| More Than You Ever Wanted to Know About Financial Disclosure Statements |
|
|
|
| Written by Lynne LaMaster | |
| Tuesday, 19 August 2008 | |
Victor Hambrick filled out many Financial Disclosure Statement over the years since he's held office.Every person who has ever campaigned for or held public office knows that it can be a brutal game. Just ask Yavapai County Assessor Victor Hambrick, who is also running for re-election. Over the weekend, the Daily Courier published an article which implied that Hambrick had been dishonest in his Financial Disclosure Statements. According to the reporter, Hambrick had failed to list three businesses on his Financial Disclosure Statements. And this is true; Hambrick did not list those businesses. Why not? Was he being deceptive or ignorant or was there perhaps another reason? Prescott eNews took these questions directly to Hambrick. Filling Out Those Dang FormsA Financial Disclosure Statement has to be filled out by all candidates running for office, as well as public officers who are already in office. And, if you happen to be a public officer running for reelection, don't think you can get off easy by using the same Financial Disclosure Statement for both circumstances. Nope, you have to file two Financial Disclosure Statements - one as an elected official (annually), and one as a candidate. Hambrick did fill out two recent Financial Disclosure Statements:
(Actually, he's filled out several Financial Disclosure Statements since 2004, but that's another story.) There are several sections and items on the Financial Disclosure Statement:
As you can see, some of these kind of overlap. We've scanned in Hambrick's public officer Financial Disclosure Statement for 2007 for you to read. The Financial Disclosure Statement for his candidacy is very similar. Hambrick's BusinessesHambrick has four businesses that he declares on his Financial Disclosure Statements under both the section entitled, 'Offices or Fiduciary Relationships in Businesses, Nonprofit Organizations or Trusts,' and 'Business Names'. These are:
The three businesses in question, which he did not declare are:
However, none of these are active businesses. Hambrick neither performed or solicited business under any of these entities. We obtained a letter from his accountant, Robert Mizer, CPA, PLLC, which reads in part: This office has been preparing Victor Hambrick's personal and business tax returns for over 10 years. During thsi period Victor has not received income from any of the above businesses. Both "FOURR RANCH LLC" and "VICTOR HAMBRICK FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP" have no assets or income nor have tax returns been prepared or filed. Both companies were formed with the intention that they would be utilized at some point in the future. Victor Hambrick was a minority partner holding less than 10 percent interest in the Whispering Canyon Development. To my knowledge Victor Hambrick has never received income from this company in any form. As of this date our office has never received a 1099 or K1 indicating that the company had income, or that a tax return had been filed. With the Internal Revenue Services "Matching Program" if a tax return had been filed for this company, this office would have been notified of failure to report taxpayer's share of income or losses received or incurred by "Whispering Canyon Development Company". As of this date, no such notice has been received. Therefore, we can, with some assurance state that Victor Hambrick has not received any income in any form from this entity. Should Hambrick have declared the businesses anyway? It truly wasn't necessary. By following the instructions on the Financial Disclosure Statement form, there is not a need to declare these businesses under either of the sections listed above. The instructions for Section B - Question 8, "Offices or Fiduciary Relationships in Businesses, Nonprofit Organizations or Trusts" are very clear - What to disclose: The name and address of each business, organization, trust or non-profit organization or association in which you or any member of your household held any office OR had a fiduciary relationship during the period covered by this statement. Describe the office or relationship. It's Hambrick's position that none of these businesses qualify under this section, because, not only were they not operating as active businesses; but since these were LLCs (Limited Liability Companies), they did not even have officers. According to the description of LLCs provided by Wikipedia, "Unlike corporations, they are not required to have a board of directors or officers." Under Section C, Question 11, "Business Names" the instructions read like this: What to disclose: The name of any business under which you or any member of your household did business during the period covered by this Statement... But, Hambrick did not conduct any business at all under these names. He made no income from any of these businesses, he did not solicit business of any kind under any of these entities, and he did not perform any services. Why Did Hambrick Have These Businesses At All?Each one is a little different. For example, the interest in the Whispering Canyon Development Company was given to him years ago, but nothing ever happened under that entity. As a matter of fact, Hambrick had almost forgotten about it, since it had been inactive since its inception, and he had never received any income from it whatsoever. FOURR RANCH, LLC, was taken out as a business to simply protect the name, which was historic and linked to some property the Hambricks owned in Dragoon (read the description of Fourr Ranch by the Green Valley Hiking Club). Think of it as being similar to a Trade Name. There was never any intention of doing business under that name, but they wanted to ensure that it could not be used by anyone else. As a matter of fact, since the FOURR Ranch, LLC is not in good standing with the Arizona Corporation Commission because the original documents have not been published, they would not have been allowed to do business under this name. And, the Victor Hambrick Family Limited Partnership was set up simply for family interests intended for use in the future. None of these businesses have any assets, prepare tax returns, provide an income or are used to solicit business. He has not taken out domain names for them or set up websites. He doesn't even have letterhead or stationery for any of these. They are, in essence, simply names being held for possible future uses. What's the Story In That?Ok, Hambrick didn't list the businesses because he didn't have to according to the requirements of the Financial Disclosure Statement. So, what's the story in that? Good question.
Editor's Note: Just to give our readers a heads up... We understand that this is a topic which will likely create a certain amount of discussion, which is entirely apropriate and acceptable. However, we must remind you to keep all such discussion respectful and based on facts. Any comments that are rude or out of line will be removed immediately. UPDATE: I hate to add new rules, but since in the past, there have been several unsubstantiated accusations made, especially when it comes to Victor Hambrick, I will remove any comments like that. If you have an unsubstantiated claim that you absolutely must throw on the wall just to see if it sticks, please send it to This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it , providing any information you have, and we will investigate the facts. Do not post it in the comments section, because it will be removed immediately. Why is this necessary? Well, for example, there have been many accusations that Hambrick lied about getting his GED, with people stating there is no record of this in Arizona. That's simply not true, I have a copy of his GED in my hands, complete with his scores. He passed all areas, by the way, and even had an amazing grade in science, which always impresses me. Remember - be respectful, stay on topic and only present facts. If there is something you feel has not been covered, send it to us and we will investigate. Trackback(0)
Comments (11)
  written by Prescott voter, August 19, 2008
Looks like the Courier didn't do a very through investigation before going to print. I went back and read the articles referred to in this article, as well as, the Courier’s other articles on Hambrick. Seems all they've printed in the past year is insinuations. The Courier has had over a year to substantiate their accusations, and they haven't come up with one solid finding. Sunday’s articles are just a regurgitation of the past year’s articles with this one new “revelation”. eNews exposed that “front page, breaking news” to be more of the same. No lawsuits, no results from investigations, no smoking gun. Seems there is some very unprofessional journalism at work over there. I just hope the Courier’s goal is not to try to influence voters by distorting the facts. But I can’t help but wonder.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
written by Eloise, August 19, 2008
I cancelled the Daily Courier over the article on Victor Hambrick. I think I have tolerated it much too long. Vicious liberal reporter, Joanna Dodder, seems to get her jollies out of being mean to good people. The Daily Courier doesn't report the news, it creates it with a slant to the left. I re-read the article twice and realized it was all much to do about nothing. Then at the end she states that it might or might not be true. I bet she sleeps well after her hatched jobs. Hss anyone noticed that the attacks are only against good people? Funny there aren't any against liberals or the RINOs in office. The Daily Courier has become a piece of yellow journalism and their reporters follow that line. I would suggest that everyone who feels the same, cancel their paper also.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
written by Courier reader, August 19, 2008
We would unsubscribe too, but we like to check it everyday for the latest installment of the Hambrick soap opera which has played out in 30 articles over the past 16 months. Which is a pretty successful run for the Courier, since most soap operas don't last that long. But as in most soap opera's there are only a few story lines that just keep repeating, but never come to a conclusion. But we know who the bad guys are in this one- the writers.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
written by Frances, August 19, 2008
I, too, have cancelled my Daily Courier subscription. I am so tired of them using their paper as a bully pulpit. How can you fight someone who buys their ink by the truckload and 'selects' who can reply? All the papers in this area are owned by PNI. The article by Joanna Dodder doing a hatched job on Victor Hambrick made up my mind. It is the same mentality that makes it 'vogue' to attack our country from within and side with the enemy. What we need for this area is a quality paper that focuses on the good people do and report the real crimes that are committed, not the sensationalism that seems to drive their attack journalism. I am so tired of their bias.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Citizen, August 20, 2008
I am having trouble understanding why readers are voting that Hambrick should have put the items on the financial report. It would be like saying I should put my 2006 income on my 2007 income tax forms to save me grief with the IRS. I would think that extraneous information would cause more confusion. But the bottom line is, Hambrick filled out the forms correctly and the Courier tried to make a story out of it which is the point “Unprofessional Journalism” is making. Dodder’s stories are very convoluted with no conclusions. Looks like it’s just a matter of throwing it all out there and seeing what sticks and so far none of it does.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Courier Blogger, August 20, 2008
Last night I read both of the Courier storys this article refers to. I submitted a blog at each story to direct people to this article so they could read a different perspective. As of 9 am this morning my blogs have not been posted. A few hours later I wrote another blog on each article. All 4 blogs said check out the Prescott eNews story on this topic & gave the url. None of the 4 blogs have shown up. From all the vicious blogs I had read, many containing some vile accusations, I thought the Courier had a very liberal censure policy. Obviously its policy does not clarify that the Courier does not print blogs that would cause readers to question an article’s validity. It’s 3:11 pm Wednesday & I’m going to try again. Let’s see if the Courier can withstand the same scrutiny it’s given the Hambrick family & friends.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -2
written by Upset Voter, August 21, 2008
Monday I voted by early ballot. I chose to vote against Hambrick (not for his opponant) because of what I read in the Sun. Daily Courier. Now I read this. i feel like I've been manipulated- shame on the DC.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -2
 written by Ted, August 21, 2008
The section of the financial disclosure in question states:
What to disclose: The name and address of each business, organization, trust or non-profit organization or association in which you or any member of your household held any office OR had a fiduciary relationship during the period covered by this statement. Describe the office or relationship. The above report says: It's Hambrick's position that none of these businesses qualify under this section, because, not only were they not operating as active businesses; but since these were LLCs (Limited Liability Companies), they did not even have officers. According to the description of LLCs provided by Wikipedia, "Unlike corporations, they are not required to have a board of directors or officers." Despite what “Wikipedia” says - Mr. Hambrick is listed as a member and/or officer of each of the businesses that he failed to list (per Arizona Secretary of State). Yes, Mr. Hambricks' unclaimed businesses do have officers; the officers are listed in the Daily Courier article as well as in the Arizona Secretary of State statements of organizations of each business. [In my opinion]* Mr. Hambrick was suppose to list these companies and Mr. Hambrick did not. I believe it is not the biggest mistake Mr. Hambrick has made but it was mistake none the less. *Editor's note. We added the "in my opinion" because it is Ted's opinion. We did speak with the Campaign Treasurer, (who is also an accountant and a controller) who helped fill out the Financial Disclosure Statements, and it was his opinion that there was no need to place these businesses on the Financial Disclosure Statements. I think that this os one that comes down to opinions and interpretations of what the requirements are. report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
Write comment
|
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
 |
We will be systematically going through the other issues brought up in the Courier.
Because I know that this issue is very inflammatory, we are keeping a tight rein on comments as mentioned above. Save this comment for a future story, one that will be more on topic.