The state Attorney General's Office is investigating the Eldorado Area Water and Sanitation District board on allegations it violated election code when the board published an article about its director, Roberta Armstrong, a month ahead of Tuesday's election, highlighting her qualifications and intention to run.

Armstrong, who is running for the director's seat, was appointed to the board four months ago after the position was vacated by John Matis.

According to the complaint filed by John Hawkins, who is running against Armstrong, the board violated the code by endorsing Armstrong in December by "detailing her qualifications and candidacy," in the district's publicly funded Water Notes, a monthly newsletter with a circulation of about 2,700 water customers. The newsletter is mailed directly to customers when they receive their water bill and is available online.

Hawkins complained the board used public funds for Armstrong's benefit. According to the state election codes, a governing body with quasi-municipal status like the water district cannot legally promote a candidate using publicly owned money. Board president James Jenkins says he believes the allegations are frivolous and politically motivated.

"The Eldorado Area Water and Sanitation District is mindful of its legal obligations," Jenkins said. "We are fully cooperating with the Attorney General's Office. It is unfortunate that a few individuals are attempting to distract from the great strides we have made."

But Hawkins insists the timing of the article was unfair to other candidates.

"Our oversight group feels that we should have been given the same public relations as their own board member," Hawkins wrote Dec. 19 to Melanie Carver, an assistant attorney in the Secretary of State's Office. "We as a group registered much early than her, and (the board) had notice of our intentions."

Don Dayton, a former district president, said he was disappointed in the board's decision to publish the article. In an e-mail addressed to Jenkins, Dayton writes: "I am appalled to see a board election candidate have her résumé published in the December Water Notes. The board Water Notes is a publicly funded publication. To use it to promote the campaign of one candidate is highly unethical and possibly illegal."

Dayton further states that if the board wanted to introduce Armstrong to the water customers, it should have done so when she was appointed, not a month before the election in which she is a candidate.

"You, as the board chair have a strong responsibility to the water users and to the state to assure that District operations are carried out in a highly ethical manner," Dayton told Jenkins.

Armstrong declared her candidacy Dec. 14, while other candidates filed as early as November. An introduction to the board's new treasurer, Gene Schofield, is also included in the newsletter as well as an update on the pending rate case before the Public Regulation Commission.

No other candidates are featured in the newsletter.

"We're not promoting anyone," said Water Notes' co-editor, Steve Wust. "The article is not a campaign advertisement. No one took a vote on it. When Armstrong came to the board we intended to feature her in Water Notes." The article, he said, was sidelined because of other, more timely news.

"Water breaks and the permit for Well 17 were priorities over writing a biography. Biographies are standard for new members to introduce them to the water community," Wust said.

The Attorney General's Office wants answers from the board. In a letter addressed to Jenkins, the Attorney General's Office has requested the board provide by
Jan. 6 its bylaws and rules pertaining to elections, a copy of December's Water Notes, the written policies regarding the publication of the newsletter, and the minutes of its editorial board meetings regarding the article. The district complied with that request.

"We're not using the community's funds to promote anyone," Wust said.

"These people who want current seats will do anything to undermine what the current board does. Our attorney is collecting the data and will be submitting that to the attorney general by the deadline."

Once the data is submitted for review, the Attorney General's Office can dismiss or penalize the district based on its findings. Penalties for a substantiated violation was not immediately known. Once the investigation is complete, the district's response and the attorney general's determination will become public record, Carver said.