One finds it relatively easy to re-examine his mortality when a mere 39 year old can pass so quickly and without any expectation.
Chetly performed a great service to his community, fighting for transparency, truth, and honesty in government, and held friendships that extended to both sides of the political spectrum.
He was a true patriot, and an exceptional citizen.
He will be missed.
May god grant you all that you are deserving. Rest In Peace Chetly.
Linked here is this afternoon's filing by paid petitioners for the so-called "the Tea Party" of Michigan. 38,000 signatures roughly are required to put a new party on the ballot -the filers claim to have submitted 59,400 (but with an unknown number of sheets, so I am waiting for the Secretary of State to count and number the sheets before looking at this much harder).
If that number holds or is anywhere near reality, it will be a hard number to challenge in terms of signature validity. But the Tea Party may have other legal issues, and I'll report on those as appropriate.
Two new names show up now.
First, is Eric Tincher, of Kalamazoo, whose name I withheld except from news media contacts, who was the primary subcontractor for the paid effort. He's known as a subcontractor to PCI, Inc, or "Progressive Campaigns", the petition company I reported was involved. This is tertiary verification my accuracy on that report - I name him now because he signed as the legal agent depositing the signatures.
John Roby now appears as the "Secretary" of the Tea Party. Campaign finance donations show him to be a near clone of Mark Steffek - a UAW line worker or similar person with a regular $2 to $10 payroll deducation donation to a UAW PAC. Not much else is known about Roby - but several people are working down that path now.
Yesterday, the Republican candidates for the 7th U.S. Congressional District had their first debate down in Adrian, MI. It was sponsered by the Lenawee 9.12 project. (http://www.lenawee912.org/) The debate lasted over an hour with the candidates getting asked questions from the Lenawee 9.12 project first, and then the candidates got to ask each other questions.
You can read the Andrian's Daily Telegraph's article, and watch the whole debate on their web site: http://www.lenconnect.com/features/x1876487370/Republican-7th-Congressional-District-candidates-debate-issues-character-traits.
Mayor Virg Bernero claims no wrong doing when it was found by Internal Auditor Arnie Yerxa that the Mayor's office gave a part time "Special Assistant" contract employee full benifits. (Most part time workers, and no other contract part time workers received Health Care Benifits.) Although it is unclear as to when then employee started, the employee signed up for benifits on Feb. 1st, and was terminated in April. (But continued paying health benifits for three more months.) This costed Lansing Taxpayers $2,548.68.
Mayor Virg Bernero’s chief of staff says that expenditures was within budget and Bernero’s purview. Is that what you want for a governer?
Today's viral video that is exploding on Congressman's Bob Etheridge's political future has an element that many commentators have missed.
"I have a right to know who you are," as he was twisting the student interviewer's arm.
Where did you get that idea, Congressman? You have a right to compel someone to identify themselves?
Say, did anyone miss that Fifth Amendment? Silence? I think the Congressman did (how ironic, he could have used it himself).
The right to anonymous presence in public still exists, and even though many dislike the right to anonymous speech - it is a cherished American tradition. Ben Franklin was the foremost of the pamphetleers. It's two-sided as well - anyone has a right to try to expose anonymous speakers, people have a right to try to remain anonymous if they choose. This is not to say all types of participation can be anonymous - running for office is by logic something that requires exposing oneself to the public. Indeed, the Congressman has a it backwards - we have a right to monitor his activities and hold him accountable by monitoring his every action, but he does not have the right to know everything about who's asking him those questions.
Every now and then when I see rhetoric designed to evoke political consequences it is just so far from the truth that I have to chuckle. File this one there.
Let me start by saying teachers deserve fair pay - but they also deserve the same scrutiny as any other public employee.
The Detroit News last week was reporting on the recent passage by the House and Senate of a bill that required teachers to pay a 3% contribution to their pension fund. Previously, they paid nothing, and in exchange for this teachers retiring early also received a roughly 6% increase in their pension "mutliplier" which is the number that is multiplied by years of service to determine their final check. While such policy is clearly open to debate as to whether it is generationally fair, it was reached after 12 different amendments and bi-partisan negotiation came to it and signed by a Governor considered to be pro-education. But the hyperbole from teachers includes the personal (anyone voting for it is "attacking" teachers and destroying the entire education system - in the Detroit News one teacher went so far as to say they no longer receive ANY PERKS and this was their only perk. Here's the words of one teacher:
Compared to professionals like engineers or doctors who "get year-end bonuses or stock options. We don't have any of those opportunities," Beyerlein said. "Our mainstay has always been the benefits and that's it. And that's our only perk. And we don't even have that anymore."
Well, we do know that teachers have focused on benefits, sometimes to the exclusion of even bigger pay raises, but I'd be hard pressed to find a teacher anywhere that isn't making more than they were 5 years ago even adjusting for inflation (while the "base pay" raises may not have increased, scheduled "step increases" always do and they are little known to most). I'd also be hard pressed to say that pensions are the only "perk" - teachers receive fabulous health insurance. But the biggest part of the exaggeration here is that the pension bill made it so teachers "don't get that anymore." They still get it - they simply must contribute 3% toward it. And while they don't usually get year end bonuses or stock options, neither do most engineers and very many doctors - but maybe they should. Even President Obama has wisely supported throwing a few performance bonuses in the mix - but the "merit pay" word is usually criticized by teachers. It's interesting to see a teacher complain about not receiving it here.
After a couple weeks of reflection and a few discussions with folks - and circulators - on the recent Tea Party petition, I thought I'd make a few points clear. While 99% of the response was positive, a few may have misconstrued either the assumed strategy in response (at this point, I believe its a legal & and internal Party challenge if they get on the ballot, and they probably will) or thought that the exposure here was somehow personal.
By now, dozens of petitioners for the petition have been seen from Allegan County to Kalamazoo and Battle Creek over to metro-Detroit. The petitioners are paid - they are doing a job. Period. I asked people to contact me when they saw a petitioner so I had an idea of the scope of the effort - not for any other purpose. There is nothing wrong with what the petitioners are doing, per se. They are demonstrating an exercise in capitalism and democracy - anyone who wants to try to get on the ballot is entitled to do (try) so, and they are entitled to pay or be paid in that process. Are they entitled to be on the ballot? No - just as with the Declaration of Independence's recognition that we are entitled to life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness, democracy and the right to petition entitle you to pursue the process. A petition sponsor is entitled to organize groups of volunteers or paid staff and try to meet the signature requirements by presenting the petition to enough willing signers - if they obtain enough willing signers and follow the rule of law (not made up rules or rules, like "alleged fraud", stretched into all imagination after the fact because a particular issue is sensitive either) in doing so they should be on the ballot. A petition circulator is entitled to do it freely or get paid to do it, and to quite a bit of latitude (under the First Amendment) in how they present the issue or candidate, as a matter of protected opinion.
On the other end of the equation, potential signers are entitled to not sign a petition, and opponents to reasonably dispute the circulator's statements, and they are entitled to quite a bit of latitude in that process. If you're a petitioner, you're paid to put up with some disagreement - if this was always an easy job, there'd be very few clients paying petitioners to do the job. That latitude of disagreement with petitions would include so-called "blocking" (opponents holding up counter-protest signs, or approaching potential signers along with the petitioner and offering a counter-position), and although I believe non-violent blocking is usually legal, this website and the author have not advocated or encouraged these extreme forms of "blocking" and would would oppose a strategy based on even legal forms of extreme blocking. Any behavior that isn't polite and professional would not only be in bad form, it would also not be productive and likely to backfire. Any interaction one has with a petitioner should be polite and civil - and even disagreement itself can be expressed politely. There's no reason to get upset at a petitioner anyway - or even the named spokesperson - ironically, they are both just getting paid to do a job (and part of that job should be answering media questions). If some might have assumed from my opposition to the Tea Party petition that I might advocate for extreme blocking techniques, I do not and would not condone them, nor would I think such a technique effective.
On the other hand, if "blocking" is simply defined as using the media and internet to "get the word out" about a petition, we do condone and encourage that, and see little reason why this would even be considered blocking in the original sense of that word. If some petitioners or the organizer have experienced minor difficulty - perhaps in acquiring willing signers or in having to deal with media inquiries as a result of the exclusives reported here - that is part of the process of a public petition drive and a very legitimate part of the debate.
Exposing the identity of someone organizing a petition to put a new political party is not inappropriate - they had no right to privacy and indeed some non-legal public relations obligation to explain their mission to the public when they chose to work to put a slate of candidates on a ballot. The nature of politics is that candidates and parties run on their ideas and in the open - it is anti-intuitive that a new party would remain in hiding and that itself raises legitimate questions.
Indeed, it is that one counter-intuitive fact that is the news story and ongoing interest of this whole matter. Why the silence from the organizers of the petition drive???
Sunlight forces organizer into Open Before Planned
With a large amount of credit due to the Southwest Michigan Tea Party for independently tracking down the identity of the organizer through a separate method (before any news of the official campaign finance filing was disclosed) Zarko Research is publishing here news of the identity of the figurehead assigned to be the legal organizer of the new Party collecting signatures under the Tea Party banner.
The identity of the legal figurehead for organizing the new "Tea Party" Party is Mark Edward Steffek of Reese, Michigan. Reese is in the Saginaw-area and fits with the Richville PO Box geographically - it is the next town down. Indeed, it suggests the level of deception involved - if one were operating openly a new Tea Party that one was proud of, why drive 15 miles outside of your own town to register a PO Box for it.
How the Front guy was first identified
The Southwest Michigan Tea Party did research earlier this week into the filings of LLC and corporations using the Department of Labor and Economic Growth (DLEG) website containing all new corporation filings. Mr. Mark Steffek, it turns out, is the proud owner of “The Tea Party, LLC” and the assumed name, “Tea Party”, as this search reveals:
Name:THE TEA PARTY, LLC Type: Domestic Limited Liability Company Resident Agent: MARK STEFFEK Registered Office Address: 9530 SAGINAW STREET REESE MI 48757 Mailing/Office Address: P.O. Box 23 RICHVILLE MI 48757 Formation/Qualification Date:4-26-2010 Jurisdiction of Origin:MICHIGAN Managed by: Members Status: ACTIVE Date: Present
It turns out that that link alone is enough to give you an airtight connection to the petition drive, as the address for mailing listed for the LLC is identical to the one on the petition’s paid for disclaimer. P.O. Box 23, Richville, MI 48757. The corporate filings allow us to link the Mark Steffek of 9530 Saginaw Street, Reese, MI 48757 to the Richville PO Box. It also explains why there was a typo in the Richville zip code, which a reporter pointed out to me. Reese is 48757. Richville is 48758. Richville and Reese are 10 minutes drive from each other and both about 15 miles due east of central Saginaw (http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&q=richville,+mi&fb=1&gl=us&ei=tzf3S8mmBZGkM-iurbsO&ved=0CA0Q_wY&hl=en&view=map&f=d&daddr=Richville,+Michigan&geocode=CRZjmJXsEuscFSZflgId_y8D-w&sa=X). Both are just inside Tuscola County.
That connection was enough, early Friday evening, for me to begin writing this story. Once I knew it was Mark Steffek that was the legal agent, and he had created an LLC (through which to move over a $100,000, presumably) on April 23, 2010, a timeframe fitting this petition drive nicely, the leads started opening up much wider. The obvious first step was to do a person search in the Michigan Campaign Finance online search database. But when I did that, I also wondered – has the organization “Tea Party” been registered this week. It turns out that it was on 5-18, and that it probably just came online Friday afternoon. Most reporters I know had looked for the Tea Party earlier in the week – but it hadn’t existed until days ago and wasn’t searchable until now.
The Tea Party Party is now Online
It appears that one of the consequences of this very website’s reporting last week was to force a scurried effort to register the Tea Party as a Campaign Finance committee. While the legal theories on what obligations a new party has on reporting are numerous, the standard rule is that entities have 10 days to file a report, as I mentioned on WJR radio on Monday in my interview with Frank Beckmann. I presume the organizers felt a need – given the early spotlight on the petitions – to file SOMETHING within that 10 days. The online “Statement of Organization” is here http://miboecfr.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/cfr/com_det.cgi?com_id=515258 and was so hastily thrown together it omits a Treasurer and Record Keeper name (which could have been the organizer), it has the signature of Steffek crossed out and his printed name, and (falsely) lists the committee formation date as 5/10/2010 (within the 10 days). Given the LLC required a $50 payment, with PO Box costs, I’d argue April 23, 2010 was the formation date, and that may lead to a campaign finance complaint with a minor fine being possible. No banks are listed, but the “checkbox” for expecting to spend more than $20,000 is checked, requiring it to do electronic reports. That means they expect to be serious, with serious money. They get the zipcode right for Richville this time.
Who is this Mark Steffek and does he have Democratic Party ties?
Well, that’s a tougher question to answer. He’s in his late 50s apparently, having graduated in 1972 from a high school in the area. He appears to be or have been a union line worker. But his political donations tell a story that at least points toward the Democratic Party. Here’s a listing of all “Steffek” donations that are currently online.
The listing basically has three basic connections 1) Lots of small UAW-PAC donations, probably via payroll deduction, during the 2006 election cycle 2) Both his wife and he have donated to the Michigan Farm Bureau and 3) a 2001 donation to David Bonior – a fairly early ground floor donation in the 2002 Governor’s race. While the Farm Bureau is a fairly cross-partisan donation, it should be remembered that Diane Byrum’s husband is the director of that organization. Byrum was the spokesperson for Reform Michigan Government Now! after it was exposed. While the picture isn’t one of a heavy-hitter donor to the Democratic Party, Steffek’s history is highly suggestive.
Without help, how would Steffek – who lives in a very modest neighborhood - hire a 6-figure petition firm? Why did no one in the Tea Party movement know of Steffek and his plans until now? Why would he not reveal them in a timely way, and wait weeks into the petition drive? Why would Steffek hire Progressive Campaign, Inc. (PCI), as we have reported and now verified through 4 different sources and technical means, a firm with abundant ties to the UAW, George Soros, the Michigan Democratic Party, and other very left-wing causes?
That leaves the question – who’s helping Steffek? We are now yet another step closer in peeling back this onion and unraveling the web covering who’s behind this. Help us piece it together – contact me by phone or e-mail if you have a tip.
Drove by the Royal Oak Post Office on Thursday (May 19) and snapped a few shots of petitioners circulating the fake Tea Party petition. I've chosen to withhold the identities of those circulating, as they have nothing to do with the organizers of the drive and are simply trying to earn a living.
TEASER: Tomorrow we will have another Exclusive EXPOSING THE IDENTITY of the figure head who is operating the fake Tea Party as its legal agent.
It appears that one of the consequences of this very website’s reporting last week was to force a scurried effort to register the Tea Party as a Campaign Finance committee. While the legal theories on what obligations a new party has on reporting are numerous, the standard rule is that entities have 10 days to file a report, as I mentioned on WJR radio on Monday in my interview with Frank Beckmann. I presume the organizers felt a need – given the early spotlight on the petitions – to file SOMETHING within that 10 days. The online “Statement of Organization” is here 
