Mayor Kasim Reed’s office is defending criticisms 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 Tuesday’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, does it violate state laws prohibiting government from spending public funds to influence the outcome of an election? And two, did Atlanta misuse Department of Watershed Management enterprise fund dollars?
Nowhere does Reed explicitly say “vote yes” on the mailing. But Bill Bozarth, former head of government watchdog group Common Cause Georgia, said there’s “no question” about the city’s position.
“Would a reasonable person conclude that they are advocating for it? Yes,” said Bozarth, who received the flier in his mailbox. “… And if it’s being done with taxpayer money, I’m questioning whether that’s legal or ethical.”
District 9 Councilwoman Felicia Moore said she wants answers about why Watershed sent the mailing. Watershed revenues are first obligated to pay its own debt, 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.
A spokeswoman for Reed’s office said the flier is legal.
“Having the Mayor’s opinion in a quote on the (flier) does not make it advocacy. It’s still just educational,” Reed senior adviser Melissa Mullinax said in an email Tuesday.
Mullinax said Watershed routinely includes inserts into bills about city-wide issues. Mullinax did not explain why this flier, however, was mailed separately. She’s asked the city’s legal department about whether the city must reimburse the Watershed department through the general fund, she said.
Rick Thompson, the former executive secretary of the state ethics commission, said it would be difficult to prove the city broke state campaign finance laws.
“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.
