As you know, one of the tools the District used to garner their 23% of the vote in the last referendum was the use of backpack mail. Many parents complained that the referendum updates and "fact sheets" were little more than campaign literature.

On August 20, there will be a hearing at the Illinois State Board of Elections office downtown to hear evidence in a complaint against a school district (NOT District 41)using backpack mail to get out the vote. A school district can distribute facts, but cannot massage those facts so as to request a vote one way or the other.

The issue is whether the District in question was distributing facts or disguising campaign literature as "referendum facts". Many thought the line was being skirted by District 41. Some think it was crossed. It will be an interesting hearing.

Ronkas:

The trouble with the backpack materials is that D41 effectively controls all communication to school parents about potential changes to our school district. People with opposing views cannot voice their concerns regarding school board policy or plans so that D41 residents with school children can make an informed decision. To compound the problem, D41 residents that do not currently have children in the schools do not even know changes that might affect their taxes are being proposed. This works to D41's favor when referendums are voted upon since they need a simple majority of voters - in this case most would be parents who have read one-sided D41 materials brought home in their kid's backpacks.

I personally appreciated the fact that all Preserve41 materials that were published prior to the recent super-sized Hadley referendum also directed potential voters to the official District 41 web site for the school board's point of view. This seemed both fair and helpful. D41 backpack materials did not provide this type of objectivity or constructiveness.

It seems as if there is no easy answer to this problem. The best short-term solution would be to insist that no materials be inserted into D41 student's backbacks that deal with anything other than our kid's education. Any thoughts on other potential solutions?

The only thing to keep in mind is that only about 1 in 4 residents of our area of D41 have children in the D41 schools. If everyone turns out to vote (or at least a lot of people), the parents will not have the automatic win. As a parent of one kid still in D41, I would like to have a greater say in whether the referendum will pass (since my kid will be directly effected). But since one person gets one vote, that's why we "take sides" and campaign for what we want.

It will be interesting to see the outcome of this hearing.

I, too, would like to see the district refrain from distributing "information" via the backpack mail. That 1 out of 4 households number is what I have heard, too. This makes the backpack mail all the more important to the district. If the rest of the community doesn't know too much about the referendum, or that one is even on the ballot, then they stay home and those who buy the district spin give the district their win.

The astounding part of the district's big defeat in April, is the admin's belief that the community just didn't have all of the "education" we needed in order to pass the ref. That is truly amazing when you think of the paper that the machine cranked out.

I will be interested in the outcome of this case. Keep us posted, Ron.

State Senator Pam Althoff from Crystal Lake, a former teacher, introduced a new IL Senate Bill SB0227 on February 7th, 2007 entitled, “An act concerning referenda”.

It pretty much guts the already too weak Election Interference Act, sponsored by State Rep. John Matijevich (D-North Chicago) back in the 1970’s when a local school district spent taxpayers’ money to pass a referendum. That law is intended to keep public money from being spent to promote or oppose (yea, right) tax rate hikes or bond referendums.

The law is already too weak because most state's attorney's won't prosecute unless the (usually) school district communication (usually direct mail) says, "Vote Yes." School districts have learned not to be that blatant when they spend tax dollars to get you to vote yes.

Althoff wants to gut the Election Interference Law.

Here’s the new language she wants put in the State Officials and Employees Ethics Act:

Nothing in a governmental entity's regulation of political activities shall prohibit the governmental entity's corporate authorities from communicating to the public

(1) the reasoning for the corporate authorities' decision to place a referendum question on an upcoming election ballot, even if that communication supports the referendum question or otherwise may constitute a prohibited political activity, or

(2) the reasons why the corporate authorities support or oppose a referendum question on an upcoming election ballot (regardless of how that question was placed on the ballot), even if that communication supports or opposes the referendum question or may otherwise constitute a prohibited political activity.

In any such communication, however, the corporate authorities must specify how they believe the referendum question directly affects the health, safety, or welfare of the residents of the governmental entity or otherwise pertains to the governmental entity's government and affairs.

The exemptions from prohibited political activities provided by this subsection shall apply only to communications with respect to referendum questions and not to communications with respect to candidates for any public office.

Then, to make sure everyone knows that the intention is to gut the Elections Interference Act, there’s this change in that law:

Nothing in this Section prohibits the corporate authorities of a unit of local government or a school district from communicating to the public

(1) the reasoning for the corporate authorities' decision to place a proposition on an upcoming election ballot, even if that communication supports the proposition or otherwise may violate this Section, or

(2) the reasons why the corporate authorities support or oppose a proposition on an upcoming election ballot (regardless of how that proposition was placed on the ballot), even if that communication supports or opposes the referendum question or may otherwise violate this Section.

In any such communication, however, the corporate authorities must specify how they believe the proposition directly affects the health, safety, or welfare of the residents of the unit or district or otherwise pertains to the unit's or district's government and affairs.

This subsection applies only to communications with respect to propositions and not to communications with respect to candidates for any public office.

Given Dan Cronin's position on similar issues, I doubt he would be a supporter of this bill, but please call him and voice your opposition.

I know Senator Cronin and will definitely call him....I oppose weakening the law and would prefer to see it strengthened. A stronger law, quite frankly, protects teachers from being forced to promote a referendum - albeit politely veiled as "information" - when the teacher may not agree with the purpose of the referendum.

And before all the anti-union people go off about how teachers always want more money for their schools, I will say that yes, a teacher (or any working person) would hardly NOT want more money for their school (or company). However, that doesn't mean every teacher (or working person) will agree with how money is being allocated in their school (or company) or that the "powers that be" are using the money wisely. Therefore, teachers may not always be in support of a referendum and should not be put in a position where they must promote it within the context of their job. (Unless you would say that being an excellent teacher, counselor, administrator,etc. promotes positive feelings from the taxpayers so that they want to pay more - I think that kind of promotion is just fine!)

Speaking of what should be backpack mail....

I just finished opening four separate letters from Dr. Reebock outlining the news that WATCHDOGS is canceled. This somewhat useful but certainly not urgent information came to my house and cost the district almost $2.50 - for one household! May I suggest:

1. Presort the mail so the post office charges you only .33 instead of .41 per piece.
2. Combine all students in the household to one letter.
3. Combine this little bit of information with a bunch of other info one the first day of school and send home in the backpack.

What a waste of taxpayer money!