The state Ethics Commission has launched a preliminary investigation into the South Portland City Council over its decision to include a mailer with all its property tax bills urging citizens to oppose a couple of referendum questions on the November 3rd statewide ballot.
The bills had a flyer attached stressing the Council's opposition to Question 2, which calls for a cut in vehicle excise tax, and Question 4, the so-called Taxpayer Bill of Rights -- known as TABOR 2 -- which aims to rein in state spending by requiring voter approval for tax increases.
The ethics probe was launched at the request of the TABOR 2 campaign. "We were deeply concerned that the city was using taxpayers' money to not very subtly tell taxpayers how to vote on these two referenda," says TABOR 2 campaign chairman David Crocker. "And they used the exrtaordinary means of including this advisory in property tax bills, which is, shall we say, not very subtle."
South Portland City Manager James Gailey could not be reached for comment. But the flyer sent to South Portland taxpayers explains why the City Council opposes those two ballot questions. Were Question 2 to be approved, for example, and the municipal excise tax is cut, the flyer points out that the city stands to lose nearly $2 million in revenue.
As for Question 4, voters are reminded that the TABOR 2 initiative is a revised version of TABOR 1, which was defeated in 2006.
Crocker thinks that in doing this, South Portland has probably violated state campaign finance laws.
"Under our finance laws here in Maine, if you expend more than $5,000 to oppose any sort of issues referendum then you have to register as a ballot question committee with the Maine Ethics Commission, and that includes staff time as well as direct monetary expenditure."
Crocker says it's hard to believe that the costs of producing and distributing the letter to all property taxpayers in South Portland would not have exceeded $5,000. The Ethics Commission says it will consider Crocker's request for a formal investigation when it meets on November 19th, and has a chance to scrutinize the wording of the campaign finance rules.
"Well, Mr. Crocker's letter presents a threshold question, which is 'Do cities and towns have to file reports with the state if they were spending money to influence and election?'" says Jonathan Wayne, Executive Director of the State Ethics Commission.
He says the rules on so-called "ballot question committees" refer to a private organization or a person, and not specifically to municipalities.
"And Mr. Crocker is asking the commission to consider whether the city of South Portland, even though it's a public entity, would have to file similar reports," he says.
Crocker, in turn, points out that the term "person" has a number of definitions in the statute book, and one of those definitions is "a corporation." "It doesn't distinguish whether it's a business corporation, a not-for-profit corporation or a municipal corporation, which South Portland must assuredly is."
Beyond the question of whether or not the city has breached campaign finance rules, Crocker feels there's a larger ethical question to be raised "as to whether it's appropriate for a city government to use taxpayer resources to, in effect, tell people how to vote."
The city of South Portland, meanwhile, has been asked by the Ethics Commission to provide a written response to Crocker's charges by Friday, October 30th.
|