A Campaign of Misdirection and Rhetoric

With a hefty helping of intimidation, manipulation, and misinformation

The overall tone of this election took on a caustic nature, quickly dividing our community into two opposing camps. While individuals from both sides have taken pot shots at one another, there were some real power players who had the influence, outreach, and available audience to establish the tone of this campaign – the media and the school.  Superintendent Long and the school board, with their access to the children, parents, and the school community, developed a close collaboration with the local media outlets, who had the larger audiences and connections with the broader community. Through this partnership, they were able to control the messaging to the public and to set the tone of the overall campaign efforts.

The proponents of the millage increase created an organized, well-funded, fully resourced, media-supported campaign effort that controlled most of the public flow of information. Large signs and banners scattered across town dwarfed the presence of a small sprinkling of “Vote No” signs.  Supporting videos, from many influential citizens in the area, graced the social media and websites of the tax proponents’ online outlets.

There were no such individuals willing to speak out for the opposition, though privately many opposed the millage increase. Business owners who opposed the millage increase have been hesitant to display campaign signs for fear of negative repercussions and the possibility of being targeted by members of the “yes” group. The opponents of the millage increase did not have support from any local media outlet, all of whom have openly and frequently shared their support of the tax increase. The opposition has been completely dependent on a grass-roots effort utilizing a couple of social media channels, a single push card, a small number of yard signs, and a text messaging service.  The opposition camp has been an unorganized, hodge-podge of concerned citizens, with some area individuals embarking on their own independent efforts, siloed from any group, all in a desperate attempt to inform the public of an impending tax-increase election and to provide some relevant facts that have not been freely shared with the public.

The tone of this campaign was set by the power players, with access to a captive audience of children and their families, who used their influence, outreach, and connections. It is unfortunate that the loudest voices in this election have opted to use their platforms and voices for intimidation, rhetoric, misdirection, and misinformation, instead of inspiring and leading our community toward some consensus.

SCHOOL AND BOARD

The tone of this campaign was already established last August when Superintendent Long was interviewed on the radio immediately following the failed millage election. During that interview, he outlined the school’s primary strategy for engaging in this current millage campaign – getting their hands directly on the kids.

During the Jan. 5th school board session, Jake Long repeatedly stated, “I think school needs to be in session. I think school needs to be in session. I think school needs to be in session.” The school board’s discussion about when to hold a second millage election demonstrated a deliberate intent to disenfranchise a majority of voters while simultaneously using children for their campaign purposes.

During this same January board meeting, a school board member proposed painting anyone opposed to the tax increase as anti-child and anti-education, establishing yet another layer of negativity before the second campaign was formerly launched.

In early April, I had an opportunity to sit and visit with school board member, Bob Chester, who suggested the meeting be recorded. He has challenged me multiple times to make the recording available, so today, I oblige his request.  Here is a clip from that meeting, and the full audio is available below.

Chester laid out the strategy for the “yes” group’s campaign – misdirection and rhetoric - and was giddy when he said things were going to get exciting. Chester had to be pressed multiple times to make a tentative commitment to campaigning on facts, but his commitment did not last long, because within four days, Chester released his first of several YouTube videos in which he broke this commitment.

During the last couple of months, the students of MHHS have been inundated with flyers, signs, banners, and pressure from teachers to go vote, implying advocacy on behalf of the school.   Parents visiting the school for their children’s programs, end-of-year events, and registration days have been pummeled by material to encourage a vote for the school.  Teachers have been subjected to the same pressure and a sense of intimidation at work. District employees have reported allegations that administrators and members of the “yes” campaign committee have targeted teachers using the voter turnout list from last August to identify who did and did not vote during the last election.  It’s also been alleged that the school ran a list of students by birthdate to identify those who were eligible to vote, and the school organized and encouraged a “senior rally” at the courthouse, likely in violation of ethical standards for campaigning, and they have allegedly offered to transport students to the courthouse to vote during school hours. Screenshots of texts and emails from school employees, sent using the school email during school hours, have been shared by multiple school employees, which show other school employees organizing sign campaigns and other events, which would be a violation of ethical standards.

We heard from a MHHS senior, who lives alone with their father in a small mobile home and must work many hours a week just to help make ends meet. This senior said the environment at the high school was very tense for them and catered primarily to a specific school population. The “other half” was never asked what they thought, never considered in the hullabaloo going on around them, felt excluded, and these seniors spent their final year in an uncomfortable environment where they did not feel included and free to speak. Many of these over-looked students, accounting for more than 52% of the school population, are those who receive free and reduced lunches and live in families with fewer financial resources who will be hit hardest by more taxes.

The State of Arkansas has not done its job to protect kids and school employees from this type of pressurized environment. In what other public campaign would a school be permitted to conduct itself in this manner?  Would the public tolerate these activities for a specific candidate or for any other ballot measure?  This is an issue that will need to be taken up to our legislators. The educational environment should be protected from encroachment by special interest groups and political campaigning.

We can see another example of the use of intimidation and pressure by school representatives in the recently revealed texts by school board members.  In an article published by the Mountain Home Observer, regarding the school board’s secret text messages used to circumvent and violate the state’s open meeting law,  we see evidence of the school board targeting and contacting businesses and individuals to remove campaign signs for a particular school board candidate.   They targeted people in the community to intimidate and press their will upon them, instead of respecting the opinions of others in a free democratic society.

Several school board members frequented social media pages where, rather than working to inform and build rapport with the public, they became combative and attacked their constituents in a manner very unbecoming for an elected official who works for the public. The behavior exhibited by the very top representatives of the school district was very disappointing and inappropriate for community leaders, and sharpened the biting tone of the “yes” campaign.

Through multiple communication channels, both internal and external, school administration and members of the “yes” campaign have used fear of layoffs and position reductions to press school employees into voting for this millage increase. Again, using fear as a tool for manipulation, they have implied that job security is dependent upon the passage of this tax increase.

It’s unfortunate that a campaign led by so many elected officials and community leaders fell so deeply into a trough of intimidation and virulence. This campaign could have been conducted in a manner worthy of respect that could have opened positive discourse and built trust. Instead, we will need a significant amount of time to heal and recover, and we need the right school leaders to nurture that. Given the climate created around the “yes” campaign, I seriously doubt the ones responsible for the tone at the top, the school board and superintendent, are capable of this.

MH Watchdogs’ sole intent is to uncover truth and share it, with the belief folks will discover that freedom and information in the hands of people disrupts the cronyism, limits the opportunity for abuse, and upsets the good ole’ boy network, along with the groupies that hang on their fringe hoping to gain favor. Be alert citizens of Baxter and Marion counties.  Be ever watchful. Be awake. Be vigilant. The fight to retain our freedoms starts right here in our own back yard.

-------------------------------------------

In the next installment, we will explore the newspaper’s conduct during the election campaign.

Full audio of meeting with Chester here.