/

Candidate for county treasurer drops out of race

7 mins read
Joanne Karkos of East Dixfield, waves to the crowd during the Fourth of July parade in Jay. She withdrew from the race this month.
Republican candidate, Joanne Karkos of East Dixfield, waves to the crowd during the Fourth of July parade in Jay. She withdrew from the Franklin  County treasurer race this month. At right is state Sen. Tom Saviello of Wilton.

FARMINGTON – The Republican candidate for Franklin County treasurer, Joanne Karkos of East Dixfield, has dropped out of the race. She cited a law which prevents federal employees from running in a bipartisan election as the reason for her departure.

Her withdrawal from the race marks the end of an unusual campaign that was plagued by complaints from her opponent and the state’s ethics commission investigating those allegations.

Karkos, currently a postmaster who has worked as a U.S. Postal  Service employee for 28 years, quit the race earlier this month after she was informed that the Hatch Act law, or An Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities, prevents federal government employees from participating in certain political activities. Included in the law’s prohibited political activity is running in a bipartisan election for county treasurer.

Current county treasurer, Mary Frank, a Republican, decided not to run for another four-year term. Democrat Pamela Prodan of Wilton entered the race. Karkos was a late entry as the lone Republican candidate for county treasurer in the June 10 primary election after another candidate at the last minute had decided not to run. She began her write-in campaign to be her party’s nominee on May 7 and successfully got the more than 300 votes required to get her name on the November election ballot.

According to documents filed with the state’s Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices, Prodan made a complaint that Karkos had made campaign expenditures even through she wasn’t supposed to after filing for an exemption from disclosing her campaign financial information.

Karkos had completed and signed the section of the registration form for county candidates that requests an exemption from filing a campaign financial report. In exchange, a candidate agrees to not accept donations or contribute to his or her campaign. The exemption allows county and municipal candidates to run for office without having the burden of appointing a treasurer and filing campaign finance reports.

In late May, Karkos ordered political signs be made and took out ads in two local newspapers, according to the ethics commission, and she did not file a finance report by the May 30 deadline.

On June 6, Prodan first called the Ethics Commission to complain that Karkos had ordered political signs. Karkos was called by the commission that same day and confirmed she had ordered and had received the signs, but had not paid for them. She told the commission’s candidate registrar, Elizabeth Hudson, “that she did not understand that using personal funds for her campaign was considered accepting a contribution or making an expenditure for her campaign,” according to a memo to the ethics board.

Karkos was asked to revoke her exemption request and file campaign finance reports. Karkos, the memo noted, immediately submitted the required paperwork.

On the day before the primary, Prodan’s formal complaint was received by the commission. In it, Prodan reiterated her objection to Karkos contributing to her own campaign by ordering campaign signs and handing out small notes promoting her candidacy and that Republican candidate Tom Skolfield of Weld had also contributed to Karkos’ campaign by mailing flyers urging residents to write in her name in the June 10 primary election, despite having an exemption from filing financial reports.

“In spite of the fact that Joanne Karkos now says she will revoke her exempt status and begin filing reports, even if she files a report today, one day from the primary election, filing a report at this late date is not adequate disclosure to the public of the information that should have already been disclosed before now. Where appropriate, I hope all civil penalties will be applied,” Prodan wrote.

Karkos admitted she did make note cards worth $5 and she ordered campaign signs totaling $372.79, which she paid for on June 11. She also paid for two newspaper ads totaling about $80. In a letter to the commission, Skolfield said he did mail out notes to residents urging support for the Karkos campaign but said that the candidate didn’t know about it. The Kevin Raye for Congress campaign submitted an expenditure report to the commission that it had paid for a local radio ad in support of Karkos, without her knowledge.

In a June 9 letter to the commission, Karkos said she thought the exempt status meant that if she paid for all of the expenditures herself, she wouldn’t have to file a financial report.

“It was through my lack of knowledge of the political campaign process that led to this complaint,” she wrote, adding she was “totally shocked” to think she’d made a mistake and immediately tried to rectify the situation.

On Wednesday, Karkos said that in the end, there had been no penalty imposed by the commission and she just had to resubmit the correct filing without asking for an exemption and file a campaign financial report.

“They (the commission) told me it’s a common mistake made,” she said of the exemption error.

The Hatch Act, disqualifying her from running for treasurer, also came as a shock.

“I’ve been working here at the Post office for 28 years and I’ve never heard of it,” she said of the federal law. The news was brought to her attention earlier this month by someone Karkos didn’t name, but said was affiliated with the local Democrats.

Her last day as a postal employee is Sept. 30, when her scheduled retirement officially begins.

She’s not sure what she will do next, she said. A call to Prodan for comment was not immediately returned.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

23 Comments

  1. I would rather vote for someone who knew little about “political process” than one that knew every little trick and loophole to win.

  2. It’s our choice and right to vote for whomever we want – I agree with Captain Planet and am definitely going to write in & vote for Joanne come election day

  3. Considering that she’s *retiring* from the position as a “Federal Employee,” this seems like a ridiculous last-minute desperation tactic. The law won’t even apply in five days.

    I agree with the three posts so far, it might prevent her from “running,” but can’t she still be duly elected if she’s written in?

  4. Well, there. Now Pam Prodan can rest easy.
    Good job, you saved the world, Pam.

    Sorry Joanne, a lot of us were really rooting for you.

  5. I don’t know any of the people involved with this, have no vote.
    But, don’t fault the law. It makes sense.
    It’s not hard to follow the logic, that even though this individual may be completely scrupulous and honest, there could be a situation where a person who was a postmaster could attempt to use that position to influence or even coerce voters.

  6. Because of some archaic law that was ‘dug up’, Joanne had to withdraw from the election. That federal law is ridiculous and should be removed. However, many people have told me they are going to write her name in anyway! I’m not sure that will work but go for it. After all, she got well over the 300 votes needed to get her name on the ballot (545 write-in votes in the June 10**) and if they all write her in again plus some more this could get interesting.

    **These figures are available from the Secretary of State’s office.

  7. Why is knowledge and the pursuit of truth and honesty disparaged? My vote will always be for the knowledgeable and ethical candidate. And why is someone who follows rules and laws called a troublemaker?

  8. What a sad system, after 28 years to be local US postal employee with exceptional record being told , could not take local position as a county treasurer seems a little ridicules, ( political)
    We are writing in you name.Joanne…… Hope everyone does too…

  9. I am all for following the rules. I also understand it is hard to know what you don’t know. Sounds like Ms. Karkos was quick to disclose and do whatever needed to be done. I appreciate that responsiveness. Sounds a bit of a desperate attempt not to have competition.

  10. The Hatch Act is hardly an archaic or arcane (I think that’s the word the writer was seeking) law. Any employee of the executive branch of the federal government should be aware of it since it specifically applies to them. That Joanne Karkjos did not know of it tells me she’s not a detail person.

  11. To Slc right on re your comment “Sounds a bit of a desperate attempt not to have competition.” It seems to
    me that Ms. Karkos is getting more positive name recognition on this issue than Ms. Prodan.
    To Tony N: Perhaps I should have said ‘archaic and arcane’–the Hatch act could be described by both if
    you’ve ever read it. The Hatch act came into being in 1939–“Allegations that Democrats had used Works Progress Administration employees during the 1938 midterms were rampant. Sen. Carl Hatch, a conservative Democrat representing New Mexico, sponsored the Hatch Act, which FDR signed in 1939.” I hardly think
    that postal employees are classified under the ‘Executive Branch of Government”. Please correct me if I am
    in error.

  12. If a federal employee can’t run in a bipartisan race then how in hell did someone elect Obama to a second term? I’m writing in Joanne Karkos!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.