Uneasy about Matteson’s 911 fee campaign
SouthtownStar editorial January 30, 2012 7:28PM
Matteson Mayor Andre Ashmore
Updated: March 1, 2012 9:47AM
Illinois law prohibits a local government from using public funds to advocate for a political candidate or issue.
But, as is often the case with laws in our grand state, there’s a loophole in which a town or school district can pay for the “dissemination of factual information.”
The problem is that there’s a fine line between an informational campaign and a promotional one — a line that public officials have been known to cross in seeking, say, voter support in a referendum.
Matteson is the latest example in the Southland to make us uncomfortable about this — especially because it’s spending more than $10,000 in advance of the March 20 referendum for a marketing firm to provide information to voters about raising the village’s 911 surcharge.
The $10,000 does not include the cost of any brochures, fliers, posters or videos used in the campaign, according to the village.
The village seeks a substantial increase — from 85 cents to $2.75 per landline — and the marketing firm will outline the “facts” that led Matteson officials to decide that it’s needed.
Mayor Andre Ashmore said the village did not hire the firm to “sway voters” but to “give them information on 911 services so they can make an educated choice.”
Sorry, Mr. Mayor, but that’s nonsense — a statement designed to pay lip service to the law. If that were true, then why hire professional marketers, experts at swaying consumer or public opinion?
Here’s how we see it: The village strongly supports the fee hike and is walking that fine line legally in hiring professionals to persuade voters of its need.
Ashmore said the village board will review the firm’s materials and “make suggestions” to ensure they’re not slanted.
We hope so, but here’s our suggestion: The village should’ve simply mailed to registered voters a notice, listing the pros and cons of the proposed fee increase.
That way, Matteson would’ve saved money and would be clearly within the law.
















Comments Click here to view or make a comment