Elected officials defend their roles in charter school campaign

Some trying to hush government officials



ATLANTA — When Zell Miller wanted a lottery in 1992, the Demo­cra­tic governor traveled across Geor­gia to rally voter support.

Republican Gov. Sonny Perdue campaigned for a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage 12 years later. This year, Republican Gov. Nathan Deal and Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed, a Democrat, urged Georgians to approve a tax increase to raise billions for transportation projects.

Miller and Perdue were victorious. The transportation tax got hammered in metro Atlanta and much of the rest of Georgia. The common thread was the high-profile electioneering by leading elected officials.

It’s happening again amid a fierce battle over a constitutional amendment that would affirm the state’s authority to approve independent charter schools. But this time, lawsuits are involved.

Deal is among those who argue it’s a matter of offering more educational options. State Superintendent John Barge, along with many local superintendents and school board members, lead the opposition. They say the amendment would strip power from local school boards that now can approve or reject applications for charters and could siphon money from existing schools.

Separate groups who back the amendment have sued in Fulton and Gwin­nett counties, asking courts to block local school systems from any activity opposing the amendment. Georgia law generally restricts public officials and employees from using taxpayer money for blatant cam­paign activities. A 1981 state Su­preme Court ruling says spending “public money to influence the citizens and voters … contains within it the possibility of the corrupt use of influence.”
The question is how far that restriction extends: Do spending money on travel and spending time arguing a position amount to public expense?

Though they are on opposite sides, Barge and Deal stand beside their actions.

“When issues of public education arise, I believe it’s an expectation of those people who supported me (in the 2010 election) to keep them in­formed,” Barge said. “I felt it was im­portant for the people who put their confidence in me to know how I feel.”
Deal spokesman Brian Robinson said, “The governor hasn’t and won’t use official resources to ‘campaign’ on behalf of an issue or candidate on the ballot. But the governor is duty bound to tell Georgians where he stands on the most important issues facing the state.”

Glenn Delk, an attorney who represents the citizens group suing the Fulton County school system, said the law clearly intends to place a strict ban on electioneering of any kind. That, he said, includes anything from expressing an opinion in an official capacity to passing a resolution as a full board or allowing opposition to be discussed at an after-school faculty meeting on a campus.

Delk hasn’t gotten very far in court. A Fulton County judge denied a request to order Fulton schools to remove information about the amendment from the system Web site. Judge Wendy Shoob told Delk she in­terpreted the law as forbidding the use of taxpayer money on clear cam­paign expenses: advertising, con­sulting, voter turnout efforts. She ex­pressed skepticism about Delk’s view on elected officials’ public statements.

“So they can’t speak if they have a title?” she asked.

The Fulton and Gwinnett cases are still pending.

Delk pressured Barge into declaring the Education Department’s neutrality, removing documents about the amendment from the agency’s official Web site and soliciting from Attorney General Sam Olens an opinion about local school boards’ activities.

Authorities still have “their First Amendment right to express their personal opinions so long as they do not use public resources to do so,” Olens wrote.

Barge told local officials he would take no action against them. But Emmet Bondurant, an attorney who is advising the opposition groups, said Delk’s threats and Olens’ letter have had a chilling effect, making public officials reticent to do what Bondu­rant says the law clearly allows. He said there is no practical distinction between an elected official’s public role and their status as an individual.

“There is absolutely no prohibition against public officials speaking out on various issues that may come before the electorate,” he said.

Bondurant noted that local school boards have a constitutional mandate to act in support of education. A broad application of that provision, he said, would allow the activities that Delk says are illegal.

Bert Brantley, a consultant for the charter amendment’s proponents, said the debate should be about the merits of the policy proposal, adding that he has no problem with Barge expressing his opposition.

“I don’t think we should, at all, have elected officials who are elected in the political process then not be able to participate in the political process,” Brantley said.

He also advised the campaign in favor of the transportation tax and, before that, worked as Perdue’s spokesman. He noted that the governor is always accompanied by his state-paid security, whether he’s at an official function or a campaign event.

“This is a constant tension when you have these issues on the ballot,” Brant­ley said. “I think it’s just a matter of practicality.”



Wed, 11/22/2017 - 18:38

Rants and raves