Have Henrico County officials violated the Code of Virginia by publishing a website supporting a 4% meals tax scheduled for a referendum this fall? That all depends on where you draw the line between “information” and “advocacy.”
I raised the issue yesterday in a blog post (“County Paid Propaganda?”) that took note of the newly posted website and video, which, according to the Times-Dispatch, had cost $20,250 to produce. The video had cuts from interviews with County Manager John Vithoulkas and School Superintendent Pat Russo justifying the tax increase.
I frowned on the idea of the county using taxpayer dollars to advocate an increase in taxes. What I could not say for certain was that the website had been paid for by the county.
Today, I can say that the county did pay for the website. Steven Knockemus, assistant director, public relations & media services, confirmed that the expenditure was approved by the county manager as part of a larger informational campaign. Henrico plans to complement the website with direct mail, posters and utility bill inserts.
The materials are purely informational, says Knockemus. “This is strictly information for the electorate to develop an informed opinion.”
The Virginia state code states:
Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit a county, city or town from disseminating other neutral materials or advertisements concerning issues of public concern that are the subject of a referendum; however, the materials or advertisements shall not advocate the passage or defeat of the referendum question.
But is the website purely informational? I think it crosses the line into advocacy. Basically, it states the case for the new tax without expressing any of the objections to it.
We learn, for instance, that Henrico has cut $115 million and 646 positions from its budget since the recession. Those are facts. We also learn that a meals tax would raise approximately $18 million. That’s not a fact but an estimate. Then we learn that 40% of the meals tax will be paid for by non-residents. That’s a guesstimate based upon a variety of assumptions, which may or may not be accurate.
Then there’s this:
Q. Why not consider making reductions in spending instead of implementing a meals tax?
A. After cutting $115 million from its budget over the past four years, the county cannot make more spending reductions without significantly impacting Henrico Schools and Public Safety, which account for more the 75% of the county budget.
That’s not a fact, an estimate or guesstimate. That’s a political conclusion and flat-out advocacy.
One more example, a quote from Vithoulkas on the video:
If we make a turn, if we make a turn now, then as a county, I believe, we can miss that fiscal iceberg that’s out there. If the meals tax fails, the reality is, then, there are two choices: We are looking at a six-cent real estate tax increase or service level reductions.
Again, that’s not a neutral statement, that’s a political conclusion.
Vithoulkas is presenting voters with a false choice, contends Sidney Gunst, who has led the charge against the meals tax. (Full disclosure: Sidney is a personal friend)
The county can’t cut any more spending? Really? How about selling excess property and other assets — like the county golf course? How about shutting down the public-access channel, which has at least eight employees? Why doesn’t the county have a charge-back to insurance companies for emergency medical services, a measure that Gunst estimates could save $7 million annually if half or more paid up?
The county needs more revenue? Real estate values are on the rise. With no adjustment to the property tax rate, a 10% increase in assessment would yield the county about $25 million in revenue. Meanwhile, other jurisdictions around the world are embracing the “smart city” movement and adopting cost-cutting technology. Here in Virginia, innovative business enterprises are showing local school systems how to integrate online learning into K-12 teaching. Why aren’t those innovative ideas even part of the dialogue in Henrico?
None of Gunst’s alternatives to raising taxes are mentioned on the Henrico website. The county is not telling citizens that there are two sides to the story. It is presenting only one side, and in my book that’s pure advocacy.
“I don’t know if the website is legal or not, but it smells,” Gunst says. Bob McDonnell defended his failure to report gifts and loans by arguing that he stuck with the letter of the law. “What the governor did may be legal, but it smells,” Gunst says. “Legal or not, [the website] stinks.”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.