A question of collusion

By JOHN McCALLUM

Editor

A local citizen has filed a complaint with Washington’s Public Disclosure Commission against the Cheney School District and the Committee for Support of Good Schools alleging the two organizations worked too closely in promoting passage of the recent $44.88 million construction bond to expand and renovate the district’s high school.

“I’m trying to make the case that they almost seemed in collusion,” Bill Johns said. “It’s like two sides of the same coin.”

Johns filed the case Feb. 3 with the PDC, listing a contact email address as Taxpayers for Efficient Schools. It’s the first time he has filed such a claim, although he acknowledged that he has been on the receiving end of such complaints while working as an engineer for the city of Spokane and Spokane County.

School district Associate Superintendent Sean Dotson acknowledged that they had received a copy of Johns complaint and was in the process of preparing a response.

Johns lists eight instances where he feels the district violated public disclosure laws. The first noted that the Committee for Support of Good Schools had been using the high school for its meetings and that none of its advertising for the bond or informational meetings specified “This is not a Cheney School District sanctioned or sponsored event” as called for in district policy.

The complaint also alleges that the use of the word “guidance” in the School Board of Directors Goals for 2014-2015 implies an intent to guide the committee in their work promoting not only the bond but also the maintenance and operations levy, which passed the recently concluded election with over 65 percent approval. Johns also alleges that images of students displaying “Yes” signs on Cheney Middle School property were subsequently used on the committee’s Facebook page, that feedback cards issued at informational meetings only asked for positive input on the bond, not any negative comments or presenting of possible problems, and that the informational meetings excluded presentations of opposing viewpoints and proposals to the bond.

“I’ve had hundreds of public meetings,” Johns said. “Whenever I went out, I would give both sides of the issue.”

Johns’ complaint also notes that literature distributed on the bond was misleading to taxpayers, noting the rate was only an increase of 75 cents but not that it would mean raising the overall district levy rate to $5.79 per $1,000 of assessed property valuation. The complaint also addresses the district’s concerns for security at the front entrance of the high school, which the bond, if passed, would remedy with a $15.1 million third phase of construction.

Johns asks in the complaint why potential low cost security measures aren’t being implemented now, and noted that he and his wife entered the school at one point, received a visitor sticker and were allowed to walk anywhere they wanted. He also said they both witnessed individuals opening locked doors for others who wanted to get in.

Dotson said the district has been very careful to brief staff and committee members on PDC requirements. He added that the literature used to provide information on the bond was sent to the PDC for their review and approval, which they gave.

“We don’t believe there are any violations with disclosure requirements,” he said.

John McCallum can be reached at [email protected].