	OAH 3-6326-20564-CV

STATE OF MINNESOTA

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Paul A. Barry and David J. Spano,

Complainants,

vs.

The St. Anthony-New Brighton

Independent School District 282,

Jane Eckert, David Evans,

Barry Kinsey, Don Siggelkow,

Leah Slye and Mike Volna, in their

capacity as School Board Members,

Respondents.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

TO: St. Anthony-New Brighton Independent School District 282, 3303 33rd Avenue NE, St. Anthony, Minnesota 55418; Jane Eckert, Vice Chair, [Street address redacted], New Brighton, Minnesota 55112; David Evans, Director, [Street address redacted], New Brighton, Minnesota 55112; Barry Kinsey, Chair, [Street address redacted], St. Anthony, Minnesota 55418; Don Siggelkow, Clerk, [Street address redacted], St. Anthony, Minnesota 55418; Leah Slye, Treasurer, [Street address redacted], St. Anthony, Minnesota 55418; and Mike Volna, Director, [Street address redacted], New Brighton, Minnesota 55112.

On May 19, 2009, Paul A. Barry and David J. Spano filed a Complaint with the Office of Administrative Hearings alleging that St. Anthony-New Brighton Independent School District 282 and the individual members of its School Board violated five provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 211A and 211B.

The Chief Administrative Law Judge assigned this matter to the undersigned Administrative Law Judge on May 20, 2009, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 211B.33. A copy of the Complaint and attachments were sent by United States mail to the Respondents on May 20, 2009.

After reviewing the Complaint and attachments, the Administrative Law Judge finds that the Complaint does not state a prima facie violation of Minn. Stat. §§ 211A.02, 211A.03, 211A.05, 211A.06 and 211B.15, subd. 9.

Based upon the Complaint and for the reasons set out in the attached Memorandum,

IT IS ORDERED:

That the Complaint filed by Paul A. Barry and David J. Spano against the St. Anthony-New Brighton Independent School District 282, Jane Eckert, David Evans, Barry Kinsey, Don Siggelkow, Leah Slye and Mike Volna, in their capacity as School Board Members is DISMISSED.

Dated: May 21, 2009 s/Kathleen D. Sheehy

______________________________

KATHLEEN D. SHEEHY

Administrative Law Judge

MEMORANDUM

This Campaign Complaint concerns the May 20, 2008, special election on the St. Anthony-New Brighton School District’s bond referendum ballot questions. The Complaint alleges that the St. Anthony-New Brighton School District and its School Board members engaged in campaign activities that violated fair campaign practices and financial reporting laws. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Respondents violated Minn. Stat. §§ 211A.02 (financial report), 211A.03 (final report), 211A.05 (failure to file statement), 211A.06 (failure to keep account), and 211B.15 (corporate political contributions).

In reviewing the Complaint to determine whether it sets forth a prima facie violation of the statute, the Administrative Law Judge is required to credit as true all of the facts that are alleged in the Complaint, provided that those facts are not patently false or inherently incredible. The allegations against the Respondents are addressed in turn below.

The Complaint alleges that the St. Anthony-New Brighton School District violated campaign financial reporting laws by failing to report disbursements it made in support of the ballot initiative. According to the Complaint, the School District and School Board allowed contributions, expenditures, approved the expenditures, and encouraged the School District to incur expenses to promote the passage of the ballot questions in the May 2008 election.

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the School District promoted the passage of all four May 20^th ballot questions through the use of public funds, including the time of salaried or hourly-paid employees of the School District, and made expenditures on printing ($3,879), graphics ($1,377), video ($18,500), referendum planning ($8,670), demographics ($3,000), survey ($10,000), and referendum assistance ($23,037). The Complaint alleges that the Respondents knew that Minnesota law required the filing of financial reports for ballot question referendums and failed to provide those reports in violation of Minn. Stat. §§ 211A.02, 211A.03, 211A.05, and 211A.06. Additionally, the Complaint alleges that the School District and the School Board violated Minn. Stat. § 211B.15, subd. 9, for contributing to a media project that is controlled by the School District to encourage people to vote for the passage of the ballot questions on May 20, 2008.

Chapter 211A is applicable to ballot questions to be voted on by voters of one or more political subdivisions but not by all the voters of the state. Section 211A.02 requires that a committee or a candidate who receives contributions or makes disbursements of more than $750 in a calendar year shall submit an initial report to the filing officer within 14 days after the candidate or committee receives or makes disbursements of more than $750 and shall continue to make reports as provided in Minn. Stat. §§ 211A.03 and 211A.05 until a final report is filed. The receipt of “contributions” or the making of “disbursements” is the threshold requirement for the filing obligation. Under Minn. Stat. § 211A.06, a treasurer who fails to keep a correct account of money received for a committee “with the intent to conceal receipts or disbursements, [or] the purpose of receipts or disbursements” is guilty of a misdemeanor. Unlike Minn. Stat. § 10A.025, which is applicable to state-wide or judicial elections and which prohibits the filing of statements containing knowingly false information or omissions, there is nothing in § 211A.02 that provides for the assessment of penalties for inaccurate information, false statements, or poor record-keeping.

The Complaint maintains as an initial matter that the School District is subject to the campaign finance reporting requirements of chapter 211A. Minnesota Statutes § 211A.01 defines a “candidate” to mean, in relevant part, an individual who seeks nomination or election to a county, municipal, school district, or other political subdivision office.[1] A “committee” is defined to mean “a corporation or association or persons acting together to influence the nomination, election, or defeat of a candidate or to promote or defeat a ballot question.”[2] A school district is a political subdivision of the state, and its board members are the elected policy-makers for the political subdivision. The St. Anthony-New Brighton School District and its board members are neither a candidate nor a committee as defined by chapter 211A, and it is not required to report contributions or disbursements through the reporting requirements of that chapter. As political subdivisions of the state, school districts are required to make available to the public all of their revenues, expenditures, and other financial information through mechanisms other than 211A.[3]

In addition, the Complaint alleges that the School District violated Minn. Stat. § 211A.02 because it made disbursements of more than $750 in a calendar year relating to the May 2008 ballot questions. A “disbursement” means money, property, office, position, or any other thing of value that passes or is directly or indirectly conveyed, given, promised, paid, expended, pledged, contributed, or lent. “Disbursement” does not include payment by a county, municipality, school district, or other political subdivision for election-related expenditures required or authorized by law.[4] The expenditures described in the complaint (for printing, graphics, video, referendum planning, etc.) all appear to be election-related expenditures, and the complaint does not allege that these expenses are not required or authorized by law. Even if the school district were properly considered a “candidate” or “committee” subject to the filing requirements of chapter 211A, the specific expenses described fall within the statutory exclusion for election-related expenditures. Accordingly, the Complaint fails to state a prima facie allegation that the School District violated Minn. Stat. §§ 211A.02, 211A.03, or 211A.05 by failing to file any financial reports disclosing these disbursements.

The Complaint further alleges that the salary expenditures of officials such as the Superintendent or principal, who attended public or private meetings in support of the referendum during business hours were “contributions” and that the School District violated Minn. Stat. § 211A.06 by failing to report or keep an accurate account of these contributions. A “contribution” is defined as anything of monetary value that is given or loaned to a candidate or committee for a political purpose. It does not include a service provided without compensation by an individual.[5] The time expended by school district employees who attended public or private meetings in support of the referendum during business hours is not a thing of value given or loaned to either a “candidate” or a “committee.” Accordingly, it is not a reportable “contribution.” Moreover, as noted above, § 211A.06 does not penalize merely inaccurate record-keeping; it penalizes only the failure to keep correct accounts of money received for a “committee” with “the intent to conceal receipts or disbursements,” or the “purpose of receipts or disbursements.” The Complaint cannot be read to allege that any individual affiliated with the School District failed to report the time expended by school district employees with the intent to conceal such actions from anyone. The Complaint fails to allege a prima facie violation of Minn. Stat. § 211A.06.

As a final matter, the complaint alleges that the School District violated Minn. Stat. § 211B.15, subd. 9. In general, Minn. Stat. § 211B.15 prohibits corporate contributions. Subdivision 9 provides that “it is not a violation of this section for a corporation to contribute to or conduct public media projects to encourage individuals to attend precinct caucuses, register, or vote if the projects are not controlled by or operated for the advantage of a candidate, political party, or committee.” Neither the School District nor its Board members meets the definition of a corporation (defined as a corporation organized for profit that does business in this state; a nonprofit corporation that carries out activities in this state; or a limited liability company that does business in this state).[6] The statute does not apply to the St. Anthony-New Brighton School District 282. Accordingly, the Complaint fails to allege a prima facie violation of Minn. Stat. § 211B.15, subd. 9.

For all of these reasons, the Administrative Law Judge finds that the Complainants have failed to allege prima facie violations of Minn. Stat. §§ 211A.02, 211A.03, 211A.05, 211A.06, and 211B.15 on the part of the St. Anthony-New Brighton School District and/or its Board members. These allegations are dismissed.

K. D. S.

[3] See e.g., Minn. Stat. § 123B.10, subd. 1.