Well, the campaign finance reports from the unsuccessful campaign to recall Elmwood Supervisor Deri Smith are in. And as expected the Elmwood Township Association, a shadowy group that sponsored at least two anti-Smith mailings, failed to file a report. In a maneuver that may be illegal and which certainly fails the smell test, the organizers of the recall effort are claiming that the ETA is exempt from campaign finance reporting requirements. What are they trying to hide?

Let’s begin with some facts. As we wrote back in late April when the story of the mysteriously multiplying committees first came to light, mailings slamming Smith were sent to township residents over the names of three different committees. One mailing, sent in early April, bore the name of Elmwood Citizens for Honest Government (ECHO). A subsequent mailing changed the name to Elmwood Citizens for Honest Officials (also ECHO). And two more mailings, sent in the final weeks of the campaign, were sent by a group calling itself the Elmwood Township Alliance. In every case the committees listed the same street address on Bayview Court in Elmwood as their home. The ETA group was registered by Chuck Lessard, former Elmwood Township Harbormaster. ECHO was registered by his wife, Ellie Lessard.

Why make things so complicated? Well, campaign finance laws specify that committees that spend over $1000 must file statements of campaign finances that include lists of all donors. A campaign organization that spends less than $1000, on the other hand, is excused from the requirement to report. The creation of the second committee, Elmwood Township Association, enabled the recall organizers to withhold the names of some of their contributors.

It is not hard to guess who the individuals whose names are being hidden are. One of the ETA mailings was addressed to "Township Citizens owning 5 acres of land and more." The mailing claimed—falsely--that the new zoning ordinance being developed at the Elmwood Planning Commission would make it impossible for landowners to give land to their children, or to create clustered housing developments, or to allow wineries in the township. In past Elmwood elections, the John Stanek / Noel Flohe group that was behind the recall received its biggest contributions by far from various Elmwood developers and developer wannabes. It seems likely that a similar group bankrolled the ETA mailings.

Those mailings were not cheap. It appears that each of the two ETA mailings was sent to all eligible Elmwood voter households—about 2700 addresses. At the commercial bulk rate, each piece would have cost $0.18 in postage. That adds up to about $972. If the printings were done at or near cost ($0.015 per piece), they would have cost at least $80; at commercial rates the printing cost would have been closer to $270 ($0.05 per piece). If the ETA expenses were under $1000, it was by a hairsbreadth.

It’s clear that ECHO and ETA were organized by the same people. They shared the same home address and the same organizers, and in many cases the content of their mailings was identical. It is difficult—perhaps impossible—to believe that the organization of ETA served any other purpose than to enable its contributors to hide behind the $1000 exemption.

State election officials are looking into the question of whether laws were broken by the apparent sleight of hand. If the law was broken, we hope that the violations will be speedily prosecuted. But in the meantime, the people behind the recall effort can defuse this controversy by taking one simple step. They can give a complete accounting of the finances of ETA, including a list of all its contributors. Anything less must suggest that the role of developer money in the recall effort is being deliberately covered up.