01-05-2001 Electioneering charges Dismissed against District

By FRANK NARDOZZI

New York State Commissioner of Education Richard Mills has dismissed all challenges brought against  the Bedford Central School District's information practices prior to the passage of the school budget last June.

The appeal was brought by Phil Christe of Mount Kisco in a petition filed on May 24 alleging illegal electioneering by the school district in support of the budget. The school budget was soundly defeated in the first budget vote on May 16, but was passed by a large margin on June 20.

In a communication faxed to Bedford Central Schools Superintendent Bruce Dennis on Wednesday, Jan. 3, Neil M. Block of Ingerman Smith, the lawyer for the school district, stated that "In a nutshell, the Commissioner held that your May 19, 2000, letter to parents of Bedford students regarding ensuing board meetings and alternatives for a revised budget was 'factual and informational' and not reasonably construed as advocating a 'yes vote."

"Furthermore, the letter was not 'targeted' to parents in that it was also disseminated to residents in the local public libraries and in the local newspapers in the form of letters to the editor.

"Finally, the flyer distributed by the student at Fox Lane did not constitute electioneering on the part of the District in that the flyer was developed and distributed solely by the student without the knowledge or consent of' the school's faculty or administration, and that Richard Kraemer (the Fox Lane High School principal) admonished the student to not produce such materials with school resources in the future,"

"Not surprised"

In providing a copy of the commissioner's ruling and Mr. Block's letter, Dr. Dennis said that he was "gratified that the commissioner Supported the district's conduct in this, and we're certainly not surprised by the decision because we believed all along that every aspect of our behavior was permissible and absolutely legal."

In a recounting of the case, Mr. Mills said that after the budget-vote defeat, Dr. Dennis sent out a letter on May 19 on district letterhead to the parents of students attending Bedford public schools announcing the dates of several upcoming meetings at which alternatives for a revised budget would be discussed.

In the letter, Dr. Dennis outlined the areas where he intended to recommend further budget cuts and provided a brief summary of the statutory spending lit-nits imposed on districts operating tinder contingency budgets.



State law requires the school board to adopt a contingency budget if the proposed school budget is defeated twice. Under the law, the school district would have been required to limit its spending to 120 percent of the increase in the cost of living, which last year would have meant a spending increase cap of 2.64 percent.

 On the same day that he mailed the letter to parents, Dr. Dennis disseminated an identical letter, addressed to all residents of the district, in local public libraries and to local newspapers in the form of letters to the editor.

Illegal electioneering charged

Mr. Christe charged that the letter illegally exhorted the district's voters to support the revised budget by disseminating false and misleading information. He also contended that the school district improperly targeted certain district residents by sending the letter only to the parents of students attending the
district's schools.

' Mr. Christe alleged that Fox Lane High School Principal Richard Kraemer permitted a student to use school resources to create a false and misleading flyer and to distribute it to other students at the high school during the school day.

He also charged that the Teachers Association's Code of Ethics was violated when a district teacher "verbally intimidated" students in an attempt to induce them to urge their parents to vote for the budget and when another teacher commented to his students that a budget defeat would adversely affect local businesses.

Mr. Christe asked the commissioner to order the school district to cease exhorting the electorate to vote in favor of the budget. He also asked that the superintendent of schools be ordered to personally reimburse the district for the cost of producing and disseminating the May 19 letter and the student-produced flyer and to pay for public retractions. He also requested that the board of education monitor all future budget-related communications.

Charges denied

In his response, Dr. Dennis asserted that the May 19 letter contained only factual information and could not have been exhorting a "yes" vote on the revised budget, as there was no proposed budget in place at the time and because no date had yet been set for a new budget vote.

The school district contended that since the May 19 letter was disseminated to public libraries and local newspapers, it was riot targeted to the parents of district students. The district further contended that the student-generated flyer was produced and distributed solely by the student, without the knowledge or consent of the student's teacher or principal, that the flyer did not advocate a partisan position with regard to the budget and that when he learned of the flyer, Mr. Kraemer admonished the student to refrain from using school resources to generate or distribute flyers regarding the budget in the future.

Complaint dismissed

Mr. Mills dismissed Mr. Christe's appeal on the merits, stating that the complainant had failed to prove improper conduct such as a violation of the Education Law or the commissioner's regulations.

The commissioner said that "while a board of education may provide informational material to the voters concerning a proposed budget or proposition, school district funds may not be used to exhort the electorate to support a particular position.

"Statements that do not specifically urge a 'yes' vote may nevertheless violate" the rule with regard to statements which otherwise "seek to persuade or convey support for a particular position."

However, in this case, the commissioner ruled "the contents of the May 19 letter are factual and informational, and it cannot be reasonably construed as advocating a 'yes' vote."

According to the legal precedents cited, the petitioner was required to show that the alleged irregularities actually affected the outcome of the election or "demonstrated a clear and convincing picture of informality to the point of laxity in adherence to the Education Law."

Failure of proof

Mr. Mills ruled that Mr. Christe had presented "no evidence that any action by respondents actually affected the outcome of the vote on the revised budget, which was approved by a margin of 649 votes."

The commissioner cited the fact that Mr. Christe had provided "no affidavits that anyone who voted for the budget would have voted differently but for any alleged irregularity by respondents."

The commissioner also ruled that the petitioner had "failed to demonstrate that respondents' alleged irregularities were so pervasive that they vitiated the electoral process; nor has he demonstrated a clear and convincing picture of informality to the point of laxity in adherence to the Education Law."

The commissioner referred to Mr. Christe's complaint that the May 19 letter "was impermissibly targeted to the parents of students attending district schools, in an attempt to ensure that those who were most sympathetic to approving the budget would turn out to vote.

"The use of specialized mailings or distributions to parents of students or other selected groups may in some instances suggest the appearance of partisan activity," Mr. Mills said.

No impermissible targeting

In this case, however, the commissioner cited Dr. Dennis' affidavit, stating that "the same letter was sent to the parents of district students (and) was disseminated to residents in local public libraries and the local newspapers in the form of letters to the editor.

"Accordingly, I do not find that respondents engaged in impermissible targeting," Mr. Mills ruled.

The commissioner held that there was "no evidence that any partisan materials were produced or sanctioned" by the school district.

"With regard to the flyer disseminated by a student at Fox Lane High School," the commissioner cites Mr. Kraemer's affidavit that "the flyer was developed and distributed solely by that student, acting without the knowledge or consent of the school's faculty or administration, and that he had admonished the student not to produce such materials with school resources in the future."

back to Phil Christe Webpage