One-man battle on petition costs continues

It’s the petition that wouldn’t go away, or perhaps it’s just the angry district resident who won’t go away. An obviously distraught Tony Sheda repeated his demands to the Wrenshall school board Monday night that the creators of the petition that denied an appointment to the school board last August be responsible for the costs incurred by the school district to verify the petition.

Despite repeated explanations and investigation of the issue that reached state offices in St. Paul, Sheda is yet to be satisfied, and apparently a majority of the board is unwilling to approve costs until he is.

Sheda requested and received an estimate of time spent by the district’s filing clerk, Beth Peterson, on verifying the petition that successfully recalled the appointment of Bill Dian to the board in September. District residents balked at the secretive nature of the appointment, as the board had no public discussions about candidates or the process before choosing Dian.

The appointment was needed to replace Michelle Blanchard, who became the school principal last summer. Eventually, Cindy Bourn was appointed to the board.

Sheda has insisted that the group that created the petition, Unite Wrenshall, pay for the estimated costs to verify it.

Ben Johnson, a board member who was appointed last month to fill Alice Kloepfer’s seat as she takes medical time off, dug deep into the issue and offered a detailed report on Monday. He said he wouldn’t support asking the petitioners to pay for expenses based on what he discovered.

In essence, he found after consulting with Carlton County officials, the auditor and attorney, and the Minnesota Secretary of State office, that Peterson is the duly assigned person to deal with the petition as part of her salaried duties. It means there was no real “cost” in verifying the position, as it fell under Peterson’s job description.

The cost estimate Sheda received is $179.50. Peterson’s time spent on the petition was estimated as a cost of $72. Legal consultation costs added $107.50. Johnson went through a variety of state statutes that, though murky, back the idea that any costs fall under Peterson’s duties, which are compensated through her salary.

That was the opinion of the Carlton County auditor’s office as well, which provided some guidance on the petition process but was not involved.

“It’s part of the democratic process,” Johnson said, referring to the petition and the district’s duty to verify it.

Undeterred, saying he wasn’t “buying it,” Sheda insisted during the public comment portion of the meeting that he wants to see something in “black and white” showing that the petitioners are not responsible for a process that is allowed under state statute. He cited state law language that refers to an exclusion in the case of recalls of elected officials, but not appointment recalls, which dispute people selected by board members to fill out resigned terms. The appointment petition statute simply says that the petition needs to be valid under certain conditions, including 5 percent of the district’s voting public in the last election and verified signatures and dates. The assumption is that the vetting process would be akin to the duties of the district elections official, Peterson, when it comes to verifying board elections.

Sheda repeated his notion Monday that the petition to recall Dian was a personal smear.

Dian was at the meeting Monday and said he isn’t offended by the gossip around last summer’s petition drive about his qualifications and the process. He has said repeatedly that he simply doesn’t want what happened to him to happen to anyone else, citing a passage in the words of the petition that the process to select Dian was done out of public view. The petition states that he was “interviewed privately by the board chair and a few school board members rather than holding a public interview process.”

Lisa Clarke, parent of a Wrenshall student, was one of those who drove the petition. She said it was obvious in going door knocking that the community was upset that there “was no due process” in making the appointment. She stood by the words on the petition, saying they were based on board member comments and newspaper accounts of the process.

Dian said Monday what he has said for months. “I didn’t meet with people. I never had conversations.”

But in an interview with the Pine Knot News after the board announced his appointment, in which Dian was asked if he was surprised by the appointment, the Aug. 20 Pine Knot News reported: “Dian said he was ‘not surprised’ by the appointment because before the meeting ‘they said I had four votes,’ he said. (Jack) Eudy said it was (Alice) Kloepfer who first approached Dian. The new chairman then had a few chats with Dian, deciding he would be a good fit for the board.”

Sheda repeated Monday that the “lie” about Dian speaking with board members in private is what is driving his pursuit of the petitioners paying for the verification. Neither Dian or Sheda — nor board members — have disputed the Pine Knot’s reporting on the conversations Dian had before the appointment.

Superintendent Kim Belcastro seemed irritated Monday night as the discussion about the petition continued. “I don’t want to be beat up by community members,” she said. Sheda has been at school offices repeatedly in the seven months since the petition was verified and deemed appropriate. Belcastro said there has been “plenty of abuse” cast her way.

She also said that as Sheda continues his pleas, the district is racking up even more costs as Peterson continues to deal with him and, at times, attorneys are consulted.

Some board members seemed surprised that costs were continuing to mount and asked for an accounting of it.

Board chairwoman Misty Bergman said Sheda deserves a “black and white” answer but also called for “healing” among community members and district officials who should all be “getting over it.”

The board tabled a vote that had been placed on the agenda to “approve recall petition expenses.” Some board members said more discovery was needed to give Sheda an answer he can be satisfied with.

The $179.50 being disputed, when divided by only the 3,274 people who voted in the last district election, culminates in 5 cents per voter. It breaks down to about 20 cents per household in the district.