NewPage Shutting Kimberly Mill  |   Home  |   Captain Relieved After Carrier Fire

West Bend School Release Referendum Video

Ginny taped a promo video from the West Bend Schools and posted it.  She has this to say:

This is a promo video that was put together as a tool to use to push the school referendum of $130M. The School Board had the district’s attorney lend her approval, assuring us that the video is a portrayal of information and not an “advocacy” for the referendum.

I object.

But don’t take MY word for it.

Remember that a school district can’t legally advocate for a referendum.  What they CAN do is provide information.  Take a look at the video.  Is it informational or advocacy?

In my opinion, it is advocacy.

Posted by Owen at 2226 hrs
Politics + Politics - Wisconsin

1. Informational videos present information - they do not advocate for one position or another. This very clearly advocates for the referendum. You can’t watch it and draw any other opinion.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 31, 2008 at 0701 hrs
   
   
   

2. So what recourse is there against this?

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 31, 2008 at 0900 hrs
   
   
   

3. There is no need for recourse.  The script was given to the DA prior to filming and was given the OK.  It was determined that it is information and not advocacy.

   As a school board member I fully supported the getting an OK so that we could be in full compliance with the law.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 31, 2008 at 0942 hrs
   
   
   

4. Kris, I’m sorry but if one lawyer told me it was okay for me to speed through downtown I wouldn’t just take his word for it. You guys are placing yourself into a sticky situation if someone can prove that lawyer wrong…

   My feeling and INAL, is that it is an advocacy for the ref. Now as someone who has an interest in your community (paying taxes) I would like to know what recourse I have against this video.

   Jed can you comment?

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 31, 2008 at 1000 hrs
   
   
   

5. Kris - can’t you use your influence to get a better version posted on the distict website?  This “purse cam” version stinks!

   In my opinion,

   Reminds me of the saying that, “Opinions are like a-holes - everyone has one, and some stink more than others”

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 31, 2008 at 1026 hrs
   
   
   

6. I think the video is fine up until the very end - last two minutes or so - where they start with the testimonials regarding the positive effects of “investing” in the schools.  To me, that starts to toe the line.

   I can appreciate why the DA is letting it go.  Even that portion that I found most questionable still falls in a very grey area.  There’s certainly no express advocacy, but those testimonials at the end are practically everything just short of that.

   I doubt it will have much effect in the end.  Really, who is going to watch a seven-minute promotional video by a school district?  I doubt that this is going to crack the Netflix Top 10 in West Bend.

   Posted by Recess Supervisor on July 31, 2008 at 1050 hrs
   
   
   

7. It is advocacy and it is express.  With in the first two minutes the woman talking about the middle schools says, “we need to update our buildings.”  That is precisely the question for the voters and she just said how it should be answered. 

   Tom you can file a lawsuit seeking injunctive relief and mover the court for a temporary restraining order at the same time you file the complaint.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 31, 2008 at 1310 hrs
   
   
   

8. Thanks Joe,

   I won’t be in Wisconsin for a couple weeks hopefully someone (Ginny?) can take that up.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 31, 2008 at 1316 hrs
   
   
   

9. Joe, the question voters are presented with isn’t “do we need to update our buildings?”  It’s “are we willing to endorse the following spending increase to update our buildings?”  It may seem small, but there’s a huge legal difference there.

   The district is allowed to express perceived needs.  It can even produce videos to do it.  What it can’t do (pretty much the only thing it can’t do) is tell people how to vote on a referendum.  What the district is doing amounts to issue advocacy - thinly veiled, mind you.  I agree that they’re walking the line, but like I said, I can see why the DA reportedly signed off on it.

   Posted by Recess Supervisor on July 31, 2008 at 1409 hrs
   
   
   

10. Sorry about the poor quality of video.  First time.  I’ll work on it.

    Posted by GAMazy on July 31, 2008 at 1828 hrs
    
    
    

11. By the way, feel free to jump in and help any time, guys. 

    Someone want to check into Joe’s suggestion?

    Posted by GAMazy on July 31, 2008 at 1831 hrs
    
    
    

12. Some thoughts:
    1.  Who made this video?  What did it cost?  Was it part of the consultant’s fee?  By the time they spend $10 grand here and there and everywhere, we could build on or refurbish existing classrooms.
    2.  Can a person file a complaint with the Attorney General’s office and ask for an investigation?

    Posted by GAMazy on July 31, 2008 at 2042 hrs
    
    
    

13. I’d like an answer to that question too GAMazy… To file the complaint you have to do it in person at the courthouse I’m in Michigan so I can’t file it; but anyone else can.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 31, 2008 at 2123 hrs
    
    
    

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.