Support the Timberjay by making a donation.

Serving Northern St. Louis County, Minnesota

District: Campaign finance report sufficient

Both sides submit briefs in lawsuit over alleged reporting violation

Tom Klein
Posted 4/24/15

REGIONAL – The St. Louis County School District reiterated its claim that the campaign finance report filed by the district was sufficient, in a brief it has submitted to the Minnesota Office of …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Log in

District: Campaign finance report sufficient

Both sides submit briefs in lawsuit over alleged reporting violation

Posted

REGIONAL – The St. Louis County School District reiterated its claim that the campaign finance report filed by the district was sufficient, in a brief it has submitted to the Minnesota Office of Administrative Hearings.

But a post-hearing brief filed on the behalf of Steve Abrahamson and Tim Kotzian continues to assert that the district did not disclose all of its campaign expenses for the 2009 $78.8 million bond referendum. It calls for a criminal referral to the St. Louis County Attorney and a substantial fine for the business manager who prepared the report.

The briefs are a follow-up to a hearing conducted on Feb. 25 on whether St. Louis County School District Business Manager Kim Johnson failed to file a proper campaign finance report, as ordered by a previous panel of administrative law judges last May.

The matter came before the OAH yet again following the filing of a new complaint by former Tower Mayor Abrahamson and Kotzian, who had co-signed the original complaint that culminated with a previous OAH panel’s conclusion that the district did promote the passage of the bond referendum using misleading and outdated information. The panel reprimanded the district and issued a court order requiring the district to file a campaign finance report.

The district argues in its brief that because the district had not adopted a resolution setting the referendum date until Sept. 14, 2009, any campaign expenditures prior to that don’t have to be reported.

But Marshall Helmberger, who has assisted the complainants in the matter, took issue with the district’s claim, noting that under the state’s campaign finance reporting laws, campaign committees are required to report all expenditures and contributions, not just those made after a candidate files for office or a special election is called. “In the law governing the school district’s campaign, reporting is required when a committee receives contributions or makes disbursements of more than $750, and invoices from Johnson Controls show the District had already expended in excess of $20,000 on its referendum campaign as of August 2009. All of those expenditures must be reported,” said Helmberger.

The district’s brief acknowledges that the law in question requires campaigns to report all of their contributions and expenditures, and further acknowledges that the report filed by the district only reported expenses for items that the district deemed to be promotional. But the district then asserts that the Supreme Court carved out an exception for school districts, allowing them to limit their reporting to promotional items only.

Helmberger dismissed the district’s argument, as “concocted.” “There’s no truth to it at all. I’ve read the high court’s decision many times and there isn’t the slightest suggestion to support the district’s claim. In fact, the court stated exactly the opposite, which is why the district’s brief couldn’t quote a single sentence from the decision in support of their claim. They’re just grasping at straws.”

But the school district says it was simply following the advice of its attorneys and information provided by Johnson Controls, and couldn’t get help from state officials with oversight of campaign finance issues. Even if the OAH panel were to find the report to be inadequate, the district’s brief says any violation was unintentional.

The Abrahamson-Kotzian brief contends that the district did not include many of the expenses that the district incurred related to the bond referendum. Those expenses include the service of Greenfield Communications, which assisted the district campaign under a contract between the school district and Johnson Controls. Greenfield had documented more than $4,000 in services that were never billed to the district and should, therefore, be considered an in-kind contribution to the school district’s campaign.

The brief also cites a poll conducted by political consulting firm Himle-Horner, which was used by the district to gauge public responses to various arguments in favor of the referendum.

In addition, the brief challenges the district’s claim that it was only required to report campaign expenditures that promoted the ballot’s passage.

The brief adds that the district failed to heed advice that its report would be incomplete as filed and lays much of the blame on Johnson for her refusal to amend the campaign finance report despite emails verifying some school board members’ attempts to urge changes in the report.

“Ms. Johnson’s misleading financial claims....were at the heart of the case originally heard by the O’Reilly Panel,” the brief states. “And, it was Ms. Johnson’s refusal to amend her campaign finance report to address legitimate concerns raised by complainants that prompted the follow-up complaint. To date, Ms. Johnson has avoided any consequences for her wrongful actions. Complainants urge the panel to, finally, assess some degree of accountability for this public official run amok.”

In light of the district’s and Johnson’s actions, the brief asks the panel to refer the matter to the St. Louis County Attorney and levy a substantial fine.

Both parties have until April 28 to file rebuttal briefs in the case. A decision in the case is expected by the end of May.