Introduction to the November Bonds
Disclaimer: Articles posted at my blog are personal opinion. In posting this series on the bonds, I do not claim to speak for the City or the City Council. This blog does not represent any official position of American Fork City, and no City resources have ever been used to finance this blog.
Note: I have provided this series in advance to the mayor and the other City Council members, and have encouraged them to post comments where they differ. As always, I will honor my policy of posting comments in their entirety, regardless of my agreement or disagreement.
Utah Code does not prohibit a public official from speaking, campaigning, or otherwise exercising his First Amendment rights for political purposes, but it does prohibit a public entity from spending public funds to influence a ballot proposition. This is with good reason. The purpose of a ballot is not for the government to tell the people what to do, but for the people to tell the government what to do.
In other words, it's not my position that counts in this vote; it's yours.
Still, when the City Council votes to place an item on the ballot, that vote is presumed to be a strong recommendation in favor of the proposition. But the Council's vote to place five bonds on November's ballot was not that kind of vote.
Budget discussions last summer centered around a tax increase originally proposed north of 50 percent. Knowing this number to be untenable, the Council voted to excise several items from the budget, placing them instead on the ballot. The logic of that decision went something like this: "We know the public can't afford all of these items, so we'll put a list on the ballot and let the voters pick which items they want most."
One could say -- as I did -- that this amounts to failure to prioritize. But my arguments fell on rocky soil, so, when time came to place these items on the ballot, my vote represented nothing more than a desire to kick the matter up to a higher court -- yours.
The purpose of this article, therefore, and of the six that follow, is not to persuade but to inform. I believe you need straight talk from your elected officials if you are to cast an informed vote. Since a public hearing gives little opportunity for this -- the public likes to be heard in hearings, not talked at -- and since the City may not expend public funds to present anything beyond the bare facts -- this blog is the best venue I have available to me for thorough discussion.
As you read these articles, you will note that I have several concerns. For the most part, these concerns relate to timing and process. For example, there are two cases, 560 West and the Trail and Open Space bond, where study is not complete. In other instances -- most notably 560 West and 1120 North -- it will seem that the Council did not do enough to court public opinion or forge consensus. A strong, recurring theme will be the need to raise matching funds for grants. The nagging, unanswered question is, why did the City seek grants for which matching funds were not available?
In voicing these concerns, I do not raise objections to the items themselves. Each of these bonds represents a desire on the part of the Council either to respond to public clamor, or to act now to prevent greater expense later.
Nor do I disrespect my colleagues' motives or intentions. I have watched and participated as this Council has worked tirelessly, usually overtime, to meet in the most fiscally prudent manner possible the public's desires for public safety, infrastructure, and quality of life.
But ultimately, it's not the Council's voice that matters any more. It's yours. If you have questions as you read, please feel free to contact me or any of my colleagues. On this point I can speak for all: We're happy to help.
Note: I have provided this series in advance to the mayor and the other City Council members, and have encouraged them to post comments where they differ. As always, I will honor my policy of posting comments in their entirety, regardless of my agreement or disagreement.
Utah Code does not prohibit a public official from speaking, campaigning, or otherwise exercising his First Amendment rights for political purposes, but it does prohibit a public entity from spending public funds to influence a ballot proposition. This is with good reason. The purpose of a ballot is not for the government to tell the people what to do, but for the people to tell the government what to do.
In other words, it's not my position that counts in this vote; it's yours.
Still, when the City Council votes to place an item on the ballot, that vote is presumed to be a strong recommendation in favor of the proposition. But the Council's vote to place five bonds on November's ballot was not that kind of vote.
Budget discussions last summer centered around a tax increase originally proposed north of 50 percent. Knowing this number to be untenable, the Council voted to excise several items from the budget, placing them instead on the ballot. The logic of that decision went something like this: "We know the public can't afford all of these items, so we'll put a list on the ballot and let the voters pick which items they want most."
One could say -- as I did -- that this amounts to failure to prioritize. But my arguments fell on rocky soil, so, when time came to place these items on the ballot, my vote represented nothing more than a desire to kick the matter up to a higher court -- yours.
The purpose of this article, therefore, and of the six that follow, is not to persuade but to inform. I believe you need straight talk from your elected officials if you are to cast an informed vote. Since a public hearing gives little opportunity for this -- the public likes to be heard in hearings, not talked at -- and since the City may not expend public funds to present anything beyond the bare facts -- this blog is the best venue I have available to me for thorough discussion.
As you read these articles, you will note that I have several concerns. For the most part, these concerns relate to timing and process. For example, there are two cases, 560 West and the Trail and Open Space bond, where study is not complete. In other instances -- most notably 560 West and 1120 North -- it will seem that the Council did not do enough to court public opinion or forge consensus. A strong, recurring theme will be the need to raise matching funds for grants. The nagging, unanswered question is, why did the City seek grants for which matching funds were not available?
In voicing these concerns, I do not raise objections to the items themselves. Each of these bonds represents a desire on the part of the Council either to respond to public clamor, or to act now to prevent greater expense later.
Nor do I disrespect my colleagues' motives or intentions. I have watched and participated as this Council has worked tirelessly, usually overtime, to meet in the most fiscally prudent manner possible the public's desires for public safety, infrastructure, and quality of life.
But ultimately, it's not the Council's voice that matters any more. It's yours. If you have questions as you read, please feel free to contact me or any of my colleagues. On this point I can speak for all: We're happy to help.
posted by Heidi Rodeback at 11:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home