Missouri Political News Service has gotten wind from the tipline that a major Missouri news publication is investigating Jason Van Eaton’s decision to “leave” Senator Bond’s office at the end of the current session. Van Eaton currently serves as Bond’s in state director. Assuming that Mr. Van Eaton doesn’t tell his boss everything, the story emanating from the Russell Senate Office Building is not adding up. And to continue on the math metaphor, the major news publication is said to be probing payroll accounting in the Bond office?According to our inside source, while scouring Senate payroll records, the publication found an interesting trail. In 2003, Mr. Van Eaton made $109,994.92. In June of 2004, he left the payroll for the Bond re-election campaign, only earning $67,447.78 for the fiscal year from the Senate. Our source adds in their email to us:

“WAIT A MINUTE—HE LEFT IN JUNE OF 2004 FOR AN ELECTION IN NOV OF 2004??????? BUT NOW HE LEAVES IN DECEMBER OF 2007 FOR AN ELECTION IN NOVEMBER 2010???????”

In 2005, Mr. Van Eaton earned $116,128.92. In 2006, he made $124,460, But then something interesting happened, for the first time in his career, starting in October of 2006 to March of this year, Van Eaton made LESS than the previous 6 months. For the fiscal year 06-07, W. Jason Van Eaton will make $123,333.32. Now why is this important? By paying himself $1,126.68 dollars LESS this year, will avoid having to file a Senior Staff Disclosure, thereby hiding all assets and investments and CLIENTS from public view. Now why would that be? We thought he was going to “Ramp Up” the Senator’s political operation. Why would he want to hide his personal disclosure statements from the public?

Senate Rule 37, Paragraph 12(c) states that: “[a]n employee of the Senate earning in excess of 75 percentof the salary paid to a Senator shall notify the Select Committee on Ethics that he or she is negotiating or has any arrangement concerning prospective private employment. The notification under this subparagraph shall be made not later than 3 business days after the commencement of such negotiation or arrangement. An employee to whom this subparagraph applies shall recuse himself or herself from (i) any contact or communication with the prospective employer on issues of legislative interest to the prospective employer; and (ii) any legislative matter in which there is a conflict of interest or an appearance of a conflict for that employee under this subparagraph; and notify the Select Committee onEthics of such recusal.”

The Senate Ethics Manual states: “[as] negotiations with prospective employers advance, there necessarily comes a point where it is imperative that a staffer inform his or her supervising Senator of negotiations, so that the Senator may make an informed decision as to how best to protect against a conflict of interest.”
MOPNS will continue to investigate.

Comments

comments