School Board votes not to canvass Opt- Out Election, files for judicial relief. New Election to be held after judicial ruling!
The Garretson School Board held a special meeting on Thursday, May 20, 2021. At that time, the board voted unanimously not to canvass the Opt-Out special election that was held on May 11, 2021. This means there will be a new election on the Opt-Out Issue.
Prior to the start of the meeting, a conversation occurred regarding COVID-19 safety and the continued use of masks. Supt. Guy Johnson pointed out to the board that the school’s mandatory mask policy had expired, and that the CDC said everyone who’s been vaccinated can remove them for a meeting like this. Everyone around the table was happy to remove their masks. Supt. Johnson commented they’d had a staff meeting just that day sans masks, and it was good to see the faces of everyone once again.
Board members were grim as the meeting began. Aside from the representative of this newspaper there were no other visitors or guests at this meeting, and no public comments made to the board.
The first item on the agenda was to approve a new hire. Tina Reiter was hired as the school’s new REACH counselor at a salary of $43,100 for the coming school year. This is part of the Masonic Model programming that was mentioned in the previous meeting. This model is intended to help students' emotional and psychological well-being and enable them to catch up academically in this post-pandemic world.
The board then voted to enter into executive session to discuss communication from their legal counsel. The board spent approximately 40 minutes in executive session.
When they opened the doors for open session, they addressed the canvassing of the May 11th Opt-Out vote.
Board President Shannon Nordstrom pointed out that, though he had confidence in the election and its results, and in the integrity of the staff of the Garretson School District, he wanted to state that several irregularities were noted by the staff and by their legal counsel.
Board member Rachel Hanisch then made a motion that the May 11, 2021 Opt-Out vote not be canvassed. Board member Tony Martens seconded it. Since there was a motion and a second, Nordstrom called for discussion, and began it himself.
“I feel that this is a good motion,” he said. “Though I don’t doubt the election itself, or the integrity of anyone involved, there are too many procedural irregularities for us to ignore, many of which were pointed out in our officially designated newspaper.
"In my mind, there is no reason to leave the community in any doubt. If we adopt the motion not to canvass the results then we show transparency and respect for the process.
"The vote was so close, and because of that and because of these procedural irregularities, we’ll be doing our due diligence as the school board by not accepting it. From the beginning of this process we wanted our voters to be involved. We could have passed the opt out resolution without requiring a public vote, but we did not want that. We wanted our citizens to have their voices heard. With the problems we have noted, and as per the advice of our legal counsel, we must not canvass this vote. So, I am in favor of the motion, and we will hold a new election to decide the issue.”
The board voted unanimously on the motion.
Supt. Johnson, on behalf of the school administration, then requested permission to contact the school’s attorney and instruct him to seek judicial relief on this issue for the district.
In laymen’s terms, filing for judicial relief is a legal remedy for the school so that, post this election, the school will not face any legal penalties or be sued on this issue.
The motion to "direct district administration to request that the school district’s attorney seek appropriate judicial relief to allow the district to address procedural irregularities that took place during the May 11, 2021 Opt Out Election, and to place the district in a position to once again submit the question of an opt out to the voters at a future date," was passed unanimously.
Once a judge rules on the matter, then the school will begin the election process again.
After the meeting adjourned, Nordstrom had some questions for the Gazette editor, Garrick Moritz.
First, he queried about the wording of the story that had gone to print that day. Specifically, he asked about the report of the ballot box not being locked.
Moritz responded that the accusation that the ballot box was unlocked was only an allegation that was reported to the Gazette. Moritz stated he could personally attest that both times he personally inspected the polling place, the ballot box was padlocked, so he saw no substantiation for that allegation. Nordstrom also asked about a paragraph in the article about the positioning of board Member Ruth Sarar, Business Manager Jacob Schweitzer, and Supt. Guy Johnson being “at the table.” Moritz said that he saw both Sarar and Schweitzer at said table, but that Johnson sat apart and across from the two them along a row of chairs on the opposite side of the room.
Nordstrom asked if the word choice of the article might require scrutiny, to see if it gave an incorrect impression. Moritz agreed he would look over said article, and stated that his intention was not to misrepresent the facts or intentions of those involved. Indeed, on a re-read and reflection, word choice in both instances was poor. Nordstrom sympathized, saying he understood all too well the pressures of a tense situation and working under a close deadline.
As to when a new election will be held, that will have to be determined after a second circuit court judge makes a ruling.
Within ten minutes of the meeting's conclusion, the school released a statement via Facebook and text message to district patrons who had opted for those services. The document in its entirety can be located at the end of the article.
In short, the letter acknowledged that election procedures as laid out in South Dakota law were not followed, and that for these reasons the board has refused to canvass the special election.
One more item of note in this story. On the day of and after the special meeting, the Gazette spoke with a source in county government who wished to remain anonymous. This source revealed that there was also another irregularity that should be noted.
According to the source, the Auditor’s office had apparently been unaware of the election in the correct timeframe.
South Dakota law requires that anyone who wishes to vote in an election be registered two weeks or more before that election occurs. This source was certain that votes were cast by voters who did not qualify under those conditions, and that these irregularities were discovered by the new Minnehaha County Auditor Ben Kyte. Our source was extremely complementary of Auditor Kyte in the performance of his duties and was confident that if the school board had canvassed the election as valid, then Kyte would not have certified it.
The county does retain a pool of election workers on standby for any and all elections, and could be a resource used in the future by the school district if election workers are needed to conduct a new vote.
Though this process has been distressing, the proper checks and balances put in place to regulate our local governance have worked. Look to see more coverage on these events and issues in future articles in the Garretson Gazette.
Here is the full letter to the district constituents, released on May 20, 2021.
To the Constituents of the Garretson School District,
ON MAY 20, 2021 BY GUY JOHNSON
In 2016, our community supported the school district by affirming the school board’s resolution to opt-out in an election. At that time, over 50% of the registered voters in the district participated. Throughout the process, the district communicated that we believe the voice of the community is critical in an opt-out and made two promises to the community. First, that the district would only request enough tax revenue to maintain programming in the district, and second, that if the opt-out needed to be extended, the people in the community would have a chance to vote on whether to continue the opt-out or let it expire.
At the March 2021 school board meeting, the board adopted a resolution that included the provision for an election to take place on May 11, 2021. The legal process for an opt-out does not require the board to hold an election, but it was important to the board and administration that the election be included in the resolution to ensure that the voice of the community would be heard again, giving every voter in the district the chance to participate. We followed the protocol for an opt-out election, including posting notices in the district’s official newspaper, the Garretson Gazette. Two notices of the opt-out resolution were published on two separate occasions, and election / voter registration notices were also published twice as required by law.
Our goal all along has been to be transparent with the public and to answer any and all questions that our constituents had with respect to the district’s finances. We advertised and held a public meeting in our gymnasium that was also broadcast on the Alliance cable channel 230. For those who missed it, we also uploaded the video to YouTube and shared the links on our social media and website. We visited with civic groups and offered to come meet with any group that wanted us to come speak with them privately. All questions, whether asked at the public meeting, civic group meetings, or privately via email or phone call, were answered with honesty, openness and integrity.
On May 11, we were excited to hold the election at the American Legion in Garretson. Three hundred fifty-seven people cast their votes. Throughout the day, the ballot box remained secure, with a padlock holding it shut. The school’s business manager, Jacob Schweitzer, presided over the election, and remained present until the conclusion of the day. Ruth Sarar and Rhonda Kirton helped him at different times throughout the day. At the conclusion of the election, John Brinkman and Mr. Schweitzer counted the ballots in the American Legion hall four times as Ms. Sarar watched the process. At that time, the “yes” votes outnumbered the “no” votes 179 to 178, a margin of only one.
We feel very confident in the integrity of the people who played a role in the election and the community members who helped us with it. In hindsight, we made some procedural missteps in the election that are inconsistent with the requirements of the law. First, we did not have a three-person election board at the election from 7AM to 7PM. Second, we did not have the proper ballot stamp, and third, we did not follow the proper procedure for the use of provisional ballots. Provisional ballots are used in the instance where the information in the voter registry does not match the information on the driver’s license. For instance, provisional ballots are frequently used when a voter has recently moved within the district, so their address may not match what is in the registry. Our intent for the election was to provide a vehicle for the community to speak through their vote. These procedural errors have given reason to create doubt for some in the community and that is the last thing we want, especially with a margin this close. We want people to have confidence in the integrity of the process, and we did not help with that as we performed our first election with our current team.
Considering the totality of the circumstances, the board has exercised its reasoned judgment and chosen not to complete the canvass of the election results. Further, it has asked the administration to direct the school district’s attorney to seek appropriate judicial relief. This effort will enable the school district to address the procedural irregularities of the last election and place the school district in a position to once again submit the question of an opt-out to the voters. Our intent is to come back to the community at a later date with another election, as an opt-out is necessary for the school district to remain financially stable.
We want our community to know that we have the best interest of every student and the best interest of the community in mind as we move forward. We believe that integrity is important: in the schoolhouse, in the election process and most of all, personally, for each of us. While we may make mistakes, we intend to operate as openly as possible with our public, acknowledge the mistake and then figure out the best procedure to move forward. We believe that in light of the situation, this is the best course of action for the district and the community. We thank you for your continued understanding and support as we move forward.
Respectfully,
The Garretson School Board and Administration
Shannon Nordstrom, Board President
Kari Flanagan, Board Vice President
Rachel Hanish, Board Member
Tony Martens, Board Member
Ruth Sarar, Board Member
Guy Johnson, Superintendent
Jacob Schweitzer, Business Manager
