The campaign finance report filed last Friday by the St. Louis County School District is a huge disappointment. The district had the opportunity, as well as a mandate from a three-judge panel, to provide the public with a full accounting of its spending to promote passage of its still-controversial 2009 bond measure. Yet, once again, the district has opted for less than the full story.

While the school district’s report, attested to by Business Manager Kim Johnson, does acknowledge just over $11,000 in campaign expenditures, it fails to account for what was almost certainly tens of thousands of additional taxpayer dollars spent on professionally-designed, full color brochures as well as polling and communications consulting services provided by the public relations firm Himle-Horner under the district’s contract with Johnson Controls. By failing to account for such campaign spending, the school district is not only in contempt of a court order, it is, once again, undermining its own credibility.

The best solution for the district is to file an amended report with the Office of Administrative Hearings immediately, and we are hopeful that the school board will vote to do just that when it meets next week. It’s clear that some on the board believe in full disclosure, while Board Chair Bob Larson and Business Manager Johnson continue to resist a complete accounting. Hopefully, the board will opt to do the right thing, and the district will avoid yet another expensive visit to an OAH courtroom, where it is, once again, virtually guaranteed to lose.

The district also faces the likelihood of a fine, given that intentionally filing an incomplete campaign report is a misdemeanor. The last time around, the district was spared a fine because the OAH had previously ruled that school districts were exempt from campaign finance disclosure rules, so it was understandable that the district failed to understand its obligations. That excuse won’t work this time, given that the district was ordered to produce the report.

Like many residents, we were hoping that this long-standing legal case was finally over. But filing an incomplete report—one that discloses a quarter or less of the district’s actual campaign expenditures— doesn’t bring a satisfactory end to this case, and it likely won’t be the last word, particularly if the district fails to amend its report.

While a renewed lawsuit would no doubt bring howls of protest from school officials, they need to recognize that it is their own flouting of the law that keeps them in hot water.

What is perhaps most appalling is that the district spent more than $200,000 fighting this case when, in the end, all that was required was the filing of a two-page report. Top district officials wasted all that money on their attorney, Steve Knutson, over nothing more than their stubborn pride and their unwillingness to admit their errors.

Knutson, who has billed the district nearly $700,000 in fees over just the past four years, had no financial interest in a sensible resolution of this case. And now, by approving the submission of an incomplete report, Knutson stands ready to cash in again, possibly defending the district against a new charge based on the incomplete report he helped submit. If additional legal action is needed, the district should demand that Knutson represent them at no cost.

Kim Johnson’s involvement is also a concern. She, more than anyone, was well aware of the district’s campaign expenditures for brochures produced and consultants hired under JCI’s contract. Her decision to exclude any campaign spending related to JCI’s contract is especially troubling. If she’s trying to protect JCI’s reputation, she’s too late. In either case, her job was to provide a full accounting, and she failed to do so.

The public has a right to be disappointed in this report. If anything, the board should have erred on the side of caution and included any expenses that could be construed as spending for the referendum in its report. If a student submitted a half-completed assignment, he or she would likely get a failing grade. It should be no different for a school district that fails to live up to the law.