October 2005

By Mike Ferguson

Search for more articles by or about this columnist

You win some, you lose some. That phrase is among the most common sayings we have. What is uncommon, though, is the time when you both win and lose.

That is the case regarding a recent complaint I filed against the Grandview (MO) School District last year. Technically, the complaint I filed with the Missouri Ethics Commission was upheld. The Commission validated my assertion that the District – a government agency – broke the law.

While I appreciate that validation, the Commission fell short of holding accountable the District and those responsible for the actions in question.

The problem began in March of 2004 when the District desired both a tax levy increase and the passage of a new revenue bond plan. Right before the April elections, which had both issues on the ballot, the District mailed out its newsletter (The Communicator) and used it to blatantly campaign for both issues.

Missouri statute 115.646 states “No contribution or expenditure of public funds shall be made directly by any officer, employee or agent of any political subdivision to advocate, support, or oppose any ballot measure or candidate for public office. This section shall not be construed to prohibit any public official of a political subdivision from making public appearances or from issuing press releases concerning any such ballot measure.”

The District’s newsletter costs thousands of dollars to produce and mail. In this case, its improper use not only violated Missouri law but violated ethical behavior that should be common sense: the understanding that taxpayers’ money should not be used to influence an election in any way. The taxpayers of the Grandview School District were forced to pay for campaign literature designed to raise taxes on them.

The newsletter is, unfortunately, not uncommon in Missouri. Local municipalities and school districts often use district (taxpayer funded) resources to subtly influence the passage to tax hikes and revenue bonds. Rarely are they held accountable for this.

The Grandview case was different in that the District did not bother with subtlety. The District openly campaigned for the tax hike and revenue bonds with the newsletter. Direct appeals to vote in favor of the ballot issues were found on four different pages of the Communicator.

School Board President Allen Meyer wrote in an essay printed in the newsletter about several cuts the District would “have” to make if both issues failed and how “vital” both issues were to both the district “and the community.” Clearly, this was improperly trying to influence the election. No room was allocated to the possibility that some current spending is nonessential and could be reduced without harm to academics.

The newsletter’s content became bolder throughout the pages. In one section entitled “More Answers to Questions Regarding No-Tax Bond [a dishonest statement in and of itself] and Operating Levy Issue”, one of the “questions” was “Why is it important to pass both the tax levy and the bond issue?” The “answer” was yet another appeal to voters.

I do not oppose Mr. Meyer’s right, or anyone else’s right, to campaign on behalf of a tax increase. I oppose the use of tax money to do so. I do not believe Mr. Meyer is a bad person but I do believe he, and anyone else responsible for governmental violation of the law, should be held accountable for his actions.

Those of us who oppose tax increases are, rightly, not afforded taxpayers’ money to campaign against tax hikes and bond issues. That would be as unethical as the District’s use of tax money to campaign for these issues.

That is why I decided to use the state’s process to formally complain. I downloaded the complaint form from the Missouri Ethics Commission’s website, filled it out and sent it to Jefferson City. It was not long before the Ethics Commission sent an investigator to interview me. He was very professional and thorough. I was pleasantly surprised with how seriously he took my complaint.

The tax levy issue barely passed, by less than 200 votes, while the bond issue passed with a comfortable 65% of the vote. It is entirely reasonable to believe that the District’s illegal use of the newsletter was a primary cause of the tax hike passage.

In June of 2004, I received a letter stating that the Commission found sufficient evidence to refer the case to the Missouri Attorney General’s Office. That was reassuring. Someone in Jefferson City was going to hold someone in the Grandview School District accountable for illegal actions, I thought.

The Ethics Commission did, sort of. The April 30, 2005 Kansas City Star reported that the Commission fined two people personally for the violations that I complained about. Both District Superintendent Dr. John Martin and Board President Allen Meyer had fines levied against them. They were each ordered to pay $300.

Grandview’s local newspaper, the Jackson County Advocate, quoted a joint response to the complaint from Dr. Martin and Mr. Meyer saying they “concede” that the newsletter’s content “…could reasonably be construed to have been made in advocacy or support of the District’s proposed bond issue and property tax levy, in that the newsletter promoted, recommended, and pled to the public in favor of their passage.”

That hardly strikes me as an apology for illegal activity on behalf of a governmental agency that is charged with instructing and setting a proper example for children.

The Star quoted Dr. Martin as saying “We overstated our zealous support in a situation we were supposed to be neutral. It’s not something we take lightly. We will bend over backward to make sure it doesn’t happen again.”

That is not exactly an apology, either, but at least he has promised to not facilitate this type of illegal and unethical activity in the future.

We will have to take Dr. Martin’s word that he will reform his and the District’s behavior because the punishment provides little incentive. At best, a $300 fine is a proverbial slap on the wrist for blatantly illegal activity. At worst, it is a multi million dollar election being purchased for a grand total of $600.

Guess what penalties a typical voter would face if he were caught trying to cast two ballots or if he were caught voting in two or more precincts. According to Missouri Statute 115.631(2), the punishment for one of these offenses that would have less of an impact on the results includes a felony conviction, at least $2,500 (and up to $10,000) in fines and up to five years in prison.

Our laws take the tampering with our democratic process seriously, as they should. When our electoral process is compromised, even a little, our entire system of self-government and freedom is placed at risk. That is far more important than generating additional tax revenue for a local school.

While I appreciate the Ethics Commission investigating and taking some action in response to the situation, a $300 fine is hardly a deterrent when it comes to behavior that could result in millions of dollars in increased taxes. The risk of violating the law simply does not outweigh the potential reward when $300 in fines is the precedent.

Ideally, the Ethics Commission would have recommended that the election in question be nullified because of the probability that the illegal actions were a significant factor in the result. That ideal would be in addition to fines and/or criminal prosecution for those involved with the flagrant violation of state election law. Prosecution should be no different for government officials than it would be for any other citizen who tampers with the democratic process.

That sort of real penalty would send a clear message to government at all levels in Missouri that election tampering will not be tolerated. That would make other school districts and municipalities think twice before spending tax money to campaign for tax increases.

Dr. Martin and Mr. Meyer, instead, got off with what amounts to no actual punishment for clear lawbreaking. In fact, those who support tax increases at any economic or ethical cost should congratulate these gentlemen for gaining the desired tax hike and beating the system at the same time.

My hope is that, despite the lack of real sanction against the misuse of taxpayers’ money, more of us will work to keep government ethical and accountable to us all. The disappointment that results from the Grandview case should not deter anyone from reporting ethical and legal violations of government to the Missouri Ethics Commission. My complaint did not require a great deal of time to prepare and it at least brought some attention to a problem that was not being addressed before.

When tax increases are “for the kids”, as is the campaign cry for most tax increases of this nature, the ends apparently justify the means, legal or not, for too many in government regardless of what ethical and moral example those means set for the kids. Ensuring good government is a task that falls to each and every one of us and no issue is too local or too small to address.