, sir. So I would like to keep public comment to this if we can. If you
- have something about this, it'd be great.
- It'd be nice to move up. Go ahead. Go ahead. Again, my name is Cheryl Langdon. This is from a Ronald
- Reagan speech from the eighties about Joe Biden. The man who sounded like the world was Mr.
- Rogers neighborhood was suddenly discovered that America has some dangerous adversaries out there.
- The man in all his years in the Senate voted against every weapon except slingshots and is now talking
- tough about our adversaries and the need for national security. I'm going to pause here and let that
- marinate. So the traitor who left our borders wide open for four years flip-flopped so many times back
- in the 80s and 90s that you would have thought he was on fire. Oh, he was on fire.
- Liar, liar, pants on fire. Democrats need to admit that they were wrong about Joe Biden, a traitor to
- our sovereign nation. I will continue. In the audience, someone yells, he doesn't know what he's talking
- about. And Reagan replies, you're right, he doesn't. And last minute conversions aren't going to hide
- the fact that these liberal Democrats don't represent traditional Democrats anymore, unquote.
- What did Reagan mean by that? It's easy to see now that we are on the other side of everything, including
- our witnessing Dick Cheney's open hate for Trump. There's been a deeper deception in both parties, and
- Americans have come together to make a statement about any traitors in our ranks. We see you. When a
- president has left our borders vulnerable and allowed our national security to fail for the first time
- in US history, the guy named Trump
- who wants to bring national security back is openly hated by the big weapons czar, Dick Cheney, something's
- fishy. Conservatives in every corner around the world are waking up. This has nothing to do with acceptance
- of countercultures, but rather exploitation of counterculture to infiltrate the sanctity of the family
- system, the core of every society.
- It's time to get our facts straight, our loyalties to our sovereign nation on point, and our civility
- to partner with our courage. I didn't vote for Reagan in the 80s because I was protesting in the streets
- to bring AIDS to the forefront because my friends were dying. And people like Fauci were perpetrating
- misinformation in the 80s and creating fear. Yeah, that guy. You see, I've been fighting against that
- monster for a long time. I've also been through the LA riots. I lived it.
- And the extreme conflict between the right and the left is so dysfunctional that those of us who have
- been in the trenches of humanity for over a half century just want what Rodney King wanted. Why can't
- we all just get along? Well, Rodney, we can't when there are nefarious bad actors who are willing to
- create chaos rather than cultivate civility. What happened to go high, Mr. Obama? Oh, that's right.
- Your team lied and they keep lying. Know what?
- The most terrifying part is the fact that our real enemies are in our own government. Thank you. I second
- those in favor. Aye. Opposed. We're adjourned and we'll be back in two weeks.