Proposal aims to prevent 'bait and switch' scenarios with school board referendums

Rep. Kathy Lohmer (R-Stillwater) wants to save voters from future “bait and switch” scenarios.

Stillwater resident Alison Komarke said it happened to voters in her community in 2015, when the school district presented a bond referendum to voters, which they approved, and six months later decided “without taxpayer consent” to do something else with the money.

Rep. Kathy Lohmer

Stillwater residents sued the district, but lost. A judge said they could only hold the district to what was said in the “vague” wording of the referendum on the ballot, Komarke said.

Now she hopes HF3094, sponsored by Lohmer, will close that loophole that allows school districts to present a plan to voters, but do something else with the money.

The House Government Operations and Elections Policy Committee on Wednesday held the bill over for possible omnibus inclusion.

It would do four main things:

• require school districts use bond referendum money in its entirety exactly how it was laid out in district plans;
• remove the state guarantee that it’ll support local school district bonds if any portion of the bond is not spent the way it was described in the district’s plans;
• require a school district to post bond referendum information with a sample ballot; and
• require the bond question to state the name of the plan or plans being proposed by the district.

Bill proponents say it allows for flexibility in school district planning, but opponents of the measure vehemently disagreed.

Valerie Dosland, who testified on behalf of the Minnesota Association of School Administrators and the Minnesota Association of School Business Officials, said they oppose the bill because of its lack of flexibility for districts.

There are factors, such as construction costs, that go beyond a district’s control that impact the cost of a project after it has been approved by voters, Dosland added.

Grace Keliher, director of government relations with the Minnesota School Boards Association, expressed similar concerns, saying if the district got a good deal on a project it would require the district to go back to voters because the bill would require a district to spend the bond in its entirety. Having to go through this process could make school districts not look for savings so they don’t have to get approval again, she said.

Some members also raised questions about the lack of flexibility, noting sometimes district needs change.

Komarek argued the bill aims to provide protections to taxpayers when the “true premise” of a district’s project has changed, noting the bill gives “guardrails” for a project, while still allowing districts flexibility.

The companion, SF2605, sponsored by Sen. Karin Housley (R-St. Marys Point), is awaiting action by the Senate E-12 Policy Committee.