In an article in the Oct. 7 Az Star, OV neighbor John Musolf raises that question. Although town officials say it's all legal because the town is educating residents, not promoting the bond, any reasonable person would have to question the fact that an outside consulting firm was hired and paid $50,000 to "educate us" on why we would want a property tax.
With municipalities curtailing funding of road projects, hospitals, schools and other needs, we have to question the sanity of financing an over zealous park in these trying times.
Many of us have received our early ballots. We implore all Oro Valley voters to consider the fact that this park includes more than 40 fields & courts. Do we need all that?
Allow this present council to evaluate our needs, and come back with a more moderate plan.
VOTE "NO" On Naranja Bond.
You can read the Az Star article here
http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/hourlyupdate/261107.php
6 comments:
QUESTIONS:
An outside consulting firm - who was it, what was it's primary purpose, why was it hired? The Arizona State Statutes simply point out those FACTS and FIGURES that MUST be sent to all voter households within the Town; it does not call for a web site or any other type of internet posting nor does it seemingly allow that any Town money be spent for anything other than the mailout (including the data preparation, of course). So, why the website at all? Who constructed the website? Was it the 'consultant'? And why was this web site found to be necessary? This site, with all of it's color and subtle glorification as well as retail sales 'techniques' (sell the sizzle, not the steak; sell the payment not the cost) smells of PR, and what is PR - why a type of pro-item advertising, that's what it is.
Now, Mr. Tobin Rosen is our Town Attorney and I, personally have a great respect for him. He cannot, perhaps, take any other position than the one he takes and I do believe this 'decision' was made prior to his hiring by the Town. But, as in virtually ALL legal cases, barring mediation, 50% of the 'sides' are won, 50% of the 'sides' are lost. Contritely, a determination is USUALLY an OPINION of application only, 'for or against'.
With my background experience, retail,I cannot help but agree that this web posting appears as 'side' oriented and thus in Public Relations mode.
All of the answers to your questions took me about 15 minutes to find on the Town's website through the archive search. Resolution 07-105 approved the contract on 09/19/07. Note the contract was for up to $50,000. I have no idea if that was what was actually spent. And, the webiste specifically says who created it at the bottom. Plus, there are cases out of Tucson and an AG opinion that say this kind of info is permissible.
Cyclone1
As you should be well aware, I certainly value your knowledge as well as your comments and/or corrections. As you should also be aware, I defended the information pamphlet which was sent out as seemingly being in line with the State Statute requirements and suggested that everyone 'drop it as an issue'.
In this case, first of all, my opening questions were intended to be rhetorical, though my subsequesnt comments did question the expenditure foisted on the community by the hiring of an outside entity to post the information in the manner it was done (I have 2 daughters who are professional web and information consultants, designers, writers, etc. who would have and could have done this job for one heck of a lot less than the 'up to $50,000' -A LOT LESS!). Now, since you have indroduced a question of specificity relative to the site, the Gordley Design Group of Tucson MARKET THEMSELVES as a marketing, advertising, graphic design, and public relations firm. Thus, I will stand by my statement that this "smells of PR, and what is PR - why a type of pro-item advertising, that's what it is".
As to the legality of it all, I believe my paragraph relative to that leaves open that there could be differing legal opinions on this particular application; I, myself, did NOT opine a LEGAL stance.
As to your pointing out the resolution approving this 'deal', I think that you must agree that a resolution does not, in itself, make it legal. Your reference to prior 'cases' and an opinion by the AG stating that "this kind of info is legal" does not cite how or the format that the 'other' relative 'cases' were communicated.
Zev,
My comment about the resolution wasn't that it "legitimized" the expenditure, just that if people wanted information on what the contract was for, it's out there. The case in Tucson dealt with the City's websites for two bond issues and the AG opinion discusses the statute in question. In the Tucson case, the court found the statute was not violated even though the City was accused of advocating for a "yes" vote due to the presentation of the information on the websites. The AG opinion is more general, but basically talks about the analysis a court would have to undertake to determine if the statute was violated.
AG opinion:
http://www.azag.gov/opinions/2000/I00-020.html
Overview of Tucson case:
http://www.law.arizona.edu/journals/alr/ALR2004/vol462/Angela.pdf
Cyclone1 - thank you for the clarification of your intent; as always I respect your comments. Unfortunately I perceive the legal judgements here in Arizona to be HIGHLY pro government; there are other persons and organizations, more 'adept' than I, who believe the same. Are the constitutions of this Country, this State, this Town, dead? Look at the sorry picture of our crumbling society today and ask yourself, who did what to whom?
Post a Comment