I’ll give Pat Powers a little credit: he appears to be realizing that reprinting press releases from his Republican sponsors adds no value to the South Dakota Blogosphere. But as he tries this week to generate a little more original blog content, we still can’t trust him to get the whole story.
Folks in Redfield vote Tuesday, February 2, on a $16-million bond issue to build a new school. Heidi Appel, who left her job as Aberdeen Downtown Association exec last August to be Redfield’s newest furniture mogul and parks and rec director, is part of Citizens for the Future of Education, a group supporting the bond issue. Earlier this month, Citizens for the Future of Education sent out the flyer depicted below:
One of the locals noticed that the return address on the reverse was “Redfield Parks & Recreation” and sent a copy to Powers, who sounded the alarm about SDCL 12-27-20, which prohibits the expenditure of public funds to influence and election. If Appel’s city department had sent out this flyer, she might have been able to contend that her group’s flyer fit the exception to the public financing ban that allows public entities to “present[] factual information solely for the purpose of educating the voters on a ballot question.” The flyer just says “VOTE” rather than “Vote YES,” but the “Why build?” and “Why stay?” sections are pro-building, with no countering disadvantages. A public entity sending out such a flyer would likely be in hot water…
…if they had sent it out. Redfield Parks and Rec sends out this clarification:
Clarification: Recently a mailing went out to the public containing information for the new school. The return address on the mailing was the address of the Park and Recreation Department. This mailing was published, paid for, and sent by a staff member of the Park and Recreation Department. No Park and Recreation or City of Redfield funds were spent in the creation or the mailing of the document. This was only a printing error. If you have any questions, please contact Heidi Appel at 460-2444. Thank you and sorry for any confusion [Redfield Parks and Recreation, Facebook post, 2016.01.19].
Appel further elaborates in my morning paper:
Appel said she sent the job to the printer using her parks and rec email, but paid for it with her personal credit card. When proofing the job before it was sent out from the printer, she failed to notice the incorrect return address.
…“In the proofing process, I didn’t see anything that would have let me believe that that’s what it would say,” Appel said. “I don’t blame it on the printer, it was probably a proofing error on my part” [Katherine Grandstrand, “Redfield School Mailer Causes Confusion,” Aberdeen American News, 2016.01.20].
Hmmm… so the department didn’t spend any money on paper or postage, but what about Appel’s use of her work e-mail? She didn’t send an e-mail to advocate for the school bond issue, but she expended public electrons to transmit campaign material and conduct campaign business. That might get her busted in Iowa, but South Dakota campaign finance law doesn’t explicitly address this situation.
The locals, including City Finance Officer Adam Hansen, appear not nearly as exercised about this issue as we out-of-towners:
There were a couple of phone calls to City Hall questioning the return address, as government funds cannot be used to influence the outcome of an election per state law.
City Finance Officer Adam Hansen said one person visited his office this week questioning the return address, but was satisfied when the situation was explained.
…“To me, it’s much ado about nothing,” Hansen said [Grandstrand, 2016.01.20].
Appel says that even if she had used her personal address, this error may still have occurred, as the printer and locals might still have associated her name with her office. But I’d contend that even those electrons, coursing through the server of a public office, should not be carrying campaign materials. City officials, fellow teachers, policemen, don’t use your work e-mail for any campaign activities.
Redfield is my hometown and I have been having a hell of a laugh about the school bind issue. So much petty BS! “I don’t have kids in school so I ain’t payin” is the big one. “I don’t like so and so, so I am gonna make personal attacks”. Ohh man it’s been a riot. And it certainly isn’t shocking that this kind of stuff is happening there. Perhaps Ms. Appel should have used her PERSONAL email for her PERSONAL campaign instead of doing it on her city-paid time?
Hold on, Mrs. Nelson—we know she used her city e-mail, but we don’t know that she used it on city time.
If all this personal stuff is going on in the Redfield campaign, I’m surprised City Hall didn’t get more calls about the flyer and that more locals aren’t making a ruckus about it.
The campaign used blue plastic ribbon to attempt to raise awareness. We also use identical ribbon to mark trees that need to be pruned at the airport, causing confusion when blue ribbons were noted on light poles and mailboxes.
This was the first round of mailers, no more than 2 weeks before voting date, and notably after the Jan15 voter reg deadline.
There was door to door ribbon dispersal by volunteers without any programming so all the volunteers had the facts and arguments ready. It was basically “here’s some ribbon, go get as much of it hanging as possible”
The school has had many public meetings which, from my understanding, basically ends like a Parks and Recreation (Leslie Knope, not Heidi Appel) meeting. We’ve had many articles in favor of the school in the paper but the second one editorial piece in opposition comes out, people raise such a stink that the press declares “no more new school press in the paper”.
Not even looking at the school plan or bond issue, I’d be amazed if this manages to pass.
And, since I’m here…
If this fails, it won’t be because of the cost. Almost every person I’ve talked to wants a new school and is willing to pay for it at this rate. And every farmer I’ve talked to wants to see it at the *edge* of town, like 55% of the high schools in the state, and is willing to flit the bill for it there as well. The current plan doesn’t factor in costs of buying the houses east of the school (well above what any sane person would pay but, hey, it’s a sellers market!) Or west of the school, if you can get them to sell. It doesn’t factor in costs of demolition of the school, or construction of new parking. But hearing that this plan is 23M and out of town costs 7M more just for a change in location scares people away.
Moral of the story- nobody’s making friends in Redfield while we fight over this school.
I’m not against a new school, but there were notable campaign flaws from multiple people that make this unlikely to pass. Not a supporter, but not opposed to new growth.
I agree, Cully, it has all been a bit of a cluster from both sides. And CA, you’re right, we don’t know if she sent it while at work or not but the point stands. Whether it was an honest mistake or not, ignorance isn’t an excuse.