I posted this
Last minute dirty trick by a school board member? the day of the election.
These "Vote YES for Schools" signs with the spray paint on them popped up all over town on April 3rd. They were clearly from some other referendum or school issue; that is why the spray paint is covering up something.
Several of the signs were in front of the Century Centre property on Greenfield, and when I stopped to look at them, they did not seem to be compliant with campaign sign regulations. The disclaimer was not from either group registered for this referendum, VoteNOApril3 or LEGACY, and it did not list who the treasurer was for this new group. All it had on it was, Paid for and Authorized by Elmbrook Cares and then a sticker with Steve Schwei 262-780-0581.
Since Steve Schwei is my school board representative, I thought this was in violation of the policy that the board was not to advocate for the referendum.
So I contacted Brad Schimel, Schimel.Brad@mail.da.state.wi.us , our District Attorney for Waukesha County.
I am including all of his correspondence so you can see what the campaign regulations are. They were not what I expected.
Dear Mr. Prast,
Thank you for your email. You raise several issues, which I will address individually.
It is not illegal for Mr. Schwei to advocate for or against a referendum when acting as a private citizen. I do not have enough information to conclude that he is acting in any official capacity. The fact that he is on the school board does not prohibit him from taking actions as a citizen. (The same rule that applied to Matt Gibson addressing the Common Council about the referendum as a
private citizen.)
Before I could determine whether Elmbrook Cares or Steve Schwei committed a campaign finance violation, I would need to know whether they have received contributions, made disbursements or incurred obligations in excess of $25 during this calendar year, and if so, whether they filed a registration statement. You stated that you do not think that Elmbrook Cares filed a registration statement. Did they?
You talk about many illegal signs having been posted by the "Yes group." This is the first I have heard of any complaint. Is there more information that you wish me to consider? What is illegal in nature about the sign you have posted?
I am curious about the blue spray paint on the sign posted on your blog. Do you know who painted that on the sign and what it is covering up?
Brad Schimel
Me to Brad,
They were used for a previous campaign I believe, maybe the last referendum from 2000. I believe they must have had the issue they were for under the spay paint. They are all like that.
So you are saying we could save our vote no signs and not register again if we did not collect any more funds? I thought the disclaimer was incorrect since it says it was paid for and authorized by Elmbrook Cares. Steve Schwei name and phone number, but does not say who Steve Schwei is in relation to Elmbrook Cares. Usually it says, John Doe, Treasurer or Candidate.
The illegally placed yes signs are up to 9 per property. In Brookfield we only allow 1 per address per street face. Last mayoral campaign Cindy Kilkenny was given 10 days to remove her overly large signs from private residences. This referendum is not being enforced that way. The police will remove the excess signs or those placed on city property, but only if a resident calls in the offending address.
Kyle
Brad back to me,
Mr. Prast,
The spray paint looks pretty shabby. Maybe they were trying to look impoverished. Apparently that message was not persuasive.
In terms of reusing signs, yes, if a group/individual saves them and reuses them, they could potentially come under the $25 expenditure threshold and avoid the requirement that they register.
Unless the group was required to register and failed to do so properly, I think the disclaimer is adequate. It certainly gives sufficient information from which one could identify who is responsible for the sign.
The restrictions on the placement and number of signs is a matter for the municipal ordinances.
Brad Schimel
So there you have it. Outside of the signs being place too near the roadway (I don't know if the property owners gave permission or not), Mr. Schimel says they were OK.
As for the official Vote Yes signs, after the replacements came in, the new ones were still placed in a non-compliant way 2 and 3 to a property. But that's a municipal ordinance.
I do thank you for all your correspondence. I have enjoyed hearing from you. Keep the emails coming! Someone did send an anonymous comment that they were for the referendum (the only one ever received). I do want to respond to that and hope to get to it soon, but today I need to attend to some of the many things I did not have time for
