Not only did District 5 lose another bond referendum this week, but now it’s fending off a charge from referendum opponent Rod Shealy Jr. that it made inappropriate use of public resources in the failed effort.
Here’s what Mr. Shealy — a political consultant who had been retained by Chapin-area opponents of the referendum — had to say in an e-mail that was copied to me yesterday:
Bill, as I understand it, the press release below was sent during school hours from a district computer and was also posted on the district Web site. My question is this: IN WHAT ALTERNATE UNIVERSE IS THIS EVEN THE SLIGHTEST BIT APPROPRIATE? Does this serve any purpose other than a purely political one? It’s campaigning on the taxpayers’ dime, and it is what they’ve been urged repeatedly not to do… part of the reason many people lose their faith in the district’s leadership.
I opted not to send this to you before the campaign so my intent would not be misconstrued… just wanted you to know where I was coming from.
(Maybe your editorial board, in its alacrity for criticizing those who do not agree with them on political issues, should focus on this type of stuff. think i’ll copy them on this email)Thanks,
Rod Jr.
Here’s the e-mail to which he referred:
Newspapers endorse bond referendum
IRMO—This week, editorial boards of two local newspapers endorsed the Lexington-Richland Five bond referendum, which will be held on Tuesday.
Rod Shealy, Sr., publisher of The New Irmo News, wrote in a front-page editorial of the November 1 edition of his newspaper, “I have generally opposed bond issues….This time, however, I will be voting ‘YES.’”
In addition, an editorial in The State on November 2 endorsed the referendum.
The State’s editorial incorrectly stated, “the owner of a home with an assessed value of $100,000 would pay an estimated $235.60 annually over 20 years to pay back [the] loan.”
In actuality, if the referendum is successful, the owner of a $100,000 home will pay an additional $39.60 per year, or a total of $792 over the course of 20 years.
Totally apart from the intergenerational drama going on here between the Shealys, we have the question of whether the side that Rod pere was on stepped out of line.
Mind you, Rod fils isn’t claiming the law was broken, although he clearly believes it wasn’t kosher. As he said to me in a follow-up:
… to be clear, my contention was not that it is illegal — although I do believe it is, or at least should be…
whether or not it is technically legal, it is inappropriate…
a majority of the voters in this district opposed this bond plan, which means the taxpayers of this district had resources for which they pay used in a political campaign against them…
Brad, this has been an issue between the school district and me going back several years… I’m the good guy on this one…Rod Jr.
The district’s response came before I had even read Rod’s first missive. Michelle Foster, the district’s "Community Services Specialist," sent me copies of an e-mail exchange between her and Cathy Hazelwood of the State Ethics Commission. Here’s the inquiry:
Ms. Hazelwood,
Buddy Price asked me to forward you the attached press release for review. We would like to clarify some misinformation that was printed in The State this morning by posting this press release on our district home page. If possible, we would also like to send it to our listserv, consisting of parents and community members.
Please let me know your opinion.
Many thanks,
Michelle Foster
Here’s the file Ms. Foster attached to her query. And here’s the terse response:
The news release is fine, so you can distribute it to whomever. Cathy
Folks, this hits me in a bit of a null space. Unlike most of my colleagues, I’ve always been sort of fuzzy and undecided about stuff like this, so I leave others to write about it. I’m more for doing the right thing, and so many ethics considerations seem to be about the appearance of morality, rather than the real thing. I can sympathize with the folks at the district, who saw the newspaper endorse their proposal while at the same time misrepresenting an important factual consideration. (The one thing I know for sure in all this shoulda woulda coulda is that we shoulda gotten the numbers straight the first time.)
At the same time, having our live-and-let-live State Ethics Commission say something is OK is almost, but not quite, enough to persuade me that it’s not OK at all.
So what do you think? Which is the greater sin — sending out an e-mail to set the record straight, or primly sitting on one’s hands and leaving voters in the dark?
Related Posts
A classic and continuing example of what happens when you put the fox in charge of the hen house:
Burocrats and politicians using tax payer funds and other resources to pursue and secure their own agendas.
A minor, but telling example, of just what is fundamentally wrong with the management and control of our public education system.
Brad –
Surely you know this is politics 101. Shealy’s (RJ) objection is a classic tactic. Accuse others to divert attention away from that which you are doing that is underhanded and inappropriate. As you know yourself, Shealy’s use of wrong information during the campaign pertaining to the tax impact is just one example of that. From what I understand, there are many examples of Shealy’s twisting, distorting and simply making up of the truth. He convinced the Vote No crowd to dispense with integrity during their campaign. It was a well-crafted, well financed (with out of state money) campaign.
The answer is an easy yes, the district did step out of bounds.
Both sides need to agree that we all support education in District 5, just disagree on how to get there. It’s like the school choice debate, one can truly support education and still support school choice, it doesn’t have to be one or the other.
After being bombarded with all the signs, letters, flyers, and paid newspaper advertising the Anti-Education group produced, combined with Mr. Shealy’s retainer, makes me wonder how much they spent to avoid a $39.00 tax increase.
Anti-education, Mr. Satterfield? Considering that a majority of Putting Students First members are school volunteers (several have been honored with Volunteer of the Year or School Partner Awards) how do you justify saying they are anti-education? Some are mentors.
Also, Mr. Satterfield, who would have truly faced a $39 increase. As I understand it, the tax increase would have been $39 per every $100,000 of assessed property value. Folks in Chapin live in $100,000 homes, Mr. Satterfield?
English 101- “The State” editorial of 11/2/07 stated that,” If District 5 voters give their OK to borrow $256.5 million, the owner of a home with an assessed value of $100,000 would pay an estimated $235.60 ANNUALLY over 20 years to pay back that loan”. Does anyone at the State know what “annually” means? It means that one would pay this amount yearly for debt service retirement for his $100,000 house.
Now for Math 101- The $235.60 INCLUDES the additional debt service charge of $39. This means then, that the $100,000 persons debt service tax bill would be made up of two components. $196.60 for his pre-referendum tax bill plus $39.00 had the referendum passed. Thus, his total ANNUAL debt service tax bill would have been exactly $235.60 ANNUALLY as stated in The State editorial.
The parents in lex-rich 5 want the people in their school area to pay. The retired person on fixed income can not afford to pay only $40.00 per $100,000 home, plus another $100.00 to furnish the schools, plus another $200.00 to hire new staff.That is a lot of per $100,000 .That is why we need a $5000.00 impact fee on every peice of property sold. Let the newcomers pay if they want good schools.
David Whetsell
President STOPTAX
http://www.stoptax.org
Lexington,SC
803-957-8694
The reason you “pro-education” people always lose elections is because y’all are the vicious ones. Y’all can’t have an honest debate, y’all have to go to the flamethrowing and namecalling.
If the present administration and board were acting “above Board”, they would have paid a little more attention to the citizens of District 5 when they very openly stated that they wanted the older schools brought up to date ( which should have been done long ago with 8% money) plus a vocational school for those young adults who do not choose to go on to further education. They need to have the skills to provide for their future also! Our facts have been accurate and that is what we stated all along in our brochures and statements at the Board Meetings. It seems like our elected board members have just forgotten who pays the bills!
Come on, Whetsell. District Five has a gigantic tax base, thanks to McMansions that pop up in the district on a daily basis.
And if you want it to be “newcomers,” that means practically everyone. The district is filled with people who have moved to the tony subdivisions that are all over the area between the Columbia city limits and Chapin. These newcomers are driving the economy.
For everyone who thinks people in the district don’t live in homes that are at least $100,000 are in a fantasy world. My father’s place (where I lived when I went to high school in District Five) was $139,000 in 1997, and it’s not even anything that spectacular – one floor, two bedrooms, two bathrooms. Compare that to the other seriously expensive houses in the area.
What’s such a shame is that District Five parents will shell out the cash to buy their kids brand-new Mustangs and BMWs (just check the Dutch Fork parking lot), but can’t seem to pony up the cash for education.
I believe that it is the right of each person to use their money in they way that is right for them! This is AMERICA – A CAPITALISTIC COUNTRY- and what that means is we have the right to become successful if we choose, and that includes rejection of a “blown up” education plan for buildings that are not needed! Check the enrollment for this year compared with last year and you will know the facts!
well i am a student in the richland lexington district 5 and a student at chapin high school and the bond says that chapin high will get a new gym with stage, we got a new gym around 5 years ago, and the cafeteria was just done around 1 year ago and they screwed up, but we dont need a new cafeteria, and i agree us chapin people are rich, new cars, and have mommy and daddy flip the bill for everything, but that is only for the lake people!