In July of 2009, Dr. Russell Jones, Superintendent of Stow-Monroe Falls City School District filed an affidavit of complaint with the Ohio Elections Commission (OEC). The complaint was sworn and notarized on behalf of the Stow-Monroe Falls Levy Committee.  A reprimand was issued to SCRG.   Herein is a paraphrased list of the complaints and the results.   Anyone who desires to see the documents used as proof exhibits in the OEC hearing may contact Don Bettio, 330-688-8297.  Please call during reasonable hours.

 

Complaint:      (Dismissed)

The respondent (Stow Citizens for Responsible Government) (SCRG), is a political action committee that opposed and campaigned against proposed school levies submitted to voters on August 5, 2008 and November 4, 2008. The levies were defeated at both elections.

Our response:    It was pointed out to the OEC that our committee and our website never mentions or suggests how a resident of the school district should vote. We endorse no issues or candidates. We merely inform voters of actions of the city and school board they otherwise would probably never gain knowledge of. The levies failed on their own merit.

 

Complaint:       (Dismissed)

(1)The respondent (SCRG) maintained during its campaign against both the August and November levies a website on the internet. (2)The SCRG remains an active committee and continues to maintain its website.

Our response:    (1)We reminded the OEC that we do not “campaign” for or against levies, issues or candidates. (2)We have a right to remain active as a committee and a right to publish our findings and our opinions on our website, whether the Superintendent and his lawyers like it or not. We will continue to do so in the future.

 

Complaint:    (Dismissed)

The website contained numerous false statements in violation of Ohio Revised Code section 3517.22(B)(2). The website claimed that “the statements made on this site are verified by the School District’s own records”.

Our response: The SCRG produced the documents from the school district’s records verifying our statements.

 

Complaint:     (Dismissed)

The website falsely stated that “a high school principal with no experience was given the job of Human Resources Director at a salary higher than the former H.R. Director who had experience”.

Our response:    The SCRG produced the documents from the school district’s records verifying our statements.

 

Complaint:     (Dismissed)

The website falsely stated that, “the Assistant Treasurer’s salary went from $41,000 to $51,000. When two Board Members were candidates they criticized the raise. In fact the Board members were critical of the fact that the Board was under compensating the position and should have acted earlier to increase the compensation level.

Our response:    The SCRG produced the documents from the school district’s records verifying our statements.

 

Complaints:     (Dismissed)

The website falsely stated that, (1)“the Booster Club offered to raise funds to carpet the football stadium with artificial turf. (2)The Superintendent vetoed the idea because he did not want the club raising private funds while the school district was conducting a levy”. “The truth is that I did not veto the idea and I support the Booster Club raising private funds”.

Our response:     (1)The SCRG presented school district documents and witness statements refuting the Superintendent’s “truth”. (2) The SCRG presented school district documents and witness statements refuting the Superintendent’s “truth”.

 

Complaint:     (Dismissed)

The website falsely stated that (1)“the Board and administration have ignored their two greatest security measures: (2)Time clocks and security cameras. Both have been installed but none are in use.” In actual fact, the security cameras were and always have been in use since being installed. Time clocks are not security measures. The website stated that “it cost the school district about $2000 a pay period (2 weeks) in unaccounted for overtime”. The actual facts, based on the period of time when the time clocks were in use, the amount of over-time was greater than when the time clocks were not in use. (3)The website further states that the Treasurer has never written a policy governing use of the time clocks. The truth is that the time clocks are not in use because they did not operate properly.

Our response: We contend that the security cameras were not in use at the time the information was posted on the website. (1)And yes, time clocks are a security measure. Ask any business owner. (2)We are unaware of a policy in force at the time this statement was posted on the website. If one is available, we have not received it even though we requested it through the Ohio Open Records Act. We have received documentation from the district Treasurer’s office that the policy was never voted on by the Board and, as she has told us before, “if the Board has not voted on it, it does not exist”. (3)The taxpayers of the district paid an enormous amount of money for the security system to not function properly. We are aware of union grievances regarding the time clocks. It is time to straighten it all out.

 

Complaint:    (Dismissed)

The website falsely stated that, “from August 1, 2007 to June 2008 (the school year) 15,570 days were missed by school system employees. 11,521 substitutes were called in to replace the employees missing work”. The actual fact is that the number of days missed was 10,139. The number of substitutes called in was far less than the number stated.

Our response:    The SCRG produced the documents from the school district’s records verifying our statements.

 

Complaint:    (Dismissed)

(1)The website contained the photograph of (we do not care to name the person here), a teacher employed by the school district. (2)The website falsely stated under the photograph, “Here is an example of a teacher’s compensation. This teacher has eleven years with the school district and a bachelor’s degree”. In actual fact, the teacher had twenty years of employment with the district.

Our response:    (1)The photo of this teacher (by the way, which one of the three persons in the photo is the teacher in question?) was taken from a public website (the teacher’s union site) and was being displayed publicly. It is a picture taken from the public domain of the internet. Obviously, the teachers in the photograph were participating in an “informational picket” about the unfair practices of the school board. We were unaware of the teacher’s name until we received the complaint. (2)The website clearly indicated that this was an example of a teachers compensation. The photo was removed when we rebuilt our website in the fall of 2009. The photo no longer served any purpose since the compensation scales all changed. Next time, we will try to be more accurate and actually link the photo with the pay scale. We did not wish to embarrass anyone but the Superintendent’s complaint forced us into it.

 

Complaint:     (Dismissed)

(1) There were two complaints concerning SCRG’s financial records reported to the Summit County Board of Elections (SCBOE). (2) These complaints were dropped after verification of records showing that the SCRG was not in violation of report deadlines. These reports are public record.

Our response:    (1)Since we have never acquired over $1000 in our treasury, and we do not campaign for or against any candidate or issue, (2)we were exempt from the reports required by many other Political Action Committees.

 

Complaint:     (Part of Reprimand)

The respondent (SCRG) filed as a Political Action Committee with the Summit County Board of Elections on May 6, 2008. The first finance report (periodic finance reports are required by law) was filed by SCRG in July, 2008. The SCRG did not file pre-election or post-election reports for the August 2008 special election.

Our response: The OEC was reminded that SCRG was exempted from filing the required reports because its treasury has never contained $1000.00, the limit at which financial reports must be reported to the Summit County Board of Elections. After being misinformed by the SCBOE, we missed one required report. Our treasurer was not aware that the report was required even if the treasury limit was under $1,000. That error has been corrected.

 

Complaint:    (Part of Reprimand)

The website falsely stated that “the tax would be permanent”

Our response: The SCRG is aware that we used the word “permanent” in error. The SCRG recognizes that any levy legally expires unless it is marked as “permanent” or “continual” (such as the current library levy). From a grass-roots level however, we have never seen a levy expire. They are always renewed. History confirms this. We contend, for instance, that the February 2008 “emergency” levy submitted to the voters was going to be used to offer employee raises and fund an all-day kindergarten. Our contention is that by refusing to allow the state to mandate unfunded liabilities on us, we are notifying them that it is time that the state begin to seriously look into school funding in general. This is unlikely to happen (even with a court order) in the near future if we do not apply pressure through our school districts.

 

Complaint:     (Part of Reprimand)

The website falsely stated that, (1)“snow days in the winter cost approximately $200,000 per day off. (2)Some school employees are paid for the snow day and then paid again if the day is made up later in the year”. School employees are paid for 184 days, which includes up to five calamity days. Therefore, employees receive the same annual pay even if a snow day must be made up later in the year.

Our response: (1)We stated that it costs the school district $200,000 a day to operate. This was shown by the district’s records. (2)Our statement indicating that employees would be paid to make up the calamity days was in error. Teachers and some support staff get a day off with pay while giving the taxpayer nothing for their money.

 

Complaint:    (Part of Reprimand)

The respondent made false statements in calling itself a “charity” and soliciting monetary contributions. These statements mislead the public and may cause donors to violate tax laws. Such statements are in furtherance of respondent’s efforts to raise funds for communications to influence the results of elections were made knowingly and with reckless disregard of the truth.

Our response:     We had determined that we were incorrect in the statement “tax deductible” when we consulted with an I.R.S. Agent in late March of 2008. The statement was immediately removed from the website. This complaint was filed based on a website date of March 14, 2008. The statement was removed long before the July date of the complaint’s filing. We never referred to our committee as a charity. We did, however, unintentionally draw a parallel to charities seeking contributions. The entire statement was removed from the website.

In July 2009 Dr. Jones, in a sworn statement, filed a complaint with the Ohio Elections Commission (OEC) on behalf of the Stow-Munroe Falls School District Levy Committee.  Of the 19 complaints filed, 12 were dismissed because of the evidence supporting the Stow Citizens for Responsible Government (SCRG). 

After the deposition and disclosure process, the district dropped more complaints in response to significant documentation presented by the SCRG.

Of all the complaints filed, only two concerned the school district.  SCRG previously admitted that it had made some filing and procedural mistakes not affecting the school district.

On February 8, the school board passed a resolution to join action the superintendent took on behalf of the levy committee against SCRG.  During a public records request, I came across invoices from school attorneys paid by the schools to the attorneys who were representing the levy committee at the OEC.  Knowing that districts, by law, are not permitted to donate public money to Political Action Committees (PAC), I threatened to file a taxpayer’s lawsuit to recuperate the over $20,000 in legal fees for the citizens.  This action forced the school board to pass a resolution legitimizing the district’s payment of attorney fees under the guise of “educating the public.”

Amazingly,  a superintendent who supposedly taught Ohio school law and our experienced treasurer didn’t know this was wrong or that it took them eight months to correct the error.  If SCRG had not challenged the legality of these payments, do you suppose the superintendent or school board would see the need to “educate” the community?

What will be the final tally the district has accumulated for attorney fees to pursue these issues?  We are currently awaiting the amounts paid in 2010 (over and above the initial $20,496).  I’m not sure this education was worth it.