Just fix the report

An administrative law judge found merit in arguments that the St. Louis County School District filed an incomplete and inadequate campaign finance report.

Although the judge’s decision doesn’t declare the district guilty, it means the judge found sufficient evidence to support the charge. It should be enough to encourage the district to file an amended report. Otherwise, the district will likely find itself on the losing end of another OAH decision, and being ordered to produce a new report anyway.

The board’s last appearance before at the OAH should give them pause. Just as complainants originally alleged, a three-judge panel found that the district had used misleading and outdated information to promote the passage of a $78.8 million bond referendum. And although the district avoided any financial penalty from the state, the fight cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees. The district was also reprimanded for its actions and ordered to file a campaign finance report.

That brings us to the current situation. The district’s report was woefully inadequate, failing to include numerous campaign expenses incurred by the district in the run-up to the referendum and failing to identify the source of funding for their campaign. Johnson Controls Inc.’s role in influencing how the referendum was portrayed and sold to the public was virtually non-existent in the report filed by the district.

In addition, the district excluded the services of public relations firm Himle-Horner and Decision Resources, which conducted opinion polling and used the results to guide district officials on how to best frame their arguments in favor of the referendum. This is all routine stuff for political campaigns, and under Minnesota law, such campaigns are required to report those expenditures. The school district is equally obligated, yet refuses to reveal them.

Part of the blame stems from the district’s faulty interpretation of the OAH’s directive to file a campaign finance report. The district apparently operates under the assumption that they were only required to report those expenses that could be construed as promoting the referendum’s passage.

But no such language exists the court order issued by the OAH judges back in May and, more importantly, no such language exists in state law. That means all campaign-related expenses, from political consultants to legal fees to staff time devoted to the campaign, must be included in the report.

No doubt there are some who will quibble that the referendum is old news and question why the complainants pursued an accounting of the district’s expenses. But this is a matter of following the law. The district was ordered to file a report and they should be held to the same standards as any campaign, whether it be for a candidate or a cause.

Just as critically, the district’s residents deserve to know how many of their tax dollars were spent on the referendum campaign, and where the money went.

At the same time, all parties can agree too much effort and tax dollars have already been spent on this matter. The district has an opportunity to put an end to this battle by simply abiding by the law and its court order and filing an amended campaign finance report as soon as possible. That would instantly satisfy the complainants in this dispute, who have been entirely open with the district about their concerns, and gave the district months to produce an amended report before filing their complaint.

District officials shouldn’t have to learn every lesson the hard way. And they certainly shouldn’t have to keep learning the same lessons over and over.

There’s an easy and very inexpensive conclusion to this matter. The district simply needs to be willing to do the right thing. File the appropriate report, and be done with this.