A Michigan public school superintendent is accused of trying to intimidate supporters of a petition to recall four school board members.

Greg Gaw, one of the people involved in the recall campaign in the Britton Deerfield school district, claims Superintendent Stacy Johnson has been trying to intimidate recall supporters. Gaw said that he collected 471 signatures, more than the required minimum of 311.

Gaw pointed to social media posts made by the superintendent about the recall campaign in the small southeast Michigan district.

“The signature pages are public documents,” Johnson posted in a Facebook comment. “We will see them all. Sorry if you don’t like that but that’s just the way it is.”

In another Facebook post, Johnson stated, “Also – the signatures will ALL be reviewed by administration and the board members, as well as the clerk’s office! It will be interesting to see who really wants to sign something that will have such a negative impact on our school district and it’s positive momentum!!”

Gaw said it was the county clerk’s job to certify signatures and that Johnson’s comments were meant to intimidate people thinking of supporting the recall effort.

The Adrian Daily Telegram reported that the petitions targeted board vice president Ben Allshouse, secretary Yvonne Thomas, treasurer Brian Bartush and trustee Doug Mayher Jr.

School board president Todd Ost stated in an email that the Facebook comments made by Johnson don’t tell the complete story.

“Superintendent Johnson and our schools have been the subject of near daily attacks by a small group of citizens who are unhappy about recent staffing changes. Those attacks go far beyond a school board recall petition. This group has spread mistruths about the superintendent, including going so far as to file a false complaint against her with the Michigan Department of Education and a false police report against her with the Michigan State Police, both of which were investigated and promptly closed,” Ost wrote. “Members of the group have also publicly defamed the District itself by suggesting that it is facing an imminent state takeover, which is not close to true. All of this has the potential to damage the District’s reputation and to undo all of the progress the District has made over the past two years.”

Ost continued: “It is my understanding that Mrs. Johnson’s Facebook posts, which you referenced in your email, were made after Mrs. Johnson learned that members of the community were under the mistaken impression that they could sign the recall petition anonymously. As you know, that is not the case. Mrs. Johnson was attempting to clarify that point. Additionally, a person who signs the recall petition is likely someone who is not satisfied with the District or its leadership. By identifying those individuals, Mrs. Johnson optimistically believed that she could open a dialogue with them to better understand and address their concerns.”

Ost stated: “Mrs. Johnson and the Board encourage members of the community to continue their dialogue about the future of Britton Deerfield Schools. We ask that everyone do so in a respectful manner based on the facts. Finally, the District and the Board respect the public’s voice and their right to engage in the political process. The Board and the District will not tolerate any form of retaliation or harassment against any person for expressing his or her views, including by signing a recall petition.”

The American criminal justice system is often thought of as a continuum of institutions that begins with the enactment and enforcement of criminal laws and ends with a trial, conviction and prison sentence. But when the cell door closes, a window of opportunity to bolster public safety opens. We are learning from a growing body of research and a pilot program here in Michigan that both the quantity and the quality of time inmates spend behind bars make a difference for their behavior after release.

Policymakers and citizens alike, therefore, need to ask what should be happening inside our prisons. For incarceration does far more than punish a single person for a single crime. Instead, it creates a new group of people with significant and often lifelong barriers to rejoining society, creating risks for us all. We must make sure that, as far as it is possible, we minimize the societywide risks of incarceration.

Doing so will call for policies and practices that may appear too lenient to “tough on crime” proponents, but the numbers don’t lie. The data show that “smart on crime” policies that call for individualized sentences and opportunities for inmates to take up self-improvement activities while incarcerated lower recidivism and equip them to return successfully to their jobs, families and communities. That is, getting smart on crime helps make Michigan safer and more prosperous.

Our state is already making significant strides with smart-justice strategies. Our trial court system, for example, includes 185 “problem-solving courts.” These specialized legal venues aim to help defendants with certain underlying challenges — such as drug addiction, alcoholism, or mental illness — by connecting them to the services and treatment that make it more likely they will be safe and law-abiding. Our prisons host two — soon to be three — innovative in-prison vocational schools called Vocational Villages, where prisoners can be trained, fully certified and, often, offered jobs working in skilled trades upon their release.

Michigan prisons also lead the nation in offering postsecondary education to inmates. Our Corrections Department was selected to participate in a national demonstration project, Pathways from Prison, funded by several influential foundations, including the Vera Institute and the W.K. Kellogg Foundation. The project helped Michigan prisoners earn college credits and let hundreds of students gain additional educational and employment opportunities.

Our state was also chosen as an experimental site for the Second Chance Pell Pilot Program, in which the U.S. Department of Education, with support from Secretary Betsy DeVos, lifts the ban on Pell Grants for state and federal prisoners. The change allows three two-year colleges (Delta College, Jackson College and Mott Community College) to offer in-person instruction in Michigan prisons.

Both projects have enjoyed success, have paved the way for additional innovations in education and, most importantly, changed many hundreds of lives.

Several other colleges and universities educate Michigan prisoners in cooperation with the Corrections Department, offering either in-person or correspondence classes. But many aspiring students in prison miss the opportunity to enhance their education because certain statutes and regulations limit their eligibility for financial aid, or keep them from receiving it at all.

For example, several state programs that offer financial aid, including the Michigan Tuition Grant, the Michigan Competitive Scholarship, and the Michigan Educational Opportunity Grant, specifically exclude prisoners. And the Michigan Department of the Treasury has issued regulations that ban prisoners from receiving the Michigan Nursing Scholarship and the Children of Veterans Tuition Grant. The Michigan State Aid Office might also count incarceration against a prisoner seeking financial aid under other programs, though it’s not clear if it consistently does so.

We know that education is valuable for a person’s career prospects and that a steady job and income are valuable in reducing recidivism. We should, then, beware of government-imposed barriers to education and work. Let’s work to eliminate those barriers for the prisoners’ sakes — and for ours.