Providing voters with both sides of the issues is a fundamental principle of our democracy. School districts and their adherents should know this and insist on it; not complain about it, as recent letters to the editor about my writing voters guide statements. I also happen to know quite a bit about the finances of all state school districts. What school districts provide as “property tax cost impact analyses” in their taxpayer funded websites and campaign mailers are usually inaccurate and are underestimates.
Up until 2022, school districts had the option of “allowing” a voters’ pamphlet for their own measures for the February and April elections. Almost all school districts opted not to give voters a pamphlet with pro/con arguments. Thankfully, the law changed.
A glaring problem remains though. School districts are still tasked (by statute) to search for and select pro and con committee members for their own measures. It is a blatant conflict of interest. They readily find pro committee members; usually paid staff. Districts rarely seem to find con committee members though.
When school districts fail in their duty, the county auditor usually makes an attempt to find someone. But the auditor only has a day or two at this stage so he/she usually fails.
So I volunteer as a last resort. I analyze and critique each school district’s campaign materials. I post those critiques as well as cost impact estimate calculators on the BondNo.com and LevyNo.com websites.
I also have recommended policy changes posted that even my detractors might agree with. I hope so.
Jeff Heckathorn
Mill Creek
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
