Support the Timberjay by making a donation.
REGIONAL- An administrative law judge has found probable cause to believe that the Virginia and Eveleth-Gilbert school districts violated state law by failing to account for their spending to support …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
To continue reading, you will need to either log in to your subscriber account, or purchase a new subscription.
If you are a current print subscriber, you can set up a free website account and connect your subscription to it by clicking here.
If you are a digital subscriber with an active, online-only subscription then you already have an account here. Just reset your password if you've not yet logged in to your account on this new site.
Otherwise, click here to view your options for subscribing.
Please log in to continue |
REGIONAL- An administrative law judge has found probable cause to believe that the Virginia and Eveleth-Gilbert school districts violated state law by failing to account for their spending to support passage of a 2019 bond measure and a consolidation vote held last month.
In a May 19 order, ALJ Barbara Case cited Abrahamson v. St. Louis County School District 2142, as holding that school districts do have an obligation to submit campaign spending reports if they disburse funds in an effort to win passage of a ballot measure.
The order comes in response to two complaints filed by Concerned Citizens of the Eveleth-Gilbert and Virginia School Districts. In those complaints, the citizens group cites more than $20,000 in expenditures by the Eveleth-Gilbert School District alone, for newspaper advertising and printing for materials that appeared to promote passage of the 2019 bond measure.
The group submitted a second complaint as well last month, citing promotional spending to support the consolidation vote between the two school districts, held last month.
The judge has since consolidated the complaints and set a pre-hearing conference for June 26, at which time the judge and the parties will need to identify the issues to be resolved, along with the number of potential witnesses and exhibits.
The complainants allege that the school districts spent tens of thousands of dollars on advertising that they believe was misleading or false in an effort to win passage of the two recent ballot measures. Complainants also cite in-kind assistance from teachers and other school staff who aided in promoting passage. “Campaign finance reports were not filed, including that in-kind support,” said Sally Zamlen, an organizer of the citizens group. “This has all been done under the direction of Kraus-Anderson, who will take at least $7 million off the top,” Zamlen added.
Attorney Erick Kaardal, who is representing the citizens group, said school districts appear to have forgotten the lessons learned by the 2010-2015 legal battle between residents of the St. Louis County District and officials of that district, and suggested that the minimal fine eventually issued to the school district at the end of that process may be contributing to continued violations by school districts. “If you allow them to violate one law, what stops them from violating others?” asked Kaardal.
Left unaddressed in the complaints is the broader question of the propriety of government bodies spending taxpayer funds to influence the outcome of ballot measures. Opinions issued by the Minnesota Attorney General in the 1950s and 1960s determined that it was inappropriate for government bodies to use public funds for such a purpose. Minn. Stat. 8.07 gives attorney general opinions the force of law as they apply to school districts, unless a court overturns the opinion. No such court decision has ever been issued in Minnesota.