In the Feb. 23 article, "City campaign watchdog under fire," there are a number of misleading statements.

First of all, Chairman Fred Rowe makes the ill-informed statement, "The board has been very effective because of the realization by candidates that there is now a monitoring mechanism in place." He made a similar statement after the last election when, in truth, there were violations that still have not been resolved, because of a lack of monitoring. I recently filed three complaints which show that the Ethics and Campaign Review Board indeed does not receive the reporting that we're expecting, and therefore, we can't make a determination if the board was successful.

For instance in the 2006 election, on mayoral candidate David Schutz's final Campaign Finance Report filed after the election, there were some $11,000 in donations that we were later told was from a raffle. We had to ask what it was for. Then we had to ask what was the item that was raffled, and were told that it was a classic car.

This brought up some interesting questions, such as "How was the car acquired?" If it was purchased by the campaign, then it should appear as an expenditure. If it was donated by someone, then it is an in-kind donation. It did not appear as either. Another question is, "Was there really a car up for raffle?" If so, who won it? Because the value was reputed to be over $50,000, it is amazing that the ethics board is not actively pursuing an investigation on this.

If there was a wealthy donor, or donors, isn't this the sort of information that the ethics board and also The New Mexican should be pursuing with maximum vigor? Shouldn't Mr. Schutz be disclosing everything he knows? Oh, wait a minute — he moved out of his inside-the-city-limits temporary address the day after losing the election to go back to his county residence, thereby making him the first "drive-by candidate" under the new ethics board. We now have been blessed by another "drive-by candidate" this municipal election, and I think this deception needs to stop.

Secondly, The New Mexican reported that one individual, a local builder, contributed $4,500 to Mayor David Coss and five council candidates the day before, and the day of, the election. That is incorrect, as there was only one donation ($500) reported the day before the election, one donation ($500) on election day and all the rest ($3,500) was reported after the election.

Third, Chairman Rowe states that few complaints were filed regarding the 2006 election, and those were for campaign signs. In actuality, only one complaint was filed, and that was by Ron Trujillo's campaign manager against an illegally placed Carol Robertson-López sign. Chairman Rowe then moved to go into closed session and won that vote, which led to the brouhaha over going into a closed meeting that violated the Open Meetings Act. Added to that action was Chairman Rowe appointing himself and another board member to investigate the alleged illegal sign. That investigation, in an action worthy of Inspector Jacques Clouseau, was done the following morning and, mirabile dictu, the sign was gone.

Last of all, if this is City Councilor Rebecca Wurzburger's idea of a successful board, I'd hate to imagine how low the bar is set for City Council.

Fred Flatt is a member of the Ethics and Campaign Review Board. He lives in Santa Fe.