School’s lawyers push back on Highland bond ruling appeal

WASHINGTON — Lawyers for the Highland school district have asked the court to strike an appeal petition, which might otherwise block a narrowly-passed bond issue for the schools over polling place mishaps in November.

According to court records, the appeal was requested by petitioners Ron Greiner and Marcus Fedler, an Ainsworth City Council member and Washington County Supervisor, respectively. Both were vocal critics of a $15 million bond referendum in the school district after the county confirmed that precinct officials mistakenly handed out Election-Day ballots to 96 voters who were not school district residents, and thus should not have been allowed to vote on the matter which shapes the district’s property tax rates.

In their formal response to the appeal, Highland’s lawyers last week asked the court to strike the petition, arguing it “fails to state a claim,” meaning the appellants failed to identify any violations of law that a court could remedy.

In court documents, Highland’s attorneys said they agreed on many facts of the case — the date of the election, the bond’s passage and amount, the existence of polling place errors — but said the petitioners’ claims about the appeal process itself “do not require a responsive pleading.”

“To the extent that a response would be deemed required, the District lacks knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in (the appeal petition) and therefor denies the same and demands strict proof thereof,” read one section of the schools’ formal answer to the appeal petition.

In another recent development, District Judge Shawn Showers recused himself from the case’s proceedings last week, although court records didn’t clarify why. It’s not clear which District 8 judge will handle the appeal case moving forward.

The bond election challenge was first heard by a “contest court” last month, a group of three representatives assembled specifically to assess the legality of a challenged election’s result. That panel was composed of Greiner, Highland school board Vice President Dan Ruth, and retired attorney Richard Gaumer, who a judge appointed as a neutral third member.

After hearing arguments from lawyers on either side, the group voted 2-1 to uphold the election’s outcome, citing a section of Iowa Code which authorizes contest courts to overturn a result only if disregarding every vote in a disputed precinct would change the overall result. In this case, it would not: ballots at every other precinct would still add up to a passing margin for the bond issue, with or without the inclusion of Ainsworth’s in-person voters.

The decision came despite the petitioners’ argument that 96 improper Election Day ballots should nullify the race’s outcome, since the bond issue passed by a margin of only 22 votes. County election staff said there was no way to know how those improper ballots were cast, however, and no way to remove them from the election’s results once ballots were scanned and counted at the Ainsworth precinct Nov. 5.

Petitioner Attorney Sasha Finke said last month that the appeal was statutory, meaning petitioners believed the contest court misinterpreted or misapplied relevant laws.

“I can’t speak for the individual residents who joined the petition … but I think the general thought is, an election should be based on proper votes,” Finke said. “And to the extent the district cannot establish that the election result is based on proper votes, it should be redone.”

As the legal battle continues to play out, it seems increasingly unlikely the case will reach a conclusion before July 1, when the district’s current $2.70 debt service levy will come to an end without the referendum’s legal authorization to maintain it.

School district officials have expressed concern about the planned $15 million of facility improvements once that deadline hits, saying the wait for funding would likely see construction costs rise beyond the scope of the bond.

A similar case at the Avoca-Hancock-Shelby-Tenant Community School District in 2007 — which was cited as precedent during Highland’s contest court hearing — took two years to reach a conclusion, following a series of appeals that eventually reached the Iowa Supreme Court.

While Highland’s administrators hope their case can be expedited, they still aren’t sure whether it’s possible to resolve by July.

“While it may be a speedy process for the courts, I don’t know if a speedy process for the courts is speedy enough for the school district, that’s the thing that we do not know right now,” Superintendent Ken Crawford said last month, shortly after the appeal was announced. “We cannot sell the bond until this is done … we still have two budget public hearings, and we have to kind of guess what the tax rate will be.”

Comments: Kalen.McCain@southeastiowaunion.com