We know and can prove that Scott Alvord filed 4 Campaign finance reports late. If that was the only issue, it is not a huge deal $10-$20 a day in fines is typical. In Scott’s Case, this could be over $7500 because the 2017 Report was 730 days late at least.
The potential criminal issue is the backdated signatures on the reports.
So, let’s walk through this so you can understand the significance and focus on this.
When I checked the City of Roseville’s Website, I noticed that they used the date 1-31-2020 for all of Scott Alvord’s Campaign filings from the middle of 2017 to present. I followed up to ask for records from the City. The City confirmed in writing that they received the four reports on 1-31-2020 – confirming that they were all late. This is a clear violation of City Ordinances and State Campaign Finance Law. Click here to see the written response from the City of Roseville confirming the reports were filed on 1-31-2020 as in late. (please note that the screenshot referenced by the City of Roseville Staff did not translate when I converted the email in to a PDF, I can provide a snip of it upon request)
Now – at the time I made the records request, the City’s Website still had the reports with no date stamp on them posted. AS of 10-4-2020, I checked and the non-stamped reports were still there, in fact, I downloaded them on 10-2-2020 for this post. UPDATE: As of 11:20AM 10-9-2020, the unstamped reports are STILL on the City Website.
Click here to see 7-12 2017, 1-6 2018, 7-12 2018, and 1-6 2019 reports with no date stamp. 1-6 = Jan-Jun and 7-12 = Jul – Dec. As you view these, I encourage you to look at the date they were signed as stipulated on the reports.
The significance of the unstamped reports being on the City’s Website is that it calls in to question if the City did it on accident or on purpose. Your intrepid blogger was sent an email redacted from another source that was chasing the information. You can see that email here. In the email you will see that the city indicated that the date/time stamps were too faint to show up in the scans.
The next problem is when I received the Stamped Reports I requested – the date stamps are quite clear. You can see them here yourself: 7-12 2017, 1-6 2018, 7-12 2018, 1-6 2019 – all have very easy to read stamps, all prove that Scott Alvord filed those four of these reports late. (up to 2 years late) The significance is the date stamps prove it beyond a doubt.
So why are the stamped reports so easy to read and why were the reports on the City Website so clearly absent a stamp? Did the City scan them in before stamping them and post them? Why aren’t the stamped reports on the website?
I have to wonder if Scott asked the City of Roseville for a favor. Did Scott ask them to help obscure the fact he filed 4 reports late? Did Scott take advantage of an Inexperienced City Staffer?
Since I have filed a complaint with the City Attorney, I have been notified that the City Staff are taking the complaint quite seriously. This suggests that it may well have been Alvord manipulating a City Staffer and/or a City Staffer inexperienced and unaware of campaign law. This is a huge problem in City Council Elections – most small Cities are simply not equipped to handle this stuff.
Worse, the people tasked with investigating Scott Alvord’s Complaint could in theory be fired by him as a councilmember.
Twice paying entities controlled by himself out of his campaign funds.
Twice paying a non-profit corporation controlled by his wife out of campaign funds.
Twice receiving over-the-limit contributions
7 Times donating to other candidates (legal FPPC wise, but a violation of city ordinance)
Once having a large decrease in cash balance that is unexplained nor accounted for
Once having a small increase in cash balance that is unexplained nor accounted for
Then there is either maintaining a campaign fundraising committee outside of designated campaign periods, or failing to convert a candidate committee to an officeholder committee – both improper and clear FPPC violations. (the State regulatory agency)
For those of you scoring at home, we have 19 violations of campaign finance law that we filed a complaint regarding. Does Scott Alvord not know the ordinances in the City he represents on the Council? Or, Worse do the rules not apply to him? AND – did he file the reports late to conceal the 15 violations of campaign finance law/ordinance we found? (The other 4 are the late reports themselves)
Now – let’s explain the backdated signature. This is a big no-no. These are official documents. All four were date stamped 1-31-2020 but they all have different dates on them. It appears this was done to conceal the fact that they were late. These signatures were made under penalty of perjury. Now, this is why the conundrum over the date stamped copies is so important.
I hope the City of Roseville was not involved in trying to obfuscate the late reports. Since I know some of the people that work for the City, my assumption is that the City acted in good faith. Since Scott was quick to blame the city in our previous post introducing his campaign finance issues to the public, it buttresses the headline – he must have taken advantage of an inexperienced City Staffer. He’d have pulled it off had your intrepid blogger not taken up the case of Roseville’s 5th CD race.
Given my research on Scott Alvord and his pattern of trying to create a false image for himself which I will summarize again in graphic detail shortly – it is not far-fetched to draw the conclusion that Scott knew what he was doing. Scott’s later betrayal of the same staff on the Amazon hub communication is also significant – but suffice to say after City Staff apparently trying to help him (most likely unknowingly) in Jan of 2020, he set fire to them in August of 2020 and again 4 days ago on this blog.
In case you needed any other evidence: The County of Placer will follow up with candidates and committees if their form 460 are missing or incomplete. I’ve seen those follow ups a few times. It appears that the City of Roseville does as well (I saw some in the documents that they sent me via the FOIA I filed) but they may not follow up more than once. The State of California also bills for the $50 a year maintenance fee that is required of all open political accounts. Did Scott pay the $50 Bills late as well? The point is that these are two more pieces of evidence that make it clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that Mr. Alvord knew what he was doing.
It is clear that if everything presented here is true (and I believe it is) that Scott Alvord attempted to cover up his actions. What is not clear is if or how the City of Roseville helped him. I have been told that the City Government is taking the detailed complaint I filed seriously as the evidence is there in spades of what Mr. Alvord did.
This story is not complete yet, to be continued.
Sign up to receive RightOnDaily updates sent to your inbox.