ST ATE ETHICS COMMISSION COMPLAINT FORM

Official Use Only: Date Received: ST ATE ETHICS COMMISSION COMPLAINT FORM The State Ethics Commission has the authority to investigate complaints against those persons covered by Chapter 138A, North Carolina General Statutes, "The State Government Ethics Act," for alleged violations of the Act. Please see section 138A-12 of the Act. This complaint must be filed within two years of the date you, the Complainant, knew or should have known of the conduct upon which this complaint is based. Please note that the Ethics Commission does NOT have jurisdiction over all public officials or state employees. CONTACT INFORMATION (Please Type or Print clearly) The Ethics Act requires that a complaint contain the name, address, and telephone number of the person filing the complaint. The Commission cannot accept anonymous complaints. Printed Name: Daniel Gilligan Address: 6401 Rushingbrook Drive Telephone No: 919.275.0502 Raleigh (City) North Carolina (State) NATURE OF THE COMPLAINT 27612 (Zip) The Ethics Commission does NOT have jurisdiction over all public officials or state employees. G.S. 138A applies to legislators, legislative employees, public servants, and judicial officers. Please refer to G.S. 138A-3(30) for a list of those State employees included in the category of "public servants." Also, a list of covered persons is posted on the State Ethics Commission's website: www.ethicscommission.nc.gov. 1. Identify the person that you believe may have violated specific provisions of the Ethics Act: Name: Senator Joel Ford (District 38 D-Mecklenburg) The Joel Ford Committee Job Title or Appointive Position of the person against whom this complaint is filed: North Carolina General Assembly State Senate District 38 Rev. 4-7-17

2. Provide the date(s) the alleged violation occurred: On or about 12 March 2018, as well as various other times in March 2018 3. Please provide a concise statement of the nature of your complaint and specific facts indicating that a violation of Chapter 138A (the Ethics Act) or Chapter 120 (the Legislative Ethics Act) of the North Carolina General Statutes has occurred. Please provide as much detail as possible and attach any documentation you have that supports your claim. Attach additional pages if needed. See Attached Complaint Narrative and Exhibits A - F 4. Provide the names of other persons who may have information that would support your allegations. Ms. Kristin Mavromatis, spokesperson for the Mecklenburg Board of Elections Other Joel Ford Committee absentee ballot mass mail recipients 5. State whether the individuals and conduct complained of have been the subject of a prior complaint or proceeding of any kind. If so, state the place where the prior complaint was filed and its current status. Unknown 2 Rev. 4-7-17

SENATOR JOEL FORD AND JOEL FORD COMMITTEE COMPLAINT NARRATIVE SUMMARY Complainant alleges upon information and belief that on or around March 2018, Senator Joel Ford did knowingly violate the North Carolina Constitution Article V, 2(1), the North Carolina State Legislative Ethic Act (N.C.G.S. 120, Art. 14), Campaign Finance and Election Law provision N.C.G.S. 163A-1476 (a)(1), and Ethical Principles and Guidelines as adopted by the North Carolina Legislative Ethics Committee, including AO-LEC-07-001 dated 20 June 2007, Ethics Principle and Guideline 7 dated 21 June 2007, and Joint Ethics Committee Advisory Memorandum LEC-17-001 dated 6 April 2017 Example of a New Voter Letter. Further, there may exist potential violations of N.C.G.S. 138A-31 (Use of Public Position for Personal Gain).

FACTS AND GROUNDS FOR COMPLAINT Complainant read media accounts that newly registered voters on or about 12 March 2018 received a new voter letter from the office of North Carolina Senator Joel Ford on official North Carolina General Assembly stationary. Complainant through social media solicited copies or photos of actual new voter letters received by voters. Complainant attaches true and accurate copies of the letters received as Exhibit A. The new voter letter included both a form letter both encouraging the voter, as a newly registered voter in Senator Ford s district, to vote as well as to follow him on a social media account ( on Twitter @joelford ) where the Senator regularly engaged in campaign promotion. Senator Ford s letter also included his Twitter handle, @joeldford, which tweets out not only legislative information, but also links and has photos of his re-election campaign. He has a second, election-specific Twitter handle, @FordforNCSenate, but it is not the account linked on his re-election website. The Joel Ford Committee campaign website directs to the Twitter account found within Senator Ford s new voter letter.

The new voter letter appears to have been mailed at state expense and printed on the letterhead of Respondent s state office. While Legislative Ethics Committee Advisory Opinion AO-LEC-07-001 permits the issuance and mailing of new voter letters, the opinion clearly places limitations on both timing and content usage: B. May a Legislator Use Legislative Postage and Stationery to Send Letters to Newly-Registered Voters? The Committee finds that registering to vote is a significant event in a person s life, and under Ethics Opinion 013, analogous to births and graduations. On the other hand, sending letters to newly-registered voters could have a political component. These letters could have the intended or unintended consequence of getting the legislator s name out to constituents at State expense. Further, if the letters were sent shortly before an election, this could give the appearance that the letter was intended to influence the election and was not made for legislative purposes. For these reasons, a legislator may use legislative postage, stationery and staff to send letters to newly-registered voters in the legislator s district provided that these letters are not sent within 60 days before any election day the legislator is on the ballot in a contested election and so long as the letters only do the following: (1) thank the individual for registering to vote, (2) inform the individual who the individual s representative is and the legislator s contact information, and (3) encourage the individual to contact the legislator if the legislator can be of assistance. Election shall include primary election, second primary election, special election, and general election. Nothing in this opinion limits the application of State election laws. [Exhibit B emphasis added] Senator Ford will appear on North Carolina primary ballots on 8 May 2018, placing the mail Complainant received postmarked 12 March 2018 within 60 days of that election, in direct violation of AO-LEC-07-001. Further the content in Senator Ford s letter demonstrably exceeds the permitted content going far beyond items 1, 2 and 3 in his exhortations to follow his Twitter

account containing re-election messages. In fact, Senator Ford s letter content deviates substantially from the approved content for a new voter letter Advisory Memorandum LEC-17-001 issued by the Joint Legislative Ethics Committee on 6 April 2017. [Exhibit C] On 26 April 2018 Senator Ford admitted to sending the mail in question in an article appearing in the Charlotte Observer. Senator Ford s letter also goes a bit beyond the typical letter format from other lawmakers congratulating the constituent on registering to vote, the letter says: However, t-here [sic] is another step in this process. You MUST VOTE!! Become an engaged voter. Vote in every election. Ask questions. Get involved. And, most importantly, hold your elected officials accountable by staying in contact with their offices and attending local Town Hall meetings. [Exhibit D] Clearly, the new voter letter sent by Senator Ford did not conform to previous guidance issued by the Legislative Ethic Committee, contained electioneering language meant to influence his re-election beyond the allowed language as advised by the committee. That Senator Ford s legislative mailing occurred within North Carolina s electioneering communications window of 60 days also implicate violations of North Carolina Constitution Article V, 2(1) which requires that State taxes and State expenditures be for a public purpose. The furthering of any individual s candidacy for political office is not a public purpose for which State funds may be constitutionally expended. Ethical Principle and Guideline 7 issued by the Legislative Ethics Committee 21 June 2007. To the extent that Senator Ford s legislative staff generated and mailed the new voter letter containing prohibited content, Guideline 7 is violated. [Exhibit E] The Charlotte Observer article also indicates a campaign finance law violation. According to Senator Ford, in a separate mass mailing, the Joel Ford Committee sent out mail to voters who had previously voted by mail. Kristin Mavromatis, spokesperson for the Mecklenburg

Board of Elections, said the board has received four letters that were mailed to residents in his district. Mavromatis, in an email to the Insider, said all four letters were given to the board by the person who received them, and none have been returned by the U.S. Postal Service. [Exhibit D] Complainant in his social media solicitation also received one of the Joel Ford Committee mailers, with a mistaken Mecklenburg Board of Elections return address printed on the envelope. The mail piece was clearly a campaign mailing with language such as I m proud of what I ve delivered for this community and as your State Senator I will continue to fight for you. I am asking for your vote in the Democratic Primary because together we can continue to move Charlotte forward. Visit www.votejoelford.com/earlyvoting for more details or to print off additional ballot request forms. A true and accurate copy is attached as Exhibit F. Ms. Mavromatis, spokesperson for the Mecklenburg Board of Elections and Senator Ford seem to indicate that the Joel Ford Committee sent out a mass mailing to voters. Under N.C.G.S 163A-1475 (7), a mass mailing is defined as print media requiring the disclaimer Paid for by [Name of candidate, candidate campaign committee, political party organization, political action committee, referendum committee, individual, or other sponsor] to be printed on the mailing in no less than 12-point type font. As demonstrated by Exhibit F, the Joel Ford Committee s letter clearly violates N.C.G.S. 163A-1476 (a)(1) making it unlawful to send out a mass mailing without printing the disclaimer. The letter contains no such disclaimer, while stating I am asking for your vote in the Democratic Primary because together we can continue to move Charlotte forward. Complainant asks the North Carolina State Board of Elections & Ethics Enforcement ( Board ) to review these admitted violations as well as the use of state resources by the Senator Ford s office for further violations both within the electioneering window and using impermissible

electioneering communications at any time using state resources, under North Carolina Constitution Article V, 2(1), under N.C.G.S. 163A-1476 (a)(1) and whether he or any of his staff or vendors sought to systematically exploit state resources for political gain in violation of N.C.G.S. 138A-31 (Use of Public Position for Personal Gain). To the extent this Complaint also alleges violations of the North Carolina State Legislative Ethic Act (N.C.G.S. 120, Art. 14) and Ethical Principle and Guideline adopted by the Legislative Ethics Committee, Complainant requests those portions, but only those portions, be referred to the North Carolina Legislative Ethics Committee.

EXHIBIT D

communicating that," his statement said. "The letter was in no way intended to confuse anyone or imply that the Board of Elections was supporting my effort for Senate. It was intended to make it easier for people to participate in the democratic process." Kristin Mavromatis, spokesperson for the Mecklenburg Board of Elections, said the board has received four letters that were mailed to residents in his district. Mavromatis, in an email to the Insider, said all four letters were given to the board by the person who received them, and none have been returned by the U.S. Postal Service. "The Mecklenburg County Board of Elections does NOT and NEVER will endorse candidates or issues," Mavromatis said in her email. "It is our job to administer and openly and fairly and never show any partiality in our process." Ford has also sent at least one new voter letter that could be skirting ethics rules set up by the General Assembly's Legislative Ethics Commission. Legislators are allowed to send out letters introducing themselves to newly registered voters in their district. However, lawmakers cannot send those letters using state resources including official stationary within 60 days of an election in which he or she is on the ballot in a contested race. This year's primary is on May 8, meaning the last day to send out the new voter letters would have been before March 9. The letter provided to the Insider was dated for March 5 which is before the 60-day window

but it was postmarked on March 12, which is inside the 60-day window. It's unclear which date is used to determine whether it is an ethics violation. A staff attorney at the General Assembly didn't say if it was an ethics violation, but noted that anyone who wanted to file a complaint about any letters should file a complaint with the Legislative Ethics Commission. Complaints are not public record, so it is unknown if anyone has filed a complaint against Ford. Ford was unaware of the mailing until the Insider asked about it: "That is new news to me... thanks for bringing it to my attention," he said. That letter also goes a bit beyond the typical letter format from other lawmakers congratulating the constituent on registering to vote, the letter says: "However, t-here [sic] is another step in this process. You MUST VOTE!! Become an engaged voter. Vote in every election. Ask questions. Get involved. And, most importantly, hold your elected officials accountable by staying in contact with their offices and attending local Town Hall meetings." Ford said the letter is a form letter that he had been approved to use. A 2007 advisory opinion from the Legislative Ethics Commission said the new voter letters can only "(1) thank the individual for registering to vote, (2) inform the individual who the individual's representative is and the legislator's contact information, and (3) encourage the individual to contact the