District Using Public Funds, Staff to Campaign for Bond Measure

Lancaster School District officials have used public funds and resources in recent weeks to help organize the campaign for a $47-million school bond measure on the April ballot, which state officials say is a potential conflict with California law.

School officials have awarded an $80,000 district contract to a political consultant, spent more than $1,500 in public funds on travel and used district staff to help start the campaign. District officials said their actions fall within the limits of state law.

The bond measure, known as Measure A, would raise property taxes in the central Lancaster district to pay for new schools and school sites. The district placed the measure on the April 10 ballot, and it needs a two-thirds vote to pass. Thus far, the measure has no organized opposition.

Despite the district’s position, the top attorney for the state Department of Education said the district’s actions appear to have exceeded legal limits. “The general rule is you don’t spend taxpayer money to lobby one side of an issue coming before voters,” said Joe Symkowick, general counsel for the department.

State law and court rulings have held that it is generally illegal for government officials to use public funds to take sides in elections. Those who do can face civil penalties and, in rare cases, criminal prosecution for misuse of public funds.

Education lawyers and the state attorney general’s office say the state Supreme Court set the current legal standard in a 1976 ruling, finding that such spending “to mount an election campaign which attempts to influence the resolution of issues . . . does present a serious threat to the integrity of the electoral process.”

Officials in the 10,700-student district said their actions have been legal because they have not spent public funds or assigned employees on work time to specifically urge a yes vote on the measure, only provided nonpartisan information, which is permitted by state law.

“We fully realize some of the expenses in a bond campaign are not appropriate district expenses. The district can’t go out and solicit a yes vote, but we can provide information on what the bond measure is for,” said Rowland King, assistant superintendent of the district.

Although the district has not urged an explicit yes vote on the measure, in the two months since its Board of Trustees voted to authorize the bond measure, the district has:

* Awarded an $80,000 district contract for election research to Price Research Consultants, the same firm that will be running the private political campaign for the measure. The district hired Price in part expecting the firm to tell it “how to organize a bond campaign,” King said, which falls within the parameters of state law according to the district’s interpretation.

* Approved $1,518.50 in travel money for Interim Supt. Ed Goodwin, King and three parents taking an active role in the campaign to meet in Northern California with the consultants. Goodwin and King, who went on district time, acknowledged that campaign strategy was discussed at the daylong session.

* Organized an initial meeting to discuss the campaign at district headquarters that was attended by school administrators on district time. Teachers also attended but it is not clear whether they were on district time, district officials said. School officials called the meeting informational but acknowledged that district employees and parents were solicited as campaign volunteers.

Political consultant Kent Price said his firm’s services--at the Jan. 19 meeting in his office where campaign strategy was discussed and at the Jan. 24 district session where volunteers were recruited--were provided under the terms of the $80,000 contract with the district.

Since the meetings, a private group of parents and others has been formed to raise money and enlist support for the bond measure. District officials said a goal of their efforts in working with Price was to get a private group started.

The courts have said government officials cannot spend public funds on campaign posters or advertising, which the district did not do.

But Symkowick said the district’s organizing efforts--particularly hiring a political consultant and using district employee time for campaign-related activities--still appeared sufficient to run afoul of state law.

“We don’t think you can go out and hire someone to advise you on how to run an election,” Symkowick said, adding that the district’s organizing efforts appeared “preparatory to saying vote yes on something.” The attorney said he believes even that is not allowed by state law.

Only a court is likely to settle the issue, however. The advice of state attorneys is not binding on local school districts. The Lancaster district does not have its own in-house attorney. And district officials said they do not intend to ask county attorneys, who advise them at times.

Also, the exact legal issues involved have not been decided before by California appellate courts. Most cases involving public funds in elections have dealt with more overt campaigning and the state statutes covering such activities by school districts have yet to be interpreted.

The only statewide guideline is a five-page legal advisory the education department issued in mid-1987. In it, Symkowick warned school officials that permitted political activity is very limited and that “the tendency to try to persuade the electorate at public expense should be avoided.”

School officials, struggling to find money for building schools, began looking at a bond measure in mid-October when they hired Price’s San Ramon-based firm for $15,500 to conduct a public-opinion survey. Symkowick and other education attorneys said public funds can be used for such exploratory expenditures.

But two weeks after authorizing the bond measure on Dec. 5, the school board approved the $80,000 contract extension with Price. The district staff report said, “The expertise of Price Research Consultants is needed to help facilitate the general obligation bond.”