|
15-0325-21158-CV |
STATE OF
OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
|
Douglas
W. Erickson,
Complainant, vs. Education
Respondent. |
FINDINGS
OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS
AND ORDER |
The above-entitled matter came on for an
evidentiary hearing on May 10, 2010, before a panel of three Administrative Law
Judges: Beverly Jones Heydinger
(Presiding Judge), Kathleen D. Sheehy, and James F. Cannon. The hearing record closed at the conclusion
of the Complainant’s case.
James Magnuson, Attorney at Law, Mohrman &
Kaardal, P.A., appeared on behalf of Douglas W. Erickson (Complainant).
Meg Luger-Nikolai, Attorney at Law, Education Minnesota, appeared on behalf of Education Minnesota Local 1406 (Respondent).
STATEMENT OF ISSUE
Did Respondent violate Minn. Stat. § 211B.06 by preparing and
disseminating false campaign material relating to Independent School District
2142’s bond referendum election that occurred on December 8, 2009?
The
panel dismissed the Complaint at the conclusion of the Complainant’s case
because the evidence was insufficient to prove that the Respondent made a false
statement of fact, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 211B.06.
Based
upon the entire record, the panel makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1.
On December 8,
2009, the
2.
Complainant is a
resident of ISD 2142 who opposed the bond referendum and voted against it.[2]
3.
Respondent is
the local chapter of Education Minnesota, the state teachers’ union.
4.
The bond
referendum was controversial, and the special election generated much public discussion
and debate.[3]
5.
On September 9,
2009, the ISD 2142 School Board met to consider various consequences and
options if district voters did not pass the referendum. The Board concluded that dissolution of the
school district would be the inevitable result if the referendum were to fail.[4] It was the District’s position that if the
District were dissolved, the District’s students would have to attend school in
neighboring districts, most of which are taxed at higher rates. The District did not claim that individual
property taxes would go down if the referendum passed.[5]
6.
In its
September/October 2009 newsletter, the District explained its position as
follows:
If passed, the implementation [of the referendum] would
be funded by a property tax increase of $14 per month for every $100,000 of
home value, less homestead and other tax credits, for the next 20 years.
However, if residents vote no, their taxes will most
likely still increase – in some cases by a large amount. That’s because if the plan is not approved,
the school district would enter into “statutory operating debt” by June 2011,
which means the State of
Yet everyone will be impacted, even if you don’t have
students in the public schools. You’ll
then be paying the taxes of the nearest district. Right now, our taxes in the
7.
In its December
2009 newsletter, the District again explained the tax impact of the bond
referendum in a section entitled “Here’s how your taxes will be impacted. Approval keeps your taxes lower than the
regional average.” The newsletter
included a bar graph depicting the 2010 school property taxes paid in 18 nearby
school districts. The chart indicated
that residents of ISD 2142 paid the lowest amount of taxes of the 19 districts
surveyed. The chart explicitly explained
in bulleted statements: “Long Range Plan
Tax Impact: Added tax impact of Bond
Referendum = $164/year per $100,000 Home.”[7]
8.
The District
published a sample ballot in the Cook News Herald on November 26, 2009. The sample ballot set out the text of the
referendum. Underneath the ballot
question, the ballot stated in bold, “By voting ‘yes’ on this ballot question,
you are voting for a property tax increase.”[8]
9.
In the days
before the election, Respondent published the following advertisement in four
local newspapers urging people to vote for the referendum:[9]
10.
The Complainant did
not see the advertisement before the election.
He saw it after the election when he was investigating what he believed
to be voting irregularities that took place on election day. He asserts that the statement “Vote YES for
lower taxes!” is false because it implies that passage of the referendum would
decrease property taxes for District residents.
The Complainant’s own property taxes increased by approximately $500 in
2010 as a result of the passage of the referendum.[10]
Based upon the foregoing Findings of
Fact, the panel makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS
1.
Minn. Stat. §
211B.35 authorizes the panel of Administrative Law Judges to consider this
matter.
2. Campaign material is defined to mean “any literature, publication, or material that is disseminated for the purpose of influencing voting at a primary or other election.[11] The newspaper advertisements prepared and disseminated by Respondent are campaign material within the meaning of that statute.[12]
3.
Minn. Stat. § 211B.06, subd. 1, provides:
A person is guilty of a gross misdemeanor who intentionally participates in the preparation, dissemination, or broadcast of paid political advertising or campaign material with respect to the personal or political character or acts of a candidate, or with respect to the effect of a ballot question, that is designed or tends to elect, injure, promote, or defeat a candidate for nomination or election to a public office or to promote or defeat a ballot question, that is false, and that the person knows is false or communicates to others with reckless disregard of whether it is false.
4. The burden of proving the allegations in the complaint is on the Complainant. The standard of proof of a violation of Minn. Stat. § 211B.06, relating to false campaign material, is clear and convincing evidence.[13]
5. The Complainant has failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent made a false statement of fact in violation of Minn. Stat. § 211B.06.[14]
Based upon the record herein, and for the reasons stated in the following Memorandum, the panel makes the following:
ORDER
IT
IS ORDERED:
That Respondent did not violate
Minnesota Statutes § 211B.06 as alleged in the Complaint, and therefore the
Complaint is DISMISSED.
Dated: May 18, 2010
|
s/Beverly Jones Heydinger |
|
BEVERLY JONES HEYDINGER |
|
|
Presiding
Administrative Law Judge |
|
|
|
|
|
s/Beverly Jones Heydinger for |
|
KATHLEEN
D. SHEEHY |
|
Administrative Law Judge |
|
s/James F. Cannon |
|
|
JAMES
F. CANNON |
|
|
Administrative Law Judge |
|
Reported: Digitally
recorded, no transcript
prepared.
NOTICE
This is the final decision in this
case, as provided in Minn. Stat. § 211B.36, subd. 5. A party aggrieved by this decision may seek
judicial review as provided in Minn. Stat. §§ 14.63 to
14.69.
MEMORANDUM
Complainant alleges that Education
Minnesota Local 1406 falsely stated in campaign material that property taxes
would be lowered if the school bond referendum passed, in violation of Minn.
Stat. § 211B.06.
As interpreted by the Minnesota
Supreme Court, the statute is directed against false statements of fact. It is not intended to prevent criticism of
candidates or to prevent unfavorable deductions or inferences derived from a
candidate’s conduct. The statute is not
broad enough to prohibit incomplete and unfair campaign statements, even those
that are clearly misleading. Section
211B.06 does not regulate unfavorable deductions, inferences, unfair
characterizations, or misleading remarks. The statute prohibits only false statements of
specific fact.[16]
The
Minnesota Supreme Court’s discussion of this standard in Kennedy v. Voss
is
instructive.[17] In that case, an incumbent
The statement at issue here is “Save
our schools! Vote yes for lower
taxes!....Vote yes for the passing of the referendum on December 8, 2009.” The Complainant argues that the statement is
false because his property taxes increased after the referendum passed; they
were not lowered as a result of the referendum.
Complainant points out that the sample ballot published in the Cook News
Herald on November 26, 2009, stated clearly that “by voting “yes” on [the
referendum question], you are voting for a property tax increase.” Therefore, he argues, it was false for
Respondent to state that property taxes would be lowered if the referendum were
to pass.
The panel concludes that the statement
is not false within the meaning of § 211B.06.
It was the District’s position that if the referendum did not pass, the
District would need to dissolve, and the District’s students would be required to
attend neighboring school districts, most of which are taxed at significantly
higher rates than District 2142. The
District explained its position in depth in its September/October 2009 and
December newsletters. The District also
provided comprehensive graphs of the tax rates of the 18 neighboring school
districts in the newsletters. The
District’s position that residents’ taxes would actually increase if the
referendum failed was well established throughout the debate and discussion of
the referendum. The Complainant has no
evidence to suggest that the District’s statements about the consequences of
failure to pass the referendum were false.
Although the Respondent’s statement “Vote yes for lower taxes” is incomplete and somewhat misleading, in that it does not make clear that voting yes meant that taxes would be lower than other school districts in the region, it is not false within the meaning of § 211B.06. Moreover, it is apparent from the record that the debate was framed within the community as how best to limit the size of a virtually inevitable increase in taxes, whether paid to ISD 2142 or to another neighboring district. Because the evidence presented at the hearing was insufficient to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the statement is a false statement of fact, the panel granted the Respondent’s motion to dismiss the complaint at the close of the Complainant’s case.
Respondent also moved for an award of attorneys’ fees. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 211B.36, subd. 3, the panel may order a Complainant to pay the Respondent’s reasonable attorney’s fees and costs if the panel determines the complaint was frivolous. A frivolous claim is one that is without any reasonable basis in law or equity and could not be supported by a good faith argument for a modification or reversal of existing law.[21] Here the complaint was found to state a prima facie violation of Minn. Stat. § 211B.06. The fact that the Complainant was not able to meet his burden of proving the case by clear and convincing evidence does not render his complaint frivolous. Therefore, Respondent’s request for attorney’s fees is denied.
B.J.H., K.D.S., J.F.C.