Candidate responds to unsigned letter

The candidate whose name was mentioned in the unsigned letter sent to District 1 residents said he had no involvement in the letter?s production. Jack Seward Jr., who is running for the District 1 Washington County Supervisor seat, said he had no knowledge of the letter until Wednesday when The Journal called him to ask for comment on the Washington County Auditor?s press release on the matter.

Washington County Auditor Dan Widmer and Washington County Attorney Larry Brock have said in interviews last Wednesday and Thursday that the letters, which advocate the election of Seward, violate the Iowa Code because there is no attribution of who created them.

Seward said neither the Washington County Attorney?s Office nor Washington County Auditor?s Office had contacted him as of Thursday morning. He drafted an e-mail Wednesday to the county attorney, county auditor, the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board and The Journal in which he wrote that he had nothing to do with the ?authorship, content, production or distribution of the letter.? He wrote that he did not know who was responsible for it. He wrote that he will attempt to identity whoever is responsible for the material and its distribution, and he will encourage them to come forward and take responsibility for their actions.

The cover letter that accompanied the absentee ballot request forms states:

?June 5

^th

is the Washington Co. primary elections.

?Please help us elect supervisors who will actually listen to their constituents, and stop wasting tax dollars.

?Mangold, Miksch, and Rich have continually voted for their own agendas without listening to the people they are supposed to represent.

?It is time for the residents of Washington Co. to take back their government. We need to let elected officials know that we will not stand for them advancing their own agendas at the cost of the people they represent.

?If you live in District 1, please fill out the attached absentee voting ballot [Widmer said that the attached document was an absentee ballot request form, not the ballot itself]. Check primary, and republican. Send it to the county in the attached envelope. You will receive an absentee ballot in the mail. Please vote for Jack Seward. He has promised to end zoning, and the Richmond lagoon. He will use common sense and respect the ?peoples? wishes. You are only voting in the primary at this time. In Nov. you will be able to vote for whoever wins the primary or Kay Ciha.?

The letter includes the legal description of District 1 and ends with the line ?Thanks for your help. Let us take back our county government.?

Mangold learned of the existence of the letter after talking to Widmer. He wrote a personal e-mail to Seward on May 22 in which he wrote that he was concerned about the content of the letter because it was ?a negative attack ad that is unsigned, making it unethical,? and ?it lacks a ?paid for by? notation making it illegal.?

?I don?t know who is responsible for this letter, but they are using your name in an illegal way,? he wrote. ?State laws are clear about paid for by notations and in-kind contributions. You are supposed to report this as an in-kind contribution on your next report, I assume they didn't get you the information. Things like this need to stop, now. As candidates, we should hold ourselves to a higher standard. Political discourse and debate is one thing, this is entirely different. My concern is that a letter like this not only reflects poorly on you but it also reflects poorly upon the entire Washington County Republican Party and other candidates on both sides of the political aisle. Things like this letter are what make people hate politics and politicians.?

Seward wrote a response to Mangold and carbon copied the county attorney, county auditor, the state campaign ethics board and The Journal.

Seward wrote in his e-mail, ?Thank you for contacting me directly about this matter. By your comments, you appear to insinuate that I #1 had something to do with this, and that #2 I am either ignorant or unaware of the requirements regarding attribution statements on campaign material. Let me assure you that you do not need to lecture me about the personal standards I should maintain.?

Seward went on to write that he had nothing to do with the letter, did not know who was responsible for it and did not instruct anyone to conduct themselves in that way on his behalf. He wrote that he would ask the state campaign ethics board for guidance on how to handle the issue.

Mangold responded to Seward by writing, ?Jack, it was not my intention to insinuate that you had knowledge of this letter when I said ?I don't know who is responsible for this letter, but they are using your name in an illegal way.? I am however concerned as to the nature of the political climate currently in Washington County, which is why I initially contacted you privately in regards to this matter.

?It is worth noting that we are not running against each other for the same seat and it is entirely possible that we will be working together in the future as representatives of Washington County.?

In an interview Tuesday, Mangold said the e-mail he sent Seward was done on his personal account and that it was simply one candidate communicating with another. Mangold represents District 4 and is not running against Seward because the two are in different districts. Mangold said he does not know why Seward forwarded their e-mail communication to anyone else.

Brock and Widmer said they had no information that indicated Seward was responsible for the letter. Brock said he did not know how many people received the letter. Widmer said he did not know how many received it, either, other than that multiple people received it.

The envelopes the letters came in also contained absentee ballot request forms. Brock said that absentee ballot request forms that are sent to other people must contain a receipt, indicating to the recipient the person who sent the request form. The letters that were sent to residents in District 1 contained no receipt. Brock said this violation of the Iowa Code is a simple misdemeanor punishable by a fine ranging from $65 to $625 and up to 30 days in jail.