Mayor Kasim Reed’s office is defending criticisms today over a city-issued flier stating the proposed $250 million infrastructure bond will not only fund better roads, but put more money in the bank and food in the fridge.
In the mailing recently sent to 90,000 Department of Watershed Management customers about today’s vote, Reed is quoted as saying: “On March 17th, we will have the opportunity to make the most significant single investment in modern time, not just to improve our roads, but to help families pay mortgages and keep their refrigerators full.”
The flier raises a number of questions, according to a government watchdog and at least one Atlanta councilwoman. One, did it violate state laws prohibiting a government agency from spending public funds to influence the outcome of an election? And two, did Atlanta misuse Department of Watershed Management enterprise fund dollars, which the city is obligated to spend on Watershed matters?
Nowhere does Reed directly advocate a “yes” vote on the two-sided mailing. But Bill Bozarth, former head of government watchdog group Common Cause Georgia, said there’s “no question” about the city’s position based on Reed’s quote. Bozarth, now retired, said he was stunned to receive the flier in his mailbox.
“Would a reasonable person conclude that they are advocating for it? Yes,” he said. “… And if it’s being done with taxpayer money, I’m questioning whether that’s legal or ethical.”
Advocacy concerns aside, District 9 Councilwoman Felicia Moore said she wants answers about why Watershed — and not the mayor’s office or the Department of Public Works — sent the mailing. Watershed revenues are first obligated to pay bonds the city department issued years ago, and then operation and maintenance costs, she said.
“The use of Watershed funds makes absolutely no sense in this matter. It’s not a Watershed referendum,” she said. “Certainly they should’ve thought about the appropriateness of using an enterprise fund that has nothing to do with infrastructure work.”
A spokeswoman for Reed’s office said their complaints are unfounded, defending the flier as educational — not advocacy.
“ ‘Putting more food in the refrigerator and help(ing) people pay mortgages’ is a more colorful way to say ‘create more jobs,’ which we know will happen when $250 million is injected into the construction economy,” Reed senior adviser Melissa Mullinax said in an email Tuesday. “Having the Mayor’s opinion in a quote on the (flier) does not make it advocacy. It’s still just educational.”
Mullinax said Watershed routinely includes inserts into bills about city-wide issues. But for reasons the mayor’s office did not explain, the fliers were sent in a separate envelope from this month’s water bills. Reed’s office also did not provide the cost of issuing the mailers.
Mullinax said she’s asked the city’s legal department about whether the city must reimburse the Watershed department through the general fund.
The issue comes on the same day voters are deciding whether to greenlight two separate bonds that will address a billion-dollar backlog of needed repairs to the city’s roads, bridges, sidewalks and buildings. The first, worth $188 million, will be spent on transportation. The second bond, about $64 million, will fund municipal buildings and recreation centers.
The referendum is expected to pass overwhelmingly, albeit with a low voter turn-out.
Rick Thompson, the former executive secretary of the state ethics commission, said while the flier’s language about food and mortgages “seems a little reaching,” it would be difficult to prove the city broke state campaign finance laws.
State law prohibits a government agency from donating to a political candidate or committee. That effectively means a government entity can’t advocate for an issue using city resources; by doing so, it risks turning itself into a campaign committee. A public official, such as Reed, is allowed to advocate for a position, but cannot use taxpayer dollars or public resources to influence the outcome of an election.
“There’s nothing in that language that tells them to vote a certain way, but do I think it gets close to the edge? Yes, it’s right up to the line,” said Thompson, who now advises clients on ethics issues.
About the Author
