SPLOST Ballot Question
RE: http://www.henryherald.com/local/local_story_241214631.html
“There will not be actual projects on the ballot,” said Mathis. “Our only way to notify voters about the projects is on the Web site, the local TV station and advertisements in the newspaper,” she said.
They know better. State law OCGA 48-8-111 (c) specifies the ballot language that must be used. It must include the total estimated revenue amount, a general list of all proposed projects, and the time period for tax imposition.
In 1990 the attorney general's opinion about specifying details says:
“There is no necessity that the description of the purpose or purposes for the tax be in exacting detail. Rather the description and the purposes must be only so specific as to place the electorate on fair notice of the projects to which the tax will be devoted."
Further, OCGA 48-8-121 says SPLOST funds may only be used for projects approved by the voters in a SPLOST referendum.
If the ballot does not include a project list, at least by reference, there is no declaration of how the revenues are proposed to be spent.
We trust the people we have elected to office. We believe their statements today will reflect their actions tomorrow. But, what happens when or if new commissioners are elected during the 6-year term of the SPLOST? How will new BoC members be bound by a project list that was not specifically approved by the voters?
Comments
If the ballot is not project specific, then does that mean that the BOC can roll out projects at their whim? What does the reduction of the recreation center projects mean overall? Has the input of the SPLOST Oversight Committee been negated?
I, for one, smell a rat of enormous proportions!
Posted by: Thomas Hester | August 30, 2007 07:14 AM
How can the electorate respond intelligently in November's referendum without a project specific listing? What does the reduction of the learning / recreation centers from four (4) to two (2) mean overall? Does the project notification process outlined by Commissioner Mathis allow for BoC "cherry picking" of the highest order? Was the work of the SPLOST Oversight Committee negated by these most recent actions?
I smell a rat of gigantic proportions?
Posted by: Thomas Hester | August 30, 2007 07:22 AM
In the words of Mark Felt "Follow the Money" ... an old saw in unraveling mysteries is to ask the question Cui Bono? [translated as "Who benefits?"]
Who is NOT going to be on the BOC in 2 years? Who appointed the Chair of the SPLOST committee? Who was that Chair of the SPLOST committee? Do either of them have future political aspirations? Who benefits from an indefinite project listing? Who was the one who gave the advice to the BoC that this ballot language met the statutory requirements?
Posted by: Green Death | August 30, 2007 10:12 AM
Isnt Larry Stanley ON the Splost committee - he should be able to answer all of greens questions
Posted by: Dee | August 30, 2007 11:52 AM
Yeah Larry, what are you trying to pull here? Weren't you on that committee?
Posted by: rat sniffer | August 30, 2007 12:09 PM
I served on the SPLOST Oversight Committee with Larry. Our laboring under the assumption that a justifiable projects list was to be presented for BoC review, refinement and referendum presentation seems to have evaporated quickly. The rat I smell resides in a more exalted place!
Posted by: Thomas Hester | August 30, 2007 12:48 PM
Let's be very clear about the role and function of the SPLOST Oversight Committee. We held public meetings, gathered information and acquired cost estimates. Everything that was compiled was forwarded to the BoC AS RECOMMENDATIONS.
The final project lists, timelines and budgets AND the ballot question language is up to the BoC.
Today's Herald piece was the first time I have seen or heard anything from the BoC.
Posted by: Larry Stanley | August 30, 2007 01:59 PM