2010 HCRP Primary - Party Chair

Before I answer your specific questions, I want to put this whole issue into some context. First, let’s remember that Commissioner Eversole is the longest-serving Commissioner of Precinct 4, and has served this county and our party with distinction over those years.

He has managed the area of the county that has seen the most consistent growth over the last 20 years, and he is preparing for the projected growth over the next 10 years. That projection has Harris County doubling in size by sometime between 2020 and 2025, with much of it projected to occur in Precinct 4. Commissioner Eversole has worked, and is continuing to work, to make sure that the infrastructure keeps up with, and stays ahead of this phenomenal growth.

Moreover, his generosity has extended to consistent support of the HCRP. In fact, in the first six months of this year, he was the single largest financial contributor to the party at a time when the party desperately needed financial help.

As for our commitment to Ethics, the GOP must maintain a strong expectation of ethical behavior from its candidates and elected officials, and it must be willing to enforce that expectation with consequences when appropriate. While doing so, though, we must remember to keep the following in mind: a party is nothing more than a group of people, who are flawed, and who will make mistakes; if, in the name of the party, we abandon those people at the first accusation or hint of impropriety, then the trust that is needed to keep the group together eventually will dissolve.

With all of that said in order to put this controversy in some context, I will answer your questions.

I wish to preface my remarks by first noting that Commissioner Eversole neither admitted nor denied the facts described in Section III of the Order nor admitted nor denied the Texas Ethics Commission's findings and conclusions of law described in Section IV of the Order.. In Section V, par. 3 of the Order, Commissioner Eversole:

"[A]cknowledges that a campaign finance report must include the amount of political expenditures that in the aggregate exceed $50 and that are made during the reporting period, the full name and address of the persons to whom the expenditures are made, and the dates and purposes of the expenditures. The respondent also acknowledges that a campaign finance report must include the amount of each payment made during the reporting period from a political contribution if the payment is not a political expenditure, the full name and address of the person to whom the payment is made, and the date and the purpose of the payment. The respondent also acknowledges that a person who accepts a political contribution as a candidate or officeholder may not convert the contribution to personal use. The respondent agrees to comply with these requirements of the law."

Additionally, these are the key findings from the Order and Agreed Resolution where the Texas Ethics Commission found violations:

"The respondent disclosed expenditures with purposes of 'public relations,' 'gifts,' 'event expenses,' and 'misc.' The reports did not adequately describe the categories of goods or services received in exchange for the expenditures. The respondent also corrected the purposes of expenditures in response to the complaints. The expenditures at issue include nonpolitical expenditures. Therefore, there is credible evidence that the respondent violated sections 254.031(a)(3) and (4) of the Election Code and section 20.61(a) of the Ethics Commission Rules by failing to properly disclose the purposes of the expenditures." See Agreed Order, Section IV, par. 9.

"In response to the complaints, the respondent swore that he reimbursed $41,357.10 from his personal funds to his political contributions, which included approximately $10,036 in expenditures for the trip to Florida that primarily furthered individual or family purposes not connected with the performance of duties or activities as a candidate for or holder of a public office. Therefore, there is credible evidence that the respondent violated section 253.035(a) of the Election Code." See Agreed Order, Section IV, par. 17.

On this basis, the Texas Ethics Commission imposed a $75,000 civil penalty against Commissioner Eversole, "contingent upon the respondent reimbursing $41,357.10 to his political funds by July 9, 2009."

Having reviewed the relevant portions of the Texas Ethics Commission Order and Agreed Resolution, I turn to the questions you have directly posed to each of us who is seeking to be elected Chairman of the Harris County Republican Party in 2010.

Commissioner Eversole's agreement with the TEC says he admitted to poor reporting practices, ignorance of applicable laws, and erroneous reports. To avoid future problems, he has sought legal counsel and professional assistance, and has engaged Robert Eckels to correct and handle future campaign finances. Rather than a County Chair trying to dictate the outcome of this matter, Republican primary voters should and will decide if Commissioner Eversole’s approach is sufficient to make amends and to avoid future problems.

The County Chair’s main concern should be the success of the entire Party and its candidates chosen by Republican primary voters. So we will need to take steps to protect Republican candidates from being unfairly or unjustly smeared by our opposition because of this matter.

Of course the Party and its candidates should comply with valid campaign finance laws. The TEC fine to which Commissioner Eversole agreed does not in any way reflect on the fine citizens – including other candidates and officeholders – who make up the Harris County Republican Party. Texas law gives each officeholder control over his or her own filings, so the Party has no control over those filings. But the Republican Party itself should set an example by ensuring all its campaign finance filings are accurate and timely.