The Starke County Election Board members opened a hearing Wednesday, May 22 to address four written complaints filed in the alleged omission of a disclaimer on mailings to residents that promoted the campaign of Debbie Wappel as a candidate for Starke County Commissioner in District 3.
Each person giving testimony was required to give an oath which was sealed by Clerk Bernadette Manuel.
The first complaint addressed came from David Sinn who wrote a complaint stating that a mailing he received concerning Debbie Wappel’s campaign did not include a disclaimer. He presented evidence of a mailer he received and showed the board that the mailer did not have a disclaimer printed on it stating who paid for the campaign flyer. He also pointed to Indiana Code 3-9-3-2.5 that discusses communications regarding clearly identified candidates; soliciting contributions; disclaimers; specifically subsection (b) where it describes in what instances disclaimers are required which includes direct mailing.
Debbie Wappel stated that she was sorry that the disclaimer was left off and presented evidence that she hired a company to assist her with creating the mailers. There were four different mailers that were sent to 2,000 residents in Starke County – three of which had disclaimers on them. One did not. She said that particular mailer was proofread by her which had the disclaimer on it, but the designer enlarged a photo on the mailer which pushed the disclaimer out of view on the mailer and it was sent out that way. She showed the board the draft as she approved. She also provided email threads that discussed the drafts and what happened that caused the omission on the mailers. She stated there was no intent to leave it off the mailer, but it did happen.
The second person called to provide evidence was Therese Pugh, but she was not in attendance.
Mark and Margaret Barlog provided evidence on their written complaint about the omission of a disclaimer on a mailer. In a written complaint, they stated they wanted accountability. They also provided the same mailer David Sinn provided as evidence. Mark Barlog said it was printer mistake but the candidate has the responsibility to review it before it is finalized. Margaret Barlog said that people make mistakes and Wappel made one.
There were allegations of other instances involving other sources, but the election board members reminded those testifying that they were only allowed to present evidence and testimony on the matter addressed in the complaint letters.
The last person called to provide testimony was Justin Risner who provided a written complaint that there was not a disclaimer provided on a mailer and that he had reached out to Wappel to get it fixed. He said there were two instances and there should be some accountability. He said accidents happen and believed that it was not intentional. He said she admitted that mistakes were made and it should be penalty enough.
Starke County Attorney Justin Schramm presented a summary to the board in which he explained that there are specific intent infractions and non-specific intent infractions which requires the person having knowledge that the infraction or act was committed. He said Wappel took accountability for the mistake, but said it was the board’s decision if the violation occurred regardless of whose mistake it was. He believed that it was a non-specific intent infraction. There is code where the board could assess a civil penalty on a sliding scale, if that is the decision. The fine could be up to $1,000. The board would have to decide if Wappel is guilty of the violation and assess a fine.
Clerk Bernadette Manuel, who is a board member by virtue of her office, said the board has received complaints about disclaimers omitted on signs and have allowed candidates to fix those issues before fining or taking the matter farther. She said the board has not fined anyone for a disclaimer in her years in this office and does not think the board should pick and choose to do things differently.
Board member Jeff Houston said this is not the first time he’s seen disclaimer issues and there have been times when candidates were allowed to fix signs without disclaimers. He commented that the information was sent out by a third party and it was the printer’s mistake.
Board President Marcia Bedrock said a candidate cannot fix a mailer with an omitted disclaimer as easily as a candidate can fix a sign without a disclaimer. She did not think that leaving off the disclaimer was intentional, but thought a fine should be imposed.
Houston made a motion to find Wappel guilty of the campaign violation of the disclaimer law and to assess a penalty of $0.00. Manuel seconded the motion. Houston and Manuel voted in favor of the motion and Bedrock opposed the motion.
