When Employees Become a Captive Political Audience

What happened at a Twin Falls School District meeting, how electoral influence entered a taxpayer-funded workplace, and why accountability is required

Jan 13, 2026

When Public Office Becomes Political Pressure

When did it become acceptable for government officials to use taxpayer-funded workplaces to shape political outcomes?

That question is no longer theoretical.

On January 5, 2026, a meeting was convened by the Twin Falls School District for district employees—held during paid work hours and under institutional authority. The meeting was opened by Superintendent Brady Dickensen, who made the purpose clear:

“I am going to turn the time over to Chairman Smallwood, who requested we have this meeting and he has a short message for you.”

This was not an informal aside.
The meeting was requested, scheduled, and deliberately handed over to a political officeholder.

That officeholder was Eric Smallwood—Chair of the Twin Falls School District Board of Trustees and President-Elect of the Idaho School Board Association.

What followed was not neutral civic education.

“We Need Your Help… In Voting”

Chairman Smallwood framed the gathering as a matter of institutional survival:

“We called this meeting because we need your help… we being the collective body of public education in Idaho.”

He escalated the message quickly:

“We are under attack and if we are going to survive, we need your help.”

And then made the purpose explicit:

“What am I talking about is we need your help in voting. I’m not here to tell you how to vote, but I am here pleading for you to vote.”

This was not a general encouragement of civic participation.
It was a plea delivered by a superior authority to subordinate employees, tying electoral participation directly to the survival of their institution.

Defining the “Right” Outcomes

Chairman Smallwood then identified the problem:

“Unfortunately, there are quite a few who have managed to get elected into our legislature whose goals don’t align with those of us who support public education.”

And the solution:

“We need your help electing legislators who support public education. Our mission and our ability to carry on the mission of public education depends on it.”

This is no longer informational.
It is directional.

Targeting Party Affiliation

The message narrowed further:

“In case you don’t know, the Republican primary is what is called a closed primary… only persons affiliated as Republicans can vote.”

He underscored who mattered most:

“Especially those of you who are affiliated as Republicans because you are the only ones whose votes will end up mattering.”

That emphasis did not stop there.

Chairman Smallwood directly addressed employees based on their party affiliation:

“I am asking those of you who are affiliated as Republican to just pay attention and please vote in the primary.”

He highlighted the election date and framed the stakes:

“It is May 19th, the same day as graduation. There will be candidates running who believe in public education and there will be candidates who don’t.”

He then proceeded to explain party mechanics and deadlines:

“In case you don’t know, the Republican primary is what is called a closed primary. Only persons affiliated as Republicans can vote in the Republican primary.”

And continued:

“If you are affiliated with a different party you can’t just change your affiliation when you vote—the deadline is March 13th. If you are unaffiliated you can choose how to affiliate when you vote.”

This was not abstract civics.
This was not neutral information offered in passing.“You Will Control Who Wins”

Then came the most revealing assertion:

“You are all sitting in this room are basically enough to swing the election.”

He reinforced it:

“Ask a spouse and a friend… and I promise you, those of you in this room will control who wins our primary election in May.”

That statement alone establishes intent.

This was a government-convened audience being told—explicitly—that they had the power, and the responsibility, to determine electoral outcomes.

These were also passed out to all of the teachers.

Offering Political Direction

Chairman Smallwood closed by offering himself as a resource:

“I am really familiar with our candidates… and I am going to be aggressive for our candidates that are running.”

And then:

“If you have any questions about who supports public education and who doesn’t, I am available.”

This is not neutrality.
This is advocacy.

(All the above quotes were taken from an audio of the meeting, so these are direct quotes.)

The Question Idaho Taxpayers Deserve Answered

Does using a district-convened meeting, paid work time, public facilities, and institutional authority to urge employees to influence election outcomes comply with Idaho Code § 74-604—the law governing the use of public funds, public resources, and public authority in connection with political activity?

That is not an accusation.
It is the unavoidable question raised by the conduct described above.

Idaho Code § 74-604 exists to protect public employees from political pressure, preserve institutional neutrality, and ensure that taxpayer-funded entities are not used—directly or indirectly—to advance electoral objectives.

When a public institution convenes employees, transfers the podium to a political officeholder, and delivers messaging centered on voting strategy, party affiliation, and election outcomes, the public has a right to expect transparency.

And a written explanation.

Accountability Is Not Optional

This issue is not about ideology.
It is about boundaries.

Public trust depends on clear lines between governance and politics. When those lines are crossed, the remedy is not silence—but accountability.

The integrity of Idaho’s public institutions, the protection of public employees, and the confidence of taxpayers demand nothing less.

A Direct Question for Those Seeking Office

When Chairman Smallwood stated,

“I am going to be aggressive for our candidates that are running,

Idaho voters deserve clarity.

Is he referring to the current challengers seeking legislative office?
And if so, will those candidates speak out against this conduct—or remain silent?

Silence is not neutral.

Are they comfortable benefiting from political advocacy delivered inside a taxpayer-funded workplace?
Are they willing to accept electoral support that is intertwined with institutional authority and power imbalances over public employees?

These are not abstract questions.
They go directly to character, judgment, and respect for the rule of law.

If a candidate believes this behavior is inappropriate, now is the time to say so.
If they believe it is acceptable, the public deserves to know that as well.

Elections test more than policy positions.
They test whether those seeking office are willing to draw clear ethical lines—even when doing so is inconvenient.