Othello School District responds to filed PCD complaint

OTHELLO — The attorney for the Othello School District has issued a written statement on behalf of the Othello School District regarding the alleged violation for the misuse of public facilities to support an election campaign.

“The School District denies that any school official or employee misused school district facilities to support the election campaign of Mr. Tony Ashton,” wrote Paul E. Clay, the attorney, in a letter to the Public Disclosure Commission, the agency investigating the complaint. “The School District further denies other assertions made in the complaint.”

The complaint alleges that a former Othello school board member, running for school board in a different district, was allowed to film a campaign ad in the school district board room. It alleges that a then-sitting board member authorized the use and that he, as well as two other current district employees, were present at the time of the filming. The complainant said that he or she was unaware of other political groups or candidates getting the same treatment.

Clay said that “the school district has a long history of making its facilities available to community members and organizations.” The district also has policies in place that encourage such use. The letter attached a list of groups that had used the room in previous years. Among the names on the list are the Democrats of Adams County and the Adams County Republican Party.

“Consequently, not only is it normal and regular for the School District to allow use of its facilities by a wide variety of users, but it also is normal and regular for the School District to allow such use by organizations that assist campaigns for the election of persons and that promote or oppose ballot propositions,” Clay wrote. “The facility usage requested by Mr. Ashton occurred consistent with School District’s normal and regular procedure – that is, on an informal basis without a facility usage agreement. Mr. Ashton asked the School District Superintendent, Dr. Kenneth “Chris” Hurst, if he might use school facilities for a couple of hours during the day to film a promotional advertisement. Dr. Hurst was made aware that Mr. Ashton’s use of school facilities was related to a campaign by Mr. Ashton unrelated to the Othello School District. To ensure that such use was permissible, Dr. Hurst contacted legal counsel and reviewed the ‘PDC Guidelines for School Districts in Election Campaigns,’ – guidelines that are incorporated into School District Procedure 4400P. As the PDC is aware, those guidelines refer to use of school district meeting facilities and say this: ‘District meeting facilities, including audio visual equipment, may be used by campaign committees for activities on the same terms and conditions available to other community groups, subject to the provisions of the district’s policy.’ After consulting with legal counsel and reviewing the PDC guidelines, Dr. Hurst gave Mr. Ashton permission to use school facilities just as was done with others that sought the same usage.”

Clay also pointed out that Board Policy 4400, the policy used in the initial complaint had only been cited in part, not in its entirety.

Sean Bates, one of the complainants, said that even after reading the letter, he is still skeptical. He said that in the documentation that Clay provided, there were six different examples of times when the Democrats and Republicans used school district property for dinners, not campaign events.

“There were no instances of political campaigning,” Bates said. “I think it’s a faulty argument.”

The initial complaint also alleged that Hurst purposely blocked the view of a community member attempting to look into the boardroom during the filming because he knew the filming was not allowed.

“That assertion is not correct. First, the superintendent never saw Ms. Brodahl that day,” Clay wrote. “Instead, knowing that Mr. Ashton was using the room for filming, the superintendent closed both doors to the room at some point to minimize noise and distractions. Second, as already explained, the superintendent rightfully believed that Mr. Ashton’s use of school facilities was appropriate and, thus, he had no reason to hide Mr. Ashton’s use of the facilities from Ms. Brodahl. Therefore, the complaint’s assertion of malfeasance by the superintendent is baseless.”

The Public Disclosure Commission has not yet issued a ruling in this case.