Warning to Burlington voters: you’re probably about to be inundated with unsolicited materials from city government designed to persuade you to vote a huge tax increase upon yourself (5.7-cents, or 11.79 percent on top of 48.36 cents per $100 current rate) to finance two bond referendum questions that Burlington’s city council has decided to put on the November ballot.
State law, and court precedents, make clear that “A municipality shall not use public funds to endorse or oppose a referendum, election or a particular candidate for elective office.” (N.C.G.S. § 160A499.3. Limitation on the use of public funds.)
City officials are already plotting how they can “educate” city voters about the bonds. The words “educate” and “inform” are historically allowable, ostensibly neutral, purposes for government spending on bond issues; “promotion,” “advocacy,” and “propaganda” are not.
But don’t count on city hall to pay much attention to the difference – although it’s the distinction between legal and illegal.
City council members got a preview of the effort this week when they were told about plans to put “information” on the bonds in the city’s water bills. Never mind that city taxpayers haven’t asked to be informed – which adds to our view that the underlying motive is clearly advocacy to encourage votes for the bonds, and further demonstrates an overt example of partiality and prejudice.
An important cornerstone of American democracy is that the government, itself, maintains a strict neutrality in elections. The fairness and integrity of the election process demands that government entities not attempt to “tip the scales,” so to speak, in an election by advocating or promoting a position on an issue that its elected members, or other city officials, support – or may devoutly wish to see enacted.
It is “election interference” of the worst kind to have governments trying to influence the electoral decision(s) of its citizens.
Dollar vs. Town of Cary, a North Carolina Court of Appeals case decided in 2002, provides guidance about how to ensure that government agencies do not violate the fundamental principle that voters should not be forced to finance advocacy against their own preferences with their own tax dollars.
That case provided guidance on distinguishing between providing so-called “information” (which, within reason, is allowed) vs. prohibited actions that cross into advocacy, promotion, or even outright propaganda.
Here are some of the key phrases from that 2002 decision: “The determination of whether advertising is informational or promotional is a factual question, and factors such as the style, tenor, and timing of the publication should be considered. . . It is not necessary for the advertisement to urge voters to vote ‘yes’ or ‘no’ or ‘for’ or ‘against’ a particular issue or candidate in order for the advertising to be promotional.”
Keep these phrases in mind: the “style, tenor, and timing.”
It seems rather evident to us that the “timing” of these plans makes clear that the underlying purpose is to promote approval of the bonds.
Now scheduled to be on the ballot are two referendum issues totaling $68.5 million – one, for $47 million is for “recreation” purposes, while the other, $21.5 million, is for streets and sidewalks.
But city officials have a lot of “splaining to do,” to quote Ricky Ricardo, in justifying these multi-million dollar expenditures and the tax increase they will necessitate. It’s a terrible time to be asking the taxpayers to tax themselves even more.
City council members already foisted an 18 percent tax increase on Burlington voters last year when they hiked taxes far beyond the “revenue neutral” level after the countywide revaluation. Another almost 12 percent rate hike will present Burlington residents with an almost 30 percent increase.
The “frequently asked questions” on the city’s website provides a biased slant on the merits of the bonds. Printed nearby separately [see page 3], and provided this week by the newspaper’s publisher to city council members, are examples of the city’s hyberbole, designed to frighten, or at least mislead, voters into voting for the bond referendums. Let us emphasize that voters will not find anywhere in the city’s propaganda any explanation of why these bond issues are really being proposed.
In essence, city council members squandered millions of tax dollars that could have been spent on these projects on other – one could say less important – projects over the past few years.
Most notably, in our judgment, all manner of allegedly “urgent” expenditures were added: Astroturf for some of the soccer fields at Springwood Park ($3.6 million); a fancy new entertainment venue (at a cost of $2.6 million) at Burlington’s baseball stadium; another expansion at the Paramount Theater (although that $11 million expense is now being re-routed into the bond referendum); plus a slew of pickleball courts (17, as we recall, with a huge price tag of millions of dollars).
Maybe the city council should have asked voters, through a bond referendum, whether they wanted to spend money on each of those projects.
Another of the most glaring aspects of the city’s one-sided FAQs on the city’s website is Number 9, “What happens if the bonds don’t pass in November?” According to the website, “If one or both of the bond referendum questions are not approved by voters in November, projects will be delayed or canceled. City leadership can also look for alternative more expensive ways to finance projects.”
Entirely missing from the city’s recitation of potential consequences is the possibility that proposed projects could be revised or scaled back. Instead, the only two choices provided by the city are “delayed or canceled.” It’s a straw man argument. It’s inflammatory, and also inaccurate to claim that the only alternatives to passage of the bonds are “more expensive ways to finance projects.”
The website propaganda repeatedly describes the bonds as the “most economical” form of financing the desired projects.
In fact, the least expensive payment option would be to put the items that are truly needed into the city’s annual budget – i.e., the way expenditures are normally handled. There’s no interest cost whatsoever from funding projects the traditional way.
But the city government, itself, must take special care to stop violating North Carolina law by using tax dollars to advocate for these bonds – whether overtly or surreptitiously.