Rich Hartman was a fundraising/spending machine:
In going all-out for OS City Council Position 7, Hartman raised far more than the other five candidates combined. His opponent, Patric Hayes? *Corrected “My total expenditures was $4,675.50... I did not accept any contributions. I paid for everything myself.”
Hayes’ spending details (which does not include another $600 for commercials):
Almost all of Hartman’s funding came from his own checkbook.
Hartman’s expenditures, as shown on the county campaign reporting website, shows he spent thousands on mailings and signs–and paid his campaign consultant for things like website design and “coaching.” (Details on other candidates this weekend)
The North Beach News 
Perhaps Mr. Hartman is trying to buy himself a position on the city Council?🤔
LikeLike
No perhaps about it! This alone should give the voters great pause; to ask WHY,WHAT’S IN IT FOR HIM?????? The biggest problem is that the city owns, controls or has influence with almost all media here and they are drooling to have him in charge of their paychecks. Don’t think so? Just re-visit his campaign statements. More money, more employees, yada yada yada! He would HAVE to pay for professional coaching; it would take a pro to con this many people. The man has a personal financial agenda, he runs in a crowd who also stand to benefit. Only a blind person would be able to see any appearance of fairness in Hartmans takeover bid, it is ethically repulsive but may fit in with the other 5 current council members currently facing ethics charges. If we let him he will cripple the average person financially for many years; just take an un-biased look at his “platform”. He willingly based a good part of his campaign on a lie he knew to be one and when it was publicly pointed out he dodged addressing or correcting it. Why would we elect the “Flim Flam Man”? Just an interesting observation, why are there only lights visible in his “home” from the road mostly on weekends?? His last house here had the same electrical faults but of course then he was living elsewhere and only here occasionally. Has that really changed? Let the Richie Rich cheerleaders take umbrage but I’m smelling rat!
LikeLike
So true! We have big spenders in this city, who hope to be able to direct the future spending in their favor….thanks!!
LikeLike
Absolutely!! We have big spenders in this town, that are hoping they are going to be able to really line their pockets if they get their way.
LikeLike
All that tells me is rich doesn’t owe anyone anything whereas the other candidates may have something promised to their constituents
LikeLike
My concern with Hartman is he has never committed to saying he will listen to the citizens of OS. But he has said I have my own vision of OS. But I need the votes from the City Counsel if I am appointed to accomplish my goal
LikeLike
Hats off to Hartman. I have no issues with a person spending his own money on what he believes in. No one questions Mr. Hartman when he makes a substantial donation to one of the many charities he supports in Ocean Shores and Grays Harbor County or when he sponsors the Sand and Sawdust Festival for all of us to enjoy … so why are they pointing fingers now? Is it just another double standard? It is OK to give to a charity that you might benefit from but not OK to invest in himself for City Council? Come on residents. Stop trying to make a big deal out of something that is not a big deal. Hayes says he only had two contributors but it seems to me he had way more than 2. He was selling his photos to help finance his campaign. So, whether you support him or not, if you purchased one of his pictures, you were helping to finance his campaign. And again I say, who cares?
If Mr. Hartman wants to serve on our City Council to represent all of us this bad that he spends a lot of his own money …. I say let’s vote for him and let him represent all of us. Look how much he believes in himself to do a great job. How about we just believe him? He has earned my vote.
LikeLike
The part about Hayes having two contributors was erroneous and fixed. He self financed
LikeLike
TY for the correction. In delving into his campaign
LikeLike
He was not selling his photos to finance his campaign. That was all donated to the Food Bank. Apparently you didn’t read. Mr. Hartman does not want to represent us, he wants to take advantage of a good thing.
LikeLike
Nope you are wrong. Hayes posted on FB that people could purchase his photos to help his campaign. I am sure he has changed his story now. If he donated money to food bank. Good for him. But I am skeptical. At this stage of the game who cares.
LikeLike
It really doesn’t matter what Hayes was selling them for they were his to sell and his money to spend anyway he wants.
LikeLike
Mike: the difference is large and glaring! In making a donation or supporting an event it is well understood by all that he is not acting as any part of government. When he spends so much to position himself to line his own pockets as a part of government almost anyone who is paying attention can see the ethical problems! Yes it is okay and welcome to give to support a community event if there is an ancillary benefit to yourself. It is most certainly not okay to position yourself as an elected official to benefit yourself in any way not equal to most. As a matter of fact that would fall under conflict of interest or at the least a violation of the appearance of fairness doctrine. And of course you are all wet about Hayes and his funding, another myth debunked! Hartman has shown us how he will act in the future; if you believe that is in your best interest so be it. I am sure that another self-serving “good ole boy” with control over my wallet is not in mine! I think we have enough problems that remain unresolved for years without adding a council member who has to ask a professional relations group what the answer or most popular position is! There is just something real wrong here and I hope we don’t have the chance to find out what it is. He may prevail but he will not have won the vote fairly, he will have bought the election and the voters are likely to suffer sellers remorse!
LikeLike
When he wins he will have won it fairly. His expenses are an open book while Hayes makes maneuvers to hide what he has spent. When Hartman wins there will be no buyers remorse. Rather I believe you will be pleasantly surprised. I am done with just talking about sidewalks, waterways and more. I am ready to see results. Hartman will be an effective leader for all if us. I just hope after the election, the city will support the results.
LikeLike
Mike; while I sort of get the “rose colored glasses” approach to Hartmans inherent lack of honesty, integrity, and political ethics, I hope you won’t complain when their use prevents you from seeing the economic debacle when it smacks you. As Gomer said, “surprise, surprise, surprise.” Most of us are tired of having to tell this administration , by a resounding 90%, NO SIDEWALKS at public expense. Most of us are tired of telling this administration to do some meaningful rehabilitation on the waterways, only to be told that there is no money because we need to hire more people. Most of us are tired of seeing most of the discretionary spending going to make life better for the employees, most of which live elsewhere. Most of would like to see results. Most of us are just plain tired of the current majority being unable or unwilling to do anything but bow to the mayor and run the cost of living up without providing a single service we do not currently have. It is my hope that most of us will see that another one like the ones we have is not the answer, it would only make things worse. Running a city should mean finding a way to satisfy the largest majority possible, not just a minority few in the same socio-economic class who want things their way while forcing the majority of others to pay for it. Don’t say you weren’t warned! BTW, an election based on lies and deception cannot by definition be won fairly! Just because it is legal for politicians to lie and deceive doesn’t mean it is right or good. Just means that the politicians also write the laws that protect them!
LikeLike
Mississippi Mike; does it make you wonder why you are the only person responding who supports Hartman? Just sayin’
LikeLike
Mississippi Mike; just a final thought; So when or if Hayes makes part of his living selling photos and then uses that money he has earned to self finance a campaign then that is somehow wrong and devious but when Hartman makes a living selling cars and then uses his earnings, along with monies from others, to finance a campaign then that somehow becomes noble and good? Having a hard time with the logic there! Sorry for the extra “double” post, I got interrupted.
LikeLike
There are plenty of others that support Hartman but maybe don’t think the dribble is worth our time. MM is right, Hayes was selling his photos to support his campaign it was all over Facebook. He changed it to supporting the food back but nobody but idiots would believe it just a ruse to be campaigning. That isn’t part of his mini report. I would not be surprised is Hayes was Uber but it us what it is. Mr Hartman has been honest and forthright about what he has put into the campaign and why. The thing is that you all ASSume that he is doing something nefarious when he has been clear he hired consultants to learn about campaigning and do it right. And he has supported local businesses for his signs and flyers. Not getting them off the web. Guess what? That says a load about this man’s principles! Geesh Hayes can’t keep his initial story straight. And why is he getting free space to campaign? Check you facts dude. Hartman is the better choice!!
LikeLike
Why does it say under city hartman’s is aberdeen
LikeLike
Looking at Hartmans “expenses” shows he billed himself for “in-kind” to the tune of $4888.00. Are you kidding me? Was he paying himself for appearing at forums or appearances? Or maybe for thinking about stuff? Talk about cheesy! Softly now, to the tune of an old Chubby Checker tune, just Grifting the night away!!!!!
LikeLike
Hahaha. Your comment shows your ignorance. He declares inkind when something of value has been used for campaign purposes, including food, rent, actual expenses. Something Mr Hayes has seemed to miss.
LikeLike
John: respectfully, I think you are incorrect as to what “in kind is. It is not expenses. It is a contribution, by the entity(candidate) or others on their behalf, of items or efforts(ie labor) of value to the project(campaign) which can be assigned a realistic monetary value. Those things can and should be listed as campaign revenue(contributions), not expenses. Something of value received, not something spent; that is the other side of the ledger. Hartman has listed the income properly; I find where 3 people other than him provided in-kind above and beyond the referenced $4888.87 that is listed as in-kind coming from Hartman himself, above the cash contribution. While I do find that Hartman has provided a reasonably detailed expense breakdown it does give me pause to wonder how in the world he provided goods and/or labor to that extent above and separate from the listed cash contribution. I’m not saying he didn’t but that might make for an interesting breakdown. When in-kind is used in lieu of money in public contracts such as a grant match a justification of values must be included, perhaps that is not so with candidate filing reports. Perhaps at the conclusion of the process? The candidate reporting process can be confusing to even accountants not familiar with it. We shall see how the dust settles. Lastly, I don’t see how Hayes could have missed anything about in-kind since his campaign was 100% self funded and no in kind was claimed. Did I miss something?
LikeLike