Borough still mum on election issues after amendment tabled

MAT-SU — An attempt to increase the amount of information the Borough puts out on ballot issues failed this past week.

Assembly Member Michelle Church proposed amending guidelines to allow the Borough to use its resources to promote, either positively of negatively, ballot propositions that come up for public vote. This would include bond propositions.

An ordinance passed in 1994 prohibits using Borough resources to promote ballot questions.

Mat-Su Borough Attorney Nicholas Spiropoulos said Borough code defines promote to include positive and negative positions, but does not include limiting input to neutral statements as is done by state law.

The ordinance has caused uncertainty among members of the public because the Borough has either provided no or neutral information in ballot issues, according to a staff report to the assembly. Confusion stems from situations where the assembly takes a formal position on a topic during regular meetings, but when the same topic is presented as a proposition, the Borough is silent about it.

At times, the Borough’s silence has been interpreted as tacit approval, the report says.

Church’s amendment would allow the Borough to use its resources to “state how a particular proposition will affect Borough taxpayers and the community at large,” the report says.

While the Borough would like to disseminate more information publicly about ballot questions, others believe it should remain mum.

Penny Nixon, co-sponsor of Proposition 1, said Church’s amendment was proposed so the Borough could speak out against Proposition 1.

Proposition 1, if passed, would allow landowners to sue the Borough for land use regulation or action that could negatively impact the value of their land. Those supporting Proposition 1 say property owners need a remedy for haphazard and dangerous land use practices. Those opposed say it hamstrings the Borough because it would be open to being sued by taking any action.

During an impassioned exchange, Nixon was reprimanded for calling Assembly Member Michelle Church a “wacko.” Nixon also said the public is disgruntled with the Borough.

Assembly Member Tom Kluberton said the amendment ordinance was not in response to any particular initiative, but an attempt to correct public dissatisfaction revealed in a recent survey.

“Some folks are taking this out of context. It’s not about one ballot issue,” Kluberton said, adding that the potential for misuse of the ordinance worries him.

“We all, no matter where we sit, fear what the other side of this blade might do,” Kluberton said. A future assembly might be willing to spend huge amounts of money to do “who knows what” in support or opposition of an issue.

Kluberton said a recent survey found Valley voters believe the Borough falls short on disseminating information and professional opinions.

“A government of the people, by the people should be allowed the same free speech as the people,” Kluberton said.

If an ordinance of the type Church sponsored is to be adopted it would have to require the assembly pass an ordinance that describes the amount of money to be used and the proposition for which the Borough would use the money to promote, he said.

“[Church’s ordinance] needs critical work, the Borough needs to have a solid mechanism to counter misinformation,” Kluberton said. “The critical word is ‘facts.’ The Borough needs a way to counter information out there that is not factual.”

Kluberton proposed scrapping Church’s amendment and revisiting the subject at a later date.

Steve Colligan of Wasilla said he is deeply offended by the language of the amendment.

“I think it is hideous,” he said.

Colligan believes there is a process already in place that allows private individuals and groups to come forward on their own volition and use their own money to inform the public about ballot initiatives.

Robert Elyard has spent the last 40 years in broadcasting, mostly with the armed forces. He said his mission during that time was to inform, entertain and educate the public. He believes the Borough has a similar mission.

“I think the government has the obligation to inform us,” Elyard said. “It is your obligation as elected officials to keep us informed on what happens behind those desks. Obviously, the Borough has not done a good job of getting the information out, [as is seen by] the negative reactions shown at the assembly meeting.”

By unanimous vote, the Mat-Su Borough Assembly voted the ordinance down.

Contact Russell Stigall at 352-2267 or russell.stigall@frontiersman.com.