Kate Witek: Evidence of Waste, Fraud and Misuse

We were recently perusing Kate Witek’s campaign website.
There, we noticed this photo of Kate (photo highlighted):

Then we went to the official State Auditor’s website, and found the same photo (highlighted):

Being the crack sleuths which Leavenworth Street is known for, we took a very quick look at the Nebraska Revised Statutes online, and found this little gem:

Section 49-14,101.02
Public official or public employee; use of public resources or funds; prohibited acts; exceptions.
(2) Except as otherwise provided in this section, a public official or public employee shall not use or authorize the use of public resources for the purpose of campaigning for or against the nomination or election of a candidate or the qualification, passage, or defeat of a ballot question.

So we were wondering where to go next. We figured we should complain to someone, that it appears that (new Democrat) Kate Witek is using a public resource (her official photo) for the purpose of campaigning. But who to complain to?

Well we went back to the State Auditor’s site, and found this page:

You see, Kate herself points out that there are exceptions to the honest, sincere and hardworking government employees….

So Kate, to whom should we send this evidence of government waste, fraud or misuse (we’ll let you pick which one)?

9 comments

  1. Eric says:

    It may be that the photo in question is fair use for pretty much anybody to use including Kate herself.

    I know photographic works of the federal government are ineligible for copyright so they’re usually public domain. It may be the same thing with works of state government.

    Also, I think photos sent out as part of a press kit are covered under fair use. I’ve seen similar images in the OWH, so I’m guessing it may be a press photo.

    What would really be a violation of the statute is if she used state resources to create images for the sole purpose of the campaign website.

    I would be careful about making accusations without really checking up on it.

  2. Eric says:

    My comment wasn’t directed toward your well being. (although I’m sure you’re very nice people who deserve being looked out for)

    I’m just saying that I don’t think you’ve given sufficient proof to support your accusation.

  3. Street Sweeper says:

    Eric, please note that we have not “accused” Ms. Witek of anything more than using what seems to be an official photo on her campaign web-site. We note that there is a specific statute regarding this point. And we then look to whom to send the evidence of this appearance of impropriety, as we’re not sure who audits the Auditor.

    We are certain that we’re being plenty “careful”.

  4. Don Kuhns says:

    eric said:
    “I would be careful about making accusations without really checking up on it.”

    Of course you would Eric, but has SS ever bothered before?

    SS said:
    “We are certain that we’re being plenty ‘careful’.”

    Ha! Careful?

    In your post on the robocalls, you didn’t even give evidence that the NDP was actually behind the calls. I had to go to a Democratic blog to find out if your post was anything more than a baseless smear. You take the cake, SS.

  5. Street Sweeper says:

    Don Kuhns,
    What is with you whining Dems??? “Gimme Gimme Gimme! I can’t read the news myself! Tell me tell me! Who says the Dems were calling!??!!!”
    Here, is Don Walton at the Lincoln Journal Star good enough for you?
    http://www.journalstar.com/articles/
    2006/10/05/local/doc45258df1391dd547002164.txt
    My gawd! Take the pacifier out and think and read for yourself once in awhile!

    Sheesh!

  6. Anonymous says:

    Which is more egregious: Using a public domain office photo on a website or lying to legislative colleagues (and in turn constituents) about the intent of a legislative budget amendment?

    Nebraska needs leadership, not deceit. Unfortunately there aren’t many positive choices on the ballot

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.