The D.C. Board of Elections on Friday night denied a procedural appeal by D.C. Councilmember Elissa Silverman (I-At Large) of a ruling by the Office of Campaign Finance which found she misspent public campaign funds on polling ahead of a Democratic primary race in which she was not a candidate.

In a unanimous decision, the three-person board rejected Silverman’s arguments that the campaign office had improperly rushed the investigation and expanded its scope without giving her advance notice. The board did not weigh in on the merits of the investigation’s findings, though, saving those for an appeal scheduled for later this month. (As part of the ruling, Silverman was ordered to refund the city $6,000.)

The ruling was a setback for Silverman only days before the general election in which she is running for re-election in a competitive eight-way race for two At-Large seats on the D.C. Council. In a statement, Silverman said she was “disappointed” with the board’s ruling, but said she looked forward to a hearing later this month on her appeal of the ruling’s merits.

The dispute stems from two polls that Silverman conducted in Ward 3 ahead of the June Democratic primary. After the polling, three candidates in the large field for that council seat dropped out and threw their support behind eventual victor Matthew Frumin.

Critics — including losing candidate Eric Goulet — accused Silverman of improperly using the polling results she obtained to push the three candidates to drop out, effectively violating city regulations against coordination between campaigns and potentially serving as an illegal campaign contribution to them. In August, Karim Marshall, an independent candidate in the At-Large contest, asked OCF to investigate Silverman over the polling.

The late-October OCF ruling found that Silverman — who participates in the Fair Elections public financing system that matches small-dollar campaign contributions with public money — improperly used campaign funds on the polling since she wasn’t a candidate in the Ward 3 race. OCF did not fully investigate whether she coordinated with Ward 3 candidates in encouraging them to drop out of the race so Frumin could win, though, and dismissed those claims.

In her appeal, Silverman focused on procedural matters, arguing that OCF change the timeline of the investigation — thus violating an agreement Jason Downs, Silverman’s attorney, said he had with OCF — and ultimately found her guilty of breaking a city regulation that Marshall had not directly raised in his complaint.

“OCF breached an agreement it made in writing regarding the timeline of this investigation,” argued Downs at Friday’s board hearing. “[And] given that the OCF issued its fine under allegations that were never raised under this complaint… Ms. Silverman did not have notice of the allegations against her and thus her due process rights were violated.”

But William SanFord, OCF’s general counsel, contested Downs’ version of what happened.

“There was never an agreement between myself and Mr. Downs that they would have a 90-day period to respond to allegations in a four-and-a-half page complaint,” he said. “With regard to the allegation that we unilaterally denied due process, we granted [Silverman and Downs] three extensions. We gave them more than sufficient time to respond, and even to date they have not provided a response.”

SanFord also pushed back on Downs’ argument that his investigation had gone beyond the scope of what Marshall had initially raised in his complaint. “We have an ethical obligation to expose any misconduct we uncover during our investigation, and that’s exactly what happened here,” he said.

After deliberating for an hour, the board sided with SanFord, though it was clear they are not of one mind on the larger case.

“It was made by clear by [OCF] that [they] needed things by a certain date,” said board member Karyn Greenfield. Fellow board member Mike Gill, though, said he thought there might be merit to Silverman’s argument that OCF found her guilty of a violation without informing her it was considering it first. “I feel there should have been some communication on the exact nature of the violation,” he said.

While this ruling was based on the procedural arguments, the board will consider the merits of OCF’s ruling against Silverman later this month. She said in a statement that she believes she will prevail there.

“I look forward to the board scheduling a full hearing on my appeal of the OCF ruling, which will be the first opportunity we will have to address the substantive merits — whether the expenditure for Ward 3 polling was outside Fair Elections regulations,” she said. “OCF has already dismissed the original complaint of inappropriate coordination for lack of evidence. I believe the Board of Elections will agree that an expenditure for polling to understand voter thinking in one part of the city is appropriate for a citywide candidate whether they are under the Fair Elections program or using traditional campaign financing.”