Elections Board Asks Gajewski to Clear Up '$700 Problem'
Gajewski: Documents the board is requesting don't exist.
A complaint of a violation of campaign finance law, filed Oct. 21 by Rockville resident Drew Powell, focuses on Gajewski’s Sept. 30 campaign fund report, which shows that Gajewski accepted two “in-kind” contributions of $600 each covering rent for his campaign headquarters at 718 Rockville Pike.
Courtesy Drew Powell.
Photos (1)
Photos
Rockville’s elections board is asking Piotr Gajewski to account for $700 in campaign contributions related to a building that the former mayoral candidate used for his campaign headquarters.
The board voted unanimously on Thursday to ask Gajewski for documentation detailing the nature of the contributions, which were used to rent the building under a licensing agreement. Gajewski will have three weeks from the date of the letter to provide the documentation.
The documentation does not exist, Gajewski said in a telephone interview on Friday.
“There are no documents that exist presently that I could offer,” said Gajewski, who was reached while on business in Buffalo, N.Y. late Friday. He said he would need to find out more about “specifically what they need and what kind of backup material they would require,” before he could say whether he will be able to comply with the request.
Gajewski’s Sept. 30 campaign fund report lists two $600 in-kind contribution related to the agreement. One is from MS Pike LLC, which owns the building at the site of a former auto dealership at 718 Rockville Pike. The other is from Neil Marcus, whose address listed in the campaign fund report is identical to that of MS Pike LLC.
The licensing agreement is for $1,200 in total rent for August through November. But the agreement was signed July 20 and the actual value of the rent, including the last third of July, should be $1,300, the board said.
If Gajewski were to submit documentation showing that MS Pike LLC contributed $600 toward the rent, that would leave “a $700 problem,” said David Celeste, chairman of the Board of Supervisors of Elections.
“Whatever the rest of it [that] is remaining of that $1,300 dollars, his campaign needs to write a check to account for it," Celeste said during Thursday's meeting.
Gajewski also would need to resubmit an amended campaign fund report, Celeste said.
The in-kind contributions were the subject of a campaign finance complaint filed against Gajewski in October by Rockville resident Drew Powell and eight others.
Since then, Gajewski has engaged in a volley of emails with Celeste. In portions of those emails, Gajewski describes unsuccessful attempts to reach Marcus, who Gajewski said was his point of contact for the company that owns the office building.
On Nov. 1, the board threw out one of the complaint’s allegations—that the rent was below fair market value—but asked Gajewski to clarify the nature of the licensing agreement.
The board asked Gajewski to provide documentation by Nov. 9—a day after Gajewski lost the mayoral election to Mayor Phyllis Marcuccio.
In a Nov. 7 email to Celeste, Gajewski requested a 30-day extension. He also suggested that he be allowed to amend his October campaign fund report to include a $1,000 in-kind contribution from MS Pike LLC—the maximum an individual entity can contribute to a single candidate under city code—and that he write a check for $200 to MS Pike LLC.
By adding another $100 in pro-rated rent the board “is really just splitting hairs,” Gajewski said. “It doesn’t make sense.”
Board members on Thursday said their patience with Gajewski is waning.
“I just feel like he’s not taking it seriously,” said board member Beryl Feinberg.
“He should be able to back it up,” Celeste said. “He should have the records to back it up.”
After the election, Gajewski said that the campaign finance allegations played a role in his defeat. On Friday, he denied that he was not taking the matter seriously.
“I take it very seriously,” he said.
“In my initial [email] response I suggested an option to arrive at a conclusion that they arrived at presently," he said, referring to the suggestion that he write a check for $200 to MS Pike LLC and amend his campaign fund report to show a $1,000 in-kind contribution.
Gajewski said the rent issue is “a small amount” that can be resolved and that he understands that it is in the public interest to resolve the matter quickly. He filed the campaign fund report “in good faith,” he said.
The larger issue, he said, is that there are a number of questions about campaign finance for the elections board to address before the 2013 city election.
For example, after the violation complaint against Gajewski, the board discovered that the city code did not define in-kind contributions, leading the board to adopt a definition used by the state.
“So to an extent they’re making it up as they go,” Gajewski said. “But I don’t blame them. They’re just doing their best to make lemonade out of the lemons they’re given.”
Celeste said that issues raised by Gajewski’s case would be part of a post-election follow-up meeting with the board, candidates and campaign officials. The meeting is tentatively scheduled for 10 a.m. on Jan. 28.
The elections board’s next meeting is tentatively schedule for 5 p.m. on Jan. 5 at City Hall.
Dan Cohen
1:32 am on Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Gajewski is so disrespectful and rude. Talking about the elections board: “So to an extent they’re making it up as they go,” Gajewski said. “But I don’t blame them. They’re just doing their best to make lemonade out of the lemons they’re given.” Yeah, and Gajewski’s the lemon. However paranoid, it’s one thing to claim that your opponent’s supporters are out to get you. It’s a whole different matter when the elections board is demanding answers about unethical and improper behavior… answers that Gajewski says he’s not going to provide. It’s hard to image if this guy actually got to be mayor.
Mark Parker
5:54 pm on Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Dan, include 'arrogant' with 'disrespectful and rude' and I think you've nailed it. I, too, breathed a huge sigh of relief when he was not elected.
Theresa Defino
6:55 am on Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Stick with the facts. He never said he wasn't going to provide the information--he said he didn't have it to provide. And the "lemons" are the city's campaign laws, which lack specificity, particularly on the in-kind issue.
He sounds like he has been trying to respond appropriately.
Whatever "patience" the board is losing its also ridiculous...the election was less than a month a go. Sadly, the board has had little to do for years and now they're chomping at the bit.
Dan Cohen
1:02 pm on Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Thank you for pointing out: “He never said he wasn't going to provide the information--he said he didn't have it to provide.” - Fact: Gajewski submitted campaign funding reports that showed a contributor gift, Gajewski’s campaign headquarters. When you do something like that, you have to have the paperwork to back it up. If you claim something on your taxes and can’t show the IRS the receipts, they may audit you and then fine or imprison you.
And you sound as disrespectful as Gajewski, “the "lemons" are the city's campaign laws, which lack specificity, particularly on the in-kind issue.” - Perhaps, and now, thanks to Gajewski, the City will strengthen those and many other election laws that Gajewski thumbed his nose at.
And you go on with your disrespect, “Whatever "patience" the board is losing its also ridiculous...the election was less than a month a go. Sadly, the board has had little to do for years and now they're chomping at the bit” - From what I’ve read, the elections board has shown infinite patience. Gajewski filed the illegal campaign report in early October. The elections board has been after him since late October. Since then, Gajewski has provided excuses and no documentation of any kind to back up his fraudulent claims.
Mike Jones
8:07 am on Tuesday, December 6, 2011
The only thing about this article that bothers me is that there is an article about this!
I wasted 5 min reading about $600? Wow I need to find a job!!
Theresa Defino
2:11 pm on Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Yes, especially when there is actual wrong-doing going in (or was):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/06/robert-ehrlich-paul-schurick-voter-suppression_n_1131852.html
Dan Cohen
2:18 pm on Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Mr. “Jones,” you certainly had time to post a comment. What dollar threshold constitutes fraud and abuse? For Gajewski, the elections board wants documentation or restitution for $700 (it’s in the article’s title) not $600. In a Rockville election, that’s a lot of money. The elections board could have come after him for a lot more. Gajewski can’t understand why there’s an article about this either. And about a job, there may be a conductor’s job for you in Michigan.
Dan Cohen
8:04 pm on Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Yes, Ms. Defino, it was horrible to see “actual wrong doing” by the Ehrlich campaign (which doesn’t change anything about Gajewski’s wrong doing). There is at least one thing that Gajewski and Bob Ehrlich have in common… it’s their Rockville campaign headquarters. Ehrlich leased the same building, 718 Rockville Pike, months earlier. Check out this slide show of the Ehrlich campaign’s Rockville Headquarters kick-off at 718 Rockville Pike http://vimeo.com/13434424 (the outside photos even show the address). The same building is pictured above on the Patch one year later. Maybe it’s not Gajewski. Maybe the building is cursed.
Joseph Jordan
1:04 am on Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Unlike others who have posted here, I did attend the BoSE meetings. While I think they were wrong in deferring to Piotr regarding fair-market value, and $300 a month isn't it by a long shot, I do believe they gave him every opportunity to provide the information they asked for. The Board wanted nothing more than to have Mr. Gajewski be in compliance with the Rockville election laws. They did not want to do anything punitive. Had Gajewski simply provided the information asked for back in October or early November, we wouldn't be reading and commenting on the issue today.
Everything about the in-kind donation of the building, and subsequent financial reporting, was both suspect and sloppy. The contract itself was between Gajewski and entities that do not own the building, not his campaign and the owner. The plat attached to the contract clearly shows a different location than the actual building in the contract. The Board chose to ignore this. Ehrlich paid $3000 a month for the exact same space. The Board said they weren't in the real estate business and deferred to Piotr. The contract has an effective date of 7/21/2011, but Piotr shows the date as 8/1/2011. The mysterious Mr. Markus heads up MS Pike, the other contributor. There should be a paper trail, but Gajewski says there isn't and Markus has not returned calls to him.
I don't believe this issue cost Gajewski the election, but it, and the manner in which he has handled it, calls into question aspects of his character.
Theresa Defino
7:44 am on Wednesday, December 7, 2011
You are much too involved in this issue. You are not on the board. The manner in which he handled it seems fine enough. He lost...celebrate and move on.
Dan Cohen
3:02 pm on Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Ms. Defino, who coronated you queen of Rockville? Who are you to tell any citizen that they “are much too involved in this issue.” No, Mr. Jordan is not on the elections board, but thanks to conscientious citizens like him, Rockville voters and the elections board know of Gajewski’s wrong doing and are taking steps to bring him into compliance.
And you’ve got it dead wrong, “He lost...celebrate and move on.” It’s not about winning or losing. It’s not about more polarization and rancor. It’s even bigger than Gajewski’s campaign finance abuses. It about, how do we in Rockville thwart this kind of egregious abuse of our election laws in the future.
In this election, we saw Gajewski repeatedly test our established system of campaign ethics:
1.) Gajewski took campaign funds from Mark Silverwood and his attorneys, then lied at more than one debate that he took the money.
2.) After taking $1,500 from Silverwood, et al, he cast the deciding vote to annex the Reed Brothers property to make the Silverwood development happen (a possible ethics violation).
3.) He voted for the Pumphrey’s parking lot exception, then in a newspaper article admitted that he solicited Mr. Pumphrey for $1,000 after the fact http://www.thesentinel.com/mont/news/Rockvilleelection
4.) He took several thousands of dollars from other developers and continued to deny that he accepted any developer money.
Dan Cohen
3:35 pm on Wednesday, December 7, 2011
5.) He accepted an in-kind donation of his Rockville Pike headquarters from a property management company and fudged his campaign funding reports, stating that those contributions were worth a small fraction of their true value (unfortunately the board gave him a pass on this one).
6.) He tried to arbitrarily “break up” the headquarters donation so it would not violate Rockville election code, but failed to do so without getting caught.
7.) He has continually thumbed his nose at the elections board and not provided any documentation to back up his misrepresentations.
8.) His campaign funding reports were filled with inaccuracies and falsehoods.
The truth is, we have a lot to be thankful for, when it comes to Gajewski. He so thoroughly flaunted our election laws that it appears that there will be a major strengthening and rewrite of those laws. The elections board has been doing a great job. Looking at the city’s web site, they have met thirteen times this past year (many hours spent on Gajewski). In light of this, many citizens would find it incredulous to hear you say “…the board has had little to do for years and now they're chomping at the bit.” Thanks to the unprecedented deceptions of Gajewski, the elections board has more work to do prior to the next election than ever before.
Theresa Defino
4:37 pm on Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Dan, I'd like to remind you that there has not been a single finding that any laws were broken. Not one.
I am hopeful the elections board will make changes moving forward. Specifically, I am going to advocate for a strict limit on in-kind donations with definitions, so that candidates can't claim that T-shirts and postage count as "in-kind." I will also push for absolute transparency, and also limits, on what spouses can give.
Theresa Defino
4:39 pm on Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Also, thanks for the "queen" shout out. Always love a show of respect!
Piotr Gajewski
6:06 pm on Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Mr. Cohen, thanks for your interest in good ethics, honesty and complete transparency in Rockville elections.
Please note that there are no “falsehoods” on my campaign reports. There is no “possible ethics violation.” Your innuendo, however, is masterful. Anyone can assert that you possibly murdered your wife. Have you? I am guessing not. And if you have not, then you have not; and saying that you possibly might have does not make it so.
Please note that all of the information that you are spewing forth about all contributions to my campaign, in cash and in kind, is available to you precisely because I disclosed all of it on my finance reports, as required. So there are no two competing stories here. There is only one and that is what is fully disclosed by me on the finance reports.
It is my finance reports that accurately list all contributions from developers, lawyers and many others. I said at the outset of the campaign that I would welcome all such contributions and when they came, I gratefully accepted them and, of course, again, fully disclosed them.
Good holiday cheer to you, Mr. Cohen!
Dan Cohen
8:54 pm on Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Mr. Gajewski:
I find your comments to be creepy at best and at worst a veiled threat. No one else on this blog talks about murder. You do.
As Mr. Jordon said above, the only reason there are still articles about your campaign finance abuses, which we are still talking about, is your lack of responsiveness along with your cavalier attitude towards the elections board, our laws and the citizens of Rockville. The elections board put it very succinctly.
“I just feel like he’s not taking it seriously,” said board member Beryl Feinberg.
“He should be able to back it up,” Celeste said. “He should have the records to back it up.”
So please, provide what the elections board has requested. If you had acted properly, when you accepted your in-kind headquarters or turned in your funding report, it wouldn’t be rocket science now.
If you can’t or won’t do that, write a check for $700 and be done with it.
Just don’t make implied threats or use inflammatory words like “murder.”
Stephen Kelley
8:33 pm on Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Mr. Cohen,
Would you please provide factual evidence of Mr. Gajewski's "wrongdoing?" As far as I know, the Elections Board found no "wrongdoing" with regard to one of the "charges" alleged by Drew Powell, Joseph Jordan and others. The Board has yet to render an opinion on the other alleged "wrongdoing, but has only asked for additional information. Perhaps you have information not readily available to the citizens of Rockville? Please share.
And, yes, good holiday cheer to you, sir!
Theresa Defino
9:45 pm on Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Yes, he really seems like there's some kind of personal vendetta going on here. and like Joe, you're not the board either. Why are you speaking for them? Based on the venom and the tone, you'd really think the election hadn't happened yet, and there was something more happening than a simple review of one transaction out of $14,000 or whatever was the total campaign contributions. Talk about creepy.
Joseph Jordan
12:59 am on Thursday, December 8, 2011
Theresa, the problem isn’t that I am too involved…the problem is more people aren’t as involved. It became evident in this election that the Board does not monitor campaign finance reports, or other requirements of the City’s election laws. It is up to us, the citizens of Rockville, to keep candidates, elected officials and City staff honest and accountable.
By being involved, I can speak with certainty and facts. I have read the correspondence to and from Mr. Gajewski, and listened to the Board deliberate. If you aren’t involved, you can only express opinions based on emotional attachment, bias, hearsay or articles written by reporters who themselves were not in the meetings (Gazette).
Your saying “The manner in which he handled it seems fine enough” is an opinion based on what, wishful thinking? The fact is, the manner in which he handled it has not been fine enough. Had it been, again, we wouldn’t be commenting on it today.
As was said above, this isn’t about “sides” winning or losing. This is about showing respect for the law and toward a citizen body trying to do their job. This issue would still be with us had Piotr won the election.
Theresa Defino
8:44 am on Thursday, December 8, 2011
Right, citizens such as yourself who are impartial...i'll take my chances with the board, and as I said, push for changes. As I also said and Piotr did as well, there have been no findings of violations. The personal vitriol isn't warranted or constructive. Also, not sure if you're trying to attach Sean, but we're here commenting on Patch about a Patch story on a meeting it sure looks like he attended. No connection to the Gazette. Opinion is opinion...yours included.
Joseph Jordan
10:56 am on Thursday, December 8, 2011
As hard as it might be for you to understand, partiality has nothing to do with my views on this matter, nor is there anything personal or vitriolic in what I said. As for violations, there could be one if Mr. Gajewski doesn't satisfy the repeated requests for information from the Board, and bring his report into full compliance. This has been their goal from day one...nothing more, nothing less.
As for Sean, I have the utmost respect for what he does and how he does it, and I have told him so many times. Patch is but one source for information, and perhaps this isn't the forum for referencing the Gazette. My point in doing so was that they have also covered the story, and yet did so without sending a reporter to the meetings. Sean indeed was at some of the meetings, including the last one..