SWC 833's November 3, 2015 Bond/Levy Referendum Info

South Washington County School District ISD833 has 3 questions on the Nov. 3, 2015 election ballot - an operating levy for $525 per student and two bond questions totaling $142.5 million. Voters should get informed on these questions. This year, there are groups that are promoting the referendum's passage and opposing the referendum. This is good news for voters as it means they have an opportunity to hear both the pros and the cons of the referendum and can be fully educated on the issues.

The South Washington County Bulletin newspaper has published an article about the referendum and the two campaign committees.

For more information South Washington County District 833 residents can visit https://www.facebook.com/VoteYes833 (pro-referendum) or https://www.facebook.com/SWC4P (opposing the referendum).

District 833 is also hosting informational meetings: 

Superintendent Keith Jacobus and other administrators are hosting a series of “community conversations” about the ballot measures. The events are set for 6:30 p.m. at Park High School lecture hall Sept. 29, Oct. 13 and 27; 6:30 p.m. at Woodbury High School Sept. 23, Oct. 7 and 21; and 10 a.m. at the District Service Center Board Room Sept. 17, Oct. 1 and Oct. 22.

The Unintended Consequences of Mandatory Voting

During a speech on Wednesday, March 18, 2015, President Obama suggested that mandatory voting 

“...would be transformative if everybody voted,” Mr. Obama said during a town-hall event in Cleveland. “That would counteract [campaign] money more than anything. If everybody voted, then it would completely change the political map in this country.” (Washington Times)

Other than the fact that, as Senator Rubio has pointed out, mandatory voting flies in the face of First Amendment Rights - Freedom of Speech includes choosing to NOT go to the polls - it would seem that our leader hasn't really thought this idea through.  Perhaps he was channeling Joe Biden and forgot to engage his inner censor that day?  One way in which Obama is correct is the idea that mandatory voting would, in fact, "completely change the political map in this country" due to the following reasons:

1. Voter ID.  The push for Voter ID has been attacked for years by democrats claiming that requiring voters to have a state-issued identification card is disenfranchising to the poor, minorities, etc.  If the state were to start requiring people to vote, there would have to be a system in place to track whether the people were following the law or not - hello, Voter ID.  Sorry, Dems, but your policy of "vote early, vote often" would die with this measure as would all the dead/illegal/felon votes that are utilized in virtually every major election now days. (How else does one explain the 119% voter turn-out in Madison, Wisconsin last time around?)

2.  GOTV efforts would die.  No longer would campaigns need to hire all those interns to call every eligible voter, no more GOTV music concerts from left-leaning celebrities, no more vans pulling into homeless shelters to get people to the polls - all would be unnecessary if voting were required and not a privilege.  How would all those community activists be trained without the "grass-roots" GOTV experiences?  Would they be retrained as IRS agents instead? If voting was mandatory, obviously there would have to be a punishment for not voting in place - perhaps a "fee" like the Obamacare tax penalty? So all those lost little democrat activists could just go straight to working for big government right out of the chute instead.  Call it a "jobs program."

3.  Unlike what Obama claims as an impetus for the idea, campaign money would flow even more freely and wildly - if there's roughly 200 million eligible voters in the USA and all those voters are required to vote, it would seem to reason that even more money would be pumped into the campaigns, not less, since those candidates would have to work even harder to make sure that all their potential constituents knew their names.  The flipside of this would also be the potential for the minor parties - i.e. Libertarian, Independence, Green, etc. to grow in power.  If one leans libertarian but feels that since it is not a party with a lick of power, one typically will vote for either a GOP or Democrat candidate that most closely aligns with one's own values, right?  However, if EVERYONE has to vote, than perhaps one of the unintended consequences would be that more people would vote with their "true party" and not just with the big two parties currently in power.

4. More Americans consider themselves "Conservative" than "Liberal." This could also cause another unintended consequence: 38% of Americans call themselves "Conservative" versus only 23% calling themselves "Liberal."  So, if every eligible voter in the USA were required to vote, how would that swing the political landscape as we know it?  Certainly it would most likely mean that President Obama himself would probably not have been elected President, especially considering the potential power of the smaller political parties to draw voters away from either of the major party candidates.  This, of course, is something we could never know for sure, but the thought is interesting.

5.  Imagine the impact that mandatory voting would have on local elections.  In South Washington County in 2013 only about 10,000 out of the 65,000 eligible voters voted in the school board and levy referendum election.  There are school board members who were elected with fewer than 3000 votes overseeing nearly a quarter of a billion dollar school district budget.  (There's also one who was appointed and not even elected, but I digress...) Those 10,000 voters passed two of the three levies on the ballot - but the ones which passed did not pass with a large margin.  One of the unintended consequences of Obama's suggestion of mandatory voting could be the defeat of levy referendums and teachers' unions.  No longer would elections held with polling places in schools swing toward the unions' and district administrations' favor.  Whatever would they do if that happened?

With this White House, the mere fact that Obama suggested mandatory voting is a bit scary (though Josh Earnest has since walked back Obama's statements) for those of us who have not enjoyed the past six years due to the massive rights infringements (Obamacare/NSA/Net Neutrality/etc.) inflicted on freedom-loving Americans.  It would seem that the next step, in Obama's little world anyway, would be to require voting of the "right" person as well - the person of the establishment's choosing, not of our own.

Voting is a privilege and the American people should be able to choose whether they want to join in on elections or not.  Mandating voting is only the first step before only offering one option on a ballot.


Updated March 20, 2015 3:09pm

An Open Letter to the SWC 833 School Board

Dear Board Members,

We the people elected you to be our voices in the district.  We elected you to stand tall and strong for our kids and be good stewards of the taxes we pay to fund the schools.  We elected you to question, probe, research - whatever it takes for you to understand exactly what your employee, Superintendent Jacobus, and his (mostly due to resignations) brand new cabinet, are trying to convince you to approve.  You are the leaders of this situation.  As such, we the people expect you to do your due diligence when deciding on what should be included in $8 million in cuts from the budget. 

2015-2016 Recommended Budget Reductions and Potential Impacts  

We also expect you to ask why exactly our fund balance has dropped so drastically since Dr. Jacobus has been Superintendent - after all, it was he who introduced the "Budget Matrix" to the district,

"2014-2015 Service Level Matrix"

and eliminated the line item budget process - it was you (or your predecessors) who approved doing so.  We the people respectfully request the return of the line item budget as the Budget Matrix is confusing and difficult to read and understand.  It also muddles the numbers - grouping them together so that the real picture is like a Faux Monet: pretty from a distance but up close all muddled and confusing, only now, the picture isn't pretty no matter how far away one stands.

Furthermore, we the people request that the current budget cuts be scrapped and the process begin again - with the people, not just the administration - Dr. Jacobus, his Cabinet and school principals - involved and with using a line item budget so that every expense has a cost directly connected to it.  No more generalities.  Please show us EXACTLY how much is being spent on each item.  Dr. Jacobus and Mr. Kath have claimed that the Budget Matrix is great for the district because it removes emotion from the process.  We the people disagree: It removes the specifics and allows expenses to be hidden within the formulas.  True transparency would dictate that a line item budget be used for this process, not general amounts with no alternatives given.
We the people believe that schools should be fiscally responsible and good stewards of taxpayer money; however, we also believe that cutting Special Education, Reading Recovery, Elementary Band, Orchestra and World Language and also increasing class sizes are not good cuts; it would seem that those cuts were chosen to inflict the most pain on the people of the district to really demonstrate what "dire" straights the district leaders have put the district into. 

Board Members, please insist that Dr. Jacobus and his lean cabinet go back to the drawing board and rethink the proposed cuts.  Please stand up for the children of the district - that is your job - and insist that increasing class sizes is not an option, that cutting special ed and reading recovery are unacceptable and that band and orchestra are important and should not be the sacrificial lambs of these cuts.  Board Members, please do your jobs and research the options, ask for the line item budget and insist that the administration provide it to you if they want anything approved.  You have the power - you are the leaders of this situation - USE YOUR AUTHORITY and SPEAK UP FOR THE CHILDREN OF THE DISTRICT. 

Sincerely,

We The People

Community Members: click here to give the administration your feedback re: the budget cuts.

Call your Board Members:
School Board Contact Info:

Kath, Ron

School Board Chair

651-769-0291

rkath@sowashco.k12.mn.us

Schwartz, Katie

School Board Clerk

651-347-7656

kschwart5@sowashco.k12.mn.us

Johnson, Laurie

School Board Director

651-387-0427

ljohnson1@sowashco.k12.mn.us

McElwee-Stevens, Kathleen

School Board Director

651-459-5411

kmcelwee@sowashco.k12.mn.us

Witte, Michelle

School Board Director

651-402-3184

mwitte@sowashco.k12.mn.us

Van Leer, Sharon

School Board Treasurer

651-202-3848

svanleer@sowashco.k12.mn.us

Brunnette, Tracy

School Board Vice-Chair

651-321-8449

tbrunnet@sowashco.k12.mn.us

Updated 2/12/15 2:53pm

Minnesota School Districts Fear Losing Taxpayer Funds to Promote a Referendum

Why would DFL members of a government committee be interested in shutting down the testimony of a stay-at-home mom?  Could it be that school districts across Minnesota have reason to fear the taxpayers for the "education" they supposedly provide to students? 

On February 3, 2015, a bill was introduced into the Government Operation and Election Committee by Representative Glenn Gruenhagen that would prohibit public funds to promote or defeat a ballot question.  Sounds like common sense to me but, apparently, school districts don’t like the odds unless they outspend the voters who have opposing viewpoints.  Doesn’t seem like a fair fight when the money they use to push a referendum down our throat is money they received from us.  

 

Word of my testimony must have reached the South WashingtonCounty School District because former school board member, Jim Gelbmann, made an appearance.  While I realize the Jim has a job at the MN State Capitol, I found it interesting that he would choose to attend this particular hearing.  After all, his spotty attendance as a school board member was a contributing factor to his resignation in 2014.

Apparently, this bill is bringing out some powerful opponents.  An expert in opposition to HF208  rushed to the microphone after Rep. Gruenhagen introduced the bill. This so called expert stated that the bill was for state ballot questions only and excluded local ballot questions like school referendums.  He implied that taxpayers who took time off from work to give testimony  in favor of the bill  could pack their bags and go home. 

 

Attorney Erick Kaardal of Mohrman, Kaardal & Erickson was quick to provide his professional opinion as to why HF208 did include school referendums and local elections. Kaardal is a defender of citizens in their fight against big government and has made hundreds of appearances on behalf of his clients in federal and state courts.  I am relieved that he is on our side.

Don Huizenga a taxpayer from the Anoka-Hennepin County School District, was also present to offer his support of HF208.

Not easily dissuaded, I made my way to the microphone despite the objections to my testimony by DFL Representatives Michael Nelson and Carolyn Laine.  After what seemed like constant interruptions, I  told  the committee that two stay-at-home moms are now being charged up to $48 per hour by South Washington County Schools for some data requests.  This gave me the opportunity to speak on behalf of the taxpayers of Woodbury, Cottage Grove, St. Paul Park and Newport who are appalled that their tax dollars are used to support a positive outcome for referendum campaigns.

My testimony to the committee is as follows:

Testimony in Support of HF208

 

Like most Minnesotans, I support prohibiting public officials from using public funds or resources to promote or defeat any ballot initiative.  It is crucial that school districts stop using taxpayer dollars to assure a positive outcome for referendum campaigns.  It leaves taxpayers and voters disadvantaged should they have an opposing viewpoint.

In 2013, South Washington County School Principal, Julie Nielson, was pulled off of her job at Middleton Elementary to aid the district in promoting the referendum.   This necessitated the hiring of a substitute principal to fill her position.  Therefore, taxpayers were funding both Ms. Nielson, whose salary for 2013 was $106,686, and the substitute principal whose salary remains a mystery. 

Emails from Ms. Nielson were sent to all legislative representatives in the South Washington County district.  This email provides the proof necessary to substantiate the claim that Ms. Nielson was, indeed, placed on special assignment to support the 2013 referendum campaign:

Hi  ---------: This is Julie Nielson wanting to connect with you to set up a one hour meeting time with our Superintendent.  I am on special assignment to start the year working on the district's referendum campaign and am in charge of all details surrounding getting accurate information out.  Dr. Jacobus has requested time to meet with each legislator individually.  I am hoping that you might be able to find time in the next 3-4 weeks to schedule a coffee, breakfast, lunch, or any time in between with Dr. Jacobus.  Feel free to send back a couple of dates/times that work for you and I will check his calendar.  If it is easier to give me a call, I can be reached at ------.  Thank you for your support and I look forward to hearing from you.  

As a taxpayer, I find this waste appalling.  Our District is now facing a budget shortfall of $8.5 million this academic school year.  Proposed cuts include the elimination of the elementary music program and a reduction in school nursing staff.   To add insult to injury, the district will be asking for over $180 million from taxpayers in the fall.  Our children are being short-changed and taxpayers overburdened.

~Updated 7:20am 2/4/15~AMB

Temporary Home of MNHockeyMama.com

Due to unfortunate malware attacks on MNHockeyMama.com, this site will be the "new" temporary home until the bugs and viruses get worked out on the official domain.

However, since there are so many issues and events occurring in MNHockeymama's World right now, it seemed a shame to allow some malware to shut down MNHockeymama's voice completely.  So.....

We're BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACK.

Get ready...

UPDATED Could "MNTruth" Be A Prominent School District Volunteer?? UPDATED

Last spring, a blog was developed to attempt to smear me, Andrea Mayer-Bruestle, because there are people in the community who do not like the fact that I choose to hold School District 833 accountable for its actions.  At the time, I was not sure whom actually was behind the blog, since the person administrating it was so adept at hiding his/her identity - a real WordPress Pro.  However, that person may have finally, I believe, revealed herself today on Facebook.

First, let me show you the slander blog:  www.mntruth.wordpress.com:

Just kidding - I won't waste my time and space filling it up with that drivel. Feel free to click the link above to see what was said about me.   Also feel free to make comments as you see fit. In any case, MNTruth got a lot of information wrong, like the name of my husband isn't John (if you know me, you know him, so sorry, MNTruth, you don't know me at all).  He is a very hard-working guy and he does earn an honest living - working his butt off in all weather, maintaining an important part of what keeps our country running, working with something that everyone uses every day. He's all blue collar and I'm proud of him.  

Anyway, the last post MNTruth made was sometime in early May, about the same time MNTruth decided to post a few comments on my blogs: 

Yes, I did remove names from the comments MNTruth left for me.  As I said in my "Not Going Anywhere" post, it is my right as a private citizen journalist to edit what is on my blog page.  Again, you'll notice, the comments here were about smearing me, my family and my friends.  

About a week after the last comments posted on this page, a new website started up called www.unitedfor833.org.  The "About" on this website is eerily similar to the "About" on "MNTruth":

The interesting part about this is the list of names and the fact that the writer says the Unitedfor833.org was built under the advisement of the South Washington County District 833 administration, specifically, Dr. Keith Jacobus.  

Things calmed down for a while, until this fall when I started reporting on the school board race and levy campaign of District 833.  I have friends who are running for school board: Susan Richardson and Leilani Holmstadt and Molly Lutz.  When they have asked for help with their campaign, I've helped: I set up Susan's Facebook page and the Facebook meet and greet event invitation.  I have their signs in my yard.  I've door-knocked with Susan once and helped with a lit drop with a group of volunteers today. Leilani Holmstadt and Susan are sharing expenses, so Leilani's info is on the lit I've helped to drop; otherwise, I've done nothing else with her campaign. I have done nothing with Molly Lutz's campaign - she is someone I've known since the first time the Spanish Immersion parents tried to grab a neighborhood school several years ago.  I support her campaign as a citizen, but I haven't volunteered for her.  My focus has been mainly on watching all the candidates' campaigns and the levy campaign by the 833 Yes Yes Yes group and the school district's information re the levy.  

Apparently, the people I've been watching and reporting on are not too happy about having their activities reported.  Apparently, there are people who believe that the taxpayers should just cough up money any time the school district tells them the sky is going to fall if they don't.  And apparently, "MNTruth" may be one of those people. 

As I said at the beginning, I've had a feeling about the identity of "MNTruth", but it was more of a gut feeling.  Until today.  Today, I believe "MNTruth" decided to step onto the East Metro Tea Party page and personally attack me.  I am an administrator of the EMTP Facebook page and one of the group's organizers because I firmly believe in the Tea Party ideals: Fiscal Responsibility, Free Markets and a Constitutional Limited Government.  I am a ("small l") libertarian, so the Tea Party is a great fit.  Anyway, today a person named "Jim Woodbury" decided to start making the following comments on a variety of posts on our FB page.  Due to the fact that "Jim Woodbury" referenced the comments made on this blog by "MNTruth" and the suspicion I've had about whom was behind "MNTruth" I responded to the comments by calling the person by the name I believed her to be:  Winnie Williams.  

Please note that the person posing as Jim Woodbury failed to address the fact that I responded to him/her as "Winnie." Why not?  If it wasn't Winnie, why wouldn't s/he say so? 

As you can see by the screen shots, "Jim Woodbury" persisted in attacking me.  Facebook has an anti-fake account policy, so "Jim Woodbury" was reported as such.  It wasn't long before "Jim Woodbury" was no longer available.  Knowing that Facebook will remove multiple pages using the same IP address, I checked to see if Winnie Williams' personal Facebook page was available.  This is what showed up:

So, one can only surmise that either Winnie Williams has removed her own page, or it was removed by Facebook when Facebook removed the fake "Jim Woodbury" page.  In my opinion, Winnie Williams most likely is the person who was behind the "Jim Woodbury" and "MNTruth" blog and the person posting nasty comments on my blog. I not only believe this because her personal Facebook page disappeared with the Jim Woodbury page, but also because there are very few people who know the story behind the edited comments from last May - a few select friends and whoever it was posting the comments.  The fact that Jim Woodbury referenced those comments were exactly why I suspected it was the same blogger as MNTruth. Also, Winnie herself references her WordPress and/or software expertise in a variety of places:

http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=44996603&locale=en_US&trk=tyah2&trkInfo=tas%3AWinnie%20Will%2Cidx%3A1-1-1

http://unitedfor833.org/2013/06/20/833-travel-budget/?doing_wp_cron=1383434565.1833100318908691406250

Winnie Williams is also the co-Chair of the SWC 833 Yes Yes Yes levy campaign, and on a variety of district committees. 

The question is this:  What is really going on with the school district that would make an otherwise seemingly mellow person turn so vicious when the school district and/or levy campaign are held accountable for their actions and/or decisions?  What is Winnie Williams (if it is her behind these attacks and MNTruth) and the others, (a few of whom seem to be out stealing signs, several of Susan's have gone missing, one today in broad daylight, and attempting to intimidate other candidates and their supporters) trying to protect by their actions?  Do they know things the average citizen doesn't know about the plans the district really has for the levy referendum money?  Or are these folks working at the behest of other people?  Like unions, political organizations or people within the district itself?  Why would my little blog cause so much uproar that they would need to attack me?  As MNTruth said, I'm just a stay-at-home mom with an "average education." 

One last point: On the MNTruth blog, you will notice photos of a family - those are my kids.  That is my family.  MNTruth aka (I believe) Winnie Williams, posted my family photos while attempting to smear me.  If she is MNTruth, this is the person running the 833 Yes Yes Yes campaign.  But you know, she cares about the children...

So that wasn't the last point.  Here is the REAL last point.  Apparently, the Tea Party site wasn't the only place the person posing as Jim Woodbury went today, only below the person is only "Anonymous," but you get the point:

UPDATE

Apparently, whomever was behind the Anonymous comments above, was also busy on The Woodbury Patch today, too.  Funny how the person decided to use  my middle-maiden name: 

And, BTW: The "Britt Hanson" comment is slander; I may be looking for an attorney soon.

UPDATE:

"Jim Woodbury" and Winnie Williams' Facebook pages were re-instated by Facebook sometime on Saturday evening. 

Updated 12:01pm November 4, 2013

Levy Vote Yes Committee Campaign Violations Part II

It turns out that sometime after 3:15 on Friday, October 25, 2013, Committee for VOTE's co-Treasurer, Mary Scholz dashed into the South Washington County District Service Center and delivered the 10-day Campaign Finance Report.  After two emails to SWC833's Communications Director, Barb Brown, the CFR was emailed to me late Tuesday morning.

I also received notice from the Administrative Law Judge who is currently reviewing the case to decide if enough evidence has been given to move the matter to a Probable Cause hearing (via telephone).  Due to the fact that Committee for Vote miraculously filed the CFR at the last minute on Friday,  I have moved to withdraw two charges against Committee for Vote:

 "1.       Failure to file a Campaign Finance Report ten days prior to the general election. (211A.02)2.       Failure to report additional expenditures: print and online advertising (WoodburyPatch.com, Woodbury Bulletin, South Washington County Bulletin newspapers and WoodburyBulletin.com): approximate cost $1440.00.  (211A.02)"

However, I stand by the other charges.

A few items to note on the 10 Day report:

It would seem that Mary Scholz once again missed an important line - "Project Title or Description" is left blank.  Perhaps that was intentional because Ms. Scholz was confused about exactly what she reporting in this section (it's starting to look like Ms. Scholz wasn't given any training on CFRs)?  It looks like she may have been using this area to itemize donations over $100, but it's hard to tell for sure: "Name and Address of Recipient" leads one to believe that the Committee for Vote spent $2500 for Advertising with Kraus Anderson and $2500 for Promotion with the Principals Association.  However, given the amount of money listed in the "Contributions" section, it is more likely that these two organizations would have donated to Committee for Vote and Mary Scholz, in her hurry to file before the 4:30pm close of the DSC on Friday, October 25, 2013, failed to properly fill out the CFR. Again.

Looking closer at the contributions (if that is what these are) and the organizations, it is also important to note that Kraus-Anderson is one of the largest construction firms in the state, and is more than likely the company that will benefit the most by Question 3 - the bond levy - and part of Question 2 - "Safe Schools - passing because it is likely that Kraus-Anderson will be awarded the construction contracts, since it was the company that was awarded the last major construction contract in South Washington County - the $90 million East Ridge High School.

Furthermore, "Principals Assoc," probably is short for "South Washington County Principals Association" which is the formal way of saying "Principals' Union."  "DSC" stands for "District Service Center." Amazing! The Principals Assoc has the same address as the District Service Center.  No wonder the union would want to contribute $2500 to the levy campaign - they probably owe that much for their office space in the DSC...that is paid for by taxpayers...and who else will benefit by a levy passing?  That's right, the principals - when they go to negotiate their contracts they can point to the levy increase (which, by the way, all goes into the District's GENERAL FUND) and say, "We supported the levy increase! You got the levy increase! So give us raises!" Guess what else?  The school principals pay dues to the union.  It was union dues that paid the Committee for Vote $2500 to convince taxpayers that the district needs more of their hard-earned money.  Where does the principals' dues come from?  Out of their paychecks.  How are their paychecks funded? BY THE TAXPAYERS.  Any more questions?

In the Woodbury Bulletin article about the complaint against Committee For Vote, Winnie Williams is quoted:

"....she has talked to people involved in past pro-school levy campaigns and they don’t recall a similar level of scrutiny paid to their activities. 'I don’t know where it comes from,' Williams said."

Gee, Winnie, I wonder???

Updated 4:04pm October 30, 2013

Campaign Finance/Fair Practices Rules Complaint Filed on School Levy Vote Yes Committee

Press Release

Campaign Violation Complaint filed against “Committee for Vote” aka “833 Yes Yes Yes”

For Immediate Release on Monday, October 28, 2013

Woodbury, Minnesota, October 28, 2013:  A Complaint with the Office of Administrative Hearings has been filed against the South Washington County School District833’s Levy Vote Yes committee (“Committee for VOTE” aka “833 Yes Yes Yes”) on Monday, October 28, 2013.  The complaint alleges the following violations of the 2012 Campaign Financial Reporting andFair Campaign Practices (MN Stats. 211A and 211B):

1.      Failure to disclose campaign financial information: “$0” total contributions, yet expenditures total “$3236.50” with “$2200.00 cash on hand.” (211A.02) 

(Exactly whom has donated? According to co-Treasurer, Mary Scholz, it is small bucks from "parents and schools unions"...)

2.      Failure to properly fill out first Campaign Financial Report: no “Office Sought or Ballot Question” listed on Line 2 (211A.05).

3.      Failure to file a Campaign Finance Report ten days prior to the general election. (211A.02)

 (According to District 833 Communications Officer, Barbara Brown, there were several CFRs filed on Friday by 3pm, but none of them were from "Committee for VOTE.")

4.      Failure to report additional expenditures: print and online advertising (WoodburyPatch.com, Woodbury Bulletin, South Washington County Bulletin newspapers and WoodburyBulletin.com): approximate cost $1440.00.  (211A.02) 

5.      Failure to list use of address and conference room in Parkwood Place building (7650 Parkwood Place, Woodbury, MN; Suite 270 leased by Carter Bergen, PA, building owned by JBL Properties): estimated rental cost (from http://www.loopnet.com/Listing/17616038/7650-Currell-Blvd-Woodbury-MN/) divided by 2 (approximate shared total rental cost $1062.00): $560/month, beginning in June 2013. Estimated Cost: $2655.00 (211A.02)

Contrary to the FB post shown below, Mary Scholz claims the Committee for VOTE uses the conference room at the above address.

 6.      Failure to post signage at 7650 Parkwood Place, Suite 270, Woodbury, Minnesota designating office as “Committee for VOTE” location. (211B.04)

7.      Failure to file Final Campaign Finance Report or Yearly Reports for “Committee for Vote” – campaign committee formed during ’06-’07 South Washington County School District 833 levy referendum campaigns in the years since the committee was formed. (211A.02, 10A.20)

8.      Failure to use correct mailing address on signage and other campaign material (see attached). (211B.04) 

The "slander" referred to here was one tweet by none other than yours truly, MNHockeyMama, pointing out the fact that the management company of the building at the address listed on all the Committee for Vote's material (except the decals, those have no address at all), had no record of them as building tenants. Somehow, that tweet became "news."

Decal handed out by the Vote Yes committee - see any address or "Paid for by..." statement? Yeah, me neither.

9.      Failure to amend signage, website, Facebook page and online advertising when notified of incomplete address. (211B.04)

This sign and another popped up in my neighbor's yard on Saturday, October 26, 2013. There is nothing "amending" the address listed on the sign - a handwritten scrawl is all it would take to be compliant - apparently, Committee for VOTE believe they're above the law.  I used to believe that it was ignorance and stupidity. Now I know it is arrogance.

An expedited hearing has been requested. 

Updated: October 30, 2013