Two school districts could have been in violation of state law by using school resources to promote their funding proposals.

The Lansing School District released a flier promoting its bond that asked residents to vote and added a promotional slogan: "Preserve Our Heritage. Fund Our Future." Lake Orion School District had an internal e-mail sent out asking for volunteers to make phone calls about the bond.

A Lansing School District spokesman defended the flier, saying encouragement to "Fund Our Future" was just a slogan.

An attorney representing the Lake Orion district said the school was "headed down the wrong path" with its e-mail.

"We stopped it very quickly," said Jim Crowley, an attorney representing Lake Orion School District. Crowley said a committee to set up passing the bond was formed that didn't involve any school resources.

There have been numerous reports this election campaign season regarding school districts crossing the campaign finance laws that forbid schools from using school resources to promote a candidate or a funding issue.

The Lansing flier had statements that the sinking fund would contribute "to a more nurturing learning environment for our kids" and that the fund would be created by "a slight" millage increase.

Bob LaBrant, Senior Vice President for Political Affairs and General Counsel for the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, took exception to the terms "Fund Our Future."

"That is about as close to coming to a 'Yes' vote as you are going to find," LaBrant said. "If you don't have the toe over the line, it's millimeters away from touching it."

Steve Serkaian, spokesman for the Lansing School District, said the school was only encouraging residents to vote on the sinking fund and not advocating a "Yes" vote.

As for, "Fund Our Future", Serkaian said, "It's just a slogan."

"We designed these pieces to communicate factually what we believe to be the essence of this proposal and rely on the citizens of Lansing to make their own judgment," Serkaian said.

At Lake Orion, the e-mail was sent by a teacher using her school e-mail and stated they were looking for parent volunteers for the bond to be voted on in February of 2011. An attached document further explained: "We need help from each of our classrooms throughout the district. I am in need of two volunteers in our classroom to be in charge of making phone calls in regard to the bond."

Eric Doster, the general counsel for the state Republican party, said it was obvious the school was recruiting volunteers in favor of the bond.

"If you call them and say, 'I'm against the bond,' they'll say, 'Thank you and have a nice day,' " Doster said. "It is school resources that is recruiting volunteers to pass a bond proposal. That is exactly what they are doing."

~~~~~

Editor: This story originally reported incorrectly the Lake Orion school bond would be voted upon Nov. 2. The bond is to be voted on in February, 2011. The story has been corrected.

For more than a year, the Mackinac Center Legal Foundation (MCLF) has been battling the forced unionization of Michigan's home-based day care owners and providers in the state Court of Appeals. Four times, the appeals court rejected the Foundation's case with the legal equivalent of a wave of the hand.

The first dismissal of Loar v DHS, last December, consisted of a single, six-word sentence.  None of those six words offered any explanation. The appeals court quickly followed suit in February with a denial to an MCLF request to reconsider its decision. 

Then, in September the Michigan Supreme Court unanimously ordered the appeals court to explain its first dismissal. Again, the three-judge panel dismissed the lawsuit. Again without sufficient explanation.

And the MCLF has just learned the appeals court this week denied another motion asking the judges to reconsider or at least explain the details of their rationale.

This case involves illegal government activity, millions of dollars and more than 40,000 Michiganders. Before they respond this time, perhaps these three judges need to go across the hall and talk to one of their colleagues.

In the Fall 2010 issue of the University of Michigan LSA Magazine, Michigan alumni and Appeals Court Judge Douglas Shapiro insists that people deserve to know why the appeals court reaches certain decisions:

"In each case, for the people involved, it's their only case. So even if it seems run-of-the-mill, it's important to remember that there are real people who are waiting for the decision to come in the mail to tell them what happened, and not only to say if they won or lost, but why, so they feel they got a fair shake."

This is in stark contrast to the dismissals by Shapiro's colleagues in Loar v DHS. In fact, Shapiro seems to counter the sparsely worded dismissals with just five words of his own about these "real people" who come before the appeals court:

"They're entitled to an explanation."

MCLF clients Sherry Loar, Paulette Silverson and Michelle Berry are indeed real people in the private sector, trying to make a real living by providing real services to other real people in need. But they found themselves forced into a government employees union they neither asked for nor voted for.  

As Sherry told WJR's Frank Beckmann back in April, "To think that that court works for the children, the parents and myself, and they would have the audacity after everything we've been through to dismiss us without a comment...they're lucky I'm not picketing on their front porch."

Aren't Sherry and the others entitled to an explanation?