Home Opinion Editorials Flier lacks one key detail
Flier lacks one key detail
The flier that recently arrived in local mailboxes, bearing the headline “Meet your 5J School Board members,” probably confused more than a few recipients.
It had us a bit perplexed, at least initially.
Maybe it was the drawing of an archetypal school, complete with a belfry, that led us to believe the document was an official publication of the Baker School District.
The pamphlet certainly resembled, and more than superficially, other correspondence the district has mailed to its patrons in recent years.
Turns out we were mistaken.
School Board Chair Lynne Burroughs, who along with board member Mark Henderson is featured in the flier (don’t be misled by that “meet your board members” — you only really meet two of the five), said she produced and paid for the publication.
Burroughs told the Herald that her three sons donated $2,000 for the project.
Trouble is, nothing in the pamphlet suggests that it was created completely independent of the school district.
It would be quite reasonable, in fact, for a patron to assume that either tax dollars, or school district employees’ time, or publicly owned equipment, or all three, were used to produce the flier.
A simple explanatory paragraph noting that the district was not involved in the publication, and that the opinions expressed were those of Burroughs and Henderson and not the board as a whole or the school district, would have answered those questions — indeed, would have largely prevented them from being asked.
The absence of such an explanation is unfortunate because some of the content in the pamphlet should not be associated, even mistakenly, with a public school district.
Burroughs, for instance, contends that board member Kyle Knight, whose censuring by the board this spring prompted the current campaign to try to recall Burroughs and Henderson, has broken state labor and ethics laws, and violated no fewer than four amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
Were this cavalcade of claims completely true, we would think Knight would be facing more serious consequences than his current censure status.
Burroughs and Henderson both denied to the Herald that the pamphlet’s purpose is to convince voters not to back the recall campaign.
Burroughs said her goal was to explain why she supported the censure of Knight.
Henderson said he was responding to questions from patrons about what his goals are for the district.
We don’t doubt the veracity of either statement.
But it’s silly for the two to argue that the flier has nothing to do with the recall.
In the second paragraph of Burroughs’ statement she notes that she is “enduring a second attack by Kyle Knight to recall me...”
Henderson writes: “Quit playing politics” and urges patrons to “consider carefully the effect your signature and vote may have...”
The “signature” in question obviously refers to the petition sheets being circulated by proponents seeking to put a recall on the ballot.
We have yet to receive a satisfactory answer from the Oregon Elections Divisions about whether Burroughs or Henderson needs to form a political committee and keep track of monetary donations and expenditures related to the flier.
But even if such filings aren’t legally required, the pair have an obligation to their constituents to explain explicitly when they are acting as individual board members — which of course is their right — and when they are representing not only themselves but the school board, and district, as well.