Report cites Brookline schools in email blitz

Campaign financing law at center of issue

Tucked inside various newsletters to parents in Brookline last spring were appeals from school administrators to support property tax hikes at the ballot box for the school budget, accompanied by warnings about devastating cuts if the votes failed: Increased class sizes, fewer electives, and the loss of personnel.

In some cases, the political campaigning could hardly be mistaken.

“The items on the ballot are very important and the decisions made through these votes have tremendous potential to impact schools,” one principal wrote. “I am hopeful that you’ll take the time you need to learn about what is at stake and VOTE!”

Brookline officials got their way at the ballot box, but repeatedly broke the state’s campaign finance law by sending out the emails in an attempt to influence the vote, according to a recently concluded investigation by the Office of Campaign and Political Finance.

In all, nine emails were distributed at various times by either Superintendent Linus Guillory or school principals in the weeks leading up to the May 2 vote.

“As a result of this review, [the agency] has determined that use of BPS staff time, computers, and email systems to distribute materials relative to a ballot question did not comply” with state law, William Campbell, director of the campaign finance office, wrote in a Nov. 28 letter to Brookline’s attorney.

The agency didn’t issue any penalties against Brookline, noting the school department cooperated with the investigation and requested training in advance of any future ballot questions. But to resolve the violations, the school department had to reimburse the town $400 in staff time used to put together the information in the emails, and tapped outside money.

The violations exemplify the fine line school officials must walk when seeking voter-approved tax hikes. State law allows superintendents to research and analyze the impact of ballot questions, and the state campaign finance office permits school districts to post such information on their websites,

which the public can access at their own discretion. Districts also can print a limited number of copies to distribute at public forums or hand out upon request.

But districts, like other government agencies, are prohibited from sending out such information in unsolicited emails or in traditional mass mailings.

“It feels like a very fine line to me,” said Thomas Scott, executive director of the Massachusetts Association of School Superintendents, noting he was surprised that including information about the ballot questions in routine newsletters parents signed up to receive violated state law.

Guillory said the school district accepts the investigation findings. He said he and other administrators didn’t realize they violated the law, noting state guidance allows such information about ballot questions to be shared on websites and at public forums.

“We were not aware that we could not use that same information and materials in unsolicited emails that we regularly send to our school community informing them of potential impact,” Guillory wrote in an email in response to Globe questions.

Brookline’s town administrator, however, sent a memo in March to department heads warning them against using town resources, including phones and computers, to advocate for ballot questions, according to a copy obtained by the Globe.

Several complaints filed by Brookline citizens with the town and the state agency prompted the investigation. Town voters at that time were facing two high-stakes questions pertaining to schools. One question sought to issue bonds for a new K-8 school, which was expected to cost more than $200 million. The other question sought permanent increases in the town’s tax rate to support town services, including an additional $7 million for the school department. Both measures passed.

The amount of information on the ballot questions varied among the nine emails, according to the campaign finance office investigation. Most focused on the tax increase for the budget. “Regardless of whether the email contained only a few sentences or was entirely focused on the impact of the question, however, the use of public resources to distribute unsolicited information relative to an election did not comply with the restrictions set forth” in state law, Campbell wrote in his letter, citing a court ruling that established boundaries for what government officials can or cannot do when sharing information about ballot questions.

In reimbursing the town $400, the school department relied on anonymous donations, according to a filing last month with the town clerk’s office.

Jason Tait, a spokesman for the state campaign finance office, said the $400 is not considered a contribution. Under state law, the names of those who donate to political campaigns are subject to disclosure.

“It was considered a payment to the town, not for purposes of supporting or opposing a ballot question but, rather, for purposes of making the town whole for what was deemed a violation,” he said.

Joslin Murphy, a former town attorney for Brookline who opposed the new school’s construction cost, was among those who filed a complaint.

“I am gratified that the [the state agency’s] determination agrees with and supports the complaints from residents that the campaign finance law and related regulations were violated when [school] administrators improperly used taxpayer funded resources to influence the election,” she said in an email in response to Globe questions.