Corruption and Misuse of Public Funds in the Birmingham Mayor Randall Woodfin Administration: Part 3 — The Dog That Wouldn’t Bark

Part 3 of a multi-part investigative series

In the classic mystery, The Dog That Wouldn’t Bark, the investigator cracks the case by observing a canine that remained silent—a stillness that spoke volumes. When it comes to Birmingham Mayor Randall Woodfin’s campaign finance irregularities, that pooch is none other than Alabama Secretary of State Wes Allen.

In the first two segments (Part 1, Part 2) of this series, I outlined how public funds were allegedly funneled to utilize city employees for election functions and how the Woodfin political machine allegedly operates through private vendors. We must now tackle the entity charged with overseeing these acts—the office that allows them to proceed unabated.

The Regulatory Duty

The Alabama Secretary of State’s office holds the legal jurisdiction to oversee the Fair Campaign Practices Act. This is not some mundane operation for the Chief Elections Official, but rather a duty to ensure political contests are held within the law. Although documents seem to show city staff performing political labor on city time, and city-funded resources possibly being leveraged for the arm of the Woodfin machine, the lack of response from the Secretary of State’s office is deafening.

To comprehend why ignoring Woodfin’s actions by Secretary Allen is so concerning, we must delve into the specific laws being bypassed without being intercepted:

Alabama Code § 17-17-5 (Improper Use of State Property, Time, Etc., for Political Activities): This statute explicitly prohibits any person employed by a city from using government funds, property, or time for political activities.

§ 17-17-5(b)(1)f: Distributing political literature of any type.

§ 17-17-5(b)(1)g: Providing any type of in-kind help or support to or for a political candidate.

Violation: When city employees engage in campaign work while on the clock or use city property to benefit a political machine, they are in direct violation of this code.

Alabama Code § 36-25-5 (Use of Official Position or Office for Personal Gain): This is part of the State Ethics Act.

§ 36-25-5©: “No public official or public employee shall use or cause to be used equipment, facilities, time, materials, human labor, or other public property under his or her discretion or control for the private benefit or business benefit of the public official, public employee, any other person, or principal campaign committee.”

Violation: The conversion of city-funded labor and resources into assets for a political machine constitutes an unlawful use of official position for private political benefit.

Ala. Code § 17-5-8 (Fair Campaign Practices Act – Disclosure Requirements): Mandates the reporting of all campaign contributions and expenditures.

Violation: When campaigns fail to disclose the “in-kind” value of taxpayer-funded labor or services provided through city-contracted vendors, they are filing materially inaccurate and deceptive reports, undermining the transparency mandated by the FCPA.

Silence as Complicity

Inaction at the state level is not merely an oversight; it is a choice that legitimizes the Randall Woodfin administration’s behavior. Rather than addressing these findings head-on, the administration chose to deflect, opting for a social media strategy that trivialized the inquiry by focusing on peripheral distractions.

This forces a disturbing conclusion: the “checks and balances” intended to protect Alabama voters currently seem to be functioning as a shield for political incumbents, not as a sword against corruption. The absence of a meaningful deterrent, at least as far as the public are aware, allows the alleged “vendor-to-campaign” pipeline to expand without fear of consequence.

The residents of Birmingham are not merely facing an administration that possibly bends the rules; they are facing a state-level regulatory system that has, by all appearances, chosen not to make a sound.

The above originally appeared in the Alabama Political Contributor. It is reprinted here, with minor editorial changes, by permission of the author.

Christopher M. Peeks is a Reporter, Columnist and Alabama Political Contributor.

Opinions do not reflect the views and opinions of ALPolitics.com. ALPolitics.com makes no claims nor assumes any responsibility for the information and opinions expressed above.

Editor’s note: the phrase “the dog that didn’t bark” actually refers to the Sherlock Holmes story ‘The Adventure Silver Blaze,’ which first appeared in The Strand magazine in December, 1892. The Great Detective solves the murder because he noticed that the guard dog did not bark when the murder took place. The phrase has since entered common usage to refer to a situation where an expected event did not occur.