AG 2000 09 18 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

example, in a New Jersey case the court disapproved of a school board's "over-clrnmatized' depiction of what would happen is the school bond issue failed. The school board's brochure---most of which was quite acceptable to the court,-wamed of"Double Session!" that would "automatically cheat your child" cfa Bird of his or her education. It also warned of hour-long bus rides and of children arriving home after dark. It was not so much the accuracy of the picture as its shrill nature that concerned the court. If the ~me information had been presented in matter-of-fact language, as part of the board' s explanation of why it thought the bond issue was necessary, it would probably have been approved. It is up to a unit itself to recognize the thinness of the line between permissible and the impermissible activities and to ensure that it stays on the proper side of the law. The cases do not simply prohibit promotional brochures or the Printing ofbutnper stickers that urge voters to vote yes. It is equally improper for a unit to allow one side or the other in a campaign to make free use of the unit's office space, to use the unit's printing or copying facilities on a preferential basis or to use public employees on public time to work on the campaign. This ban does'~0t'prohibi~ ;leered 0~ffici~ls f~m speaking Out o~ an issue and working for one side or the other, however, that is part of their leadership responsibilities. The exception probably also extends to those appointed officials, such as city or county managers who work directly for elected officials and who are charged with carrying out the policies of those officials. What might a court do ifa unit is about tO o~' has made improper promotional expenditures? Clearly, the court has the power to prohibit the expenditure before they are made. But it is also possible that the court might require those o~eials respousible for authoH~.iag the expenditures to personally reimburse the government for, the expenditures already made. ' The initial cases from other states that established the principles discussed in this article imposed strict liability for reimbursement on the responsible officials. More recent cases however, have limited personal liability to iustanees in which the official did not exercise due care, a more relaxed standard that recognizes the potential thinness of the line between proper and improper expenditure. But ir'an expenditure falls clearly on the wrong side of the line, far from anygray area, then personal responsibility for reimbursement is a remedy that probably will appeal very' strongly to any court addressing the matter. This article appeared spring issue of Popular Government