Proposition One supporters file ethics complaint against Columbia Hospitality Association

Members of the political action committee campaigning for an increased hotel tax filed acomplaint Wednesday with the Missouri Ethics Commission against the Columbia Hospitality Association.

Co-chair Greg Steinhoff said his committee, the Foundation for Columbia’s Future, organized as an official campaign committee with the Missouri Ethics Commission but CHA did not.

According to the Missouri Ethics Commission rules and regulations, if it is not a registered committee, it needs to report expenditures over $500 in 14 days from the time they spent the money. If they spent more than that in the week before the election, they need to report it in 48 hours.

Steinhoff said they haven’t been reporting their campaign expenditures like they should be.

“Those rules and laws are there for a reason so people have an idea who’s paying for these ads,” said Steinhoff. “We felt that it was our responsibility to report this as a complaint because they’re raising a fair amount of money to oppose us.”

The CHA and the Foundation for Columbia’s Future both have invested in yard signs across the city. CHA’s can be seen sporting the words “No Plan, No Tax.” The signs say they have been payed for by the Columbia Hospitality Association.

The Foundation for Columbia’s Future provided exhibits along with their complaint to show what they felt were expenditures that were not reported. Many are advertisements with different radio and television stations.

You can find that linkhere.

Tiger Hotel owner and CHA president Glyn Laverick said Wednesday he believes they’re in compliance with the rules and regulations.

The Missouri Hotel and Lodging Association is also weighing in on the city of Columbia’s proposal to increase Columbia’s lodging tax rate from 4 to 5 percent.

The tax would fund improvements to the Columbia Regional Airport, including the construction of a new terminal.

MHLA president Greg Walker wrote a letter voicing concern about the proposal, saying he believes the city is incorrectly labeling the improvements at the airport as tourism promotion.

Walker said in the letter the MHLA is prepared to “consider legislative relief, which could impact the stability and availability of the funds if the measure were to pass.

He also mentioned people using the airport won’t necessarily stay in a hotel because many are already Columbia residents.

“I think it’s really important that people in Columbia see that it’s not just our perspective,” said Laverick. “This is a statewide organization who’s really saying that this is a problem.”

City leaders argue the airport is a tourism and economic boost to the city.

“The idea of reaching out to an organization outside the community that has no relevance to Proposition One seems consistent with the campaign tactic of the opposition,” said Greg Steinhoff, the co-chair of the political action committee campaigning in support of the tax. “Their goal is to smear the reputation of the city. Our goal is to bring to mid-Missouri a better airport facility and improved air service for all of our citizens.”

Laverick said they’re just trying to hold the city accountable in its use of their funds and that the MHLA is an appropriate organization to get involved.

“For him (Steinhoff) to say we’re talking about bringing in people that represent interests across the state and that’s somehow wrong, I find that really shocking,” said Laverick. “It’s people from across the state who are going to be paying this tax when they come to Columbia.”

Community relations director Steve Sapp also responded to the letter Tuesday. He said the city “will continue to be good stewards with the financial resources provided through all revenue sources.”

He affirmed the city’s position that tourism is closely tied to economic development. The CHA has repeatedly decried this position, saying infrastructure improvements and projects should not be paid for with a tourism tax.

“When you’re putting things on the ballot that talk about economic development, something as broad as that, where does it stop?” said Laverick.