Support the Timberjay by making a donation.

Serving Northern St. Louis County, Minnesota

Judge advances campaign finance complaint

Ruling sets the stage for more legal proceedings against ISD 2142

Tom Klein
Posted 12/18/14

REGIONAL – An administrative law judge has found sufficient facts to support a charge that the St. Louis County School District failed to file a complete campaign finance report as ordered by the …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Log in

Judge advances campaign finance complaint

Ruling sets the stage for more legal proceedings against ISD 2142

Posted

REGIONAL – An administrative law judge has found sufficient facts to support a charge that the St. Louis County School District failed to file a complete campaign finance report as ordered by the Office of Administrative Hearings back in May.

Administrative Law Judge James LaFave made his ruling on Friday, Dec. 11, which sets the stage for more legal proceedings at the OAH unless a resolution can be found before then.

A prehearing teleconference has been scheduled for 11 a.m. on Wednesday, Jan. 21.

In their complaint, Steve Abrahamson and Tim Kotzian allege that the district failed to report all of its expenses, or reveal the source of its funds, related to its campaign to win passage of a $78.8 million bond referendum back in 2009. The district had been ordered to file the campaign finance report after the Office of Administrative Hearings ruled that the district had acted as a political campaign committee as it sought to win passage of the referendum.

“I’m very happy with the judge’s determination,” said Kotzian, “but it didn’t have to go this way. We asked the board repeatedly to amend its filing and hoped to avoid another hearing, but the district refused to budge.”

Superintendent Steven Sallee did not return a call seeking comment by the Timberjay’s deadline.

Marshall Helmberger, who drafted the complaint, said the district failed to report the bulk of its campaign expenses in the report it filed with the OAH in September.

The report appears to include none of the expenses the district incurred for work done by the political consulting firm Himle-Horner, which conducted polling in the months prior to the vote to gauge public attitudes and to provide advice to the district on how to influence public opinion to support the referendum.

Complainants also obtained invoices from Greenfield Communications, a public relations firm hired by Johnson Controls under its’ contract with the school district, which revealed thousands of additional dollars in campaign-related communications advice that the district failed to report.

“We repeatedly pointed out to school officials that this report was grossly incomplete,” said Helmberger. “We urged the district to amend its report to avoid any more litigation on this,” said Helmberger, who even provided the district with an advance draft of the complaint weeks prior to filing. “We really hoped that once they understood our concerns, they would amend their report to comply with the law,” he added. “But when the school board refused, the complainants felt they had no choice but to proceed. They had to see this through to the end and ensure that the district met the requirements of the court order.”

Board members Troy Swanson and Nancy Wall Glowaski had both urged the board to file an amended report to address the concerns of complainants without further litigation, but faced opposition from other board members and Business Manager Kim Johnson.

Glowaski said she was not surprise by the judge’s decision.

“I don’t like the fact that my name is on this case as a respondent when I tried to get the board to file a different report,” she said. “I was sure the report that was being filed was incomplete.”

The district’s failure to heed warnings that the report was incomplete “looks like arrogance,” said Glowaski. “And that arrogance just costs taxpayers more in legal fees.”

Complaint details

The complaint lists numerous instances where the district excluded required information for the campaign finance report, including leaving the line blank on forms for identification of the ballot question.

But of greater concern was district’s failure to account for all campaign funds. Although the district acknowledged approximately $12,000 in campaign disbursements, it did not identify the source of the funds it used to cover those expenses, which is required by law. In fact, the district did not identify any contributions at all.

“Identifying the source of funding is fundamental to campaign finance reporting and is not optional on the part of the school district,” the complaint states. “The school district campaign report clearly fails to comply with the law in this instance.”

The complaint also claims that the district failed to include all campaign expenditures in its report. Services purchased, but excluded from the report, included opinion polling and referendum planning, assistance with public and media outreach plans and the preparation and dissemination of “talking points” for board members and school staff.

In one example, the complaint notes that invoices show the district spent $9,313 with Greenfield Communications between June 2 and Oct. 26. At most, about one-third of this spending was reported by the district, according to the complaint.

“School district Business Manager Kim Johnson is well aware of the totality of this spending, yet revealed only a small fraction of it in the campaign finance report she provided to the OAH,” the complaint states. “Her refusal was intentional and reflects contempt towards the OAH as well as the school district’s voters.”

Other costs excluded from the report include website production of campaign materials during the run-up to the referendum and attorney fees and other expenses related to the campaign finance complaint filed in 2010 against the school district.

The complaint concludes that when the school district made the decision to engage in political campaigning, “it created for itself an obligation to abide by laws established by the Legislature to govern such activity. Complainants ask only that the school district be required to abide by those laws.”

After reviewing the complaint and attached materials, Judge LaFave determined that there was a prima facie violation of state statutes governing campaign finance reporting. For a prima facie determination, the judge must accept the facts alleged as true and determine that the allegations do not need independent substantiation.

At the prehearing conference, preliminary matters will be addressed such as identifying the issues to be resolved, and the number of potential witnesses and exhibits should the matter proceed to a hearing.

There is also the possibility of settling the matter without an evidentiary hearing, a route that Helmberger encouraged the district to pursue.

“I can’t imagine what evidence they would produce to counter the complaint,” he said. “Instead of wasting time and money on more legal proceedings, they should agree to file a complete campaign finance report. They’re under a court order to do so. We’re simply asking the district to follow the law. It shouldn’t be that hard.”