51黑料

It was 2013 and Sullivan, a longtime government watchdog, had filed a complaint with the Missouri Ethics Commission about the 51黑料 County Library. Sullivan claimed the library violated election law in material it sent to voters promoting a tax increase.

The ethics commission agreed with Sullivan that the material did not properly identify the funding source for the $175,000 spent on the campaign. The library and its director at the time, Charles Pace, had violated election law.

The penalty issued by the ethics commission? $100.

Sullivan compared the result to 鈥済iving a parking ticket to bank robbers.鈥�

鈥淚鈥檓 glad they agreed with me that the law was violated,鈥� he said at the time. 鈥淏ut as long as you have a commission that enforces the law so poorly, we鈥檒l continue to see violations.鈥�

His prediction came true. For years, the ethics commission and other regulatory bodies have slapped the wrists of government officials across Missouri for similar activity.

But then came Wednesday鈥檚 indictment of 51黑料 County Executive Sam Page for allegedly violating the same election law.

Over the years, Sullivan has been called a lot of things 鈥� gadfly, critic, anti-tax activist, pain-in-the-butt. I use the term that鈥檚 most accurate: government watchdog.

He learned at the feet of Wilhelmina 鈥淏illlie鈥� Roberts, an activist who helped write the campaign finance laws that Sullivan often accuses government bodies of breaking. For decades, Sullivan has battled against two areas of government malfeasance: violations of open records and meetings laws, and the spending of taxpayer money to promote election victories or losses.

Occasionally, he even wins the praise of elected officials. Like in 2018, when Page said this about him: 鈥淚 appreciate Tom Sullivan鈥檚 concerns. He plays a valuable role as a watchdog of county government.鈥�

Today, that quote has to sting just a little bit.

The proposition Page fought to defeat in 2024 鈥� and which I voted against, along with a majority of county voters 鈥� would have significantly diluted the county executive鈥檚 power by allowing the county council to fire department heads. There鈥檚 no doubt Page was opposed to it; he tried to block the proposition in court.

But the flyers Page arranged to send to voters crossed the line into advocacy, Sullivan argued when he first complained about the issue in an email to Prosecuting Attorney Melissa Price Smith. Smith declined to handle the case because of a conflict of interest. A judge appointed Attorney General Andrew Bailey鈥檚 office as a special prosecutor.

On Wednesday, that office announced a grand jury had indicted Page on two misdemeanors and two felonies for allegedly 鈥渟tealing鈥� the taxpayer money used on the flyers.

If convicted, Page could face jail time, thousands of dollars in fines and removal from office. Needless to say, the punishment, if inflicted, would sting more than a $100 fine.

It would be significantly more serious than the last punishment meted out to a county executive who was accused by Sullivan of using taxpayer money to promote a ballot issue. In 2004, Sullivan filed a complaint against then-County Executive Charlie A. Dooley for using county employees to stuff pre-paid envelopes with campaign material for a proposed parks tax. The commission slapped Dooley鈥檚 hand.

鈥淲e told the county executive you shouldn鈥檛 have done this 鈥� and don鈥檛 do it again,鈥� one ethics commissioner, Robert Connor, said at the time.

If Page鈥檚 case actually works its way to a jury, the question will be whether Bailey, who has a propensity for using his office to advance partisan political goals, has gone too far in seeking a felony conviction. In other words, does the punishment fit the crime?

Sullivan is glad the attorney general is bringing attention to an election law he believes is violated with impunity. He hopes the charges against Page give other government officials pause. 鈥淚 doubt anyone would want the same thing to happen to them,鈥� he says.

But Sullivan also points out that the accusations against Page are drops in the bucket compared to dozens of other cases he鈥檚 complained about, from cities to libraries to school boards.

鈥淚 don鈥檛 think there is a school district in 51黑料 County that hasn鈥檛 violated the law, but the city schools are the worst. They just run a campaign right out of their offices with everything supported by tax dollars,鈥� Sullivan says.

He points to a University City Library election in 2019, when the ethics commission fined the library and its director $200, and another election in University City 2022 in which he tried unsuccessfully to sue the city over allegedly spending tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars improperly. Sullivan says that county library election in 2013 might be the worst case he鈥檚 seen, significantly worse than what Page is accused of. But nobody was charged with a crime. Nobody went to jail.

Page was 鈥渂razen鈥� and 鈥渄umb鈥� in using taxpayer money to help defeat Proposition B, Sullivan says. But if not for the charges filed by Bailey, this election law kerfuffle might not even make Sullivan鈥檚 top 10 list.

鈥淭he amount of money was relatively small,鈥� he said.

Is it a equivalent to a parking ticket or a bank robbery? A jury of Page鈥檚 peers will decide.

Editor's note: This column has been clarified to properly explain Sullivan's views of previous election violations in University City and 51黑料 County.聽