On a conference call with reporters this afternoon, Paul Lawrence, the attorney representing the state Senate Democratic Campaign Committee (SDCC), revealed that former SDCC executive director Michael King faces a 22 to 29 month prison sentence on eight counts of theft related to his alleged embezzlement of campaign funds.

"There is a plea agreement with Mr. King," Lawrence told reports. Prosecutors, he said, would recommend to the court a 24-month term and $250,000 in restitution. An arraignment is scheduled for October 7.

Lawrence, along with SDCC co-chairs Senators Ed Murray, David Frockt, and Sharon Nelson, took questions from reporters, their answers largely corroborating and expanding on the narrative reported in this week's edition of The Stranger. Frockt confirmed the allegation that King fabricated polling data to cover his tracks: "It's clear that some of those polls did not take place," acknowledged Frockt, but "it's hard for us to know which ones were legit and which were not." And when asked if King's alleged embezzlement might have cost Democrats control of the state senate, Nelson wouldn't disagree: "From what I understand… if we had those funds, we could have potentially been on TV and done a better job for Probst," Nelson told reporters. Former state Representative Tim Probst lost his 17th district senate race against Republican Don Benton by only 74 votes, leaving Democrats one loyal member short of a majority. "But," Nelson sighed, "that's hindsight."

As I posted earlier, the only known factual discrepancy in my original article concerns the issue of check signing authority. I had originally reported that "King had the authority to write checks without a cosigner, just like his predecessor," implying that King had had this authority since being hired in March 2011. The charging documents say King wasn't given this authority until March, 2012, and his predecessor, former SDCC executive director Chris Gregorich, confirms via email that he never had check signing authority during his own tenure. The question of whether such authority is commonplace, is still an issue of contention.

The senators insist that new controls are in place to prevent a similar incident from happening again.

UPDATE: I feel the need to take a moment to elaborate more on the whole check signing authority thing, since it appears to be raised in an effort to deflect blame from the SDCC co-chairs and onto SDCC treasurer Jason Bennett.

During the conference call, Murray made a point of emphasizing that "check writing authority had been given by the treasurer." Well, of course it had. As treasurer, Bennett controlled the bank accounts, so technically, he'd have to be the one to give check writing authority. That's a given. The question is whether there was anything inappropriate about Bennett's actions?

To this end, Murray's campaign consultant, Christian Sinderman, chimed in to clarify that King's predecessor did not have check signing authority—Gregorich confirmed this via email—the implication being that it is not normal for executive directors to have this authority. But in fact it is common for candidates, campaign managers, and executive directors to have check signing authority, and sources insist that previous SDCC executive directors had this authority as well. Murray himself described the SDCC as following a "strong executive director model." So why should we be surprised that Bennett gave King check signing authority when this strong executive director asked for it?

Of course, King shouldn't have had check signing authority. Because he is an alcoholic and a pathological gambler. But not because it's not something that strong executive directors don't normally have.