Inspired by actions taken by USD 308 Hutchinson in a recent bond election, House Bill 2451 would prohibit local governments, including school districts, from using taxpayer funds to campaign for ballot questions that would benefit them. The measure was recently debated in the House Committee on Elections.
Hutchinson resident Allison Reed supported the initiative, following her experience opposing the USD 308 bond issue last fall. In that election, in which the bond issue was overwhelmingly defeated with more than 74% in opposition, Reed offered evidence that the school district was promoting the $110 million bond issue using taxpayer funds.
In her testimony before the committee, Reed provided additional documentation she said showed the Hutchinson school district was “putting its thumb on the scale” of the election and venturing from just providing bond issue information to voters to actively advocating for its passage.
State Rep. Paul Waggoner (R-Hutchinson), a supporter of the legislation, said the district’s tactics during the bond issue campaign contributed to its landslide defeat:
“It was just shocking to me that you would have just standard campaign advocacy, where there’s a “paid for” attribution, but there was no attributions. And so it was clear to us that the taxpayers are funding this. And I will say, it became a major issue.
“I mean, this bond was shot down three-to-one. You had it in the most Democratic precincts in town, it went down four-to-one. You know, people were outraged by what the school district had done. I mean, not only did they not like it, there was a lot to dislike, but I think about it on just a factual basis, it truly became an issue about the public funding.
“I would note this because for those of you who may think this is somehow some attack on school districts or all the cities; if I were to consult with any campaign that was trying to stop a bond, you know, the school district’s spending money, it is a real issue. You can run with that issue. It resonates with people. I mean, people do not want to see this. They already assumed that the city or the school district should not be doing this, and the only reason they get away with it is because, in a lot of cases, nobody’s organized to oppose a bond. But here you had Stop the Bond people, they were getting citizens inside the district who were feeding them information, because they were seeing stuff that was going on, and they knew it wasn’t right.”
Opposition to HB 2451 centered around what they saw as a lack of specificity as to what a school district, for instance could do and not do when they offered a bond issue to voters. Presenters pointed to a 1993 opinion by Kansas Attorney General Robert Stephan as a guideline:
In Attorney General Opinion No. 93-33 we concluded that school districts have an obligation to educate regarding school district issues to be voted on by the electors. However, a school district does not have the authority to advocate a position on issues to be voted on by electors and the officers and staff of the school district must maintain a semblance of neutrality.
Jay Hall is General Counsel for the Kansas Association of Counties:
“The issue that we have with this bill, I understand not wanting to have public money used in these types of ways. The issue we have is that it does not clearly define what the limitations are. That is really our issue. And I say that because when you look at criminal law as an attorney, everything is defined. Everything is very clearly, very specifically defined in a criminal law. You’ll notice in this bill that it’s a misdemeanor to commit an offense of this. But we don’t have clearly defined things about what it is that you can or cannot do under this bill.”
Allison Reed provided The Sentinel with a response she found curious from the Hutchinson school district to a post-election email from her seeking information on the district’s election campaign tactics:
Your email contains several questions and assumptions about district operations and policies. I cannot respond to questions as framed because they rely on premises that are not accurate.
The district administers its responsibilities in a manner that is lawful, neutral, and consistent with policy, and it does not take action based on advocacy positions or assumptions about individual viewpoints.
Stacy Goss
Director of Communications, Marketing & Public Relations
USD 308 Hutchinson Public Schools
Reed told us what she hopes the legislation accomplishes:
“I believe it’s important legislation because it’s another component of election integrity. Anything a school district does to move a bond campaign in their favor should not be paid for by the taxpayer.
“If you looked at the data concerning voter turnout, the anti-bond vote was massive but yet much of the school district did not feel comfortable expressing their opinion until the ballot box. As you can see, the repeated actions of USD 308 administration was in favor of the bond and that materials like mailers, yard signs, graphics, Facebook posts, videos and activities on school property were advocating for it to pass.”
