All right, it is 11 o'clock. I will call this meeting to order. Back off the microphone, we go. I will
move to adopt the agenda. Second. Ms. Githans, can you hear us? I can. Can you hear me? And we can hear
you, so that works. Are those in favor of adopting the agenda? Aye. Aye. Opposed? OK.
I'm going to leave the overview of the complaint process to Molly, if you don't mind. Yes, but technically
since myth gets myths, let me start over. Yes, I'm happy to do the complaint process, but to adopt the
agenda, we have to do a roll call vote since there's one person online. So can I do a real quick roll
call for him? Please call the roll. Danny Shields. Yes.
Yes. Okay, now we will ask. Okay, so here today because the election board has received three complaints.
Regarding candidates and activity in this past and and their behavior in the primary.
What I want to be clear today is that the purpose of today's meeting is not in any way to adjudicate
those complaints on the merits. Today's meeting is for one, the board to formally receive the complaints,
and then two, to determine if there's a substantial reason to believe an election law violation has
occurred. If the board believes there's a substantial reason to believe an election law violation occurred,
then that triggers the need for a hearing. For a hearing,
The individual making the complaint and the candidate for which the complaint is against have certain
rights, the hearings governed by due process. So each party would have the right to be heard, including
presenting evidence and making argument. And that includes the right to, if either party wants to obtain
an attorney to present evidence to the board, they could do so, but that is up to them. So what we need
to determine today is,
does the election board feel that on any of the complaints there's a need for a hearing and then thereafter
a hearing date so that we can send each party notice because by due process they're required to receive
notice which includes a copy of the complaint and any evidence that the board has received in correlation
with that complaint. It also has the ability to subpoena individuals if they'd like to do so. So in
part of determining if you want to have a hearing we also need to talk about
whether the board is issuing subpoenas because there's an entire process of working with a law enforcement
agency to get those subpoenas served. So those are really the points of today's hearing. Do we have
the option to reach out to the complainants and the complainty and say, are you willing to come to this
rather than go through the whole
subpoena process to save that work. In the past, we have since the notice was structured in a manner
that it was set. This is the date of the hearing. You have the right to appear. Here's the complaint
against you. We invite you to appear. So it was less coercive, so to speak. Yes, thank you. What are
your thoughts on? I am comfortable with either.
So whatever the board decides, I can accept and respect. I guess I'll leave it to you, Mr. Chair. Ms.
Givens, you have any thoughts before we move a little bit here? Well, two quick thoughts. First, I think
that as I read it, the complaint against Janae Trimble was not during the primary, it was her actions
in trying to
receive or obtain signatures to be put on the general ballot as an independent district. That's just
a clarification. But I would like to ask Ms. Molly Turner-King also, there were multiple people who
were down at the election central during electioneering for the early prime, you know, before, well,
during early voting. And I wonder if it would be
reasonable to ask some of them to also testify if we go to a hearing. I think the board could ask or
invite whoever they believe has information that would be pertinent to the complaint to provide that
information to the board. I do want to note, though, that the burden is on the petitioner or the person
making the complaint to present evidence to the board.
so that they can determine whether an election law happened or not. Well, the complainant could say,
Joe over here heard this, and I want to hear. OK, so we can do it that way. That makes sense to me.
The other question I have is that if Ms. Trimble, who currently is not a candidate and does not become
a candidate, is what she's accused of doing illegal? I would have to look into that.
I think I provided some statutes that might be pertinent to that complaint. I think Ms. Giddens is correct.
That complaint is regarding activity of a non-candidate. But that person is trying to get on the ballot.
And so I do think election laws would apply in that sense. I wanted to clarify that before we moved
on with that.
Mr. Chair, I have two things. First, I think I thought we were addressing these one at a time. And so
since you jumped to number five, we can probably take number five off the table in that I called the
Indiana election division this morning and asked some questions. And it turned out that the person that
I spoke with already understood what was going on with regard to
complaint number under number five on the agenda. And what I was told was there is nothing in election
code to address what the understanding is as far as the nature of the complaint. And I have, since they're
an attorney, I have no reason to dispute what they are saying. So I'm assuming that we really only need,
especially in the interest of time,
we really only need to address item number four, the complaints on item number four. I'm sorry, go ahead.
May I ask a question? If Ms. Trimble does become an independent candidate and we see that some of the
signature sheets, the dates on them, because people have to, I looked at the CAN 21, which is what's
needed for the signatures.
If we look at the dates of those, can those be questioned in terms of whether or not they were collected
with the understanding that it was in trade for a service that she provides? That's my question too.
And I think you're really starting to get into the merits of the complaint. I think we need to just
focus on, based on the information that you have,
Do you think there's a substantial, reasonable belief to have a hearing to determine if an election
law violation occurs? I think those questions go to the nature of the activity and whether it constitutes
the violation, if that makes sense. What I'm asking is if we should hold off on this, because we don't
even know she's going to become a candidate at this point, whether she'll qualify.
the, um, it isn't within the discretion of the election board asked to win to set a hearing.
So you could, you know, decide you don't think you don't think there's a substantial reasonable belief
to have a hearing and not have a hearing. So we can, you could, but she's what Ms. Givens is saying,
I believe it. I kind of agree with this. We can table this one until she becomes a candidate.
And if she does, then we come back and look at it. Or you could, Ms. Givens, does that make sense to you?
I think that's kind of what you were saying. Right, right. And the deadline, as I understand it, for
her to file is July the 15th of this year to get all of her paperwork. Then I would entertain, Molly,
tell me if I'm wrong with doing this. And I would entertain a motion to put item number five, table it,
until it needs to be addressed at a later date, if it indeed does. And go ahead, Molly. Yes, I think
that's another motion that you can make, obviously. But I do think you have to formally receive that
complaint first. So I think we need to first, I think we can- We need a motion to receive the complaints.
We need something to say that you formally received it. So if you- I will move that we formally receive
the complaints. Okay. I'll second.
I'm going to ask a qualifying question on your motion. Ask away. Is your motion that you're receiving
all three complaints together and acknowledging it, or are you acknowledging it individually?
Neither works. Legally, does it matter? As long as you acknowledge that you got them. Well, then I would
put them all together. Good. And we'll address them when we need to address them.
Okay, let me rephrase it. We've received them, we'll address them as need be, and probably we'll set
a hearing for the one we have at number four on our list. Okay, so I think, correct me if I'm wrong,
Mr. Chair, the motion on the table is to formally receive the three complaints that have been provided
to the election board, correct? Correct. Is there a second?
I think it's already dead. Yes. Would you like to call roll on that motion? Nicole Brown? Yes. Dan Shields?
Yes. Penny Giddens? Yes. And then I believe, Mr. Chair, you are making a motion in regards to handle
the complaint that's item number five on the agenda. Yes, then I will move that we table number five
until and if it because the complainty
Is that a legal enough term? Becomes a candidate. I will second. I'll second. Any other discussion?
Please roll the roll. Nicole Brown? Yes. Danny Shields? Yes. Penny Givens? Yes. I'd like to remind the
chair, too, that we need to make sure that there's no public comment on our motions. I haven't seen
a hand raised, but yeah, just a reminder.
I didn't believe that this was that kind of meeting, but okay. I don't see a hand anywhere on them.
I didn't either on that one. Yeah. All right. So that leaves the complaint. There are two complaints
in item four and they do think it would be efficient to handle them individually. So I'd like to direct
the attention
of the election board to the complaint received by Ms. Wheeler. And so I think the question before the
board is, is there a substantial reason to believe an election law violation occurred so that you would
want to set a hearing on that matter? Are the hearings necessarily separate, or can we have the hearings
together? You can have them. You can have multiple hearings on one day. And that would be, in my opinion,
the efficient
way to handle those because both of the other complaints involved the same candidate. So, Mr. Chair,
having had an opportunity to review what was email us, I do believe there is substantial reason to believe
that an election law violation has occurred. And I happy to following the vote
take the necessary steps to set a hearing date. OK. So is that a motion that we? It is. OK. I will second.
Please call the roll. Ms. Givens, you have any comments? No, I concur. I believe it. OK. Violation has
occurred. Please call the roll. Nicole Brown? Yes. Danny Shields? Yes. Penny Givens? Yes. We need to
set a date.
I believe there is any really pressing need at this moment to do them like next week or something. I
will not be available next week. Okay, so you're going to be gone for a bit. When do you go a date that
you think might work and then we'll go from there? I'm assuming we're talking June before you get back, correct?
If I might make a suggestion, is there an election board meeting scheduled already for June 4th? You
could do the hearings on those dates. That would be what I would suggest. All right, then we'll move
that we hold the hearings on as part of the June 4th election board meeting. I'd like to declare.
clarify that this is the hearings against the candidate Joe Davis? Yes. This is the hearing in regards
to the complaint that Ms. Wheeler submitted. And then if you handle the other complaint by Ms. McGarry,
you can also set it the same day. We just haven't voted on that one yet. Well, if we do them the same
day, we don't have to bring anybody in more than once. And I'm a fan of that concept.
Okay, then call the roll, please. Nicole Brown? Yes. Danny Shields? Yes. Penny Givens? Yes. All right,
thank you. So here are those complaints on the fourth, yeah, June 4th. Mr. Chair, if I may interject,
sorry. Yes, you're the lawyer on this.
Only voted that there's a substantial reason to have a hearing on the complaint by Miss Wheeler. So
you would have to decide if there's, if you're also having a hearing on the McGarry complaint.
We did that. So we'll just add that one to it by a motion that we add the complaint from Miss McGarry.
I will make that motion. Second. I second. Call the roll please. Nicole Brown. Danny Shields. Yes. Penny
Givens. Yes.
The election law is more complicated than football. And football is pretty complicated. We need to get
right into it. I will concur with that. Yeah, yeah. What date was set? It was set June 4th. Did we have
to set a time? I'm sorry, go ahead. Did we have to set a time? I'm assuming our normal 1-30 time. I
think that's what we said. Our normal 1-30. For the regular election board meeting is what I understood.
And then procedurally, I will
The board needs to decide who the notices they would like to go to. So I'm happy to handle the notice
if the board wants to direct me to do so. I would like to direct you to do so. I think we need to reach
out to the people who file the complaints, the people the complaint is against. And as you talked earlier,
allow them to have, I have no problem with witnesses. And obviously they can always have an attorney
if they want one.
Before you take a vote on that motion, I would like to express what my intent would be to do to carry
out that task. I would send a notice to Ms. Wheeler and Ms. McGarry as the people bringing forth the
complaint and then Mr. Davis as the candidate whom the complaint is against. And then each party would
receive a copy of the complaint so that specifically Mr. Davis would know the allegations against him.
And then I will send it certified to ensure that notice has been received.
That works for me. I'd like to make it as quickly as possible to give him time because June 4th is not
that far away. I will get it out first thing Monday morning. Awesome. So if and I think you should do
a motion to direct me to do so. I move to direct you to do that. I'm listening. Are we sending a notice
as an invitation or are we sending a subpoena?
I would prefer to send a notice. We have to send a notice saying, this is the date of the hearing. This
is the complaint against you. And in that notice, the language that I would use would be like, the election
board invites you to come to this hearing. It looks to me like that's an option. Like, well, you either
do this or you do this. I'm perfectly fine with it being a notice. Should the person that's being charged
choose not to come in and defend themselves, that's their choice.
Correct. It's election board decision whether to issue the subpoena or not. All we're really doing,
correct me if I'm wrong here, is deciding whether or not we think enough happened that the prosecutor
should get this sent to them. Am I correct in that? Correct. The election board would be determining
if they believe an election board violation occurred, what to do with that, and that can include forwarding
it to the attorney general or the prosecutor.
You can only send it to the prosecutor if it's on a crime to violate that election law. And so it would
have to be within chapter 314, I believe, without looking. Yes. 314, 3, 4, C, 1, B, and A, I think it
is. And it's within the election board's discretion if they want to issue the subpoenas or not.
If pursuant to the code, you may issue the subpoenas to compel the witnesses to answer under oath any
questions that properly become before the board, but the subpoena is not required. It did not sound
like something that would be your preference as the chair. I would rather try to do this. I prefer to
give someone the chance to say, oh, I messed up. And when it didn't really
it didn't really have a whole lot of effect on a lot of stuff. I would prefer a notice that we're going
to have this hearing as opposed to a subpoena and say, get in here. So I believe the motion on the floor
is a motion to direct county legal to provide the necessary notice and supporting documents to the,
in essence, petitioners and then the candidate, correct? Yes, that's my preference, yes. I second the motion.
Would you like to call a roll on that? Nicole Brown? Yes. Danny Shields? Yes. Penny Givens? Yes.
Thank you. I believe that's what we need to do today, am I correct? I believe that addresses all the
matters before the board today. Then I would entertain a motion, unless you have something. Motion to
adjourn. Motion to adjourn. Second? Do we need to call a roll on that as well? Yes. Come on, come on.
Nicole Brown. Yes. Danny Shields. Yes. Penny Givens. Yes. All right. Thank you very much. We are adjourned.