What supersensitive information is Coeur d’Alene School District 271 hiding from the public?
That’s what I wanted to know when I submitted my Idaho Public Records Law request on April 28, 2008. The response from Lynn Towne, Clerk, School District 271 Board of Trustees, did not surprise me. Using polite bureaucratese, Clerk Towne told me it was none of our business. Except it is.
On May 20, 2008, Coeur d’Alene School District 271 will ask voters to approve a $31.1 million School Plant Facilities Levy. Go to this link and scroll down to the heading “History of School Levies & Bonds.” This was what the 2002 SPFL accomplished:
- 2002 – 4-year SPFL – Built Atlas Elementary School; modernized/expanded Project C.D.A. Alternative High/Middle School; modernized/expanded Ramsey Elementary School; upgraded techology district wide.
Conspicuously missing from School District 271’s history lesson is the remodeling of Lakes Middle School. In 2002 the School District promised us that Lakes would be remodeled if we passed that year’s SPFL. Voters relied on that assurance when we approved the 2002 SPFL. The School District’s promise was never fulfilled. Millions of dollars the voters approved specifically for the Lakes remodeling was used for other projects.
Now in 2008 School District 271 promises it will build a new and improved Lakes Middle School if we approve $31.1 million. Another promise?
The question is really not, “Can the School District be trusted?” We know it can’t. The question that prompted my public records request was, “Will the School District use manipulative solicitations and techniques to secure passage of this year’s SPFL?” There was a legitimate basis for asking this question so abrasively.
Follow this link to the Coeur d’Alene School District’s Long Range Plan Review Committee Minutes for the February 25, 2008, meeting. “Members in Attendance:” included Tamara Poelstra and Lori Smith. Scroll down to the “Campaign” heading. Note the parts that read:
Campaign:
Hazel stated that more people need to be converted. … She thanked Tamara Poelstra and Lori Smith for all their help on the last campaign. She explained that Tamara, Lori and Mike Kennedy changed the way we campaigned. Tamara explained that a couple of different databases were combined and a solid list of voters, parents, teachers, etc. was created. Organized phone calling was setup, each volunteer had a script and yes voters were identified and placed on a list. The weekend before the election the yes voters were contacted and reminded to vote. The professional advertising campaign, volulnteeers and the School Board election also contributed to the successful passage of the levy. Now we have this list as well as a list of all the people that voted in the last election. We can combine these lists and call people to remind them of the election, educate them and get them to the polls. … . [Note: “Hazel” is Hazel Bauman, currently the Assistant Superintendent of School District 271. She is scheduled to be promoted to Superintendent when Superintendent Harry Amend retires within the year. Poelstra and Smith are members of the School District’s Long Range Plan Review Committee.]
The language used in the “Campaign” paragraph was eye-opening. Hazel Bauman wants to convert people. She did not say “convince” or “persuade,” but “convert.” What a revealing verb she chose to describe her desired outcome. Does Assistant Superintendent Hazel Bauman see taxpayers as misguided souls seeking ideological conversion into Coeur d’Alene’s “Never question our request for money” cult? We are not. We are reasonable, thoughtful voters seeking complete and accurate information.
Notice the statement says, “Organized phone calling was setup, each volunteer had a script and yes voters were identified and placed on a list. The weekend before the election the yes voters were contacted and reminded to vote. The professional advertising campaign … contributed to the successful passage of the levy,” the 2002 levy which promised remodeling of Lakes Middle School. The deceptive levy. The one that needed scripted calls and a professional advertising campaign to assure passage.
Telemarketing boiler rooms use scripts. Telemarketing boiler rooms are not inherently illegal, though the term has acquired a negative connotation because of the sometimes questionable techniques (e.g., lying and misrepresentation) used. Based on the School District’s own description of its organized phone calling process, I wanted to see the scripts School District 271 was going to use. I wanted to know how volunteer callers were trained, what they were told to say and not say depending on the answers they heard. I wanted to know how voters who were characterized as “yes” voters were treated similarly and differently from those who might have been perceived as “no” or “undecided” voters. In other words, I wanted to know what language School District 271’s volunteer callers intended to use to get voters to vote in favor of the SPFL on May 20, 2008. So I submitted my Idaho Public Records Law request.
It seemed like a straightforward, reasonable request. Because the School District is a “local agency,” it is subject to the Idaho Public Records Law. So are any of its committees. (Idaho Code 9-337(8)) The information I sought pertained to exactly how the School District intended to raise money for the SPFL. Surely, that relates to the conduct or administration of the public’s business by the local agency or any of its committees. Not according to the School District.
Here is a link to School District 271 Board of Trustees Clerk Lynn Towne’s answer to my Idaho Public Records Law request: “The Levy Campaign Committee is not a public entity and therefore not subject to the public records act.” (None of our business.)
What?! Is Clerk Towne telling us the School District has not approved the scripts, training methods, and actions to be taken by the Levy Campaign Committee when calling voters for the School District? The School District has not retained copies of the scripts, lesson plans, and instructions to callers? It is reckless and irresponsible for the School District to not know, document, and control how someone is representing the District when making telephone contacts in the District’s name. Taken to the extreme, the School District’s failure to approve script content and calling methods would almost be giving the Levy Campaign Committee a license to lie in the name of Coeur d’Alene School District 271.
So now I wonder: Who is the Levy Campaign Committee which the School District’s clerk says is not a public entity? Is this really some private contractor hired or authorized by the School District to make calls on the School District’s behalf? Clerk Towne did not say.
Idaho Code 9-338(9) reads, “A public agency or independent body corporate and politic shall not prevent the examination or copying of a public record by contracting with a nongovernmental body to perform any of its duties or functions.” Idaho Code 33-1019 says that, “School districts shall annually allocate moneys for school building maintenance from any source available to the district…” If seeking bonds or levies is a duty or function of the School District, all records associated with that duty or function ought to be public records, not hidden behind the wall of a private contractor or loose-knit volunteer organization operating on authority from the School District.
School District 271 needs to rehabilitate its severely damaged credibility with voters. The Administrators and Board of Trustees must regain our trust and confidence. They must start being truthful and stop being manipulative when they ask taxpayers for money. Voters will support education. School District 271 needs to focus on its mission statement on the bottom of its letterhead: “To provide every student an academically excellent education.”
It’s all about education.
Addendum on May 5, 2008: This OpenCdA.com post was written Saturday. On Sunday, May 4, 2008, the Coeur d’Alene Press published a front-page article headlined Lakes levy questions linger. Staff writer Maureen Dolan’s well-researched article provides additional information about how School District 271 makes its school funding decisions.
Wow, Bill. I totally empathize.
Now that the citizens have “caught on” and can request these records, I fear that the law will be changed to “loop out” the citizen. One more reason the sole remedy is to go to court. I wonder what law firm and or judge the clerk conferred with?
I always get a “kick” out of things when officials state that some entities like for instance the Idaho State Bar is private and really has nothing to do with the state. Also, our Bureau of Occupation Licencing is considered private as well and they do nothing either but protect the PRIVATE interests of their licensed members (who btw work for the state as well). Aso, some of Excutive Agencies will argue that they are private too and have nothing to do with the state and are not funded by the state, however they are administrated by Health and Welfare. It is truly a circle jerk but when it comes down to it they all have a lawyer provided by us.
I see that Keough might be helpful in answering some of the problems with the school district funding as well. If/when I get a meeting with her – you wanna go?
Comment by Stebbijo — May 5, 2008 @ 10:06 am
Bill have you alerted anyone in the local media about this denial? It is important to demonstate SD#271 has apparently taken an oath of secrecy regarding this levy effort.
Comment by doubleseetripleeye — May 5, 2008 @ 10:43 am
stebbijo,
Let’s see how this all shakes out first. I suspect that mainly because of yesterday’s article in the Press, this area’s school district administrators and trustees will be getting a lot more attention.
Comment by Bill — May 5, 2008 @ 11:31 am
I’m reminded of a quote I heard from a woman who worked in a government bureaucracy. She said — and I’m not making this up — “We could get so much more done if we didn’t have to keep asking the voters.”
Comment by Dan — May 5, 2008 @ 11:35 am
2C3I,
No, I haven’t, however I suspect that someone else might have. The documents (my letter, the SD’s response) are linked in the post and are there for anyone and everyone to read.
Comment by Bill — May 5, 2008 @ 12:00 pm
Dan,
Yes, they can do a lot of damage if they don’t ask the voters who are writing the checks. Impulse buying at a governmental level hardly ever works out.
Comment by Bill — May 5, 2008 @ 12:28 pm
Bill:
The press certainly has a lot to do with it – Maureen Dolan is an excellent reporter. However, sometimes it goes no where and you should not have been denied the information.
Comment by Stebbijo — May 5, 2008 @ 12:44 pm
stebbijo,
Agreed on all counts. The School District, like the City and the LCDC, presumes no one will ever pursue it in District Court. On the other hand, the court of public opinion has different rules and sometimes metes out harsher punishment than the state ever would.
Comment by Bill — May 5, 2008 @ 1:43 pm
Well, it really ticks me off. You cited the law that clearly states that they need to disclose the public this info so I am curious where/how she thinks the public records law does not apply to them so I called. Lynn Towne is not available. Go figure. What’s more entertaining is she also states the records do not exist.
Also, I sent my judicial complaint off today regarding the fact that the judges confer with the clerks in the denial of records corrections at least in Bonner County. I sign all my letters/records requests with Regards, now – being nice does not work. Too much information is also not good. I have mine down to one sentence and I don’t bother with the little symbols that go before I.C. Less is better -they really can only digest one sentence and then they can get that wrong too. It took me a month to get a reply from Bonner County so in the future I may add your line concerning a timely response. Great work, Bill! 🙂
Comment by Stebbijo — May 5, 2008 @ 2:44 pm
If you look at state laws you will find that it is illegal to release phone numbers of the children or the teachers. When a public agency collects names they are not to be released. Citizens have told the district this in the past! If the anti-levy people ask for the the same phone numbers, the schools will refuse on privacy grounds. Also it is considered illegal for calls to made on school grounds (violated in the past to my understanding) and teachers under the Idaho “code of conduct” for teachers are not allowed to place phone calls to push the levy. (also violated in the past to my understanding.) The district has been told all these things by citizens.
Comment by Mama Bear — May 5, 2008 @ 3:41 pm
Mama Bear,
Thank you for the information. I suspect that meaningful enforcement of the prohibitions you mentioned would be difficult. Thanks again.
Comment by Bill — May 5, 2008 @ 4:10 pm
Note how the SR ignores this and the related stories. 100% blindness. Wilfull?
Comment by Pariah — May 5, 2008 @ 5:46 pm
Pariah,
Yes, I believe it is wilfull, and I’d really like to know why. My intuition tells me it is economic, that the “money” in CdA holds significant sway with the business side of the paper, and contrary to Steve Smith’s denials, it does influence the S-R’s news coverage. But, maybe I’m wrong. Maybe The Spokesman-Review is what it appears to be: Just another regional newspaper managed by journalistic dinosaurs and destined to sink into the tar pit of well-deserved and long overdue obscurity.
Several months ago my wife and I dropped our subscription to the S-R. The overall news coverage in north Idaho had noticeably deteriorated. The story selection was vanilla and the reporting was worse. Whatever investigative and reportorial zeal the S-R may have once had in north Idaho, it is long gone. When I go to the Hayden Library, I can flip through the S-R in well under ten minutes. As Gertrude Stein said, “There’s no ‘there’ there.” The newspaper is floundering, flopping on the deck like an oxygen-starved fish, dying while struggling for professional mediocrity and economic survival.
Comment by Bill — May 5, 2008 @ 7:21 pm
Bill, I find it quite unsettling to think that children’s phone numbers are released to “volunteers” to contact their homes. These are not mothers calling about cookies. These are unscreened volunteers calling for political reasons. Who else can these numbers be passed on to. There is a reason I picked the name Mama Bear. I have spent a great deal of my life watching out for the kids. When school districts loose the trust of the community, the children suffer.
Comment by Mama Bear — May 5, 2008 @ 9:12 pm
Speaking of public records. Interesting article in the Idaho Statesman today.
Evidently former Governor Kempthorne doesn’t think the law applies to him either.
Comment by Stebbijo — May 6, 2008 @ 8:30 am
Mama Bear,
Do you have solid evidence that the School District illegally released protected private information? Do you have solid evidence that School District employees have violated the Code of Ethics for Idaho Professional Educators?
If so, we need to meet and talk, or you can email me direct at bill@opencda.com.
Comment by Bill — May 6, 2008 @ 9:07 am
Stebbijo,
I closed your HTML tag after the first line in the blockquote.
This is Idaho. The law only applies to everyone when everyone agrees the law applies to them. Without consistent, timely enforcement, laws are not laws — only suggestions.
Comment by Bill — May 6, 2008 @ 9:27 am
Bill,
Thanks! I added another record’s story to the Idaho Statesman thread on the former Governor’s record’s story. It concerns public records law and the First Lady.
I actually got to talk to the Governor’s legal counsel – David Hensley. I called for clarification since the Public Record’s Law seems to be getting some much needed atttention. He aplogized on their behalf concerning that record’s case mess concerning myself and other’s unknown. At least someone is willing to step up to the plate and say they are sorry.
Comment by Stebbijo — May 6, 2008 @ 10:07 am
Also just want to clear up that the First Lady records case is separate from another records case I am currently involved in located in Bonner County. Also in the First Lady case – I had SOLID evidence in that one including a taped recording from the investigator. I just don’t have the money to sue in ADA county, so an apology is most likely all that will come of it and the satisfaction that they are learning from it.
I have another one where the State Health and Welfare released information and redacted everything but the childresn’s names. Idiots.
I feel like a magnet for record’s cases. 🙂
Comment by Stebbijo — May 6, 2008 @ 10:21 am
Bill,
I am very disappointed you did not post my email to you in reply to this thread. I would have thought in the interest of full and accurate reporting you would have done so. Because you failed to do so, here it is in full:
Bill,
You are seeing conspiracy where there is none. The reason you couldn’t get the records you are seeking is because the Levy Steering Committee is not a school district entity. We are a number of parents and concerned citizens that openly and unapologetically want the levy to pass. However, like any other non-public organization, we are not bound to either keep records or divulge those records if we kept them. Either way, the school district does not have access to any such records and they politely (I thought) told you so, nothing more.
Our meetings are open to the public and you are welcome to attend.
Have a great day,
Mark W. Altman
Co-Chair of the Levy Steering Committee
Comment by Mark W Altman — May 15, 2008 @ 8:17 am
Mark, although I am not a supporter of this levy, I personally appreciate your input. I have enjoyed reading your columns over the years.
Comment by doubleseetripleeye — May 15, 2008 @ 11:06 am
Thank you so much for the compliment. I am glad to have people disagree on public policy, I think in teh long run it improves policy. I just believe we owe it to each other to resist making spurious charges and passing along unsubstantiated rumors. Great username by the way. 🙂
Comment by Mark W Altman — May 15, 2008 @ 11:32 am
Mark,
Thank you for reading and commenting.
You may not have realized that emails sent to my bill@opencda.com mailbox are not automatically posted for everyone to read.
Since you’ve offered to comment, maybe you can answer this question: What are the statutory and formal ethical prohibition(s) on school district administrators and teachers actively campaigning for passage of school levies and bonds (as distinguished from simply providing information)? Please cite the specific statute(s) and ethics Principle(s).
I’m glad you chose to post and hope you will continue to comment.
Comment by Bill — May 15, 2008 @ 11:58 am
Bill,
Thank you for the welcome. While I am not an attorney, we consulted one to insure we did not violate any laws and in fact were careful to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Our discussion of the applicability of The Sunshine Law comes to mind.
As to ethical concerns, I believe it is important to note that teachers, administrators and parents who have children in the school system do not give up their rights to freedom of speech and association. This of course means that if school district employees wish to be for (or against) measures that touch or are central to the school district’s mission they are free to do so. I know that school district employees were careful to not even use school district email accounts in the furtherance of passing the levy.
I recognize that the majority of the posters here and I are on the opposite sides of the fence on this issue. I can only ask you all to believe me that I have not seen anything that was less than above board and that if I had I would have either convinced the offending party to immediately correct their behavior OR I would, at the least, have ceased my association with the committee.
Thanks so much for listening, err, reading.
Mark
Comment by Mark W Altman — May 15, 2008 @ 5:01 pm
Mark,
Good comment. Thanks for posting it.
Comment by Bill — May 15, 2008 @ 5:20 pm
Mark, here’s a different question for you, on a related topic. I was informed today that the district is spreading the story that School Board challenger Dr. Susan Francis is in favor of censorship of school materials. I know this is not her view, so have you heard anything about this at the school district or on the school levy committee?–Mary Souza
Comment by mary — May 15, 2008 @ 8:14 pm
Mary,
No, I am sorry I haven’t heard that. I actually wanted to talk with her the other night, but she slipped away (someone must have warned her that I like to talk). 🙂
My guess, for what that is worth (this truely is a guess, no one has said this to me) is the folks who would believe the censorship rumor are basing their belief off the contention that Debbie Morris and the other people that want to change the approved textbook list are in favor of her candidacy. Was that convoluted enough? Sorry if it is hard to follow, but please remember my guess could be WAY off.
Have a good night all,
Mark
Comment by Mark W Altman — May 15, 2008 @ 9:14 pm