I finally have read the AGÂ Tellinghuisen’s opinion (opin-ag) In the second question he clearly addresses the use of taxpayer money to promote one side of the issue. He clearly states that the city is responsible for showing the pros and cons of the Events Center. The city is not doing that. So I’m curious as to what our city attorney is talking about? I think he needs to reread the opinion.
QUESTION NOÂ 2.
“Can a municipality, county, or school district expend public funds to provide information as to the impact of an election measure on the respective entity?”
On the other hand, the use of the public funds by local governments solely for purposes of informing or educating the voters on an election issue may be proper depending on the circumstances.
Expenditures to provide the voters with the relevant facts and pros and cons of a ballot measure have never been considered constitutionally objectionable and case authorities suggest that authority for such expenditures need not be expressly provided. Citizens to Protect Pub. Funds, supra at 676; Stern v. Kramersky, supra. The authority may be fairly implied from powers expressly granted.
Whether such expenditures are impliedly authorized requires close review of the initiated or referred measure and a review of those powers expressly granted under statute. The expenditures would have to be judged on an individual, case-by-case basis. Certainly, local governments may not expend public funds to provide information on all election issues, however, if passage or rejection of the ballot measure would significantly affect the ability of the municipality, county, or school district to carry out its express powers, the use of public funds for strictly informational purposes may be authorized.
Assuming that the use of public funds for such purpose is authorized, to avoid any claim of misappropriation the governing board involved must be careful to ensure that the published information constitutes a fair presentation of the relevant facts on both sides of the election issue. Along such lines, it would not be sufficient to merely refrain from exhorting a yes or no vote. Other language or statements prepared and designed to influence public opinion would also be improper. Any determination of the propriety or impropriety of the publication and ultimately the expenditure would turn on a consideration of various factors, including the style and tenor as well as the timing of the publication. Stanson v. Mott, supra at 12.
Respectfully submitted,
Roger A. Tellinghuisen • Attorney General
I’m not sure that I could find even 1 “con” in all of the city documents listed on the Event Center webpage.
Only “con” is MMM.
In Huether’s mind, he is presenting the cons, it’s just that there aren’t any!
I’m still wondering what opinion the city attorney and our current AG are reading. Did they miss the answer to question #2?
Hey, they wanted gubermint run like a corporation . . . they are getting what they wanted; a pile of yes wo/men.
Though I wasn’t a fan of the last city attorney because of his stubborness. I find this one lacking a backbone when making decisions.
When you serve at the pleasure of the Mayor, what would you expect? And the result comes as a surprise to you? Really!
Not only does the CA not have a backbone, he also cannot read that which is perfectly clear to the rest of us.