C.R. Schools’ shady — but legal — tactics irk some district voters

In early September, I came across a copy of an email received by a resident of the Cedar Rapids Community School District. In the subject line of the email, sent using the messaging service on the district’s online student information system, it read, “Time to Mobilize — A Message from: Mark Groteluschen.”

Mark Groteluschen is the principal of Metro High School, part of the Cedar Rapids Community School District. The email was an invite for families to join school staff to canvass neighborhoods and collect petition signatures needed for the district’s proposed $220 million bond issue to qualify for the November ballot.

The question immediately came to mind: Are they allowed to do that? By “that,” I mean, are they allowed to use district resources to “mobilize” families to collect petition signatures for a ballot issue? Campaign finance law in Iowa is clear: Public resources cannot be used for political advocacy. You can’t use anything paid for with taxpayer dollars to promote your candidate or your ballot issue.

That’s pretty straightforward, but people are subject to making mistakes. Last year I had to gently remind the mayor of a very small town in our coverage area that while his letter to the editor endorsing a local legislative candidate was quite nice, he ought not use the official mayor’s email. His reply was something to the effect of, “Oh, geez, I can’t believe I didn’t think about that!” It was a simple “oops.”

But an administrator of Iowa’s second-largest school district using a taxpayer-funded messaging service to send out a call to action for completing the first step of a major taxing initiative decided by voters? That didn’t seem like a simple “oops.”

I wasn’t the only one who raised an eyebrow at a high-ranking school employee using district tools to organize petition-signing. The email in question was shared with me by a resident of the district quite upset by the tactic. I was simply curious. The resident who sent the copy of the email — and others, it turned out — were adamantly opposed to both the bond issue itself and the methods used to ensure its qualification for the November ballot.

Our questions were addressed at the end of September by the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board. On the agenda was a complaint filed by Rachel Happel, a resident of the Cedar Rapids Community School District, who alleged improper use of district resources including communications tools and staff time to recruit the collection of signatures to get the bond issue on the November ballot.

Discussion during the Ethics Board’s Sept. 28 meeting confirmed that the message sent using the district’s online service that Happel cited in her complaint was not a simple “oops.” It was done with intent — intent to mobilize supporters of the bond to hunt down those signatures in a very tight time frame.

But it was not done in violation of Iowa law, which is crystal-clear. We find the answer to the riddle in Iowa Code 68A.505: “The state and the governing body of a county, city, or other political subdivision of the state shall not expend or permit the expenditure of public moneys for political purposes, including expressly advocating the passage or defeat of a ballot issue.”

Still unclear? That’s OK — the issue here is not the clarity of the law. The issue is its scope. No, a governing body can’t use public funds to advocate for the passage or defeat of a ballot issue. But a ballot issue isn’t a ballot issue if the issue hasn’t made the ballot yet. And currently, Iowa law says nothing about using public resources to advocate for getting that issue on the ballot.

Put simply, the school mobilized volunteers and used district-funded communications because technically — and, more importantly, legally — they could.

So, it’s not wrong. But is it right? The Ethics Board certainly didn’t like the idea. Board Chair James Albert, who holds the distinction of being the nation’s longest-serving state political ethics board chair, described the district’s methods as “a pretty thin slice,” given that the difference between good practice and bad practice hinged on a technicality.

“Even if it’s just the appearance of impropriety, it still undermines the public’s trust in government,” said Albert, who is also a professor of law at the Drake University Law School.

But while the spirit of the law has an important place in the conversation, the mandate of the Ethics Board is to follow the letter of the law. And the letter of the law currently allows the CRCSD to put district resources toward the collection of ballot signatures. If voters take umbrage with their ability to do that, their remedy lies not with the Ethics Board, but the state Legislature.

Supporters of the referendum, no doubt aided by the district itself, succeeded in collecting enough signatures in time to officially place the bond issue on the ballot. Now that the narrowly-worded law does prohibit the district from this point forward from putting taxpayer-funded resources toward “expressly advocating the passage or defeat of a ballot issue,” one might assume that the CRCSD no longer has occasion to toe that fine ethical line.

  Buy Photo

Instead, a series of digital graphics on the district’s Facebook page detailing the benefits of the bond’s passage have sparked renewed criticism from some residents who think that the graphics look way too much like advocacy. Additionally, the “educational information” featured in a digital newsletter created and distributed by the district has again raised the ire of Happel, who confirmed in an email last week that she has filed a new ethics complaint against the district for what she alleges “is promoting” passage of the bond issue at taxpayer expense.

I have no doubt that the CRCSD continues to seek and act on advice from legal counsel. Happel’s new complaint is likely to meet the same fate as the first: Deemed lacking in legal sufficiency based on the letter of the law — specifically, this time, how Iowa campaign finance law defines “express advocacy.”

Iowa Code 68A.102 includes what could be the definition relevant to the CRCSD ballot issue: Express advocacy is communication that “includes explicit words that unambiguously indicate that the communication is recommending or supporting a particular outcome in the election with regard to any clearly identified candidate or ballot issue.” The word “explicit” may be the deal-breaker there, as none of the attractive-looking digital graphics lauding the benefits of the bond’s passage actually contain explicit words like “vote.” It may taunt the spirit of campaign finance law, but the letter of the law likely doesn’t prohibit it — according to my amateur interpretation, at least.

I have no stake in the outcome of the CRCSD bond issue. I’m neither a resident of the district nor an alumnus, and none of my family members have children attending Cedar Rapids schools. Those who do have a stake in the outcome usually decide how they’ll vote based on one of two motivations: The desire for new and improved facilities that simply cannot be financed any other way, or the desire to avoid the strain that a higher property tax bill has on a fixed-income budget. Each position is understandable to me.

This year, though, there seem to be some additional factors weighing on voters’ minds. The planned demolition of a beloved neighborhood school despite the long-researched recommendation from a community task force to retain and renovate the building. The doubt expressed by the City Council, which called for changes to the master facilities plan in July. The desire for more specific details on planned expenditures that don’t seem to be available.

Add to that list district-funded information that looks a lot like a shady get-out-the-vote initiative, and suddenly those voters who need some convincing in order to get to “yes” have one more reason to say no.

Comments: 319-398-8266; althea.cole@thegazette.com