Lakota board receives legal training on what school staff can say about levies; auditor FAQ warns against campaigning with public funds

On July 21 the Lakota Board of Education held a legal training about what district officials and staff may say and do regarding local levies and bond issues, focusing on the Ohio Auditor of State’s August 2023 FAQ and state statutes that bar the use of public funds to influence ballot measures. The training was presented by the district’s legal counsel, Gary, and attended by board members and district administrators.

The guidance emphasized the basic legal limit: “Basically, taxpayer funds cannot be spent to try to influence the passage of a levy,” the attorney told the board, summarizing the auditor’s interpretation of state law and recent enforcement actions such as the Bellbrook case. The auditor’s FAQ, the presenter said, is the document auditors use to evaluate complaints and can lead to criminal charges in clearly violative cases.

Why it matters: The auditor’s office has pursued criminal charges in at least one Ohio district for mailers and other communications that were judged to cross the line from factual information into advocacy. The training is intended to reduce the risk the district faces when it communicates about ballot measures that affect district finances.

Most important takeaways for officials and staff were: - District-paid communications may present factual information about finances, programs, timelines and consequences of passage or failure of a levy or bond, but may not urge residents to vote a particular way. The presenter summarized this as a narrow allowance for factual description and a strict prohibition on political advocacy using public funds. - Board members have broader latitude to advocate on their own time and with their own resources, but they may not use board meeting time or district-paid time to campaign. The attorney said board members “could explain your vote” on a formal resolution at a meeting, but they could not use the meeting to advocate for passage of a levy. - District employees and administrators may present factual materials during paid work time, such as reports about building needs or service impacts if a levy fails, but they must not cross into advocacy while on the clock. If administrators engage in advocacy off-duty, the auditor’s FAQ recommends they use personal email and personal time to avoid the appearance of using district resources. - Using district social media, email, phones, or printing funds to promote a levy or allow a levy committee to use school-owned channels is prohibited. The attorney warned that allowing a campaign to use district accounts could trigger complaints and potential investigations. - Surveys or paid polling intended to shape campaign strategy, gauge support for specific ballot language, or otherwise steer an election raise a particular red flag and have been cited as improper in past cases; general community facility surveys are less risky if they remain neutral. - Best practices include regular, routine financial updates (so communications about a particular election do not stand out as targeted campaign messaging), using disclaimers when employees present factual information, and tracking leave if an employee takes personal time to campaign to avoid a claim they used paid time.

The training also addressed student and staff activity: students may organize, publish and express views on their own; the problem arises if the board or administration directs, encourages, or uses students to advocate for a campaign. Similarly, student publications can cover ballot issues provided the work is student-initiated and follows normal editorial rules.

Board members asked specific operational questions—whether attendance at community events or wearing advocacy apparel could be construed as a violation, how to treat emails asking for donation information, and whether staff should record leave when campaigning off-duty. The legal counsel advised caution where an employee’s usual schedule or supervisors’ expectations blur the line between work and nonwork time, and recommended that employees consult counsel in gray cases.

No formal action was taken at the meeting; the session was informational and intended as proactive training to reduce legal risk if the district communicates about proposed levies or bonds in the coming months.