In recent weeks, the Allen County clerk made a recommendation about ballot wording for Superior Court judge that, if adopted by the Election Board, would arguably have helped her husband, a candidate for the judgeship. Emails show that Clerk Lisbeth “Lisa” Borgmann asked the board to revisit the matter of the ballot language on Sept. 8, three days after the board members – of which Borgmann is one – had approved the final ballot. At issue is how the ballot lists judicial candidates. The ballot lists the office and then the incumbents name. The November ballot reads, “For the office of Judge Stanley Levine.” Because Levine is running for re-election, his name appears twice – on the office description and below it as a candidate. Two challengers of Levine are also listed: James Posey and Dan Borgmann, the clerks husband. The judicial races are nonpartisan, but the issue is nonetheless complicated by politics. The Borgmann name is also on the ballot twice because she is running for clerk. She has also spent thousands of dollars on advertising, including billboards with her name on them. Borgmann, a Republican, is a standing member of the Election Board in her position as clerk of courts. By law, the two other board members must be a Republican and a Democrat who are appointed by their county parties. Two local lawyers fill those spots: Tom Hardin, a Republican and board president, and Tim Pape, a Democrat. Following a 2004 state law, the Election Board began listing the names of incumbent judges on the ballot as a way to identify the specific office, since the judges switch courtrooms, said Beth Dlug, director of elections. The identifying office and incumbents name is followed by candidates names, so the incumbent judge, if seeking re-election, appears twice. Allen and Vanderburgh counties are the only counties in the state to list incumbent judges as a way of designating a particular courtroom, according to Dlug. “A room number cannot be used as identification like they do in other counties because our judges use multiple rooms,” she said. Dlug, who became director in 2009, said the issue has been broached before. “I reached out to the previous director and asked about it, and she said it had been brought up many times by the board members at that time, both before and after it was changed,” Dlug said. The Journal Gazette used a freedom of information request to obtain emails exchanged among Election Board members from Sept. 1 through Oct. 10. The emails show Borgmann emailed fellow board members three days after they had finalized the ballot and asked them to revisit the issue of preventing the incumbent judges names from appearing twice, adding that if they meet to discuss the matter, she would recuse herself and appoint her chief deputy to serve as her proxy. On several emails to the Indiana Election Division from Borgmanns chief deputy, Christopher Nancarrow, Pape was left out of the emails that were copied to Borgmann, Hardin and Dlug. Nancarrow sent a letter to state officials a few hours after the ballot had been unanimously approved by the board, asking state officials for clarification of the law and verification that it was not necessary to list the incumbent judges names twice. Pape was brought into the loop three days later when Borgmann suggested in an email to all that the matter be revisited. Borgmann said she was simply trying to right a wrong and there is no conflict of interest. “Tom brought it up at the Sept. 5 meeting, and I didnt catch it until later, so we investigated the matter,” she said Thursday. “It was an error that needed corrected,” she said. “I was going to get a proxy to serve in my stead, so I dont see a conflict of interest,” she said. Borgmann said the issue had not been discussed during the past four years she has been clerk and on the Election Board. In another email, Hardin says on Sept. 8 that he prefers to identify an office without reference to anyones name and “if we are all in agreement, I think (Dlug) and her staff can make the change without a meeting.” Pape responded that approving and changing the ballot were official acts and questioned moving forward without a public meeting. Hardin agreed and a meeting was set for Sept. 12. Three days before the scheduled meeting, Pape wrote in an email to Hardin and Borgmann, in part: “Well … this is going to be an issue. I believe the sitting judges are already aware of the history and have checked into it. “Lisa, I think it is very problematic for you to have even raised the issue since Dan is a candidate,” Pape wrote. “You risk being subjected to using your position as an office holder and an EB member to further your husbands candidacy. So, while I havent thought it through, your recusal seems right.” Pape said that he did not hear back from Hardin or Borgmann after sending the email, until he got a notice from Hardin that the meeting had been canceled but offered no reason. Hardin said there was no need for a meeting because, after investigating, it was clear the ballot was in line with the state statute. “Initially, when I brought it up, I had not thoroughly reviewed the issue,” Hardin said. “My thinking was that if it was a blatant error, and we needed to fix it quickly, but it became apparent to me after reading the statute that it was not an error and I felt thats how the ballot should be listed this time,” Hardin said. “It was more an issue of interpretation.” Hardin said he did not think it was a conflict for Borgmann to initiate the proposed change. “We were just trying to do the right thing,” he said. “We have good working, professional relationships, but I dont understand how they can think its OK,” Pape said. “Thats remarkable.” The issue of listing incumbent judges names twice as a way of identifying the courts will be revisited by the Election Board after the election, Borgmann said. According to campaign finance reports filed last week, Borgmann has spent over $12,000 on advertising, including several billboards that spell out Borgmann in large lettering with the words “for clerk” below in much smaller letters – even though she is unopposed. Dan Borgmann, who, as a judicial candidate, is limited by state law and can spend no more than $10,000 on his campaign, has spent just over $4,000. Borgmann said her advertising is normal and the advertising was not for her husbands benefit. “Thats what we do – we get our name out there, regardless of if we are opposed or not,” she said. Campaign reports show that Borgmann spent no money on her campaign before the May primary, in which Borgmann was also uncontested and her husband was not on the ballot. [email protected] Following are several emails obtained by the Journal Gazette through a freedom of information request. The emails were exchanged after their approval of the ballot on Sept. 5. Sept. 8, 2014 8:04 a.m. From: Lisbeth Borgmann To: Tom Hardin, Timothy Pape, Beth Dlug cc: Christopher Nancarrow Subject: Judicial Ballot Wording Good morning, I think we may need to revisit an issue that we briefly discussed last Friday. On the judicial portion of the ballots, we have the names of the judges listed twice. Their name appears in the description area and also in the listing of of candidates to vote for. No where else in the ballot does a candidate’s name appear twice. We ran this issue by Dale Simmons (Indiana Election Division) and he believes it would be better to list the candidates’ names once and put the actual Court Division number in the description. For example: Judge of the Superior Court Civil Division Allen Superior Court 2 Vote for (1) only This description prevents a candidate’s name from being listed twice. I think it was done wrong in the past and this shows the actual “identified court” under consideration. Let me know if you agree and if we need to call a meeting. If you feel like a meeting needs to be called, I will recuse myself and have my Chief Deputy (Nancarrow) serve as my proxy. Sept. 8, 8:51 a.m. From: Tom Hardin To: Lisbeth Borgmann, Timothy Pape, Beth Dlug cc: Christopher Nancarrow Subject: Judicial Ballot Wording I would like to do what is right. As you know, I mentioned this at our meeting because I thought it was odd to identify an office as the incumbent’s name. I prefer to identify an office without reference to anyone’s name. If we are all in agreement, I think (Dlug) and her staff can simply make the change without a meeting. Sept. 9, 10:18 a.m. From: Lisbeth Borgmann To: Tom Hardin, Timothy Pape, Beth Dlug cc: Christopher Nancarrow I just got to thinking – I won’t be able to have Chris serve as my proxy for this because of potential conflicts. Please let me know if you think a meeting actually needs to be held to decide the issue on its merits (fairness – especially with regard to a judicial race). I will have to call another proxy if a meeting needs to be called. Sept. 9, 10:32 a.m. From: Tom Harding To: Lisbeth Borgmann I just think we need to hear from Tim. We all voted to approve it, so now that we are changing it, I want his consent. If he doesn’t consent, then, in order to move the issue forward, I think we would need to have a meeting. I’ve tried to contact Tim, but he hasn’t returned my call. I’ve asked (Dlug) to contact him. Sept. 9, 10:45 a.m. From: Tim Pape To: Tom Hardin, Lisbeth Borgmann Hey guys - Well...this is going to be an issue. I can tell you that I got asked in the spring for a copy of the ballot by a judicial candidate so he could see it. He told me then that he understood that the sitting judge’s office is listed on the ballot as it is now in original printing. I believe the sitting judges are aware of the history and already checked into this. I’ve been asked by party members , as well. Lisa, I think it’s potentially very problematic for you to have even raised this issue since Dan is a candidate. You risk being subjected to using your position – as an office holder and EB member – to further your husband’s candidacy, particularly when his last name is going to be on the ballot twice. So, while I haven’t thought through it fully, your recusal sounds right. I do not know if having your subordinate replace you satisfies the type of independence from your position that is optimal and provides you the distance you would personally seek. Lisa, I think you might be subject to critique from both the Levine and Posey camps for raising this. Beth (Dlug) explained that the reason the judge is listed is because the voters then know what judicial office is being voted upon. Is there a mechanism to identify otherwise? I thought we voted and approved the ballot already. Is there a procedure to change that decision? I sent this to you two as I don’t think this communication needs to go to Beth (Dlug) nor her staff at this point, if ever. Sept. 29, 9:50 a.m. From: Tom Hardin To: Lisbeth Borgmann We haven’t talked since I canceled the last board meeting. Just slightly concerned that my decision has caused a little rift between us, which I certainly hope is not the case (since it would be the first time ever). I hope you are not upset and I am available at any moment to discuss this with you. journalgazette.net/article/20141029/ELECTION01/310299997/1002/LOCAL
Posted on: Tue, 04 Nov 2014 10:07:18 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015