HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/05/2008 06 Yakima School district No. 7 Ballot Proposition - Public Hearing BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
YAKIMA, WASHINGTON
AGENDA STATEMENT
Item No.
For Meeting of February 5, 2008
ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing on Yakima School District No. 7 Ballot Proposition.
SUBMITTED BY: Dick Zais, City Manager
CONTACT PERSON/TELEPHONE: Dick Zais, City Manager, 575 -6040
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: At the January 15, 2008 Business Meeting, Council set a date of
public hearing regarding a ballot proposition submitted by the Yakima School District No. 7:
• Proposition No. 03.07.08 for the Yakima School District, which reads as follows:
Proposition No. 03.07.08
Yakima School District
Replacement Maintenance
and Operation Levy
The Board of Directors of Yakima School District No. 7 adopted Resolution
No. 03.07.08 concerning a proposition to finance maintenance and operation
expenses. This proposition would authorize the District to levy the following
excess taxes; in place of an expiring levy, upon all taxable property within the
District, for support of this District's General Fund educational maintenance
• and operation expenses:
Approximate Levy
Levy/ Rate /$1, 000
Collection Years Assessed Value Levy Amount
2009 $2.80 $11,950,000
2010 $2.80 $12,308,501
2011 $2.81 $12,677,756
2012 $2.81 $13,058,087
all as specified in Resolution No. 03.07.08. Should this proposition be
approved?
Yes[] No[]
Resolution Ordinance Other (Specify)
Contract Mail to (name and address):
Phone:
Funding Source _,
APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL: ■Ala ,-C it Manager
vow
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
® BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
COUNCIL ACTION:
CITY OF YAKIMA
ID LEGAL
DEPARTMENT
200 South Third Street, Yakima, Washington 98901 (509) 575 -6030 Fax (509) 575 -6160
•
MEMORANDUM
January 31, 2008
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
Dick Zais, City Manager
FROM: Raymond L. Paolella, City Attorney
Lawrence Watters, Senior Assistant City Attorney
SUBJ: Guidelines for Public Hearings on Ballot Propositions and Actions the City
Council May Take
0 This memorandum addresses guidelines for public hearings on ballot propositions and
actions the City Council may take on an upcoming school district levy.
RCW 42.17.130 generally prohibits elected officials from using City facilities, directly or
indirectly, for the promotion of or opposition to any ballot proposition. However, the
general prohibition does not apply to the following actions of elected officials:
(1) Action taken at an open public meeting by members of an elected
legislative body to express a collective decision, or to actually vote
upon a motion, proposal, resolution, order, ordinance, or to support
or oppose a ballot proposition so long as (a) any required notice of
the meeting includes the title and number of the ballot proposition,
and (b) members of the legislative body or members of the public
are afforded an approximately equal opportunity for the expression
of an opposing view.
(2) A statement by an elected official in support of or in opposition to
any ballot proposition at an open press conference or in response
to a specific inquiry.
(3) Activities which are part of the normal and regular conduct of the
1110 office or agency.
Thus, the City Council may take a vote to support or oppose a schoo l district levy at an
open City Council meeting as long as the notice of the meeting includes the title and
•
number of the ballot proposition, and Council member and citizens are afforded an
approximately equal opportunity to express opposing views. Individual City Council
members can also state their support or opposition to the levy at an open press
conference or in response to a question concerning the matter.
LW /brb
S
•
-2-
C ' 1
•
SH17-
Christine 0. Gregoire
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON
Licensing & Administrative Law Division
PO Box 40110 • Olympia WA 98504-0110 • (360) 664 -2405
MEMORANDUM •
September 13, 2001
TO: • Interested Persons
FROM: Nancy Krier, Assistant Attorney General
SUBJECT: Statutory Limits On The Use of Public Funds /Facilities To Assist or Oppose
Campaigns, Particularly Campaigns Involving Ballot Measures or Initiatives
1. INTRODUCTION
The primary purpose of this memorandum is to remind readers about the statutory
prohibition at RCW 42.17.130 regarding the use of local public funds and public property and
facilities to support or oppose candidates or ballot propositions, including initiative and bond and
levy campaigns. This memorandum also presents some factual scenarios that should trigger
discussions with local attorneys advising such local public entities, and/or with the Washington
State Public Disclosure Commission staff. Finally, this memorandum provides a list of resources
for local agency employees and officials who may have questions concerning use of public funds
and facilities, with respect to ballot measure or initiative campaigns. This memorandum is not
designed to provide legal advice or to replace legal advice provided by attorneys advising local
agencies and local officials. In particular, this memorandum does not discuss any local rules, .
ordinances, procedures or advice that may also address use of public facilities or funds in
campaigns.
This memorandum's approach is similar to that in a memorandum prepared by Senior
Assistant Attorney General James K. • Pharris, which analyzed the Executive Ethics Act's
comparable provisions for state agencies at RCW 42.52.180. That memorandum by Mr. Pharris
is available at the Attorney General's Office Home Page at www.wa.gov /ago.
This memorandum references the statutes the State Public Disclosure Commission has
Since January 1, 1995, RCW 42.17.130 has been superseded as to state agencies and employees. Laws of 1994, ch.
154, § 317 (codified as RCW 42.17.131) provides that "RCW 42.17.130 does not apply to any person who is .a state
officer or state employee.as defined in RCW 42.52.010 ". It is also important to note RCW 42.17.190(4) prohibits
40, the use of public funds or facilities to support or oppose an initiative to the Legislature, with exceptions parallel to
those contained in RCW 42.17.130.
September 13, 2001
410
Page 2 of I 1
analyzed for local agencies and officials in its rules, declaratory orders, and "Guidelines for
Local Government Agencies, Including School Districts, in Election . Campaigns."
( "Guidelines" ). Those PDC documents are available online at www.pdc.wa.Eov (see "Guide to
the Law," "Interpretations. ")
II. STATUTORY PROHIBITION AGAINST USE OF PUBLIC FACILITIES TO
SUPPORT OR OPPOSE BALLOT PROPOSITIONS
For local public entities, the primary statute on this subject is RCW 42.17.130. The
statute reads:
No elective official nor any employee of his office nor any person appointed to or
employed by any public office or agency may use or authorize the use of any of
the facilities of a public office or agency, directly or indirectly, for the purpose of
assisting a campaign for election of any person to any office or for the promotion •
of or opposition to any ballot proposition. Facilities of public office or agency
include, but are not limited_ to, use of stationery, postage, machines, and
equipment, use of employees of the office or agency during working hours,
vehicles, office space, publications of the office or agency, and clientele lists of
persons served by the office or agency: PROVIDED, That the foregoing
provisions of this section shall not apply to the following activities:
(1) Action taken at an open public meeting by members of an elected legislative
body to express a collective decision, or to actually vote upon a motion, proposal,
resolution, order, or ordinance or to support or oppose a ballot proposition so
long as (a) any required notice of the meeting includes the title and number of the
ballot proposition, and (b) members of the legislative body or members of the
public are afforded an approximately equal opportunity for the expression of an
opposing view;
(2) A statement by an elected official in support of or in opposition to any ballot
proposition at an open press conference or in response to a specific inquiry;
(3) Activities which are part of the normal and regular conduct of the office or
agency.
The. PDC recently updated its guidelines specific to school districts. The "Guidelines for School Districts in
Election Campaigns" are available online at the PDC's website. It is anticipated that the local agencies' guidelines
will be updated in the future to follow the chart format in the school districts' guidelines. Attorney advisers of local
agencies are encouraged, however, to also review the school districts' guidelines.
•
•
•
• September 13, 20U I
Page 3 of 11
111. CASES, ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINIONS, INTERPRETIVE RULES, AND
DECLARATORY ORDERS
There are only two reported cases construing RCW 42.17.130. The law has been
amended since those cases were reported, but I cite to them by way of background. King County
Council v. Public Disclosure Commission, 93 Wn.2d 559, 611 P.2d 1227 (1980), had concluded
that a county council could, as a matter of "normal and regular conduct ", pass resolutions
endorsing a ballot measure. City of Seattle v. State, 100 Wn.2d 232, 668 P.2d 1266 (1983), held
that a city ordinance providing partial public funding•for candidates in city elections did not
violate RCW 42.17.130. However, subsequent legislation has rendered both of these opinions
moot. Later amendments to RCW 42.17.130•explicitly permitted the conduct which the court
allowed in King County Council v. Public Disclosure Commission, while the enactment of
Initiative 134 (RCW 42.17.128) specifically prohibited local governments from using public
funds to finance political campaigns for state or'local office.
There are three formal attorney general opinions construing RCW 42.17 generally,
including RCW 42.17.130. Persons interpreting the current act should read them, but they
should also check their analysis carefully against subsequent changes in the statutes interpreted. •
® The first of the three opinions is AGO 1973 No. 14, a long opinion answering some 23
questions about Initiative 276 (the initiative measure whose approval constituted the enactment
of what is now RCW 42.17). This opinion is valuable primarily as a discussion of the historical
background of the law. AGO 1975 No. 23 construes the language concerning "normal and
regular conduct of—the office or agency" and is worth reading since the same language appears in
RCW 42.17.130. Finally, AGO 1979 No. 3, construing RCW 42.17.130, concluded that the use
of college or university facilities for political conventions, meetings, and candidates' forums did
not violate the section, and prohibitions such as RCW 42.17.130 were not intended to cover
"neutral public forum" uses of public property, such as the use of publicly owned facilities on a
nondiscriminatory basis for political activities.
The PDC has adopted two rules interpreting RCW 42.17.130 in the Washington
Administrative Code: WAC 390 -05 -271 (general applications of RCW 42.17.130) and WAC
390 -05 -273 (definition of normal and regular conduct). Those rules are discussed in the PDC
Guidelines and are available on the PDC's website. They read as follows:
WAC 390 -05 -271 -
(1) RCW 42.17.130 does not restrict the right of any individual to express his or
her own personal views concerning, supporting, or opposing any candidate or
ballot proposition, if such expression does not involve a use of the facilities of a
public office or agency.
(2) RCW 42.17.130 does not prevent a public office or agency from (a) making
facilities available on a nondiscriminatory, equal access basis for political uses or
. 411
•
•
September 13
•
P 13, 2001
Page 4 of H
1
(b) making an objective and fair presentation of facts relevant to a ballot
proposition, if such action is part of the normal and regular conduct of the office
or agency.
WAC 390 -05 -273 -
Normal and regular conduct of a public office or agency, as that term is used in
the proviso to RCW 42.17.130, means conduct which is (1) lawful, i.e.,
specifically authorized, either expressly or by necessary implication, in an
appropriate enactment, and (2) usual, i.e., not effected or authorized in or by some
extraordinary means or manner. No local office or agency may authorize a use of
public facilities for the purpose of assisting a candidate's campaign or promoting
or opposing a ballot proposition, in the absence of a constitutional, charter, or
statutory provision separately authorizing such use.
The PDC has issued a number of declaratory orders interpreting RCW 42.17.130. Those
orders are orders numbered 1, 2, 4, 10, 13, and 14. They are summarized at the .end of this
memorandum, and are available on the PDC's website.
Finally, as noted herein, the PDC has provided guidelines to offer further practical
assistance in interpreting its rules and statutes. The "Guidelines for Local Government Agencies,
Including School Districts, in Election Campaigns" (which is the relevant document for most
local agencies) and the more recent and updated "Guidelines for School Districts in Election
Campaigns" (which is the relevant document for school districts at this time) are available on the
PDC's website.
IV. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ABOUT THE USE OF PUBLIC FACILITIES
This section of the memorandum is intended to draw together informal advice to state
agencies from a variety of sources (primarily generated in response to ballot measures in
previous years), and to point to sources available for help in answering questions which may
arise. As noted, this memorandum represents only the writer's analysis based upon that
information provided at the state level to agencies governed by similar statutes, and is not the
official position of the office.
Given the language of the statute itself at RCW 42.17.130, and factoring in cases and
opinions interpreting the statute, it is possible to make some general statements about political
activities. I think the following activities are clearly prohibited by RCW 42.17.130:
1. Using work hours to solicit signatures for ballot propositions, to raise funds for
or against such propositions, or to organize campaigns for or against such
propositions.
2. Using public property to campaign for or against a ballot proposition, except
•
• September 13, 2001
Page 5 o f t !
that "neutral forum" public property available on a nondiscriminatory, equal
access basis and otherwise open to public use may be used for campaigning 'also.
3. Using public facilities — office space, electronic mail and data processing
equipment, word processing and copying facilities, paper, supplies, and any other
publicly owned property —for campaigns for or against a ballot proposition,
whether during or after work hours.
•
4. Displaying political material in or on publicly owned vehicles.
5. Displaying or distributing campaign material on publicly owned or operated
premises (other than "neutral open forum" property or "personal space" property
as discussed in hypothetical question number 5 in Part V below).
6. Using public supplies, equipment, or facilities to print, mail, or otherwise
produce or distribute materials supporting or opposing any candidate or ballot •
proposition.
7. Using publicly owned facilities to instruct or urge public employees to
campaign for or against a candidate or ballot proposition on their own time, or
•
stating or implying that their job performance might be judged according to their
willingness to use their own time on a campaign.
8. Using public time and/or facilities to draft or pass a resolution by an appointed
committee, board, or commission taking an official position for or against a
pending ballot proposition.
Turning to the other side, the following appear to be conduct that is not prohibited by
RCW 42.17.130:
1. An elected legislative body may collectively endorse or oppose a ballot
measure if it meets the procedural requirements of RCW 42.17.130.
2. An elected official may make a statement in support of or in opposition.to, a
ballot proposition at an open press conference or in response to a specific inquiry
or may make incidental remarks concerning a ballot proposition in an official
communication, so long as there is no actual, measurable expenditure of public
funds. Again, note that. this exception is limited to elected officials and does not,
by its terms, extend to such "support" activity as using staff time or public
facilities to prepare or distribute such a statement, at least if any "measurable
expenditure" of public funds is involved.
3. Unless it is inconsistent with some other applicable law or regulation, a public
employee is not prohibited from campaigning for or against a ballot proposition
•
September l3, 2001
•
Page 6 of II
on the employee's personal time. It should be clear that the activity is the
individual's personal choice and is not tied to job performance in any way.
4. Public employees may contact fellow employees, away from the office, to •
circulate petitions or to solicit one another for funds, volunteers, and other activity
for and against a ballot proposition, but only under circumstances which strictly
avoid the use of office time and public property. Officers and employees would be
wise to avoid soliciting subordinate employees because, under those
circumstances, the subordinate employees may feel (no matter how carefully the
campaign is conducted or the inquiry is phrased) that the superior is using
improper influence.
5. Where public space is available on ,a nonrestricted basis to post signs,
petitions, and advertisements, or to make speeches and hold meetings, public
employees may use these "neutral public forum" spaces to express their own
views,.including their views on pending ballot propositions, assuming they are not
otherwise violating RCW 42.17.130. However, it might well be a violation of the
statute for public employees to use their positions to gain special advantage in the
use of such "public forum" spaces, such as by signing up all the time for the use
of a public auditorium before non - employees have had an equal opportunity to
seek use of the same space, or by using their access to a public bulletin board to
occupy the entire space with favored campaign material and leaving no space
available for opposing material (or material relating to other matters).
6. Public agencies may conduct research into the likely results of the passage of a
ballot proposition. Indeed, where the passage of the proposition would directly
affect the agency's duties, an agency might be remiss for not conducting such
research activity. However, it must be clear that the research is being conducted
with the purpose of gathering the facts, is directly related to the ordinary conduct
of the agency's business (is "normal and regular" for the agency), and is not
designed to support or oppose a candidate or ballot measure. I recommend that
agencies avoid conducting research or assembling statistical data which they
expect to be requested for use in connection with a campaign, unless they are
satisfied that they would have undertaken the same research or statistical efforts
for independent reasons, such as planning for contingencies.
7. Public agencies and public employees may supply public records in response
to requests made by the supporters or opponents of candidates or ballot
propositions. An agency should treat all campaigns fairly and equitably in
responding to requests for public records.
It is an obvious corollary that employees campaigning on their own personal time should avoid stating or implying
that they are campaigning on behalf of the public agency.
•
•
• 7 September 13, 2001
Page 7 of 11
8. Where two or more measures relate to the same subject, agencies may publish •
factual information showing the comparative effects of the measures, just as they
could publish factual information showing the expected effect of a single .
measure. However, the agency may not use public facilities or property to favor
one proposition over the other, any more than it could urge passage or defeat of
both measures. -
V. SOME HYPOTHETICAL QUESTIONS, AND SOME SUGGESTIONS ABOUT
THE ANSWERS
Following are some hypothetical questions that might be asked about the statute and
some comments in response. These situations are offered as a "flag" to the types of .fact patterns
that should trigger further review and consideration of the statutes and regulations discussed in
this memorandum. Readers are cautioned to review current PDC regulations and guidelines in
considering possible scenarios that may implicate the statute. Readers who are local officials or
agency staff are also strongly encouraged to contact their agency's attorneys, local ethics boards
(if the community has such a board) and PDC staff, before engaging in the conduct, if they
have any questions about whether a particular course of action could result in a complaint to the
• PDC and/or a PDC enforcement action against the local entity or employees.
1. 1 serve by appointment on a commission that governs a local agency. I serve
part -time and receive no compensation except for attending commission meetings.
The other day, I attended a fund- raiser in support of an initiative measure that
would, if approved, put the commission on ca much more solid financial footing. I
attended at my own expense and made a contribution to the campaign, which was
• properly reported. During the announcements, the announcer, specifically
against my request, introduced me to the crowd as "Vice Chair of the X
Commission ". I quickly pointed out that I was attending as a private citizen. Was
the use of my title a use of a "public facility or property "?
• Unlike paper or ink.or time, an officer's title cannot be measured or "expended" in
any meaningful way. Knowledge that a particular candidate or ballot proposition
is supported by "Commissioner X" may lend some weight or dignity to a
campaign event or advertisement, or it may not. Thus, while it may be prudent to
avoid using a position or title, primarily to avoid any implication that the agency
or its officers are `officially" supporting a particular candidate or proposition, the
mere identification of a person by stating his /her title or position would not seem
to be a "use" of public facilities. However, it was wise for you to point out that
you were attending in your private capacity in order to prevent any
misunderstanding on that point. In the future, consult with your agency's
attorneys or local ethics board to determine if there any local ethics rules that
1111 • otherwise limit use of your title.
September 13, 2001
•
Page 8 of 11
2. The head of my agency, Q, is an elected executive officer who supports a ballot
measure on his own time. A close friend wants to support the initiative both with
financial contributions and volunteering time to the campaign. I do not know the
address or telephone number of the campaign office. Would it be all right to send
an office voice -mail or e -mail to Q, passing along my friend's name and
suggesting that Q forward this information to the campaign?
Remember that voice -mail and e -mail are both office property and facilities.
While forwarding the information to Q seems a small thing, it involves both you
and Q (Q involuntarily) in the use of office facilities for campaign activity. On
your own time, take the steps to find out how to put your friend directly in touch
with the campaign without using office facilities. If you don't want to be involved
even that much, suggest that your friend contact the campaign directly. A third
possibility would be to pass the information along using your own paper and
stamp and Q's home address.
3. Everyone in my work unit is a strong opponent of Ballot Measure B. We have
all been involved in the anti -B campaign, and we have been careful not to use
either our public agency time or any agency facilities, such as paper, computers,
or copy machines, in our campaign work. We need to have a campaign meeting
next weekend, and the organizers are having trouble finding a place for the
meeting. Our agency has a large conference room which is not ordinarily open to
the public but which will not be in use during the weekend. Can we offer the use
of the room for the campaign meeting?
Although office space is not "consumed" when used for a meeting (small amounts
of heat and light notwithstanding), the use of a space not ordinarily available to
the public leaves the definite impression that the campaign is benefiting from its
use of a public space. The fact that your work unit is all involved in the campaign
reinforces this unfortunate impression. In my opinion, using this particular space
would violate RCW 42.17.130. If the conference room is generally open to the
public, however, and is scheduled for the campaign on the same basis as anyone
else could schedule it, the answer might be different. It still might be prudent to
have the meeting somewhere else, just to avoid any question about misuse of
public facilities.
4. 1 am the office manager for a local agency and 1 supervise about 50
employees. My close friend D is a drafter of an initiative. May 1 invite all my
office to a Saturday morning event at my home where they can meet D and will
have the opportunity to contribute to the campaign?
Extreme caution is advised. For the obvious points first, avoid the use of office
space, office paper, e -mail, voicemail, or any other office facility for the
•
September 13, 2
p 001 •
Page 9 of l 1
invitations. Employee mailing lists are also public facilities that may not be used
for campaign-purposes. Perhaps you know the phone numbers and addresses by
heart, or can use publicly available sources such as telephone and e -mail
directories to get the necessary information. Even then, remember that you
supervise all of these employees. Will one or more misunderstand why they are
invited to a campaign fundraiser at your home? Will they conclude, no matter •
how you.protest otherwise, that they stand to gain your favor if they support the
initiative, or to lose your favor if they don't? Even if this is not strictly a violation
of RCW 42.17.130, do you want to raise these issues and risk a complaint filed
with the PDC?
5. My co- worker and I have strongly different political philosophies. During the
last initiative campaign, she wore a large button promoting a position I find
repugnant, and she placed a flier about the initiative in her workstation next to
the pictures of her.husband and her cat. Would it be appropriate for me to ask
our supervisor to ban such overt displays this year?
Ethical and policy considerations must always be balanced against free speech
rights and the legitimate interest of any employee in expressing her views and in
arranging her personal space. The courts and the ethics agencies have recognized
that campaign buttons on clothing are a personal expression and do not violate the
• ethics statute. The use of personal assigned space in a workstation probably
meets the same requirement. The answer would likely be different if a) an
employee's space or cubicle or work area is accessible or visible to members of
the public, or b) an employee is using publicly visible space, such as a wall,
window, or reception desk, which could leave the impression that the campaign is
favored by the agency or its leadership.
6. Initiative J would, if approved by the people, repeal the tax that supports 90%
of my agency's activities. The Legislature might replace some of the money if the
tax was repealed, but it. is virtually certain that our agency's budget would be
severely reduced. Can we use staff time and agency resources to assemble and
publish a sheet that would just "show the facts "— that is, that enactment of .
' As a reminder, if there is a public records request for lists of names, your agency should review the public
disclosure act's requirements in RCW 42.17, including RCW 42.17.2 and RCW 42. (1)(u). If a list is
generally available as a'public record, it cannot be denied to a person or group on the grounds that it might be used
in a campaign: If the record is not generally available to the public, it may not be made "specially" available to or
for a campaign.
However, an employee's office or workspace may not be used under any circumstance as a distribution point for
campaign literature or materials, such as posters, bumper stickers, fliers, buttons, or other campaign materials.
Likewise, an employee cannot distribute these materials in a public office, such as in hallways, office -to- office. or
cubicle -to- cubicle.
•
September 13, 2001
Page 10 of I 1
Initiative J would effectively end all of the popular programs my agency is
involved with
As noted earlier, as part of their "normal and regular conduct," agencies can
anticipate ballot measures by preparing contingency plans or by researching the
possible effects of a measure for planning purposes. Your proposal goes
considerably beyond that, though. The major flaw in your logic is to characterize
as a "fact" your predicted outcome of the legislative session should the Initiative
be approved. The Legislature would be free to replace the agency's funding;
therefore, it is simply not a "fact" that the agency's programs would be eliminated.
It is only speculation. There seems little purpose for the agency to indulge in such
speculation, except to influence the election results. Perhaps' the agency could
publish a true "fact sheet" which, for instance, lists the current programs
administered by the agency with its current budget. Perhaps the material also
could point out the current source of the agency's budget without speculating what
would happen if that funding source disappeared.
V1. SUMMARY •
In closing, it is important to remember that the public is generally very sensitive to the
use of public facilities or property on ballot propositions or initiatives and takes accusations of
violations very seriously. Officers and employees who try to bump up against the "line" that
divides lawful from unlawful conduct in this area may find, even if their conduct is eventually
judged lawful, that their questionable activity has incited a public backlash against the very
position they were attempting to advocate. As a result, public employees should walk a careful
line to assure that the public is fully and adequately informed about the consequences of voting
on a particular measure, without making unlawful use of public money or property to influence
the result of the vote. Local agency staff and officers should consult closely with their legal
counsel and local ethics boards on all activities relating to matters before the voters, and they
should use utmost skill and care in expressing any comments on such matters. When in doubt,
local agency staff and officers are encouraged to contact the PDC.
VII. OTHER RESOURCES
• Public Disclosure Commission Staff: (360) 753 -1111; toll -free 1- 877 -601 -2828;
FAX: (360) 753 -1 1 12; e -mail: pdc @pdc.wa.gov.
• Public Disclosure Commission Written Information (PDC website is
www.pdc.wa.aov — See "Guide to the Law "):
PDC regulations at WAC 390 -05 -271 (general applications of RCW 42.17.130)
and 390 -05 -273 (definition of normal and regular conduct).
September 13, 2001
P ,
Page I I of 11
PDC guidelines, including "Guidelines for Local Government Agencies,
Including School Districts, In Election Campaigns" and "Guidelines for School
Districts in Election Campaigns" (the latter is an updated specific publication for
school districts; school personnel should also review RCW 28A.320.090, which
addresses distribution of literature).
PDC declaratory orders interpreting RCW 42.17.130 -
•
- No. l(RCW 42.17.130 would be violated by a legislator using
public facilities or funds to'prepare and distribute a newsletter expressing views in
opposition to two ballot measures, or to make speeches or distribute legislative
materials for the purposes of opposing such measures).
- No. 2 (the production and mailing of a budget questionnaire at
county expense during an election campaign would violate RCW 42.17.130 if it
includes a cover page which is unrelated to the questionnaire and which draws
special attention to a council member who is a candidate).
- No. 4 (the use of a local agency's internal mailing systems for
candidate endorsements would violate RCW 42.17.130).
- No. 10 (unless express authority is granted by an independent
source, a local agency cannot promote a ballot proposition as "normal and regular
conduct" of the agency, for to do so would be in violation of RCW 42.17.130).
•
•
- No. 13 (a city is not prohibited by RCW 42.17.130 from
organizing and broadcasting a candidate forum where the purpose of the forum is
to educate voters about the candidate for office, each candidate is provided an
equal opportunity to participate, and the forum is presented in a fashion that is
unbiased and nondiscriminatory with•regard to all candidates).
- No. 14 (an analysis of when and to what extent RCW 42.17.130
and RCW 42.17.190 affect a school district's ability to engage in activities
relating to the support of or opposition to initiatives to the legislature).
•
I t YAKIMA PUBLIC SCHOOLS QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
YAKIMA SCHOOL DISTRICT NUMBER 7
January 2008
'1"'") What is a Replacement Educational Program Maintenance and
Operation (M & 0) Levy?
A Replacement Educational Program M & 0 Levy is a local property tax
Dear Yakima School District Resident, authorized by voters for a period of not more than four years (Yakima's
proposal is for four years) to be used for the general operations cost of a school
The Yakima School District is placing a four - year Replacement district. The state only funds approximately 72 percent of the district's educational
Educational Program Maintenance and Operation Levy before costs. The school district depends on the maintenance and operation levy, which is
the voters on February 19, 2008. funded by local tax dollars, for about 8 percent of the total budget. The remaining
portion of the budget comes from the federal government and other miscellaneous
A committee of parents, community representatives, teachers, sources. The school district is assured of its basic education funding (which amounts
students and district staff spent the month of October reviewing to approximately 72% of the district's budget) from the state each year, but it will
and prioritizing numerous requests for levy funding. That receive its maintenance and operation levy funds only if the levy is passed by our
committee's final recommendation was approved in full by the Yakima voters.
school board on November 20, 2007 for presentation to the
voters in February. ��
Why a four -year M & 0 Levy? .
The programs included in this proposed Replacement Levy present sent levies s to e h e i t v oters fo a l allowing year pe l districts T to
present levies to their voters for two, three or four year periods. The
are programs which are currently funded by levy dollars. As Yakima School District is proposing four years in order to: (1) provide
interested citizens, you have asked that we provide a clear a stable funding source for long -term academic investments; (2) reduce ballot costs
description of exactly what the levy funds. Listed in this brochure associated with levy elections; and (3) provide predictability for taxpayers in managing
are the 14 programs and services funded by this proposal and their personal budgets.
a brief description of each. ,r�}
If you would like more information or have any questions, please How much will this Replacement Educational Program M & 0 Levy
call the district's Community Relations Office at 573 -7007 and be?
we will make very effort to get you a prompt answer. Thank you The proposition being presented to the voters on February 19 is for $11.95
for your interest and continued support of the students in the million in the year 2009, $12.31 million in 2010, $12.68 million in 2011, and
Yakima School District. $13.06 million in the year 2012.
In addition, if this levy is approved, the State of Washington provides an additional
°rel , Yakima School District $10 million each year in levy equalization funds, also called Local Effort Assistance.
y If the levy is not approved, the district will not receive those funds.
Board of Directors
(k r \l J What will the Replacement Educational Program M & 0 Levy cost
e _ v each taxpayer?
Benjamin A. Soria ,�, The estimated tax rate for this proposed levy is approximately $2.80 per
Superintendent Vickie Ybarra $1,000 of assessed valuation, which is 9 cents less than the current levy
collection rate.
President To compute the taxes for your property, multiply the tax rate times the assessed
valuation. For example, if a home is assessed at $150,000, multiply 150 x $2.80 for a
tax of $420 /year or $35 /month.
i D erw i teredL
C1 ohn " Vornbrock If my assessed value goes up, do schools get more money?
Walt Ranta Vice President , Voters are asked to fund a fixed dollar amount. The law prohibits
collection of more money than the total figure approved by voters, even if
property assessments increase.
The total amount collected will not exceed $11.95 million the first year, $12.31 million
the second year, $12.68 million the third year, and $13.06 million the fourth year.
/� L
Martha Rice Raymond Navarro, Jr. What is Levy Equalization — often called Local Effort Assistance
(LEA)?
, The total value of all taxable property within a school district is called its
Voter Registration "assessed value." The lower the overall assessed property in a school
g district, the higher the property tax rate. Levy equalization is an adjustment made by
* You may register to vote by mailing in the voter registration form which must the state to reduce the greater tax burden on property owners within school districts
be postmarked no later than January 19 to be able to vote in the that have a property tax rate above the statewide average.
February 19, 2008 election. If the levy passes, the Yakima School District will receive $10 million each of the four
* If you are not currently registered in Washington state, you may register to years in levy equalization money. If the levy fails, the district receives no equalization
vote in person at the Yakima County Auditor's Office, 128 North 2nd Street, monies.
Room 117. This must occur no later than February 4 to be able to vote in the
Feb ry , 19, 2008 election. ay access voter registration forms at your neighborhood school, '� What is the difference between bonds and levies?
_ Levy money and bond money are intended to meet different, but important,
li e station and on -line, or at the Yakima County Auditor's Office — student needs.
57 40 or www.co.yakima.wa.us /vote. Levies are collected over no more than a four - year period and most
commonly support funding for continued maintenance of existing educational programs.
Questions? Comments? Contact us! Bonds, on the other hand, are financed over a long period of time, generally 12 to
For more information, contact the district's 20 years, much like a home mortgage. Upon their sale, they provide immediate funds
Community Relations Office at 573 -7007 for construction of new buildings, modernization of older buildings and acquisition of
or email us at levy @yakimaschools.org. property.
Remember: "Levies are for Learning and Bonds are for Buildings"
i � &rte+ a �'0 4 4 rt � m � �a 0 .,'
S BALLOT - -..y.„,,,.. -.,, ,.„,..„,:,.,,,,_,,,„,„-,:::,:;„„
°�' ,a � 'i'0 l -, � 1 - , ate `. ..
YAKIMA SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 7
REPLACEMENT MAINTENANCE ' 4 � �t ,
AND OPERATION LEVY - �"� , % / - .1 :AK
M1
The Board of Directors of Yakima School District ''
No. 7 adopted Resolution No. 03.07.08, concerning ''h'~
a proposition to finance maintenance and 'Operation :
expenses. This proposition .would `=authorize, . the t „,,,,
District to levy the following 'excess; taxes, e Is there a tax exemption for senior citizens?
of an expiring levy, upon all taxable °property within If you are a senior citizen or a disabled person, you may
the District, for support of the: District's`' General Fund qualify for a tax exemption if you meet the following: Your total
educational `mainten�ance and operation expenses: household gross income cannot exceed $35,000 and the home
for which you are filing for tax exemption is your principal place
` '_ Approximate Levy of residence. .
- - Levyp Rate /$1,000
Co_ llection Years Assessed Value Levy Amount You must also meet one of the following criteria:
2009 $2.80 $11,950,000 1. You are at least 61 years of age on December 31; or
2010 $2.80 $12,308,501 • 2. You are retired because of a physical disability; or
2011 $2.81 $12,677,756 3. You are a widow /widower at least 57 years of age whose
2012 $2.81 $13,058,087 spouse had an approved exemption on file with the Assessor at
the time of death.
0
all as specified in Resolution No. 03.07.08. Should
this proposition be approved? • For additional information about eligibility or to apply for
exemption, please contact the Yakima County Assessor's
LEVY ...YES ❑ LEVY ... NO ❑ I Office, County Courthouse, 128 North 2nd Street, Room 112,
1 or call 574 -1100.
5
do at w � r k!
■
T and Learn t Activities Maintenance
,
& Athletics . & Operations
Improvin Academic Ac hievement . ',,,,,,/,,,,,,,,,,, 17% 1 1%
Textbooks,& Instruction Mat
• Maintain Current K -4 ClassrSize ,
• Speual Education f � g • Co- Curricular • Securtyi
Activities & Police_ /
•' Elemen'taryfCounselors . ti Athletics. !Officers.;
•:= Classroom Computer Support , -
LElementary P.E. Building
' • ,Fine and Performing Arts v e Maintenance
�': Library Books and Materials / k .. . a
n
d Repair
Vocational Technolo
• .,Health,Services — S chool Nur se
� PP
The Yakima School District complies with federal and state laws, and a licable ulations ardin discrimination on the basis of protected class as defined law. This h olds true for all�1�C't
Y P b Y
employment and opportunities. Inquiries regarding compliance and /or grievance regulations procedures re may 9 9 an be directed to the school district's Title IX compliance officer and ADA coordinator, Jill Kelleher, (509)
573 -7066, 104 N. 4th Avenue, Yakima, WA 98902. Inquiries regarding Section 504 requirements may be directed to Nancy Byers, (509) 573 -5063, 101 N. 4th Avenue, Yakima, WA 98902.”
"Individuals with disabilities who require assistance or special arrangements to attend a program or activity sponsored by the Yakima School District should contact the district's compliance officer,
Jill Kelleher, 104 N. 4th Avenue, Yakima, WA 98902, (509) 573 -7066, 24 hours in advance of the event to inquire about reasonable accommodation. Inquires regarding compliance, and /or grievance
procedures may also be directed to Jill Kelleher. TTY services for the hearing impaired are available at these District phone numbers: 573 -7191 and 573 -1314.
1\0 0
, ---.44.0.4444R44144144,44t4414,--44---14414i-4 5t,)5)-
0 cn 55)))11,).)15,**)).A71143)»,55. 5):),5555)5,55,4)
a
0 • i ,.:47X-0,-4.„ .,:ws-viim,„t4,74,-mp .,;7---k,,h7 - 4.4 • t „, 4 1 "It "1'4 0 ' W:01.ttitNti4t, ' e ",„-,-) '''-', 4K_Atyir !fp+ Q AIL ` ;� v O 4 �` s }� 0 .. �`
�_ • mil t # - �a s. 4 � ( � - 1 4 firkk � n \ !mil 9 d �1
Q z
"4114' "CZ �� r
.1� l 1 6La t &'^ ® ,i. ( N1:11-$4-: tf'� f n F 3'* tzs a ` t
i 1 R"e 7 r� d
z � }tea r � �a � r f . � � $ - r w � a
Fk NIO
■
��{ e �
n YAK MA P U R L NON PRO ORG .
US P FIT OSTAGE
SC H O OLS PAID
YAKIMA WA
YAKIMA SCHOOL DISTRICT AVENUE NUMBER 7 PERMIT #101
104 N. FOURTH
YAKI WASHINGTON 98902 ECRWSS
RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER
‘ >
I/i!
A Gu to the Levy Ballot on February 19, 2008
® YAKIMA PUBLIC
'ma SCHOOLS YAKIMA, WASHINGTON 98902-2636
YAKIMA SCHOOL DISTRICT NUMBER 7 (509) 573 -7000
TO: Yakima City Council Members
FROM: Benjamin A. Soria, Superintendent
DATE: January 24, 2008
RE: Yakima School District
Replacement Educational Program Maintenance & Operation Levy
The following is a brief summary of the process we followed in preparation for
our February 19, 2008 levy proposal to the voters:
The first step in the development of the levy proposal that is put before the voters
was the establishment of the Levy Proposal Committee. Chaired by Deputy
Superintendent Dr. Jack Irion, committee members included parents, community
• ill members, business people, staff members, and two high school students. The
committee met throughout the month of October.
Following a review of student assessment data and how the current levy funds are
spent, the proposals under consideration for inclusion in the levy proposal were
reviewed by the committee. Besides recommending which programs would be
funded by the levy, the committee took the additional step of recommending the
specific amount of levy dollars that would go to each levy - funded program.
Dr. Irion then led this committee through a process that resulted in 100% support
by the committee of the recommendation to the school board. Representatives of
the Levy Proposal Committee made their recommendation to the school board in
early November.
"The Yakima School District is an Equal Opportunity Employer
Building Community through Education , and complies with the requirements of the ADA."
SAMPLE
Resolution for Endorsement of
the Yakima School District's
Maintenance and Operations Levy
Whereas, the education of Yakima's children is crucial for the development of each
child's full potential as well as for the continued economic strength and vitality of the
Yakima area; and
Whereas, the Yakima School District periodically requests operational support from the
community's voters for educational, maintenance, health, and safety programs of the
Yakima School District; and
Whereas, funds from the Maintenance and Operations Levy are critical to the education
and well -being of our community's children; and
Whereas, non - support of the M &O Levy by our community would also entail the loss of
levy equalization funds from the State of Washington; and
Whereas, the Yakima School District has been judicious in its requests to the community
• for its M &O levies; and
Whereas, approval of the M &O Levy for calendar years 2009 through 2012 is on the
February 19, 2008 ballot; and
Whereas, has a significant interest in there being a
positive outcome of the M &O Levy election due to its profound importance to the
Yakima community;
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the (board; membership)
that strongly recommends voting citizens residing within
the Yakima School District support the approval of the District's M &O Levy proposal.
Approved in Yakima, Washington and dated this day of
, 2008.
Signature
Title