Staff Writer 

Scarborough residents may have narrowly rejected a proposed $1 billion, 200-acre village center and racino development in November, but that doesn’t mean the Scarborough Village Partnership is done paying the campaign bill.

Later this month, the state’s Commission on Governmental Ethics will decide if Scarborough Village Partnership is responsible for a fine that could total tens of thousands of dollars. 

In January, the commission reviewed a potential violation concerning the group’s failure to register as a political action committee (PAC). Commission Executive Director Jonathan Wayne said state law requires organizations to file as a PAC with both the state and any appropriate municipalities – in this case the town of Scarborough – if more than $1,500 is spent on a public campaign. 

According to reports provided to the commission, Scarborough Village Partnership registered as a PAC on September 26, although financial records show they exceeded the $1,500 spending threshold a month earlier. Financial reports filed with the commission show Scarborough Village Partnership received $15,000 in cash contributions from Penn National Gaming Inc. and spent more than $13,000 on advertisement and petition circulation costs in August. Penn National also provided Scarborough Village Partnership with more than $41,500 in funding for employee salaries during that same month.

“Because of [Scarborough Village Partnership]’s failure to register and file reports, the citizens of Scarborough did not receive timely disclosure of financial activity undertaken to influence an important issue in town affairs,” Wayne wrote in a letter to the commission.

Scarborough Downs Advertisement Representative Kathryn Robinson, who wrote she had “the responsibility of handling the [Scarborough Village Partnership] checkbook,” argued that the group did not need to register as a PAC since it was seeking council approval, not ballot placement on the November election. According to a letter she wrote to Wayne, once the issue was forwarded to the November election, Scarborough Village Partnership registered as a PAC.

“We did not have to register because changing the law through council action did not require registration,” she wrote in a letter to Wayne. “At a special public hearing on [Sept. 24], 2008, the Scarborough Town Council made its decision not to take action themselves.”

Casinos No! spokesperson Dennis Bailey said hoping for “highly unlikely” council approval in lieu of deferring the issue to a public vote “didn’t make sense.” The delay in filing as a PAC could have been part of Scarborough Village Partnership overall campaign strategy, he said.

“These guys are lawyers, they thought they would get away with something,” Bailey said. “It seemed like they were trying to keep Penn National in the background. The weird thing was we put up an ad saying [the campaign] was being run by an out-of-state company and [Scarborough Village Partnership legal counsel] said there was no other entity involved. They were complaining about the ad, and it turned out to be absolutely true. I felt lied to.”

According to Wayne’s report to the commission, Scarborough Village Partnership “does not dispute that it filed the [PAC] registration” late, and he recommended the group be fined the maximum $250 for the violation.

But that’s not the expensive part.

Bailey said Scarborough Village Partnership was originally expected to pay up to a total of $50,000 for two additional financial reports filed late, although Wayne has recommended the additional fines be waived due to a misunderstanding of newly enacted law.  

“We were originally thinking the penalties could be very high,” Wayne said. “Ultimately [commission staff] recommended, based on the information, that they be fined a total of $250. We put a lot of weight on the fact that [Robinson] didn’t get the best information about when the finances were due.”

Wayne said Scarborough Town Clerk Tody Justice was unaware Scarborough Village Partnership was required to file an initial report at the time of PAC registration and informed the group they had a month to file when they did not. Justice may not have been aware of the change in the law, but said she had advised Robinson to register the group as a PAC since August.

“In 2008 they amended the PAC financial reporting laws,” Wayne said. “It was something [Justice] was not aware of. As a matter of fact, we’re beginning training for all city clerks on this issue next week.”

Bailey said Scarborough Village Partnership legal counsel should have been aware of the recent changes.

“The town clerk was mistaken, but they knew they had to register and when to file [financial reports],” he said. 

Wayne said the commission could assess the civil penalties associated with the late filings during an enforcement proceeding scheduled for March 26.

“We made our recommendation but the final decision will be up to the five commission members,” he said. “There’s more than one way to look at it.”