In a recent tweet, we pointed out that the Missouri School Boards’ Association (MSBA) had provided written testimony in support of the proposed open enrollment bill, HB 1814. As part of a subsequent legislative update, MSBA claimed that “there is considerable misinformation being shared about MSBA’s position on this bill.” In light of this claim, we felt it was important to provide some facts to be objectively considered. Here are the facts as we know them:

• On February 3, 2022, Susan Goldammer sent an email to a member district, copying Mike Reid, a lobbyist for MSBA. In her email she stated the following regarding HB 1814:
• “MSBA testified in favor of the bill because it mostly aligns with the advocacy positions approved in November and the couple of areas where it does not align the bill sponsor is working with us to get there.” 
• “This is a tough one for sure, but we are being careful to make sure we are following the will of the Delegates. Please let us know if you have concerns. We of course never like to be on opposite sides of the issues with the other education groups. But this is one area where there is a lot of disagreement.”
• On February 11, 2022, the MSBA Legislative Voice provided an update that states:
• “It is disappointing that there is considerable misinformation being shared about MSBA’s position on this bill.”
• “It is important to understand that MSBA is not backing bill passage on Open Enrollment.” 
• HB 1814 “meets all the requirements set forth by MSBA’s delegates in our advocacy position” (emphasis added). See attached Legislative Voice, February 11, 2022.
• “MSBA submitted written testimony stating support for Representative Pollitt’s respect for local control, but not the bill itself.”
  

1. Why was the MSBA advocacy position on open enrollment redrafted to relax the requirements for the bill to be acceptable to MSBA prior to it being presented to the Delegate Assembly for approval?
2. Why did MSBA indicate on the Written Appearance Form it was in support of HB 1814 if it was not in support of the bill? If the goal was to express support and appreciation for Rep. Pollitt, why not simply mark the form as “for informational purposes” instead of “in support of” the bill?
3. Why is MSBA stating to its members that HB 1814 “meets all the requirements” of the MSBA advocacy position when it does not, and an attorney for MSBA has acknowledged as much?

MSBA should publicly answer these questions. Moreover, if MSBA is actually opposed to HB 1814, it should publicly and unequivocally state that they oppose the bill. This is the only way that legislators and MSBA members will actually know what MSBA’s position really is on this critical issue.