The chairman of the Orange County Republican Party is crying foul over Orange County’s publicly funded information campaign leading up to the Nov. 8 county vote on a quarter-cent sales tax referendum.
Bob Randall says the fliers, ads, web page, and other materials being used by the county and funded by a $50,000 appropriation from commissioners cross the line from informing the public about the ballot item to advocating a “yes” vote on the tax hike. Randall says the county’s use of the theme “What Can a Quarter Do?” presents the sales tax hike as insignificant to citizens, and thus intends voters to question why anyone would oppose it.
“It’s just a different way of saying vote for it, which is illegal,” contends Randall.
Orange County Attorney John Roberts rejects Randall’s claim. Roberts says the materials are neutral on the tax referendum and meet the requirement of North Carolina case law, which he summarizes as prohibiting a single point of view from being the county’s position. “As long as both sides are given equal presentation, it’s perfectly acceptable to educate the public.” Roberts says he reviewed all materials submitted to him by Assistant County Manager Gwen Harvey, the point person for the campaign.
County materials carry a reference to the option to vote no: “On Tuesday, November 8th registered voters in Orange County will have the opportunity to vote For or Against the ¼-cent sales and use tax.” Prominently featured is a breakdown of how proceeds would be used, as well as this description: “If approved, every $100 spent by Orange County residents and visitors will generate 25 cents for economic development and education in our area.”
Orange County commissioners appropriated $50,000 in public funds for the campaign and hired the marketing communications firm Sheer Associates to implement it. That’s $10,000 more than the board appropriated for the 2010 sales tax campaign, when Orange voters narrowly defeated the proposed tax hike by 51 to 49 percent.
Sheer’s budget projection shows plans for nearly $19,000 in newspaper advertising, more than $6,100 in radio advertising, $6,250 for 35,000 fliers, $2,000 for 1,500 posters, and $2,500 for a video that appears on the county’s special Web page devoted to the referendum. The county had been invoiced $32,470.61 as of Sept. 28, leaving $17,529.39 available for use. According to Harvey, the county has received to date: display posters, two versions of fliers, radio copy, power point presentation, talking points, draft letters to the editor, PSA video, newspaper display advertising, coordination with both Orange County school systems, and “identification of opportunities to further educate registered voters.”
Joining Randall in his critique of the county campaign is Chapel Hill mom MaryMartha Barbour, who recently opened her child’s school take-home folder and found a county flier about the tax referendum. Like Randall, she opposes the sales tax hike and believes the flier encourages those who read it to vote “yes.”
“They are using our children to further their own political agenda,” charges Barbour, a mother of four kids in the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools system and a member of Chapel Hill Ladies Republicans. She calls the tactic of using kids as the communication vehicle “reprehensible.”
A Chapel Hill-Carrboro district official confirmed the district distributed fliers via students. According to Stephanie Knott, assistant to the superintendent for community relations, three fliers were sent home in backpacks with kids in grades K-8. Two were provided by the county and a third was designed by the district and outlined projects the system may undertake if the tax hike passes. Fliers also were provided to each high school office since high school students may not take material home to their parents, Knott said.
Chapel Hill-Carrboro’s sister school system, Orange County Schools, also sent fliers home with approximately 5,000 kids in grades K-8. Patricia Coleman, administrative associate in the Orange Schools superintendent’s office, said the county provided the fliers and that the district did not create one of its own. The school system’s website features a page with a chart titled “Potential Uses for the Anticipated Funding Over the Next Ten Years,” including more than $1.2 million in “green projects.”
Mike Parker, an attorney for Orange County Schools, said the district has a fairly restrictive policy on distribution of materials but allows the county to distribute information this way. Parker said he was not asked in advance about sending the flier home with kids, but if he had been, he would have approved it based on the distribution policy. “This to me encourages people to vote and tells them where the money will go,” he said of the flier. “Whether that is taking an advocacy position or not, it’s a close call, I’ll admit that.” If people have a beef with anyone, he says it’s with the county, not the school system.
Randall’s beef with the county extends beyond the campaign message. He believes the commissioners’ decision to put the referendum on the ballot in an off year is an intentional effort to capitalize on low interest in rural precincts that voted heavily against the referendum in 2010. County residents who live outside municipalities have no local races to decide in November. The ballot will contain only the sales tax referendum.
Earlier this year, commissioners voted 5-2 in favor of the November date. The Herald-Sun of Durham reported the vote came after commissioners were told by Orange County Board of Elections Director Tracy Reams that November turnout would be much lower — perhaps up to 25 percent — than during the May 2012 presidential primary, when turnout could reach 40 percent. “Their strategy is that county voters will not be motivated to go the polls for one issue,” Randall said.
If the tax hike passes, Orange commissioners say they will divide the anticipated $2.5 million in new annual revenue equally between education and economic development. John Locke Foundation Director of Research and Local Government Analyst Michael Sanera points out (PDF download) that despite what commissioners say about how the funds would be used, they are not bound legally by their resolution, nor can they bind future boards.
Randall says it is ironic and misleading to tell citizens that more money for economic development is key to attracting business and diversifying the tax base. He says the county has built-in selling points but has problems recruiting business because its policies are unfriendly. “You’d think with two major interstates running through Orange County — 40 and 85 — and a U.S. Highway — 70 — and a rail system, that it would be easy to attract businesses.”
With the election approaching, Randall and his members are stepping up their campaign to explain why they think the tax hike is a bad idea. He says a recent fundraiser netted about $3,000, money that will help support their efforts. Kathy Hartkopf of Orange County FreedomWorks told Carolina Journal her group also opposes the referendum. But it’s not just the county’s materials Randall and Hartkopf will have to counter. A group called The Campaign for Jobs and Schools is campaigning actively for a “yes” vote.
Early voting begins in Orange County Oct. 20. Durham and Buncombe counties also have scheduled the sales tax referendum for Nov. 8.
Donna Martinez is a contributor to Carolina Journal.