EDITORIAL: Optics aren't good as school referendum vote draws near

Apr. 21—In June, Grand Forks voters will determine whether the school district can raise $86 million to build a new school and consolidate or maintain others.

Earlier this month, a consulting firm that has been paid by the district held a meeting to organize a "Vote Yes" initiative, obviously designed to build momentum to get the measure passed.

And, as readers likely know by now, issues exist. One is that it is illegal for the district to advocate for the passing of a referendum. The other is that the meeting seems to have been held without the district's top leaders even knowing about it.

It has prompted commentary (by Forum Communications columnist Rob Port) and news coverage (the Herald published an extensive report last week). Today, it prompts us to wonder if the controversy will be difficult to overcome as the vote on the referendum — which early indications show is necessary — nears.

Last month, the Minneapolis-based SitelogIQ wrote an email that invited attendees to the April 7 meeting. In part, it said "SitelogIQ is going to host an informational meeting for all of you — and anyone else you would like to invite from the community — and assist in the organizing of a Vote YES effort for the referendum. Remember, the school district is legally obligated to provide information about the referendum but can NOT advocate for passing the referendum."

But here's where it gets sticky: If the district is paying SitelogIQ as a consultant, isn't it possible to draw a line that connects the district's dollars toward a drive to pass the referendum? And is SitelogIQ angling for subsequent work with the district if the referendum passes?

Importantly, a district spokesperson told the Herald that SitelogIQ won't be the architect or construction manager on work approved by the referendum. The district is required to seek low bids, and the law requires the district to prioritize local companies.

Also, a past contract between SitelogIQ and the district notes that the scope of SitelogIQ's work includes "strategic planning as it relates to referendums," which could require "engaging the Grand Forks community." SitelogIQ has written, in a 2019 response to the district's search for a consultant, that marketing and a "Vote Yes" push could be part of its services.

If the district didn't know the meeting was happening, it's difficult to place blame there. And remember that consultants — controversial as they can be — have become common as public entities consider big or controversial projects.

So, if we can assume the district has been caught relatively unaware, what is all this? A consultant pushing a "Yes" vote as part of its original contract, or a company working various avenues to get future work if the referendum passes?

Unfortunately, voters really don't know. The Herald tried multiple times last week to reach SitelogIQ to seek clarification. At one point, the company indicated it would respond, but ultimately it did not.

SitelogIQ's continued and quiet work on this controversial subject does not make for good optics. Superintendent Terry Brenner said he didn't even know the April 7 meeting would take place; now, SitelogIQ has gone quiet.

SitelogIQ is clearly working on behalf of a yes vote, and the company won't clarify why.

But its behind-the-scenes work, its quiet meetings without the district's knowledge and its refusal to answer questions as controversy erupts could backfire as the referendum vote nears.