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.