Guest Column–Heather Disselkoen: A Little Bit of Self-Regulation Goes a Long Way

What role does public opinion play in public policy? A big one.  When the public perceives a power granted to government has been abused, the public can address that imbalance by advocating legislative bodies for “statutory limits” to return balance between the interests of government and the People.

Case in point, Idaho HB574.  This legislation was signed into law on 03/18/24 after passing the House on 02/26/24 and the Senate on 03/13/24. A WIN for the public!

P.A.G.E. advocated for better transparency prior to the November 2023 bond election and for HB574.  This bill simply adds clarity and improves transparency by requiring bond ballots/official statements include a statement identifying the year state tax relief funds will retire (if these funds are used in the ballots/statements), and it precludes a ballot question or official statement from including any information regarding state tax relief funds unless a specific dollar amount of such funding is guaranteed to the taxing district.

As described by Senator Harris to the Senate body, HB574 is a “simple truth-on-the-ballot bill.” It was in direct response to a couple of school districts (including SD25) offering less-than-fully-transparent bond ballot language last fall regarding taxpayer relief funds.

Obviously, we know why they did it and that their legal counsel approved it. The 01/30/24 Idaho Education News article “In Wake of Nixed Levy, Idaho Falls Next Move is Complicated” states “Hawley Troxell counseled Pocatello/Chubbuck on that failed bond attempt, and Miller acknowledged in his presentation that the messaging “arguably backfired.”   “Better view now is to not refer to HB 292 funds on the Ballot at all,” Miller’s presentation said. “Net … tax burden increases with a bond so be up front and say so.”  Miller advised trustees to keep ballot language to the required minimum.”

In the 03/13/24 Senate debate, Senator Ricks rightly stated “School Boards do hire attorneys to help them with crafting the language – that’s put on the bonds to make it so it’s easier to pass and unless we put particular guidance on what that language is going to be . . .  Then, you will see, in my opinion, some corners cut and make it a little more ambiguous . . . “

During the 03/06/24 Senate State Affairs meeting [in response to the Idaho School Board Association’s (ISBA) testimony opposed to HB574] Senator Anthon stated: “So, I’m just thinkin a lot here.  And, ya know one thing I’ve learned in the legislature is. . . a little bit of self-regulation goes a long way.  And, what I’ve just heard you say, I think, is that there’s an understanding on the school district level that there are all these variables, and it does affect how the money rolls in.  But then I look at the ballot language that some of these school districts have used and it doesn’t say that.  It says we’re gonna get this money every year.  And that’s where . . . that little regula. . . if there’d just been a little more awareness, we wouldn’t be here today.  Because why couldn’t they say, on the ballot, look, it  – under current law it’s anticipated we’re gonna get this much every year although it’s not guaranteed.  That, that would meet the requirements of this bill. It’d be absolutely transparent and it’d be accurate.”

HB574 now REQUIRES language that enables the public to clearly understand the temporary nature and/or duration of tax relief funds, and to have guaranteed numbers upon which to base decisions. The district is NOT restricted from discussing any tax relief dollars, they simply cannot use “legal” language with qualifiers regarding non-guaranteed funds in bond ballot language or in other official statements. This ensures the public knows actual cost should taxpayer relief cease during the repayment term of the bond.

Still, some opposed this simple transparency bill.  Are you surprised? In the Senate State Affairs hearing, an ISBA representative testified against it and a SD25 representative expressed concerns with the bill. Interestingly, SD25 was the ONLY Idaho school district to verbally testify in committee with concerns. They even rallied a local community organization to oppose the bill.  And, three local legislative representatives also voted against the bill: Representatives Garner (28) and Roberts (29) and Senator Ruchti (29).

Why the opposition?  Some reasons given included: it hamstrings districts; they won’t be able to talk about taxpayer relief and how it fits into the context of the bonds (not true); and the legislature is placing too many requirements and detailed rules on school district bond language.

Apparently, it’s too difficult to be straightforward and factual with bond language even though paid legal counsel drafts it.  This legislation is not burdensome, it’s simple.  It requires an 11-word sentence be added to bond ballot language if state guaranteed taxpayer relief funds are included on the ballot or within official statements. Their real opposition (not verbalized) is that the legislation restricts the “marketing” of bonds to the public based on temporary, promised, but not-guaranteed taxpayer relief funds.

Actions speak louder than words. Some good strides have been made toward improving communication that seeks to re-establish trust with the public. Unfortunately, not all district representatives may agree. Their behind-the-scenes opposition to a simple transparency bill contradicts a desire to rebuild trust and demonstrate their respect for public concerns.  Remember the district commitment to “visible learning”?  When did they last ask themselves, “What did we learn today?”  It’s no secret the district’s approach to the bond angered and alienated voters.  Recent articles appear to be fanning the flames (no pun intended) rather than rallying support.  Now that they (along with another district) essentially were called out for mishandling 2023 bond ballot language, some persist with a defend-and-deflect attitude. At some point, there needs to be acknowledgement that we wouldn’t be here today if a little bit of self-regulation had been practiced. That applies to more than just HB574.