A group calling themselves concerned citizens thinks the USC school district’s efforts on a bond referendum for a new school this spring crossed the line, and the Faribault county attorney’s office is still investigating the charges.

The group says the tone of presentations made by superintendent Frank Lorentz was inappropriate and was designed more to persuade than to inform. They also assert that the school spent money on activities that promoted the passage of the referendum. The school denies all the charges.

The referendum, which would have paid for a new high school and other facilities improvements in the USC district, which is based in Wells, failed by a wide margin. But Chris Olson, one resident who has pressed the charges against the school district, said the school’s tactics still require scrutiny.

&uot;Yes, they weren’t able to get this through, but it’s still inappropriate.&uot;

The concerned citizens, represented by Steve Thrond, sent a letter dated March 25 to Faribault County Attorney Brian Roverud, alleging violations of the Fair Campaign Practices Act. The four-page letter complains that district officials presented a biased picture of the need for a referendum and points to everything from expenditures the group calls questionable to school board members wearing yellow &uot;Vote Yes&uot; buttons at public meetings, which Olson said could unfairly influence people.

Roverud singled out two of the charges to investigate: A $2,500 check, which the citizens group said was used for voter research; and the expenses of a Web site that was dedicated to promoting the referendum.

Roverud said Monday that he’s waiting for information from the school district to proceed with the investigation. He would not comment further on the investigation.

In a letter addressed to Thrond on May 16, Roverud said the school has not violated the law unless it knowingly presented false information.

&uot;In other words, assertions of propaganda, rhetoric or emphasizing certain facts and not emphasizing certain facts are not within the purview of (the statute),&uot; he wrote. &uot;… The appropriate question is whether the statements are false and not merely opinion, deductions or arguments.&uot;

He also wrote that activities of the superintendent and school board members supporting the referendum, including verbal support or wearing buttons, did not violate the law, either.

The school district says it did nothing wrong, either with its tone during the referendum campaign or with any expenditures.

&uot;The school district denies that there was any illegality whatsoever,&uot; said Kevin Rupp, the school’s attorney.

The $2,500 check the citizens are concerned about was used for &uot;legitimate educational purposes,&uot; Rupp said. He said the money paid for educational materials unrelated to the referendum.

&uot;Apparently (the concerned citizens) have a version of what happened, and where they got that version I don’t know,&uot; Rupp said.

Lorentz said all of the district’s expenses, printed materials and other actions during the campaign were approved by Rupp in advance.

&uot;I’m dealing with a $32 million bond referendum,&uot; Lorentz said. &uot;I’m not going to jeopardize that … we’re not dealing with a few thousand in textbooks. It was a $32 million referendum.&uot;