Search
Archives
Categories

This weekend, supporters of Pat Anderson sent out this email endorsing Pat Anderson to be re-elected as RNC Committeewoman:

As members of your State Executive Committee who served over the past year, we write in support of the re-election of Pat Anderson for National Committeewoman.

While the main focus of her position is to serve as your representative to the RNC and to help elect a Republican President, Congressmen and Senators from Minnesota, Pat also serves with us on the State Executive Committee of the Republican Party.

We have worked closely with Pat. She is an excellent leader with valuable insight and varied experience as an elected official in local and statewide office. This is an exceptional asset for our Party. But most importantly, she is honest and fair in the way she approaches both the opportunities and difficulties facing the MNGOP.

Over the last 12 months, we have seen dramatic changes in leadership at the state party. The Chair, Deputy Chair, Secretary/Treasurer, and half of the CD Chairs are new. We need someone like Pat who has historic knowledge of the ins and outs of the MNGOP and can mentor the new leadership as we chart a course for our Party.

Without Pat Anderson on the Executive Board of the Republican Party of Minnesota, it would have taken much, much longer to uncover the party’s serious financial mismanagement. Pat did her homework and asked tough, pointed questions last May and June about the financial health of the party. She was asking those questions when few other people were and she was doing it while being attacked by party leadership determined to hide their financial misdeeds.

Pat’s investigation of the party’s FEC and State Campaign Finance reports led to the establishment of a Financial Review Committee in October which eventually led to the full exposure of the party’s financial problems. Without Pat Anderson’s work and determination, we may still be operating in the dark today. Playing “auditor” was not in Pat’s job description as your National Committeewoman, but we are grateful that she and others took on that role to relentlessly pursue the answers and the truth.

As we continue to recover from our past leadership’s mismanagement, we must also look to the future. We need to support our US Senate Candidate, our Presidential Nominee, as well as our local endorsed candidates. As a former Mayor and State Auditor, Pat is uniquely qualified to understand what it takes to win a statewide race as well as a local election. Pat’s experience and knowledge is a valuable resource for the State Executive Team, and at the National level where she is doing an excellent job in representing Minnesota’s concerns at the RNC.

We are supporting Pat Anderson for re-election at the State Central Committee meeting in St. Cloud, because she is one of the most valuable assets this party has. We urge you to support her as well.

I don’t have a vote in this election but I’ve certainly got an opinion into this endorsement letter. Here’s something that I question:

Without Pat Anderson on the Executive Board of the Republican Party of Minnesota, it would have taken much, much longer to uncover the party’s serious financial mismanagement.

First, it’s been reported by more than a few people that RNC Committeeman Jeff Johnson did the initial digging into the RPM’s financial mismanagement. Until I hear otherwise, that’s who I’ll give credit to.

Second, it’s impossible to think that Janet Beihoffer would’ve tolerated the financial mismanagement within the state party. It’s impossible to think that Janet Beihoffer wouldn’t have tried getting to the bottom of this serious issue.

It’s equally impossible to think that she wouldn’t have gotten to the bottom of that mess, especially considering the fact that Janet Beihoffer was a CPA with years of experience working for KPMG. At the time, KPMG was the second biggest auditing firm in the United States.

Anyone who’s known Janet Beihoffer knows that she’s a no-nonsense person who knows how to get important things done. For proof of that, look at the work she’s done on training election workers. That’s a major project. It required dedication, discipline and skill putting the program together, then recruiting and training the people to man the polling stations.

While I’m not reflexively opposed to lobbyists, I will always oppose lobbyists that support giving government the tools needed to expand government. In lobbying for Racino, that’s what Pat Anderson supported.

I won’t trash Pat Anderson. I’ll just vehemently disagree with her on that decision.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

10 Responses to “Is Pat Anderson that indespensible?”

  • eric z says:

    The graveyards are full of indispensable people. Not to wish that upon Anderson, but it is how it is. As to the serious mismanagement, how long can the landlord be stalled? The timing of the Sutton/Brodkorb party purge, and the Senate’s move at roughly the same time, (independent of the inept way the Republicans in the Senate operated), all suggests coordination yet to be publicly disclosed. Michel waiting months to dump on Koch until after the party purged first is yet to be publicly justified, the sitting on info ostensibly later as the key motivation for moving. And if the party being broke, in hock, with all the questionable disbursements and unpaid claims pending had been an event of breaking news closer to the November election, half the state, the DFL half, would have been happier. But for a bottom line, if Pat Anderson were an indispensable person, she’d still be state auditor.

    Finally, Gary, you omit who the signators of the endorsement were. Don’t you view that as information readers should have, (if not recipients or privy to things otherwise), in weighing your premise?

    “Supporters of Pat Anderson” tells me zippo, since the tenor of the item says as much. Who?

  • eric z says:

    A quick follow-up question: Anderson, if my understanding is correct, was a Racino booster, yes/no?

    And if so, the Indian gambling – Racino compromise, the casinos can take horse race bets while the track gets its slots; how is that kiss-and-make-up thing, and Dayton signing off on it, the timing, to be related to the Pat Anderson advertisement, and the names and allegiances of its perpetrators?

  • Scott Dutcher says:

    As one of the authors on this letter, I want to address your criticisms. Your posting diminishes the role Pat played in drawing attention to the MNGOP financial problems — claiming that Jeff Johnson was the first to look into the situation. Your skepticism on that point is entirely misplaced. During Pat’s first meeting on the Executive Committee in May 2011, she was asking very difficult and very pointed questions about the financial status of the party. As a new member on the committee, her questions — and the regime’s inability to answer them — clarified for me that there was, indeed, a problem. Pat worked for months after that May meeting to prove her concerns to be correct. In retrospect, she was right all along and she deserves credit for being one of the first to recognize where we stood.

    As a member of the Financial Review Committee, I believe that Jeff Johnson has also been an indispensable asset to our party. His work since October has been tremendous. However, it was Pat and a small group of allies that worked to convince me and other members of the Executive Committee of the problem. Her persistence was essential throughout the past year.

    Kind Regards,
    Scott Dutcher
    Previous Executive Comm. Member — CD 7

  • Gary Gross says:

    Scott, Let’s go through what you said vs. my reply.

    First, you said “Without Pat Anderson on the Executive Board of the Republican Party of Minnesota, it would have taken much, much longer to uncover the party’s serious financial mismanagement.”

    Here’s my reply:

    Second, it’s impossible to think that Janet Beihoffer would’ve tolerated the financial mismanagement within the state party. It’s impossible to think that Janet Beihoffer wouldn’t have tried getting to the bottom of this serious issue.

    It’s equally impossible to think that she wouldn’t have gotten to the bottom of that mess, especially considering the fact that Janet Beihoffer was a CPA with years of experience working for KPMG. At the time, KPMG was the second biggest auditing firm in the United States.

    Notice what I didn’t say. I didn’t say that Pat didn’t make a positive contribution. I simply argued that Janet Beihoffer was at least as likely to get to the bottom of the financial mismanagement because she was a successful CPA with lots of auditing experience.

    Later, I said that “I won’t trash Pat Anderson.” I stand by that. I didn’t trash Pat Anderson. I merely highlighted that Janet Beihoffer brought at least as many skills to the table as Pat Anderson.

    Before closing this out, there is something that you didn’t mention, specifically, the issue of Pat being a lobbyist for Racino. It’s impossible to say you’re a limited government conservative while lobbying for giving government the tools to expand government. That’s the key difference between Janet Beihoffer & Pat Anderson. I never have to worry that Janet Beihoffer will lobby for expanding government with Racino revenues.

  • Bill Jungbauer says:

    I too am an author of this letter. I’ve served on the state exec committee for three years. During that time, up until Pat Anderson came on board, the committee was nothing but a rubber stamp for what ever Tony Sutton wanted. I asked plenty of tough questions during that time only to be met with defensive behavior from both Sutton and Sturrock. But during my first two years on the committee, I stood alone in asking them. I must point out that Janet Beihoffer was a member of the committee while serving as chair of the 2nd CD. I have to ask, Was Janet, as a member of the state exec committee, aware of the Campaign Finance Board’s activity looking into the 2006 complaint which resulted in a $170,000 fine? I don’t know. I do know I was the only one asking back then and no one was listening. As soon as Pat became a member, she dove right into the party’s money problems. Pat Anderson, Joe Westrup, and myself were the only “No” votes against Tony Sutton’s 100K salary.

  • Bill Jungbauer says:

    I must also point out that Jeff Johnson did not get on board til later. He has done great work on the financial review committee, but it was Pat’s ground work early on that needs to be recognized.

  • Jamie Delton says:

    I’m not an author of the letter but I support Bill’s comment. An exec member candidly reported to a small group that it was Pat Anderson who ensured the completion of the non-BS spreadsheet in part with info extracted late from Sturrock at the December State Central meeting at the Bloomington Hilton. There wouldn’t have been the info at all were it not for Pat’s wonderful ability to summarize in a spreadsheet a variety of obscure anomalies. Donors, members and prospects contribute knowing we have a legitimate base now.

  • Jeff Johnson says:

    Since my name has come up, I wanted to give my take. First, though, I want to point out that I’m not supporting one candidate over the other in the Committeewoman race. I like, respect and have worked with both Pat and Janet.

    Gary, you state in your post that you’ve heard from others that “Jeff Johnson did the initial digging into the RPM’s financial management.” I appreciate that credit, but it’s probably misplaced. There were many of us on the Exec Committee who were asking questions last summer after we were elected, but Pat was the most aggressive and pushed the hardest. She received some criticism for that aggressiveness at the time, so she probably should also get some credit for it now.

    I took over the process in September when we created the RPM Financial Oversight Cmte, but Pat was “digging” well before that.

    Just not comfortable taking more credit than I deserve…

  • Gary Gross says:

    After reading the comments, I decided to check Janet’s actual tenure on the State Executive Committee.

    Reviewing these documents: the FEC complaint and conciliation agreement (settlement) my response to Bill Jungbauer is:

    Bill Jungbauer,

    Janet Beihoffer was not on the State Executive Committee when either of the two episodes of financial mismanagement occurred.

    The $170,000 fine arose from the Party’s failure to disclose debts from the 2006 election cycle. The formal complaint in that matter was filed with the Federal Elections Commission on July 16, 2007, six months before Janet Beihoffer became a member of the State Executive Committee in February of 2008.

    Janet’s term on the State Executive Committee ended in October of 2009. All of the allegations of serious financial mismanagement described by the current Financial Review Committee occurred after she left.

  • Bill Jungbauer says:

    I agree with your timeline 100 percent Gary. It is important to note that I was the only person on the committee for a long time who ever asked a question concerning the treasurer’s report we received along with any contradictions with CFB reports. The committee was for the most part a rubber stamp for Tony until the party elections of 2011 when Pat was elected.

Leave a Reply