LASD Flyer Violates State Election Law

[XLFD]

In response to extensive and ongoing complaints about government entities using public resources to electioneer in favor of tax hikes, in 2015, the Legislature passed a law prohibiting public bodies from sending residents any communications about a ballot question within 60 days of the vote. Schools and local governments sued, and the law was temporarily set aside by a federal judge in February 2016, with the agreement of the Michigan Secretary of State not to invoke the misdemeanor penalty in the law as concerns violations of MCL 169.257(3).   

In the November 2018 election cycle, an attorney filed suit against Schoolcraft College alleging violations of this election law by the college.   The section of law signed into effect by Governor Snyder in January 2016 states to this day:

"Except for an election official in the performance of his or her duties, a public body, or a person acting for a public body, shall not, during the period 60 days before an election in which a local ballot question appears on a ballot, use public funds or resources for a communication by means of radio, television, mass mailing, or prerecorded telephone message if that communication references a local ballot question and is targeted to the relevant electorate where the local ballot question appears on the ballot."

The controversial portion which led to the injunction in 2016 was the ambiguity that left an official who unwittingly references a ballot issue (whether they be form neutral or against it) liable for serious penalties just by mentioning the issue within 60 days of the election on local media or an E-mail with multiple recipients.  Governor Snyder who recognized that problem issued a "signing letter" which stated that the new language "only applies when local governmental entities use taxpayer resources to distribute mass communications concerning ballot questions."

With that in mind, if you live in the Ludington Area School District (LASD), you may have received a glossy colored four-fold flyer in the mail concerning the bond proposal coming up for vote on May 7, 2019.  Various people I know of reportedly received their identical flyers around March 20-22.  At most, this would be 48 days before the election, well under 60 days.  The front and back of that flyer is illustrated below.

The flyer tries to avoid issue-advocacy, which is a more blatant violation of the law than just sending out 'slanted information', by not directly encouraging the reader to vote for the millage.  But let's just consider that if you were inclined to vote "No" for this bond proposal millage and look at what this pamphlet directly implies about you:

1)  You are against district-wide improvements to address identified and ongoing facility needs

2)  You are against planning for the future

3)  You are against safe, secure, and modern schools

4)  You are willing to ignore years of strategic planning, facility assessments and community input

5)  You are against major renovations and additions to the middle and high school

6)  You are against improvements to athletic facilities, arts venues and vocational teaching spaces

7)  You are against getting new school buses

8)  You are against more energy-efficient and ADA-accessible buildings

9)  You are against utilizing property that the district bought and remains undeveloped

10)  You are against consolidating four schools into one thereby increasing operational efficiency

And some other minor points; if you were inclined to vote "Yes", you would see all those things above, but also find out that:

a) the estimated impact to property taxes would be approximately 1.71 mills, an additional $85 per year ($7.13 per month) for every $100,000 worth of your property.  There is no information in the pamphlet as to how long this would affect your taxes.

On page 8 of this file we note that the current bond debt is going to vanish in the next few years, but the two series of bonds coming out will artfully keep the debt service millage rate up that extra 1.5 mills as the other expires.  The pamphlet fails to note that too.  The pamphlet, however, does tell you who paid for this 'informational' brochure on one of their pages:

'Paid for by the Ludington Area School District'?  Wonder where they get that money from.  

And where did LASD get the money to send out all these informational materials for a millage that would benefit themselves within 60 days of an election?  That's right, they got it from you, the property owners in the Ludington Area School District, now complicit in violating state election law.

[Wonder Woman]

I’m very concerned about the district using tax dollars to print and mail these brochures. 

[Willy]

This really makes me mad. isn't anyoune in authority ever going to follow the laws. From the Council to the schools, they think they can do as they please. Who approves what is put on these pamphlets. Notice how they break down the added tax dollars to show the poor slobs who pay these bills what a deal they are getting at X dollars per week. Why not just tell us what our total bill will be by the end of this cursed tax raise, including interest and any other hidden fees. I feel sorry for some of my neighbors who are part time residents. Being non homesteaders with no vote, They will be footing an unfair share of the expense to send other peoples kids to school. Slithering snakes, that's all these people are. Vote no on this wasteful, uneeded tax increase.

[Freedom Seeker]

No

[XLFD]

The LASD also appears to be running a "Yes for LAS" Facebook page that uses the official LASD web page as their contact page, and school resources/personnel advocating for 'yes' votes.  It started on March 14, beyond the 60 day mark, but more importantly, since they are issue advocating, they seem to be in violation of MCL 169.257(1) rather than section 3.  

[shinblind]

Do you or anyone know of any effort to have 'VOTE NO' lawn signs made?

I would be interested in both making a financial contribution and displaying such signs.

The actions of the LASD are as lame as their proposal.  Poorly thought out and totally reprehensible.

It is not too early to get the signs out. 

[XLFD]

No, but be advised that for a little over $200 you can get 100 18" X 24" double sided signs to say anything you might want.  Compare that with the extra taxes you would pay each year for a $240,000 piece of property in the LASD district should this pass.  It's about even.  Time to invest in signage if you don't like this millage for one reason or another, because the school is going to be using its resources (your money) to push this through in a stealth May election.

[Freedom Seeker]

Me too, I know of some that would contribute.  Bond, Bad Timing, Bond.

Bond, Too, Too Many, Bond.

[shinblind]

Absentee ballots are out for the May election.

No online presence or signage for the No vote.

Blame yourselves if this passes without a whimper.

They are organized while we are not. 

[Freedom Seeker]

Get the signs printed.  I know a few that will help with labor and costs.  I think there are more NOs than you think, silently don't need signs, but signs won't hurt.

[dowland]

If you compare the house hold income of Ludington to Chicago our property tax's are worse or if it's % of market value. This is nothing to be proud of.  Does any 1 care  about all the people who lost jobs and they still want to increase property tax's?

[snide]

I'm guessing (& it is only a guess) that approx. 10000 of these were printed ... It is in an odd size (approx. 8 1/2 x 17) and with many four color process photos on glossy paper. A rather pricey job... Id say a print job like that would cost in the neighborhood of 8500 dollars.That is an estimate based upon my 15 + years in the print business. That's just the prep/layout and print work . Any labor incurred by school staff and your mailing permit would be on top of that......Remember that voters on May 7th.