Respondents also assert that the challenged newspaper advertisement was not prepared by district personnel or paid for with district funds. They argue that the board members whose names appeared in the advertisement were exercising their rights to express their opinions as individual citizens. Respondents also deny that the superintendent or other district personnel appeared at private meetings to advocate passage of the proposition. At the outset, I note that respondents object to petitioners' reply. Therefore, while I have reviewed petitioners' submission, I have not considered those portions of the reply containing new allegations or exhibits which are not responsive to new material or affirmative defenses set forth in the answer.
Respondents bear the legal responsibility to control access to all district property.
They granted the filmmakers access not just to school grounds or hallways, but to classrooms as well. Respondent Castro accompanied the filmmakers as they recorded classroom scenes. Thus, the filmmakers could not have produced the video without respondents' support. This support of an advocacy group's efforts created, at a minimum, the appearance of impropriety. Moreover, the record does not indicate that similar access was available to individuals or groups who opposed the proposed capital project, further supporting the conclusion that such activity was partisan.