Complaints and controversy follow 179-178 vote
by Carrie Moritz and Garrick Moritz, Gazette
On Tuesday, May 11, the Garretson School District held an opt out election. Votes for the opt out narrowly won by a single vote, 179 to 178. However, some called foul, noting issues with the lack of election workers, no ballot stamp, and an unlocked ballot box.
Others were upset and complained they didn't know of the election, despite information being disseminated through social media, on the school website, multiple text messages to parents with students in the district and this newspaper (where it has received extensive coverage for the last three months).
Turnout equaled less than 30% of total eligible voters in the district, which is a common occurrence in Garretson elections when not a presidential election.
"When you're not in a crisis, it's hard to get people to get out and vote," said Superintendent Guy Johnson, referring to the turnout.
While he's grateful the school isn't in crisis mode, he did notice that interest in the issue was lower. In 2016, over 50% of eligible voters had come to voice their opinion at the polls.
At that time, programming reductions and staff lay-offs were a real possibility if the opt-out wasn't passed. Voters were mobilized, going door-to-door, placing signs in their lawns, and having public discussions.
In 2021, COVID-relief funds and the current opt-out have kept the General Fund in the black, though Johnson predicted the school will be in the same place within two years if the opt-out didn't continue. However, there were only 20 attendees at the opt-out meeting that was held in March, and very little voter mobilization.
Despite this, Johnson felt the school had done the best it could with getting out the word. They had posted video of the opt-out meeting on the school website and on their Facebook Page, and had an open-door policy with voters who had questions and concerns.
There is precedent for the vote being decided by very few votes. In the Garretson City Council Ward 2 run-off election held in 2019, the vote between Tom Godbey and Dwayne "Jake" Jacobson was decided by a vote of 22 to 19.
It wasn't just low turnout that had voters upset. At issue was the lack of poll workers during election day. Reports from voters were fielded by City Hall, the Minnehaha County Treasurer's Office, and the South Dakota Secretary of State throughout the day, as a minimum of three election workers were not found at the polling site.
At 10:00 a.m., only business manager Jacob Schweitzer was in the building when the Gazette checked in. Reporting to the Gazette noted there was a voter who entered the polling station to find no one at the table. Checking in later in the afternoon, the table was manned by school board member Ruth Sarar, Schweitzer, and Superintendent Johnson.
South Dakota Election Code calls for a "minimum of two precinct deputies and one precinct superintendent appointed by the school board." It also calls for a ballot stamp to be placed on the reverse side of the ballot and a ballot facsimile to be published in the legal publication within ten days prior to the election as well, neither of which occurred.
Superintendent Johnson stated the day after the election that he was not aware of the election codes, and School Board President Shannon Nordstrom said this was the first election the school had undertaken on its own without also holding a municipal election being held the same time.
However, according to Kea Warne of the Secretary of State's office, these oversights do not automatically invalidate the vote.
"It would have to be taken to court for a judge to rule on," she stated, meaning a lawsuit would have to be brought by a community member or a coalition of such.
Later that day after polls closed, Schweitzer relayed to the Gazette that the ballots had been counted by the election board at the polling place four times to ensure the count was not a mistake. The ballots will be canvassed by the school board at their next meeting, with the certification sent to the county auditor's office.
The single extra vote in affirmation means the opt-out will continue for the next five years at a maximum rate of $350,000 per year, but only if the school board deems the amount necessary. Nordstrom has predicted in the past that likely, very little of that maximum amount will be requested over the next year or two, but the school board wanted to have the option available, as the school is still over-spending its allotted state funding despite numerous cost-saving measures.
In 2016, the maximum opt-out amount voted on was $500,000. At that time, over 50% of eligible voters made their opinion known, with 472 voting for and 360 voting against, for a total of 832 votes.
When contacted for commentary about last week's election, Board President Shannon Nordstrom had this to say.
“The school board will proceed with the belief in the integrity of those who participated in the election and its results,” he said. “This is the first election we’ve run on our own, always before it was a joint election with another entity such as the city or a county wide general election.”
This is in fact, not the case. The 2016 opt out election was a standalone vote issue, just like this one. However, at the time that election was managed by former business manager Rod Fischer. That summer, Fischer was arrested and convicted on charges of sex crimes and subsequently fired by the district. The school board has been dealing with the collective mess he made of the office since that time.
This election is the first one to be directly managed by the district’s new business manager Jacob Schweitzer. Schweitzer is the third, and only the second full-time, business manager the school has had since that time.
“We will continue the process that is in place for canvassing the election, and at that time, the board will decide whether or not to validate the results,” said Nordstrom.
“Once we were made aware of the various issues on election day, we did act quickly to enact a response. I want to thank Rhonda Kirton, Ruth Sarar and Norinda Northrup who stepped up to fill shoes as election workers last minute. There were many frustrations that day, but it doesn’t forgo the processes that are in place. We will probably hold a special meeting to discuss and canvass the vote. We haven’t set a date and time for that meeting yet because we’re still trying to work out everyone’s schedules.
"We want to be completely transparent about all of this. The board could have passed this opt-out resolution without a public vote to affirm it, but we did not want to do that, and as I’ve said before I would not support that as long as I’m on the board. We want input from the public, and we want to give the public every opportunity to vote on issues that concern them. There is a reason our minutes are published and that we have a legally designated newspaper. There is a reason we have a website and all our documents are available for anyone to view. The information is there and it’s as available as we can make it.”
Expect to see more on this story in the near future in the Garretson Gazette.
