The Illinois State Board of Elections met today in Chicago to consider the case of Citizens Organized to Save the Tax cap (COST) vs. Northfield Township HS District 225. This regarded a heavily contested referendum which the NO votes lost by less than 200 votes. At issue were 2 mailings by the District on October 10 and November 1, 2006. Election was held November 7. Did they amount to the prohibited activity of using public funds for partisan views?

You are used to seeing these mailings and backpack mail in District 41. Right before the election, we received a big mailer masquerading as the “District Report Card”. In today’s case, District 225 had sent out their mailers in the same fashion. No one on the Board believed they were for the purpose of “registering people to vote and encouraging people to vote”. This language exempts Districts from registering as a Political Action Committee and reporting their expenses.

COST attorney Becker was asked “What would you have us do? A fine or disclosure?” He asked for “disclosure and transparency” and requested the District be required to file with the Election Commission. Everyone took a double take, because of the monstrous paperwork involved with potential District filings. That opened up the slippery slope argument of what would need to be reported.

None of the Board stated that the District’s actions were appropriate. Board member William McGuffage commented that these mailers were one-sided and not meant to get out the vote, but regulation of this activity is clearly too cumbersome. He noted that although the District sent out newsletters on a regular basis, these two were “special newsletters” regarding the referendum. He questioned the taxes spent vs. benefits and suggested this activity opens school districts up to taxpayer lawsuits. He thought litigation was the proper method of remedy.

Vice Chairman Bryan Schneider commented that any balance in the literature was buried in the lower reaches of the missive. 225’s attorney commented that pointing out that taxes were going to go up was sufficient. He also said “forums are the opposition’s chance for balance.” (Anyone who went to the last forums knows they were a pitch, orchestrated by the District to sell the referendum.) Schneider saw through this and suggested that if the District were truly interested in balance, they would publish filings which gave out the opinions of both sides.

The question came down to enforcement. $3000 is a magic threshold to report donations and payments. It seemed that the Board was looking for an avenue to slap the District, but could not, given the Pandora's box of reporting and enforcement.

COST was on the short end of a 6-2 decision. Brady and Schneider were the two dissenters. Chairman Porter wanted to table for more study, but voted with the majority. Districts may want to take the warning of taxpayer suits to heart and dump the PR campaigns.

Thanks for the update, Ron. I wonder if anyone at District 41 is aware of this, or for that matter, really cares. I found a few interesting articles on the Glenbrook ref here. Along with an article regarding contributors to the vote "yes" committee

No doubt, District 41 administration is already hard at work with a new plan. It started with the reaction to the district's failure -- "the community didn't have all of the information they needed" etc. I have to believe that in the corporate world any team of employees that lost a $40 Million business deal would have received their walking papers a long time ago. But, in District 41, the "customer" is somehow to blame and life goes on for our well paid administration. They just have a new charge, likely with new buzz words. We've hired more consultants and will see "focus groups" meeting at the district. I don't believe that the management of District 41 learned anything from their failure. When the district finally apologizes to the entire community for their transgressions, when we see some turn-over in the board -- preferably with the past board president resigning, when the one-sided propaganda stops being generated, then I may believe that there is an effort to repair the serious damage done to the trust. Until then I expect we will see the same old thing from the district, in a new package and new arguments.

Reading the material on the Glenbrook district drives home the point that the districts all have the same play book.

Interesting post, ohma. I couldn't agree more with your conclusions. The good news in District 41, however, is that forums have been established by concerned residents to make sure everyone is aware of what our school board is proposing.

The D41 Board "playbook" has been exposed and objective information will be distributed regardless of what they are now planning or will attempt to propose in future referendums. I dare say that the D41 Board hasn't seen anything yet - we will not be seeing any tiered tax increases or other questionable practices passed in this school district in the near future!

PS: Thanks for providing the above information, Ron.