Elections board upset over Cedar Rapids’ school bond tactics

DES MOINES — State campaign laws were not violated when Cedar Rapids school district officials used school resources to help collect signatures to get a bond referendum placed on the ballot this fall, a state board determined Thursday — but board members nonetheless expressed their disapproval.

Leaders on the state oversight board criticized Cedar Rapids Community School District officials’ activities, and made plans to express as much in a letter to school leaders while also researching ways the board could more forcefully address similar actions in the future.

The Cedar Rapids Community School District will ask voters within the district to approve a $220 million general obligation bond that would fund construction of a new middle school and improvements to high schools. State law required the district to collect roughly 6,300 signatures from eligible voters to place the issue on the Nov. 7 ballot.

Earlier this month — while signatures were in the process of being collected — a complaint was made to the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board, asserting that district officials violated state law when they used school resources to produce literature encouraging the public to sign the petitions.

The complaint was filed Sept. 5 by Rachel Happel, of Cedar Rapids.

The complaint highlights emails sent by the district that encouraged people to sign the petitions, informed them where the petitions could be signed and described the various projects the district would undertake on if the bond is approved.

  Buy Photo

Another school email asks families to help school officials collect signatures for the petitions. And a post on the school district’s Facebook page also describes some of the school projects that would be funded by the bond.

The board, which oversees the state’s campaign regulations, unanimously dismissed the complaint because state law prohibits using school resources only to advocate for the passage or defeat of a referendum. State law makes no such prohibition over efforts to get a referendum on the ballot.

But while the board dismissed the complaint, its leaders expressed clear displeasure with Cedar Rapids school officials’ actions.

“That’s cutting it pretty thin, in my opinion. It’s using public resources to advocate for placing an issue on the ballot,” board Chair James Albert said during the board meeting. “There isn’t an issue on the ballot that can be passed or defeated. The (school) is using public resources, public funds to advocate for the placement of an issue on the ballot. That’s a pretty thin slice, in my view.”

Board Executive Director Zach Goodrich agreed, and said he stated his feelings on the issue to an attorney for the Cedar Rapids school district but was told district officials planned to continue anyway.

“They were insistent they did not want to stop doing this,” Goodrich said. “It was one of those instances where even though I advise against it, the law does allow for it. … I would not do it if I were them.”

Goodrich also made clear that once the requisite signatures are collected, the measure at that point is considered on the ballot, so school officials no longer can advocate for any work on the referendum.

“As soon as it is placed on the ballot, if we see something like this, then it is a game-changer,” Goodrich said.

State board members suggested they could write a letter to the Cedar Rapids school district to express the board’s concerns. And Albert asked Goodrich to research different ways the board could address similar issues in the future.

In a response to questions about the state board’s admonishment of the district’s actions, Cedar Rapids Community School District spokesman Justin Schaefer emailed a statement from the district.

“The Cedar Rapids Community School District is fully aware of the complaint that has been filed with the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board, and we are pleased with the result of their investigation,” the statement said. “We understand the importance of transparency and accountability in the democratic process, and we are committed to ensuring that our actions are always in the best interests of our students, staff, and community. To that end, we will continue to mobilize our community, providing them with accurate and pertinent information.”

Dexter Merschbrock, a Cedar Rapids school board member, had expressed concern with the district’s approach. In an Aug. 22 email to two fellow school board members, district Chief of Staff Ryan Rydstrom and Superintendent Tawana Grover, Merschbrock wrote:, “It’s clear to me that the district is not complying with the spirit of the law prohibiting spending public resources for a political purpose.”

The district was able to gather enough signatures to place the bond question on the Nov. 7 ballot. The district announced Sept. 21 it had acquired 6,909 valid signatures.

If approved by at least 60 percent of district voters this fall, the district plans to use the bond to finance a facility plan that ultimately would reduce the number of middle schools in the district from its existing six. Under that plan, the district would:

If the bond is approved, the Cedar Rapids schools district’s property tax rate would increase from $14.67 to $17.33 per $1,000 of taxable value.

Comments: (515) 355-1300, erin.murphy@thegazette.com