Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-06-09 Finance Committee PacketThe Town of Reading - FINCOM ht4)://www.readingma.gov/Pages/ReadingMA MeetingCaVSO15825... FINCOM Wednesday, June 9, 2090 at 7.30 PM Town'Hall Conference Room Printer-Friendly Version Town of Read. 9 Town Hail conference room Google Search Reading, MA 01867 June 9, 2010 Meeting Agenda CP tpw +C t~s i" a 1. Public Comment 03 - 2. General Business COMNiol'. CnusE ' ~ > FINCOM Appointment Meeting > Discussion of summer schedule > Planning FINCOM Initiatives > Discussion of the FINCOM fact Statement for the Special election 3. FINCOM minutes ® May 19, 2010 4. Adjourn I of I Town of Reading, Massachusetts 16 Lowell Street, Reading, MA 01867 Website Disclaimer Virtual Town Hall Website 6/9/2010 4:58 PI Page 1 of 4 LeLacheur, Bob From: Ellen Doucette [ecdoucette@brackettlucas.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 11:59 AM To: LeLacheur, Bob Cc: Hechenbleikner, Peter Subject: Re: FW: Meeting next week Attachments: AO-00-12.pdf; IB-92-02.pdf; ocm10398876-IB-91-01.pdf Bob, Because of the importance of this ballot question to the Town, in light of the Fincom's preparation of informational materials, I believe that it is also important to briefly discuss and clarify what the Town's public officials can, and cannot do, with respect to taking a position on a ballot question, or advocating for or against a ballot question. Two issues are presented. The first issue relates to those activities that public officials can undertake in support of or in opposition to ballot questions and the second, is whether or not public resources may be used for political purposes. The Office for Campaign Finance has issued two interpretative bulletins that are relevant to these issues. OCPF-IB-91-01 (Revised on January 9, 2007) discusses the use of government resources for political purposes more specifically, the distribution of printed matter. The impetus for this bulletin was the SJC's decision in Anderson v. City of Boston, 376 Mass. 178 (1978) where it was held that public resources cannot be used for political purposes. Specifically, Anderson held that public funds could not be used to set up an office to collect and distribute information on the impact of a ballot question. Public resources include, for instance, staff time, office space, paper or other office supplies, postage and office machinery. Anderson's prohibitions apply whether or not the material prepared and distributed is intended to promote or oppose a matter placed before voters, such as a ballot question, or is objective and factual and only intended to inform if that material is distributed using public resources for instance, an unsolicited mailing of the material to all registered voters or other dissemination that is publicly funded (teachers copying information and sending it home with school children). , Anderson does not however, prohibit the distribution of material prepared for town meeting (which is not regulated by the campaign finance law unless the issue concerns a future Prop. 2 1/2 ballot question for instance) or, if public officials prepare information that is related to their official responsibilities, where the primary purpose for preparing the material is to facilitate a meeting. The distribution of that material at a meeting, or through a public records request, does not violate Anderson. The distinction being a situation where material is distributed by unsolicited mailings, and material or information that is provided only upon request by members of the public. OCPF-IB-92-02 (revised on January 9; 2007) discusses those activities that a public official(s) can and cannot do, in support of or in opposition to a ballot question. Though public resources cannot be used"to promote or oppose a ballot question, the Anderson decision does not prohibit public officials from discussing a ballot question at an official meeting of a governmental body or from voting a position on a ballot question (as long as distribution of the position taken is limited to a press release or posting of a vote). Anderson also does not prohibit an official from analyzing the impact of a ballot question on their budget though again, that analysis may not be distributed via a mass mailing. The OCPF has also issued an advisory opinion specifically relating to the use of the town's website. AO-00-12, issued on June 13, 2000, equates the posting of factual information on the town's website with a posting on the town's bulletin board. The distinction is that like a bulletin board, the information is only available if people choose to look it up on the website. Therefore, if a public official or board creates a public record that is consistent with the official's scope of responsibility, it can be posted on the website, even if it contains an analysis or a recommendation regarding a ballot question. OCPF-IB-91-01, OCPF-IB-92-02 and AO-00-12 are attached hereto for reference. With respect to the Fincom's material, If the content was. prepared as part of their official responsibilities, they may post it on the website but it may not be distributed in any way. However, as the materials are intended to be informational, they should be content nuetral and limited to the facts related to the impact of the local option tax. As such, in my opinion there are still portions of the materials which appear to be unrelated to providing residents with such information. I suggest 2 6/9/2010 Page 2 of 4 deleting the last line on the page about Free Cash, and the page title Reading Meals Tax Background, is completely unnecessary. Please call if you have any questions. Ellen Ellen Callahan Doucette, Esq. Brackett & Lucas 19 Cedar Street Worcester, MA 01609 (508) 799-9739 (508) 799-9799 Facsimile Original Message From: LeLacheur, Bob To: Ellen Doucette Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 5:15 PM Subject: FW: FW: Meeting next week From: marsie.west@bnymellon.com [mailto:marsie.west@bnymellon.com] Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 4:36 PM To: LeLacheur, Bob Cc:'Hines, George Subject: Re: FW: Meeting next week I'm passing along the latest version with changes made to the language that hopefully eliminate some of the advocacy and bias concerns. We can talk tomorrow. Marsie West First Vice President, Operations Strategy Group BNY Mellon Asset Servicing 135 Santilli Highway Everett, MA 02149-1950 Phone: 617-382-2865 E-mail: marsie.west@bnymellon.com The information contained in this e-mail is considered Confidential and is intended solely for the use of the named addressee. Access, copying or re-use of the e-mail or any information contained therein by any other person is not authorized. If you are not the intended recipient. please notify us immediately by returning the e-mail to the originator. From: "LeLacheur, Bob" <blelacheur@cLreking.ma.us> To: "Marsie K. West' <marsie.west@bnymellon.com>, <gvhines@verizon.net> Date: 06/07/2010 03:19 PM Subject: FW. Meeting next week 0 6/9/2010 FinCom Background Municipal Ballot Question Adoption of Local Option Meals Tax Local Election June 23, 2010 Challenges . • Declining revenues (State, Federal, Local) • Increased accommodated costs (Mandated Expenses) e Multi-year level funded budgets resulted in decreased . services (Operating Budget) • Cuts to State Aid create budget challenges Results in increased use of Free Cash to maintain basic services - not sustainable over time Cuts in services to residents are difficult to restore when finances improve (i.e. Library hours cut in xxxx have not been restored) _ Local Option Meals Tax Background: • Created as part of 2010 State budget • Landmark local-option allows meals tax of 0.75% • Diversifies local revenue beyond property tax to mitigate loss of state aid • Local control - first time since excise tax Tax statute passed at State level with local option to adopt Logistics: • DOR collects Local tax with State sales tax • 100% of funds collected distributed back • Quarterly payments made to Town • Reading vote to block the local option but cannot eliminate the State tax option FY2011 Budget Overview Projected Revenues $ 75,007,769 +1.0% Used for State Assessments $ 568,602 Available for Reading $ 74,439,167 Projected Expenses Shared Costs* (25.8%) $ 19,191,030 -5.6% Municipal Govt (24.3%) $ 18,114,426 +11% ' School Dept (48.9%) $ 36,390,308 +1.1% Town Facilities (1.0%) $ 740,693 +0.0% * Shared Costs = mandated town expenses FY2011 Budget- Revenues _ Total Revenues $75,007,769 +2.2% Property Taxes $ 51,096,967 + 3.1% yFnnNn Other Local Revs.* $ 5,548,OOD 4.5% Anil State Aid** $ 13,212,036 - 2.0% • Transfers & Avail. $ 4,214,766 - 2.2% P•K, _fie;'.: ~r -fir'\_? *eP•M • Free Cash' $ 936,000 * Excise taxes -4%; Interest earnings -33% Assume 5tate/Fed Aid about equal to House Ways & Means (April'10); $700k below Governor (Jon.'10) Free Cash is about 50% of growth in FY11 revenues Budget Impacts for 2011 Adjustments to balance 2011 budget: Town employees cost of living = 0% (2 years) • Service cuts • Town Hall schedule change - closed on Fridays • Reduced teacher & school staff • ' Increased school activity fees • Final Federal stimulus funds • $1 million Free Cash - reduction in reserves These changes are on top of 2 years of service reductions to required to balance the budget. Free Cash Comments • Past growth in Free Cash due to one tune events • Healthy cash reserves save the town money : Improves our bond rating Lower interest paid on new bonds issued • Free Cash has cushioned mid-year cuts in State Aid • Free Cash allows us to retain services in difficult financial times (teachers, town planning, permits) • FY2012 estimates require $1.5141M in Free Cash Free Cash will eventually run out - it unsustainable as a continual revenue source Historic'State Aid STATE AID DOLLARS with Yous to Recover f-Cut Ad g 14 12 77 10 yoen Q 4yeos a 8 $ 6 6Yovs < 4 2 0 iFs_s^_r"aTati'g'aavgT~@~~ky~~.~~~R How Much Revenue? Actual Revenues exceed Estimates by H 46% • Quarterly Actual March receipts (from DOR website): High: Boston $3.9 mil Low: Sunderland $ 6k Average*: $119 k 100% of collected funds distributed to towns • Reading Initial Estimates: $150,000 - $175,000 Actual expected to be higher than initial estimates Does not include Impact of new restaurants Avomgo based on towns adopted and oHactiva of 10J1/09 using March disttibu0on with 2 top & 2 bottom outiam ahminated tram calcula0an (Barton, rambtidge, 81ondford, Sunderland) _ Who Pays? • Tax on consumers rather than businesses • Applies to prepared meals already taxed by State • No new Items will be taxed • Small cost to residents • Businesses Implement on Items already taxed • Opportunity for non-resident revenues The majority of neighboring communities have already adopted; when you eat out in these communities the local tax you pay goes to them. Reading does not get any portion of local meals tax we spend in other towns. Current election will limit Reading's revenues but it does not eliminate the tax in other cities & towns. Who Has Adopted? 104 towns adopted; almost 30% - 40% of towns with estimated revenue over $10,000 10 Middlesex League towns: Belmont, Burlington Concord, Lexington, Lowell, i4elrose, Wakeneld, Waltham, Watertown, Woburn f 1, i _ lbsd ' Other notable neighbors include: : c, . e Boston Cambridge Somerville, North Keadingg Andover, l fo d l ' ,p Ar ington, Bed r Bever y, Danvers, Saugus, ~ eabody, Newton Chelmsford, Everett, Medford Natick, Needham, Wayland, Wellesley, Framingham, Brookline and Wrentham. Consumer Impact on Meal Cost Meal Cost State Local Coffee & Snack $5 31 cents 4 cents Dinner for 2 $50 $3.13 37 cents Dinner for 4 $100 $6.25 75 cents State tax Is already passed & collected - part of funding for local aid. Local tax Is optional - full amount collected goes to Reading. Where Will Additional Revenue Go? Funds Benefit Reading Directly to Help Maintain Local Services: • Schools & Education. • Public Safety • Community Services • Public Works • Library 100% of revenues return to Reading for local services - by statute the State cannot redirect these funds. All collected' revenue has been distributed back to towns per Dept of Revenue (DOR) website. Reading Meals Tax Background • At April Town Meeting, the 2011 budget was presented andpassed as proposed, supporting he current level of town services. • Sources of funding were presented and it was noted that Federal stimulus funds and Free Cash are not available as recurring, long term sources. • Meals tax was discussed at April Town Meeting for over 2 hours. • Many Town Meeting members changed their vote in favor of the meals tax after hearing the facts. • Final roll all vote had 116 in favor, 31 opposed and 40 that did not vote. • Opposition petition obtained required registered voter signatures (+3%). • The special election mandated by petition will cost the Town an estimated $12,000-$18,000. • Town Meeting vote will stand if under 20% of registered voters participate. • Recent local elections have had much smaller participation. • If the local meals tax is upheld the Town will forego potential revenues for the first quarter (estimated to be $37,500-$50,000) due to delayed Implementation. 6b OCPF Online ~I(r www. state. ma. us/ocpf Office of Campaign and Political Finance ' One Ashburton Place, Room 411 Boston, MA 02108 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Advisory Opinion . June 13, 2000 AO-00-12 Peter Johnson-Staub, Management Analyst Town of Andover Finance Department 36 Bartlet Street Andover, MA 01810 Re: Posting fact sheet regarding ballot question on official Town Web site Dear Mr. Johnson-Staub: This letter is in response to your May 4, 2000 letter to Bob Robertson requesting an advisory opinion regarding use of the Town of Andover's Web site. You have stated that the Town drafted a fact sheet regarding the May 23, 2000.special election on three Proposition•2 '/2 debt exclusion votes. The purpose of the fact sheet appears to be to provide answers to frequently asked questions regarding the Town's view of the effect of ayes or no vote on each question. If this office concluded that posting the fact.sheet on the official Town Web site would be consistent with the campaign finance law, the Town planned to post the fact sheet. Because this opinion, given the date of your request and the nature of the issue raised-, could not be issued prior to the election, the fact sheet was not posted. You have stated, however, that an . advisory opinion will be relevant for future elections, in which the Town might prepare similar fact sheets for posting on the Web site. The fact sheet, a copy of which was provided with your request and is attached for reference, is one page long. It gives the date of the election and encourages all eligible voters "to make an informed decision and vote." It also states the effect of "yes" and "no" votes on each of the three questions and summarizes the effect of the debt exclusions on the average single-family homeowner's taxes. The fact sheet does not recommend or urge voters to vote one way or the other and you have stated that the information "is intended to be informational without advocating a position." Peter Johnson-Staub June 13; 2000 Page 2 Question In the future, could the Town put similar information on its Web site? Answer Yes. Discussion 1. The campaign finance law does not limit speech or actions undertaken by a public official to carry out the,official's responsibilities. In Anderson v. City of Boston, 376 Mass. 178 (1978), appeal dismissed, 439 U.S. 1069 (1979), the Supreme Judicial Court concluded that the City of.Boston.could not appropriate funds, or use funds previously appropriated for other purposes, to influence a ballot question submitted to the voters at a State election. The Court stated that the campaign finance law demonstrates a decision by the Legislature that "the State government and its various subdivisions should not use public funds to instruct the people, the ultimate authority, how they should vote. That determination avoids the, possibility of a babel of municipal huckstering and reserves the financing of public debate for nongovernmental agencies and individuals." 376 Mass. at 195. In short, the campaign finance law represents an intent "to assure fairness of elections and the appearance of fairness in the electoral process" and that the law should be interpreted as prohibiting the use of public funds "to advocate a position which certain taxpayers oppose." Id. Accordingly, this office has concluded that governmental entities may not expend public resourcesi or contribute anything of value in support of or opposition to a ballot question. In addition, public resources may not be used to distribute commentary, even if "informational," regarding a ballot question unless expressly authorized by state law. See I13-91-01. The campaign finance law does not, however, prohibit public officials from acting or speaking about a ballot question if in doing so they are acting within the scope of their official responsibilities. See I13-92-02, a copy of which is enclosed, for information. Therefore, for example, a public official may respond to questions from the public about the offi'cial's position on a ballot question, which relates to a matter within the official's scope of responsibilities. Officials may also use public resources to study public policy issues and make recommendations, even if the issues relate to a ballot question. Similarly, public officials may discuss ballot questions at meetings, vote (as ,a board) on a resolution regarding a ballot question and post the resolution on a town hall bulletin board, or respond to inaccurate or misleading statements. See AO-95-33. In contrast, campaign activity using public resources is not consistent with the scope of an official's responsibilities. ' Public resources include, but are not limited to: staff time, office space, stationery and office supplies, and office equipment such as telephones, copier and fax machines and computers. Even the occasional, minor use of public resources for apolitical purpose is inconsistent with state law and should be avoided. Peter Johnson-Staub June 13, 2000 Page 3 2. Posting a fact sheet or other document on the town's Web site, if the document is prepared as part of the official responsibilities of a public official, would comply with the campaign finance law. A municipality has an obligation to make information, prepared within the scope of the public responsibilities of office holders, available to the public. See M.G.L. c. 66, § 10(a) and M.G.L. c. 4, § 7(26), the Public Records Law. The campaign finance law should not be interpreted in.a manner that would frustrate the right of voters to have access to such information: Access may be provided in a number of ways. For example, a document may be copied and made available to persons who request it. Alternatively, it may be placed on a bulletin board in town hall or on the town.'s Web site. I13-92-02 does not discuss the extent to which public officials may use a municipal Web site to address public concerns regarding ballot questions, and when Anderson was decided in 1978, there was no such`thing as a Web site. Recently, however, the office has issued several advisory opinions regarding the use of municipal Web sites. In par ticular, in AO-99-06, regarding the use of a municipal Web site to post information regarding ballot questions, the office stated that "in many respects, a town's Web site is similar to a town's bulletin board." The office also stated that posting information. on the Web site therefore complies with the campaign finance law if posting the information "is consistent with the official responsibilities of the official posting the information, and is not primarily done to influence an election."3 Municipal Web sites are a valuable resource for citizens interested in contacting government agencies for information. Web sites encourage the free flow of information regarding matters of public concern. Also, there is little or no incremental cost for posting such information on a Web site that already exists. With these factors in mind, a broad prohibition on all official documents mentioning a ballot question on official town Web sites should not be imposed absent a clear statutory mandate to do so. Unlike. campaign activity such as mailing ballot question information to residents or distributing flyers by hand, if a municipal board or official posts such information on a municipal Web site such action does not in itself result in voters necessarily receiving information regarding a ballot question. Voters and others, if they choose to get information, must seek the information by contacting the Web site. Making information available, either by posting it on the Web or on a bulletin board, is different than distributing the information.4 Any person can visit town hall to obtain a copy of an 2 The office has issued several advisory opinions noting that a municipal Web site may provide links or space to candidates. See AO-96-04, AO-99-14, and AO-99-15. In these opinions the office stated that making the links or space equally available to all candidates, unlike e-mailing information to voters regarding candidates, would not involve expenditures of public funds to support candidates. s In AO-99-06 the office also stated that information relating to a ballot question could not be posted on a municipal Web site if. it refers to an election. We now believe that conclusion was too limiting. For the reasons discussed in this opinion, a more flexible standard should be applied to determine what information relating to a ballot question may be posted on a municipal Web site. Unlike information made available to voters by more intrusive means, such as distribution of printed information by mail, official information may be posted on a municipal Web site. 4 Unlike posting information on a Web site, distribution of information using e-mail paid for with public funds, such as an unsolicited blanket transmission of e-mail to many voters or residents, would involve sending information to influence an Peter Johnson-Staub June 13, 2000 Page 4 official public document that discusses a ballot question. Similarly, that person may access a town Web site and obtain that same document. Therefore, any public record the creation of which is consistent with an official's scope of responsibilities, which can be posted on a bulletin board or given to persons who ask for copies, may also be posted on the municipal Web site. Examples of such documents include a vote or report of a municipal board, even if it contains analysis or a recommendation regarding a ballot question. For the reasons discussed above, a notice such as the proposed notice that was attached to your letter may be posted on the town's Web site and may, unlike information that is mailed or otherwise distributed to voters, mention an election. In addition, it may include only the public entity's perspective on an issue it does not have to provide both sides of an argument.5 This opinion is issued on the basis of your letter and solely within the context of the campaign finance law: I encourage you to contact us in the future if you have further questions regarding any aspect of the campaign finance law. Sincerely, Michael J. Sullivan Director election and would be inconsistent with the campaign finance law. On the other hand, using e-mail to answer a request for information or documents would not be an improper use of public resources. 5 "Equal access" to the Web site does not have to be provided to groups opposing the municipal. employee's official position, unless access to the municipal Web site is provided to other private groups (e.g., parent-teacher organizations) which use the Web site to state their position regarding a ballot question. O,CPF Online www. mass. gov/ocpf Office of Campaign and Political Finance One Ashburton Place, Room 411 Boston. MA 02108 commonwealth of Massachusetts OCPF-IB-92702 Issued: September 24, 1992 Revised: January 9, 2007 INTERPRETIVE BULLETIN Activities of Public Officials in Support of or Opposition to Ballot Questions This office frequently is asked about the .extent to which public officials may act or speak in support of or in opposition to a question submitted to the voters. In general; officials may undertake various official actions that concern ballot questions relating to matters that are within their areas of authority, such as voicing their opinions, holding or attending meetings and making information available to the public. Officials should not, however, use public resources to engage in a campaign to influence voters concerning a ballot question, for. example by authorizing a publicly funded mass mailing to voters or using city or town resources to support or oppose a ballot question. In Anderson v. City of Boston, 376 Mass. 178 (1978), appeal dismissed, 439 U.S. 1069 (1979), the Supreme Judicial Court ruled that public resources may not be used to influence voters concerning a ballot question.. In accordance with the Anderson decision, OCPF has consistently advised that governmental entities may not contribute or expend anything of value in support of or opposition to a ballot question, whether it is on the statewide ballot or placed before voters in a single city or town.' See OCPF Interpretive Bulletin IB-91-01 and advisory opinions cited therein for more specific guidance on . activities that fall under this prohibition. In addition, public resources may not be used to distribute even admittedly objective information regarding a ballot question unless expressly authorized by state law. See I13-91-01. Anderson, however, does permit public officials to act and speak regarding ballot questions, subject to certain limitations. As the Anderson court noted with apparent approval: I Anderson generally does not address or restrict activities of officials concerning town meeting. There may be some limitations, however, in the case of a ballot question that is also the subject of a town meeting, such as a Proposition 2'/Z override. See 113-91-01. 0%7-- Page 2 At oral argument, the plaintiffs conceded that the mayor and persons in relevant policy-making positions in government are free to act and speak out in support [of a ballot question]. Id. at 199 (emphasis added). In short, the decision reflected a recognition that if officials were prohibited from stating their, positions regarding a ballot question related to their official responsibility, such a prohibition would unnecessarily (and probably unconstitutionally) restrain such officials from carrying out the duties of their offices. Nevertheless, OCPF always advises caution on the part of officials to avoid the appearance of improperly using public resources to support or oppose a ballot question. In Anderson, the court indicated that the campaign finance law reflects an interest "in assuring the fairness of elections and the appearance of fairness in the electoral process." 376 Mass. at 193. In general, officials should be .aware that some of their actions or comments may be viewed unfavorably by those who oppose their positions, even if those actions are not specifically prohibited by the campaign finance law. On the other hand, members of the public who may question an official's conduct or comments concerning a ballot question should be aware that, as noted by the court in Anderson above, an official has the right to voice his or her opinion on a public policy issue, including a ballot question. Objections to the speech or actions of officials concerning a ballot question are .sometimes based not on the law, but on other considerations that are beyond the scope of OCPF's jurisdiction. This bulletin provides more specific guidance regarding the scope of such permissible activities concerning a ballot question, but it cannot be seen as'encompassing all situations that might arise. OCPF is aware that. ballot questions, especially those concerning Proposition 2 %2 overrides and debt exclusions, are often contentious issues. Given the limited treatment of this issue in Anderson, and the absence of relevant statutory provisions, questions and issues not addressed or reflected in this bulletin will continue to be raised regarding the extent to which officials may speak or act regarding ballot questions in a manner consistent with Anderson. Those who have questions not addressed here may contact OCPF for advice. 1. - Permissible Official Activity by Public Officials In general, a public official may comment regarding a ballot question. In addition, a public official may take certain actions regarding a ballot question, if the actions are consistent with his official responsibilities.2 An official may therefore address an issue or advocate a position regarding a ballot question that may affect the official's agency or which relates to a matter within the scope of his agency's enabling legislation. See AO-02-03. On the other hand, if an official could utilize governmental resources to promote or oppose a ballot question, the fundamental prohibition set forth in Anderson would be meaningless. While voters 2 It is worth noting, however, that elected officials have considerably more leeway than appointed officials. An elected official may speak about a ballot question at any time, even if the ballot question is not within the official's area of responsibility. In contrast, an appointed official may speak regarding a ballot question during work hours only if the question relates to a matter within the scope of the official's area of responsibilities. In addition, an appointed official may not appear at a political committee's campaign function to promote or oppose a ballot question during working hours. The appointed official may attend the event during non-working hours. An elected official, however, may attend such an event at any time. 13 Page 3 have the right to know an official's position, they also have the right to expect that their tax dollars will not be used for political purposes, whether to support the election of a candidate or to gain approval of a question put before voters. Therefore, officials may not use public resources in an attempt to promote or oppose a ballot question, e.g., by placing an advertisement in a newspaper urging a "yes" or "no" vote on the question, or by conducting a mass mailing of flyers urging a yes or no vote on a question or by distributing such a flyer through students at a public school. In addition, the Secretary of the Commonwealth has ruled that a city or town may not distribute printed information to voters regarding the question, unless it has been authorized to do so by the Legislature. (As of this writing, only eight communities have received such authorization through home rule petitions: Burlington, Cambridge, Dedham, Lancaster, Newton, Sudbury, Shrewsbury, and Yarmouth.) In general, officials are prohibited from using any publicly funded publications, including newsletters, to influence voters concerning a ballot question. Such materials may be prepared, but they may not be sent unsolicited to voters. Even with these restrictions, however, public officials may act or speak regarding ballot questions in a number of ways without violating the campaign finance law. Notwithstanding the Anderson restrictions, a public official may: A. Discuss a ballot question, includinLy at meetings of a 14overnmental entity or at informational meetings of private groups. Officials may discuss a ballot question at any time, including at an official meeting of a governmental body, such as a board of selectmen or school committee, or at informational meetings sponsored by a private group. Although sometimes a person may complain that the statements made by'officials at such meetings.are inaccurate or inappropriate, the accuracy or appropriateness of officials' statements is not an issue under the campaign finance law. B. Take a position on a ballot question. Officials may endorse, or vote as a body to endorse, a ballot question, and may issue statements supporting or opposing a ballot question. However, the distribution of such statements should be restricted to such usual methods as posting on a bulletin board or a press release, not in a manner restricted by Anderson as noted below. The fact that a ballot question is discussed or a vote is taken does not make an official meeting a "political event" and therefore does not trigger an equal access requirement for the use of the meeting room or inclusion on the agenda of the meeting. See AO-95-33 (selectmen may discuss ballot question at meetings, respond to inaccurate or misleading statements and post a statement on town hall bulletin board) and AO-00-19 (selectmen may endorse candidate or ballot question). C. Analyze the impact of a ballot question. An official may conduct an analysis of a ballot question's impact on agency operations or assign staff to conduct such an analysis, provided the question would affect the official's area of responsibility or agency. For example, a police chief may prepare an analysis of the effect of a Proposition 2 %2 override that would fund his depart ment; if the question concerned the school budget only, however, such a use of police department resources would run counter to Anderson. The results of such analysis would be considered a public document and could be made available to the public upon request, but should not be prepared or distributed in a manner inconsistent with the next section. The Page 4 official may not conduct a study primarily to aid the proponents or opponents of a ballot question. D. Provide copies of the agency's analysis of and/or position on a ballot question, or other public documents, to persons requesting'copies or to persons attending public meetings of a governmental entity. An official may distribute information containing the official's position on a ballot question or the agency's analysis to persons requesting such information, and may make a reasonable number of copies available to persons attending an official meeting (such as a public forum) of a governmental entity. However, even if the study is a public record, it may not be mailed or distributed, beyond those who attend such a meeting or request such information, to voters or a class of voters at public expense without express statutory authorization. See I13-91-01. A copy may be made available to an individual or group and may be reproduced with private funds and distributed by individuals or political, committees, if such distribution is disclosed in accordance with the campaign finance.law. Officials should not provide an excessive number of copies to a private group, political committee, or individual, for mailing or any other type of distribution. E. Hold an informational forum, participate in a forum held by a private group, and distribute a notice of the forum. An official or agency may hold an informational forum concerning a ballot question, or participate in a forum sponsored by a private group. As noted above, the campaign finance law generally does not cover the content of public meetings. If the governmental agency distributes a notice of a forum, however, such a notice may not discuss the substance of the ballot question or contain an argument for or against the question. For example, it may announce the date, time and location of the forum, but it may not contain a discussion of the reasons for supporting or opposing the ballot question. F. Speak to the press. An official may speak to the press regarding a ballot question that concerns a matter within the official's area of responsibilities. An official may also respond to or direct staff to respond to questions from the press or the public about the official's position on such a ballot question. See AO-92-32. Officials should contact OCPF before a press release is prepared or distributed using public resources. G. Post information on a government bulletin board or Web site. Information or endorsements by governmental entities or other information regarding a ballot question that are public records may be posted on a town's Web site or bulletin board. See AO-00-12. Further use of the governmental web site or the Internet for a more political purpose, such as unsolicited e-mails to voters asking for their support, should be avoided. H. Allow private groups to use a public building for a meeting concerning a ballot question. In Anderson the court stated that the political use of certain government resources, such as facilities paid for by public funds "would be improper, unless each side were given equal representation and access." Accordingly, ballot question committees, or other groups that support or oppose a ballot question, may use areas within public buildings that are accessible to the public (i.e., not private offices) for meetings if each side is given equal access. See AO-90-02. "Equal access" does not mean that the other side must be invited to attend a meeting. It means that both sides may, upon request, use the same space for separate meetings on the same terms and conditions. It is important to remember, however, that fundraising relating to the ballot question may not take place at such a meeting. See M.G.L. c. 55, § 14 Page 5 (prohibiting any demand, solicitation or receipt of money or other things of value for any political campaign purpose in any building or part thereof "occupied for state, county or municipal purposes"). 1. Appear on cable television: The fact that an official may, as described above, discuss or take a position-on a ballot question is not altered if such an action is broadcast on local access cable television. In addition to speaking at public meetings that may be broadcast, an official may appear on a local cable or broadcast television or radio show, during work hours if applicable, to discuss a. ballot question that relates to a matter within the scope of the official's area of responsibilities. During the course of the official's appearance,on the show, the official may state that he or she supports or opposes the ballot question. See AO-02-03. Questions concerning content of cable television programming and the use of cable television by municipalities should be directed to Cable Television Division of the state Department of Telecommunications and Energy at (617) 305-3580 or (888) MA CBL TV (888-622=2588)). H. Private activity by officials The examples listed above concern an official's actions while using some type of public resource, i.e., staff time or material, to promote or oppose or otherwise influence a ballot question. The Anderson opinion applies to the use of such public resources, but does not extend to the use of privately-funded resources. A person's status as a public official does not preclude him or her from engaging in political activity when not at work, including activity supporting or opposing a ballot question. The campaign finance law does not prohibit officials from acting or speaking in favor of or in opposition to a ballot question on an individual basis on their own time. It is important to keep in mind, however, that appointed, paid public employees may not, be involved at any time in fundraising to support or oppose a ballot question. See M.G.L. c. 55, § 13, which state that public employees may not "directly or indirectly solicit or receive" any contributions of anything of value for any political purpose. For more information regarding restrictions on fundraising, see OCPF's Campaign Finance Guide: Public Employees, Public Resources and Political Activity. Specifically, public officials may, on their own time: A. Serve on a ballot question committee or perform services for such a committee. An official may, on his or her own behalf, perform services or serve as a member •of a political committee, or hold any committee position, aside from treasurer or any other position that involves fundraising (if the official is appointed as opposed to elected, as noted above). In addition, as discussed below, some activities of public officials acting or speaking in favor of or opposition to ballot questions may raise issues relating to the conflict of interest law, M.G.L. c. 268A; which is enforced by the State Ethics Commission. B. Contribute to a ballot question committee or make expenditures to support or oppose a ballot question. An official may use his or her own personal funds to contribute to a ballot question committee or otherwise to support or oppose a ballot question. There is no monetary limit to such contributions or expenditures. Page 6 III. Conflict of Interest Issues Some activities of public officials acting or speaking in favor of or opposition to ballot questions may raise issues relating to the conflict of interest law, M.G.L. c. 268A, which is enforced by the State Ethics Commission. The Ethics Commission has stated that a municipal official may be a member of a ballot question committee and may speak in favor of or in opposition to a ballot question. The Commission has advised, however, that such an official may not speak "on behalf of and/or as the representative of " a ballot question committee before a municipal board or in a forum sponsored by a municipality. In addition, an official should publicly disclose any relationship "that gives the reasonable basis for the impression that any person or entity can improperly influence" the official in the performance of his duties. See Commission Advisory No. 4 and Conflict of Interest Opinion EC-COI-92-5. If you have questions regarding c. 268A, contact the State Ethics Commission at (617) 727-0060. This bulletin provides general guidance. To ensure compliance with the campaign finance law, OCPF strongly encourages officials to contact this office if they are in doubt regarding the scope of permissible involvement in ballot question campaigns. If you have any questions or need further information regarding this interpretive bulletin or any other campaign finance matter, please call OCPF at (800) 462-OCPF or (617) 727-8352. The office's web site, www.mass.gov/ocpf, provides additional guidance on this and other campaign finance topics. Michael J. Sullivan Director 1 _ OCPF Online w.ww. mass. gov/ocpf - Office of Campaign and Political Finance One Ashburton Place, Room 411 Boston, MA 02108 Commonwealth of Massachusetts OCPF-IB-91-01 Issued: October 31, 1991 Revised: January 9, 2007 INTERPRETIVE BULLETIN The Use of Governmental Resources for Political Purposes This office frequently is asked about the extent to which public resources may be used for political purposes, most often whether public resources may be used to distribute information to voters concerning a municipal ballot question. In addition, questions have been asked regarding whether public facilities, especially buildings and other property, may be used by groups supporting or opposing a particular ballot question or candidate. In general, the campaign finance law prohibits the use of public resources for political. purposes, such as public employees engaging in campaign activity during work hours or using their office facilities for such a purpose. For example, a candidate who also works in a public office may not use the office phones or computer to conduct campaign work. The law prohibits the use of public funds or other public resources to support or oppose a question put to voters, such as the use of public resources to distribute 'a mailing days before an election.' The law does not, however, prohibit the expression of views by public officials concerning ballot questions to the extent such expression is within the scope of their official responsibilities and protected by the First Amendment. 1. Scope of the restriction, in general In Anderson v. City of Boston, 376 Mass. 178, 187, 380 N.E.2nd 628 (1978), appeal dismissed; 439 U.S. 1069 (1979); the Supreme Judicial Court in that public resources may generally not be used for political purposes. In that case, the court concluded that the City of Boston could not use public funds to set up an office "for the purpose of collecting and disseminating information about the impact" of a ballot question. The court stated that the campaign finance law is "comprehensive legislation" which "preempt[s] any right which a municipality might otherwise have to appropriate funds for the purpose of influencing" the outcome of a ballot question. 376 Mass. at 18.5=186. Page 2. The court pointed to Section 22A of Chapter 55, which states that "[n]othing contained herein shall be construed as authorizing the expenditures of public monies for political purposes." The court also stated that: [T]he Legislature may decide, as it has, that fairness in the election process is best achieved by a direction that political subdivisions of the State maintain a "hands off" policy. It may further decide that the State government and its various subdivisions should not use public funds to instruct the people, the ultimate authority, how they should vote. 376 Mass. at 194-195. The analysis in Anderson applies to the Commonwealth and its "political subdivisions," which use taxpayer or rate payer funds. 376 Mass. at 193. Political subdivisions of the commonwealth include all agencies within, the state government, and within county, regional, town and city governments. State authorities, e.g., the Massachusetts Port Authority and the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, and state institutions of higher education are subject to the restrictions articulated in the case. See § 179 of ch. 655 of the Acts of 1989. In addition, the Anderson decision applies to municipal utilities that rely on fees paid by ratepayers. See AO-95-42. Finally, non-profit organizations that are supported by state tax revenues and other public funds may not use such revenues to support or oppose a candidate or a ballot question.. See AO-95-41 and AO-96-25. . "Governmental resources" include anything that is paid for by taxpayers, e.g., personnel, paper, stationery and other supplies; offices, meeting rooms and other facilities; copiers, computers, telephones, fax machines; automobiles and other equipment purchased or maintained by the government. A bulk mail permit is also considered a governmental resource. Chapter 55 was enacted to regulate "election financing.". Anderson, 376 Mass. at 185 (emphasis added). The prohibition on the use of governmental resources for. political purposes 'therefore applies to. all expenditures made to promote or oppose a matter placed before voters at the polls, such as a ballot question. In municipal elections, the Anderson restriction and other provisions of the campaign finance law are generally triggered once the appropriate municipal authority, i.e., the board of selectmen; city or town councilor mayor, decides to place the question on the ballot. See I13-90-02. However, there are cases where the law would apply to activity undertaken before a question is officially placed on the ballot. Funds spent prior to a question being "on the ballot" may also be subject to campaign finance law if the funds are spent to influence the outcome of an anticipated ballot question. Id. Although it applies to anticipated ballot questions, the prohibition does not extend to expenditures made to discuss policy issues (e.g., the need to renovate aging school buildings), which currently are not the subject of a scheduled or anticipated ballot question, but may at some undetermined future point become the subject of a ballot question. On the other hand, the prohibition does not apply to expenditures concerning public policy issues that are not, and are not expected to be, the subject of an election. An example would be an issue that is on the warrant for a town meeting only, as noted later in this bulletin. - This bulletin deals largely with the publicly funded distribution of information, especially 0 Page 3 printed matter, as it relates to the Anderson restriction. Such distribution is the most common source of questions and complaints to OCPF.. This bulletin does not, however; concern the speech of public officials concerning a ballot question, such as comments supporting or opposing a question or statements made during public meeting. Such comments are generally unrestricted by the campaign finance law. See Interpretive Bulletin IB-92-02, "Activities of Public Officials in Support of or Opposition to Ballot Questions." U. Distribution of information relating to ballot questions Public officials often wish to distribute, or assist others in distributing, information relating to ballot questions at public expense. Such distribution is appropriate only if it is consistent with Anderson. As discussed below, public officials inay prepare and make available certain information since such activity is consistent with their official responsibilities. Examples of such allowable actions would be preparing material and giving out copies at official meetings or sending it to voters who have requested more information. This type of activity is limited in scope and, in general, complies with Anderson. In contrast, the use of public resources to make an unsolicited distribution of information relating to the substance of a ballot question, such as a blanket mailing or other publicly funded dissemination of material, outside .of an official meeting, would not comply with Anderson. The general rule is that governmental resources may not be used for distribution of voter information commenting on the substance of a ballot question. The prohibition applies whether the material that is distributed advocates for or against a question (it is "advocacy") or simply purports to be objective and factual (it is "informational"). As noted above, Anderson prohibits the distribution of advocacy material. As for informational material, the Secretary of the Commonwealth has concluded that the Home Rule Amendment of the Massachusetts Constitution prohibits municipalities from distributing such material in the absence of legislation specifically providing such authority. Only eight municipalities currently have such authority to distribute informational material: Newton (Chater 274 of the Acts of 1987), Cambridge (Chapter 630 of the Acts of 1989), Sudbury (Chapter 180 of the Acts of 1996), Burlington (Chapter 89 of the Acts of 1998), Dedham (Chapter 238 of the Acts of 2002), Lancaster (Sections 285-288 of Chapter 149 of the Acts of 2004), Yarmouth (Chapter 404 of the Acts of 2006), and Shrewsbury (Chapter 427 of the Acts of 2006). In addition, there is at least one other exception that this office is aware of. M.G.L. c. 43B, §.11, which directs the city council or board of selectmen to distribute the final report of a charter commission to voters. Two examples illustrate the circumstances in which the office most often finds that information has been distributed in violation of Anderson. Both concern the preparation and distribution of information that deals with a ballot question, though the method of distribution varies in each example. 1) A board of selectmen uses public funds to prepare and distribute a mailing to all town residents concerning an upcoming Proposition 2 %2 override. The mailing either argues. for a yes vote or provides arguably "objective" information about the question. If the mailing calls for a particular vote, it is an inappropriate use of public resources and violates Anderson. Even if the mailing simply provides "information" concerning the question, however, and may reflect an effort to be neutral, it is not consistent with the Home Rule Amendment. 0 Page 4 2) A public school system prepares and distributes to teachers a flyer similar to the one noted in the first example. While there is no town-wide mailing, public resources are still used: school resources to prepare or copy the flyer, and the time of teachers in distributing it to students. Therefore, school officials should not ask children to take literature (including literature prepared by a parentiteacher organization) regarding the substance of a ballot question home from school to give to parents! See AO-94-11. Although the scope of the general rule prohibiting distribution of public resources is broad, there are several exceptions. They are discussed in greater detail below. A. Distribution of information relating to Town Meeting In addition to consideration'by voters at the polls, some ballot questions, such as Proposition 2'/z overrides and debt exclusions, also involve review by town meeting or a city or town board in the weeks and months prior to, or shortly after, an election. The campaign finance law does not regulate expenditures of public funds made for the purpose of lobbying town meeting or city or town boards or for other purposes not designed to influence voters at an election. See AO-93-36 and AO-94-37 (stating that the campaign finance law does not regulate expenditures made primarily to affect the deliberations on a warrant article at town meeting). Municipal officials may therefore use public resources to distribute information regarding a warrant article to residents prior to a town meeting, as long as the material is distributed primarily to influence the town meeting. Material distributed using public funds prior to a town meeting may not advocate a position on a ballot question. For example, a report summarizing or supporting a warrant article pending before town meeting.may not also urge a vote in a subsequent town election. In addition, because it is not always easy to determine the primary purpose of material distributed before a town meeting and related election, municipal officials should be careful to avoid any discussion regarding an election in such material. Even if it'does not expressly urge a vote in an election, any discussion regarding an election in a flyer or other document distributed using public resources may raise an inference that the document is being distributed to influence the election. There are, however, limited circumstances where the mere mention of an election in a document that is distributed using public resources prior to a town meeting would not violate the campaign finance law: For example, the town meeting warrant may include a reference to a subsequent election, especially in the context of a town meeting vote that is contingent on an override vote. In addition, a town's finance committee may use governmental resources to distribute a booklet 'containing its report and recommendations on warrant articles, if the recommendations are limited in scope to the warrant articles and the content of the booklet would reasonably be seen as primarily providing information in connection with town meeting, not the election which may take place after ' This office is sometimes asked about teachers' discussion of a ballot question, such as an override, in the-classroom. Such activity often engenders controversy and is seen as an indirect attempt to influence parents, even if it is undertaken for educational or information purposes. Since there is no explicit prohibition of this activity under the campaign fmance law, questions or concerns about such activity should be directed to local school officials or the Massachusetts Department of Education. v Page 5 the town meeting. In such circumstances, the mention of the election is clearly secondary to the material's primary purpose of providing information relating to town meeting. The above examples deal with situations where town meeting precedes the election. In contrast, where an election, instead of following town meeting, precedes the relevant town meeting, OCPF advises that public resources should generally not be used to distribute information to voters until after the election. Distribution after the election eliminates any inference that taxpayer funds are being inappropriately used to influence or affect the outcome of the election. See AO-04-02 (relating to the distribution of the report and recommendations of a finance committee with the town meeting warrant). Material that raises legal concerns under Anderson should be distributed with private funds by entities such as 'a duly organized ballot question committee or an existing association, corporation or other organization, in accordance with M.G.L. c. 55. Officials unsure about the appropriateness of any material planned for distribution should contact OCPF, which will review it and make a recommendation. B. Preparation of material by officials; restrictions on distribution Policy-making officials may act or speak out concerning ballot questions in their official capacity and during work hours if in doing so they are acting within the scope of their official responsibilities.' See I13-92-02. Such responsibilities may include preparing a document for use in responding to public inquiries or taking steps to understand the implications of a ballot question that is within their area of responsibility. An official may therefore produce a document that deals with a ballot question, such as a summary of the effects of the question or an agency.'s position on the question, as long as such preparation. is in accordance with his or her official responsibilities and, does not expressly advocate a vote on an upcoming election. An example of a document that concerns a ballot question but does not pose an immediate problem under Anderson is a report prepared by a school building committee supporting the need for a new facility that will be the subject of a Proposition 2%Z debt exclusion. The document would be a public record. It may be provided to those who ask for it, such as a citizen who calls the official seeking more information on the ballot question. Any person or group, at that person or group's expense; in turn may distribute the information to voters without violating the campaign finance law if the person or group complies with the campaign finance law's reporting and disclosure requirements. In addition, information prepared by a governmental entity regarding a ballot question may be posted on a bulletin board at town hall, and it may be made available at a counter or other convenient location for the public. It may also be posted on a governmental website. See AO-01-27, and I13-04-01'. While the preparation of the document is allowable, its distribution by a public entity on a larger scale, beyond those who seek out the document or receive it at official meetings as noted below, would raise concerns under Anderson. Because the document is a public record, however, it may be copied and mailed to residents by a private entity using private funds, such as a parent-teacher organization (PTO), a ballot question committee or a corporation. See IB-92-02. The entity would, however, have to report the expenditures in accordance with the campaign finance law's requirements. Page 6 C. Distribution of information at public meetings or hearings Governmental resources may be used to produce and distribute, or make available, a reasonable quantity of a summary or other document, e.g., an architect's report on a proposed new school building, at a meeting or hearing of the governmental entity, even if the document advocates a particular vote in an anticipated election or otherwise refers to such an election. In meetings or hearings conducted by a public body, materials prepared by or for the body may be distributed to persons in attendance where such materials are designed to facilitate discussion or where the materials otherwise relate to the agenda of the meeting. The content of such material is generally not subject to Anderson, even if it references or makes a recommendation concerning an upcoming ballot question, because its primary purpose is to facilitate the meeting. Such unsolicited distribution of the material to, a larger audience after a meeting should be avoided. D. Distribution of notices of public meetings or municipal elections The campaign finance law does not restrict the distribution of some basic information, such as notice of a public meeting held by a governmental body or a notice regarding an upcoming election. Public resources may be used to prepare and distribute a brief neutral notice to voters announcing the times and dates of meetings such as the type referred to in the previous .section, as well as -notices of meetings of governmental bodies. For example, a notice of a selectmen's meeting to discuss the municipal budget and an upcoming override may be distributed at public expense. Such notice should be confined to a simple notice of the meeting and avoid any discussion of the substance or merits of the override: A notice that encourages people to attend so they can "learn why an override is needed" would not comply with this standard. In addition, public resources may be used to distribute information that simply advises voters of an upcoming vote, such as a notice of the time, date and place of a municipal election. In addition, such information may urge people to vote, and provide information about how to register to vote. Also, such information may include a brief neutral title describing the ballot question, and the text of the ballot question. Extreme care should be taken to avoid any appearance of advocacy. For example, the title "school expansion project" would be appropriate. On the other hand, titles which would not be appropriate include "ballot question relating to need for school expansion," or "ballot question addressing school overcrowding problem." III. Use of government buildings or other public facilities or resources Notwithstanding the Anderson prohibition, there are limited circumstances in which groups supporting or opposing a ballot question may use public resources. In its decision, the court stated z Generally, such public documents may not be reproduced using public funds if they are to be distributed at a meeting sponsored or organized by a ballot question committee. The documents could, however, be distributed by an official who has been invited to speak at a meeting of other private groups regarding a ballot question within the scope of the official's area of responsibilities. Page 7 . that the city's use of publicly funded facilities "would be improper, at least unless each side were given equal representation and access." 376 Mass. at 200. "Equal access" means that a group supporting or opposing a ballot question, such as a registered ballot question committee, may be allowed to use a room or other space in a public building for a meeting, as a long as a group on the opposing side is given the opportunity, on request, to have a similar meeting, on the same terms and conditions.3 "Equal access," if provided, does not mean that proponents or opponents must be invited to attend a particular event or be asked or permitted to speak at an event. See AO-90-02. For example, an opponent of a ballot question who demands an opportunity to speak at a meeting of the committee supporting the question is not entitled to such an opportunity under the equal access rule. The content and agenda of the meeting is set and controlled by the group using the space. While a political meeting in a public building may be allowable under the campaign finance law, the meeting may not include any fundraising activity. Political fundraising is not allowed in buildings occupied for governmental purposes, such as city and town halls and schools. In addition, as previously noted, public employees who work in those buildings are also prohibited from raising funds for any political purpose. See M.G.L. c.55, § 13-17 and IB-92-01. "Equal access" does not mean that a private group may use a room or building which has been used for a meeting by a public body, such as a board of selectmen, within the scope of its official responsibilities, even if the public body endorsed or discussed a ballot question at its meeting and the private group opposes the ballot question. The "equal access'.' requirement also does not provide individuals or groups any right to speak or be placed on the agenda at a public meeting of a governmental body, such as a board of selectmen or school committee. Nor does it mean that an opponent of a ballot question is entitled to such access to distribute information, after the public body has made ballot question information, prepared within the scope of the entity's responsibilities, available to the public in the building or at the meeting. See AO-01-27. The equal access requirement generally is not triggered by the use of public facilities by parent teacher organizations (PTOs)'for regularly scheduled PTO meetings, even if a meeting is used in part to discuss the. merits of a ballot question. The primary purpose of PTOs is not to promote or oppose ballot questions. In short, "equal access" is triggered by the use of governmental resources by private groups organized to influence a ballot question, or when private groups use public resources primarily for that purpose. In addition to access to buildings or space for meetings, groups may be given the opportunity, if equal access is provided, to distribute non-fundraising flyers regarding a ballot question in public buildings. If each side is provided the same opportunity, proponents and opponents may also be offered access to certain public services, such as mailing labels (AO-88-27), a city council chamber for campaign announcement (AO-89-28), faculty mailboxes in public school to distribute non-fundraising campaign material (AO-04-06), or a public park for apolitical rally (AO-92-28). In addition, a state or local governmental agency may, as part of a collective bargaining agreement, use public resources to s A municipality may choose, however, to not allow any access to meeting space by political committees; such a policy does not violate the campaign finance law as long as it is evenly applied to all groups. In other words, equal access may mean no access by political groups. See AO-04-06. 0 Page 8 administer a payroll deduction plan for a public employee PAC, since the use of such resources would be for the purpose of fulfilling the governmental entity's contractual obligation, not primarily to provide a benefit to the PAC. See AO-03-04. A municipality or agency, which provides such a resource, must be reimbursed for ariy additional out-of-pocket expenses incurred in providing the resource. See AO-03-04. The campaign finance law does not regulate the extent to which proponents and opponents of a ballot question may have access to cable television resources. Questions relating to such access should be addressed to the Cable Television Division of the Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Energy at (617) 305-3580. IV. Privately-funded political committees and other permissible activities Government officials, public employees or anyone else who wishes to oppose or promote a ballot question may undertake such activity using private funds, through a ballot question committee or other existing organization. A separate ballot question committee should first be established with the local election official, in the case of a municipal ballot question, or with OCPF, in the case of a question put to voters on the state ballot. This committee may then be used to raise and expend funds to promote or oppose the ballot question. Public employees may not solicit or receive any contribution on behalf of the. committee, although they may make contributions and participate in activities of the committee that do not involve fundraising. A school newsletter prepared using public resources, or a PTO newsletter, if distributed by teachers, should not be used to help support a ballot question committee. For example, it should not announce the formation of a ballot question committee or provide information on how to contact the committee. See AO-00-06. A group may not solicit or receive contributions to support or, oppose a ballot question until it. organizes and registers as a ballot question committee. Where two or more persons "pool" their money to support or oppose a question, e.g., to pay for an advertisement, the persons should first register as a ballot question committee. Such groups are subject to alltthe reporting and disclosure provisions of M.G.L. c. 55. Groups such as parent-teacher organizations and local teachers' unions, which do not raise funds specifically to influence the vote on a ballot question, may make expenditures from existing funds to support or oppose a ballot question, and may make contributions to a ballot question committee. See IB-88-01 "The Applicability of the Campaign Finance Law to Organizations Other Than Political Committees.". Groups making such contributions or expenditures must; however; file a report (OCPF Form M22 or 22) with either the local election official or OCPF to disclose the contributions or expenditures. See IB-90-02. V. Expenditures of Governmental Resources - Remedies The treasurer of any city, town or other governmental unit, which has made expenditures or used public resources to influence or affect the vote on any question submitted to the voters, must file a report disclosing such activity. See M.G.L. c. 55, § 22A and M-95-06. 7 0-)5 * Page 9 Because of the differing circumstances and severity of instances of the improper use of public resources to influence elections, the final disposition and remedies in such cases may vary. Where the use of public resources is minor or difficult to quantify, or where officials are not aware of the restrictions, OCPE focuses on providing guidance to ensure that the action is not repeated. In other cases, however, restitution of funds adjudicated to have been spent contrary to law may be required. Such restitution may not be paid from public funds. It may, however, be paid by a ballot question committee, association or other private group or individual. Any officer of a governmental unit violating § 22A may be subject to criminal penalties. Finally, any ten persons may file suit to restrain illegal use of public funds at the local level by filing a ten taxpayer suit. See M.G.L. c. 40, § 53. It was such a "ten taxpayer" suit that led to the Anderson decision. At the state level, any 24 taxpayers can file a similar suit. See M.G.L. c. 29, § 63. VI. Other Bulletins and Memoranda This bulletin provides general guidance. If you are in doubt regarding the scope of the campaign finance law, you should contact OCPF at (800) 462-OCPF or (617) 727-8352. This office's web site; www.mass.gov/ocpf, provides additional guidance on this and other campaign finance topics. In addition, related interpretive bulletins and memoranda which may be of interest and which may downloaded from OCPF's website include: IB-90-02 (Disclosure and Reporting of Contributions and Expenditures Related to Ballot Questions); IB-92-01 (The Application of the Campaign Finance Laws to Public Employees and Political Solicitation); IB-92-02 (Activities of Public Officials in Support of or Opposition to Ballot Questions); IB-95-02 (Political Activity of Ballot Question Committees and Civic Organizations' Involvement in Ballot Question. Campaigns); IB-95-03 (Use of Public Resources by Elected Officials to Communicate with Constituents or Respond to Criticism); M-95-06 (Disclosure of expenditures of public resources required under M.G.L. c. 55, § 22A); and IB- 04-01 (Use of the Internet and E-mail for Political Campaign Purposes). Michael J. Sullivan Director 6a) ti~~~ OF R~O'~ Finance Committee Meeting May 19, 2010 {63s:,N~oRQO4P Conference Room, Reading Town Hall The meeting conversed at 7:30 PM in the Conference Room of Town Hall. FINCOM Members Present: Chair George Hines, Vice Chair David Greenfield, members Barry. Berman, Kevin Leyne, Bryan Walsh, Marsie West and Mathew Wilson. Members Absent: Tom White and Harold Torman Also Present: Assistant Town Manager/Finance Director Bob LeLacheur; Board of Assessors Chair Bob Nordstrand, Vice Chair Ralph Colorusso, and Secretary Fred McGrane, Appraiser Bill Boatwright and Assistant Appraiser Pat Sullivan. There being a quorum the Chair called the meeting to order at 7:35 pm. Public Comment: No comments. Board of Assessors: Chair Bob Nordstrand presented the FINCOM a letter requesting a reserve fund transfer of $9,000 in order to use an outside consultant to data-check in preparation for the upcoming triennial revaluation. Bob reviewed the financial status of the Assessing division for FY10 and projected FY11. Vice Chair Ralph Colorusso indicated that the Board had requested a one-year delay of the revaluation from the DOR. New DOR requirements coupled with the Town's desire to change software systems and newly hired. Appraiser seemed in conflict. The DOR denied the extension request, and indicated the software conversion should be delayed. Ralph reviewed the consequences of not setting the tax rate on time next fall, which worse case was no further quarterly tax revenues until the issue was resolved. He noted that the DOR was losing staff, and this may make it more difficult for communities to meet the usual state deadlines. Barry Berman asked about the software, and Bob Nordstrand indicated they now hoped to do the RFP next fall and the conversion to a new system next winter. He added that the state told them early last winter - after Town Meeting funds were secured - that they would discourage a triennial year data conversion. On a motion b Mr. Walsh seconded b Mr. Greenfield FINCOM voted to transfer $9,000 from the FINCOM reserve funds to the Assessors (Finance) FY10 expenses by a vote of 7-0-0.- Barry Bermanasked the Board of Assessors how they plan to educate the public about the recently, approved additional tax benefits for senior tax payers. Bob LeLacheur indicated they would'use the Town's Elder/Human Services contacts, and that Assessing staff over the years also had many similar contacts in Town. Next fall - when this change first takes effect - news stories will also be published. Special Election: Bob LeLacheur reviewed the timeline since Town Meeting approved the Local Option Meals Tax through the Board of Selectmen setting Wednesday June 23, 2010 as the date for the Special Election based on a successful voter referendum petition. He requested a FINCOM Reserve Fund transfer of $17,500 for the wage & expense costs of this unanticipated. cost. On a motion by Mr. Greenfield, seconded by Mr. Berman, FINCOM voted to transfer $17,500 from the FINCOM reserve funds as follows: $10,000 to the Elections (Finance) FY10 wages and $7,500 to the Elections (Finance) expenses by a vote of 7-0-0. FINCOM had a discussion about their role in the upcoming Special Election. Kevin Leyne indicated his support for a letter to the editor, using materials presented to the Town Meeting. He asked about using the Town's website. Maisie West noted many Town Meeting members changed their vote since the November Town Meeting because of new budget information as well as the fact many other communities had now adopted the local option tax. George Hines mentioned there were some members from his Precinct that now supported the meals tax instead of a possible Prop 2.5 override. David Greenfield said that overrides generally fail before the need for them is clearly evident - which is to say one or two very difficult budgets are adopted and the residents see the consequences. George Hines noted that a meals tax hardly solves all of the Town's needs. FINCOM expressed a desire to meet on June 2'd or 9th to further.discuss advocacy for the Meals Tax. Bob LeLacheur said he would check with Town Counsel to see what if any activities the FINCOM could undertake for a referendum. He pointed out FINCOM members as individuals had no restrictions, but a body of the Town may not be able to play any role. Soliciting private funds: David Greenfield responded to some comments at the recent Town Meeting. He said the Town already aggressively seeks alternative revenues - such as grants - and has gone through a couple of difficult budgets that have pared expenses. FINCOM discussed creating a presentation for Town Meeting that included all sources of funding, not simply the general fund which is typically seen as `the budget'. Matt Wilson cautioned against relying on fundraising to sustain essential expenses. Bryan Walsh agreed, indicating that no operating procedures should change, but documentation of what is being done would be helpful. Bob LeLacheur mentioned that this was discussed by staff three years ago when designing the MUNIS infrastructure, and the biggest challenge will be identifying funding that does not pass through the Town, such as PTOs. Oakland Road: FINCOM discussed the Town-owned land on Oakland Road, and reviewed the schedule of the newly formed Municipal Building Committee. They asked the Assessing division to express an opinion of the valuation of the land at a future FINCOM meeting. Matt Wilson left the meeting. Revenue Options: Bob LeLacheur reviewed the Selectmen's January budget discussions on raising additional revenues through a combination of the community access sticker, license fees, smoke detector fees,' underground storage tank fees, a site plan waiver fee, and broader re-inspection fees. In total about $35,000 in annual revenues were considered. RMLD: Bob LeLacheur asked if FINCOM would like to see the RMLD general manager on a regular basis to review their budget, as is described in the Charter. FINCOM agreed that they would. NIWRA water issue: Bob LeLacheur reviewed the water leak from a financial standpoint. The Town spent about $49,000 which will be paid for by the water enterprise fund. Any future reimbursements will be directed there. 61 In addition, the Town is exploring a new R-911 communication system that will likely have a broader community-wide use. The cost will be in the $20-25,000 per year area, with $5-10,000 in startup costs s• Minute On a motion by Ms West, seconded by Mr. Greenfield, FINCOM voted to approve the minutes of March 17 by a vote of 6-0-0. On a motion by Mr. Greenfield, seconded by Ms West, FINCOM voted to approve the minutes of March 24 by a vote of 6-0-0. On a motion by Mr. Walsh, seconded by Mr. Leyne, FINCOM voted to approve the minutes of April 26 by a vote of 6-0-0. Bob LeLacheur discussed the FINCOM meeting- posting situation, and the tentative new open meeting laws scheduled to take effect on July 1St a On a motion by Mr. Berman, seconded by Ms West, FINCOM voted to adjourn at.9:35pm by vote of 6-0-0.