I realize complaining about the recent sales tax referendum after the fact is like closing the barn door after the horse is already out. But considering that 95 percent of the voters didn’t even vote, I’d be willing to bet most people didn’t even know about the vote, nor was there a healthy debate.
The first I heard about the referendum was when I came home for spring break last week. I went to the BOE Web site and saw a link titled “1/4 Cent Sales Tax Referendum.”
The link was a document purporting to be a “Fact Sheet.” That would be using the term loosely. The fact sheet was signed at the bottom by the very County Commissioners who voted in favor of the referendum and it was hardly unbiased “factual” information.
As far as the commissioners go, I don’t have an axe to grind. I don’t think I’ve ever mentioned them in approximately 90 columns. I think they’re good people with good intentions. I have even been employed by one of them who I consider a good man and a close family friend.
But Washington and Raleigh politicians aren’t the only ones that need their feet held to the fire especially when they vote to raise taxes.
Whether its legislators in Raleigh, local county commissioners, or student government at our state’s universities, I hear politicians defend their own votes in favor of putting tax hikes on the ballot.
The most popular defense is, “I didn’t vote in favor of a tax hike, I voted to let the people decide.” Let’s just dispense with this nonsense right now. Any vote that clears a hurdle for a tax hike is in fact a vote to raise taxes.
A member of the House of Representatives who votes to raise taxes can’t claim he was merely voting “yes” to give the Senate a voice on the matter. Nor can a county commissioner use this flawed logic to say he merely wanted to give the people a voice.
Nor can you claim you didn’t vote in favor of the tax, while at the same time publishing a “fact sheet” supporting the tax you just put on the ballot. It was like a “pro” and “con” sheet without any cons.
The gist of it was that the county and Randolph Community College bought a warehouse from Klaussner for a machinist program, but didn’t have the money to renovate it so that it could be used for that purpose.
This sales tax would be “fair” because everyone would pay it, as opposed to a property tax hike, and it would go to help train the unemployed. The fact sheet assumed a tax hike was inevitable, so we better take the least painful choice.
The tax would also be a great investment because the fact sheet claims, “Studies show that every $1.00 invested in the community college returns $6.00 back to the community.”
I’d really like to see those studies. That’s pretty incredible – a 600 percent return on the dollar? In the words of Patrick Henry, “I smelt a rat.” If these studies were accurate, this project should fund itself.
The fact sheet also hinted that the sales tax would alleviate the county’s $137 million debt. First, the money is going to new spending. Second, even after the Klaussner project is finished, the projected $2 million revenue the tax will generate won’t put a dent in the annual $15 million in interest payments on that debt.
I also found it interesting that this tax was justified as being for particular capital needs – specifically the Klaussner building machine shop renovation. But the tax has no sunset provision. Long after the renovation is paid for, the tax will remain.
The more I thought about this fact sheet, I began to think that it was wrong for the BOE to support the referendum by posting such a biased document at the top of its Web site. The people who are running elections should be fair and impartial, right?
I did some research, and it turns out that under N.C. law G.S. 163-39, its illegal for the BOE to support or oppose a referendum by written or oral statements intended for the public at large. I would argue that posting a persuasive document on the BOE Web site fits this definition.
This type of election violation is so serious that it may be grounds for removal of a member or employee of the BOE under G.S. 163-22(c). I personally sent a written complaint to the BOE director the Saturday morning before the election. But the fact sheet remained on the Web site throughout the voting.
Admittedly, this violation may be innocent and the practical effect on the outcome of the vote may be insignificant. But when the officials charged with administering election law are the ones doing the violating (knowingly or innocently), there’s a big problem.
There’s also a big problem when elected officials attempt to subvert the known will of the public. Just in 2008 the voters of Randolph County rejected another sales tax, 70 percent to 30 percent.
This time around the commissioners tried something different. They placed the referendum on a ballot by itself, when no other major election would be taking place.
They say it had to be done this way to make the tax effective by the start of the fiscal year. Maybe I’m cynical, but why wasn’t timing a concern in the 2008 vote?
Voter turnout was less than 5 percent and the tax passed with 54 percent of the vote. Dr. Bob Shackleford, president of RCC, was quoted in the county’s other newspaper as saying, “I’m really humbled by the voter confidence.” Yes, that sort of turnout ought to be humbling.
Tar Heel Dispatch is written by Tyler Younts, a second-year law student at Campbell University. Younts, who grew up in Farmer, has a passion for writing and for politics and for writing about politics. E-mail comments to news@randolphguide.com or directly to Younts at tlyounts0209@email.campbell.edu
