After investigation, Missouri superintendent, school employees warned by state for promoting bond issue at work

Their conduct was “improper” and likely illegal, but this time they’re getting a formal warning.

That’s the decision of the Missouri Secretary of State’s (SOS) office after it subpoenaed the St. Joseph School District following a complaint and found evidence the superintendent and key employees used their work email accounts to promote a bond issue before the April election, an apparent violation of state law.

The Lion first reported on the employees’ behavior, which included multiple emails sent during the workday from official accounts – obtained through a Missouri Sunshine request – and a public video by Superintendent Gabe Edgar thanking the “yes committee” for its work.

Missouri law states “that no contribution or expenditure of public funds shall be made directly by any officer, employee or agent of any political subdivision, including school districts and charter schools, to advocate, support, or oppose the passage or defeat of any ballot measure,” wrote Frank A. Jung, SOS general counsel, in response to the complaint, filed by local resident Kimberly Dragoo after The Lion’s published report.

School districts that use public funds are guilty of a class four election offense – a misdemeanor subject to imprisonment of up to one year in jail, a fine of up to $2,500, or both, under Section 115.637. 

The complaint alleged that Edgar, Human Resources manager Heather Adams, and communications director Eileen Houston-Stewart participated in illegal electioneering in the district’s April bond issue, which voters approved. 

The Lion’s investigation had revealed Edgar gave an open invitation in early February to join a campaign committee “we are forming” in support of the bond. 

“We are forming a committee to support the upcoming April bond issue and we need your help! Your involvement could make a big difference,” the email reads. “The committee” refers to the pro-bond Political Action Committee called The Friends of SJSD, which Edgar also thanked in the video sent out by the district the day after the bond passed, referring to it as the “yes committee.” 

In May Edgar denied any wrongdoing and told The Lion that he was not involved in the campaign to pass the bond. He also claimed that Houston-Stewart’s “coordination” was to refer interested community groups to Friends of the SJSD, which advocated for the bond’s passage, and to make sure the district website included factual information related to the bond.

Experts consulted by The Lion in May said the email correspondence is “clearly inappropriate under Missouri law.” 

After its own investigation, the SOS office seems to agree, calling it “improper.” 

“While I believe using SJSD email account(s) to discuss and coordinate the SJSD bond issue was improper, no court has made such a ruling,” Jung said in his letter. “Furthermore, the Missouri Ethics Commission has only issued cautionary warnings for the use of official emails in bond issues.” Therefore, Jung is “issuing them a cautionary letter.” 

However, Dragoo says it’s not enough. 

“Rather than investigating a district that has a history of proven corruption, [the SOS office] used the [Missouri Ethics Commission’s] ruling as an excuse not to move forward,” she told The Lion. “Instead, they are choosing to issue a cautionary letter.” 

And without real consequences, the district is unlikely to change its behavior, Dragoo says. 

“Hey, it’s just $20 million of taxpayers’ money,” she said dryly, then warning, “They are free to do it again. Maybe they can get $80 million the next go around with the tax-evading school board president and the liberal clowns we presently have on the Board of Education. 

“I’m hoping the AG looks at the continued conflict of interest with board members.”