See the guidelines
for school districts at
http://www.pdc.wa.gov/archive/pdf/01-03Revised092806.pdf.
How to react to inaccurate or misleading claims from critics of a school tax measure, if you’re leader of a school district that seeks voter approval?
Grow a thick skin, suggest Washington campaign ethics regulators.
And answer each phone inquiry or forum question that might arise. One at a time.
Instead, Evergreen and Camas school superintendents chose to post written responses to anti-levy charges on their district Web sites, in advance of Feb. 9 levy votes.
That’s a no-no, a Washington state Public Disclosure Commission official said this week.
Guidelines for school districts explain that educators get a single, clear shot to explain a ballot proposal, factually and without cheerleading, with their usual public outreach. Typically, that’s a mail brochure to patrons, perhaps with accompanying neutral Web material.
Anything more in that vein falls outside of “normal and regular” conduct, the PDC has determined.
Once the ebb and flow of a ballot measure effort begins — including charges and countercharges — any broad attempt to correct or clarify what’s floating in the arena injects the school district, wrongly.
“If they’re responding, they’re getting into the realm of campaigning, where they shouldn’t go,” said Lori Anderson, PDC spokeswoman. Even if stating only facts, a district would be “trying to counterbalance,” she said.
That’s exactly what Evergreen and Camas leaders did in recent days. (By Thursday afternoon, following inquiries made by The Columbian, each district had removed the Web material.)
Evergreen Superintendent John Deeder rebutted specific claims made in an anonymous anti-levy postcard mailer and separate e-mail: Evergreen’s enrollment continues to rise, and not fall, he wrote; its central administrative costs are not second-highest in the state.
Camas Superintendent Mike Nerland wrote that his district’s proposed measure is a replacement levy and not a “new tax”; the total levy amount would rise 8 percent over three years, and not in a single leap.
Each district should have held its collective tongue, Anderson said.
“It’s every individual’s right to get involved, and they can say whatever they want when it comes to ballot measures,” she said. “The government bodies impacted by those measures don’t have that same freedom.”
A similar issue arose last fall, when Battle Ground Public Schools leaders countered points in a newspaper ad purchased by three school board candidates. The district later apologized for its response, which drew a PDC rebuke.
‘Difficult line to toe’
Besides the posted PDC guidelines, the state agency sent reminders to all superintendents in December to not overstep campaign bounds. “We do our best to explain to them. They do have a very difficult line to toe,” Anderson said.
“They can answer the questions (raised from the outside) when they come,” she said.
The dilemma hasn’t surfaced elsewhere during this or prior Washington campaigns, said a top aide for the state’s school superintendent group.
“Honestly, I’ve not even heard of this,” said Barbara Mertens, assistant executive director for the Washington Association of School Administrators in Olympia. She contacted the PDC to say her group had “reinforced” the agency’s directive, she said.
Deeder and Evergreen spokeswoman Carol Fenstermacher each said they’d believed the district had acted properly.
“I always interpreted that we could take (more) factual things,” Deeder said. “If we’re wrong, we’ll have to retract it.”
Said Fenstermacher on Thursday, “We respect the Public Disclosure Commission. They have a rule; we’ll abide by it. We didn’t see it that way, but we’ll take it down.”
Camas school officials have often used the district Web site to solicit feedback and counter “misconceptions and inaccuracies,” said Doreen McKercher, Camas district spokeswoman. The district respects the PDC interpretation and pulled Nerland’s letter, but still begs to differ, she said.
Buttons? They’re OK
Meantime, a frequent Evergreen district critic has fired a new PDC complaint at Deeder but missed his target.
Mark Rossmiller, who fought the district on gender-equity issues and ran for the school board in 2007, accused Deeder of violating campaign state law (RCW 42.17.130) by wearing a “For kids, for schools, Vote Yes” lapel button visible on two recent taped television appearances.
Rossmiller filed his claim on Tuesday.
But the PDC’s Anderson said that buttons fall outside the reach of campaign law, unless district policy forbids use at all times. They’re in the same category of personal expression as employees’ bumper stickers, she said.
“That’s totally fine. Our courts have said that’s a free speech issue, and states shouldn’t restrict” their use, she said. “(Deeder is) expressing his own opinion.”
Howard Buck: 360-735-4515 or howard.buck@columbian.com.
