I've had a chance to review the decision by the Office of Administrative Hearings in the case filed by Doug Erickson against the St. Louis County School's teachers union and it is very interesting.

While the OAH dismissed the complaint, they did agree that the ad was misleading and incomplete.

But the limited exoneration of the union comes at the expense of the school district, because the union essentially claims that its own claim of "Vote Yes for Lower Taxes!" was based on similar information put out by the school district.

As it turned out, the judges agreed and in their decision they cited at length the claims made by the school district that a no vote would lead to dissolution of the district and higher taxes for residents. As the judges wrote in the memorandum of their decision: "The District's position that residents' taxes would actually increase if the referendum failed was well established throughout the debate and discussion of the referendum."

The judges are absolutely right that the district’s position was clear. The problem for the district is that their claims in regards to dissolution were false. None of the evidence to that effect was presented to the OAH during consideration of the Erickson complaint, so the judges never ruled or even considered whether the district’s claims were accurate or not. They took the claims at face value, and many voters in ISD 2142 did the same.

The problem for the school district is that the evidence against their claims is contained primarily in state statutes. Consider MS 123A.74 Subd. 3, which states:

“As of the effective date of the voluntary dissolution of a district and its attachment to one or more existing districts pursuant to section 123A.46, the authorization for all referendum revenues previously approved by the voters of all affected districts for those districts pursuant to section 126C.17, subdivision 9, or its predecessor provision, is canceled.”

I’ve talked with state education officials and they have agreed that this statute means what it says. So, had ISD 2142 actually dissolved as they claimed, “all referendum revenues previously approved by the voters of all affected districts” would have been canceled. So, what’s the impact of such an action? Lower taxes for everyone. Period.

This evidence was never presented at the Erickson hearing, but it is likely, indeed, is almost certain, to be presented at a future hearing on the district’s actions related to the referendum campaign.

So we have the teachers, who have (barely) cleared themselves by citing the district's claims. The judges repeat and accept the district's claims at face value in their ruling, and use them to decide a case. So when the evidence is presented that the district's claims were, in fact, false, it is pretty difficult for the OAH to disavow its earlier findings. That's why this case is potentially quite damaging to the district. The judges have, essentially, already laid out half of the case that the cities of Orr and Tower plan to make to the OAH. It's very helpful to the cities' cause.

I know many plan supporters have been angered that I and others have continued to pursue this issue. But this is just one of several examples where the district blatantly misled voters in an effort to obtain passage of a restructuring plan that not only creates a significant tax burden for many district residents, but also significantly harms communities in the north.

If anyone out there wants to maintain that it’s just fine for units of government to use public dollars to mislead voters, then stand up and state your case. If you have information or statutory citations that contradict the information I’ve presented here, then put it forward. But, please, skip the usual name-calling. Let's talk facts, not trash.

And try putting your name to it. I put my name to everything I write.