MEA ballot offers chance for confusion

It’s too late for those who have already mailed in their ballots, but the wording on a couple of propositions should give pause.

For instance, Proposition 12 gives voters a choice of how much they can contribute to a candidate of either $500 as it stands now, or vote to increase that amount to $750. The difference is noted by the overscoring of $500 and underscoring of $750. Where the line lands determines whether the number will be changed.

If a voter wants to keep the contribution level at $500, then that’s in contrast with proposition 16 that says the contribution amount will be $750 even though that amount is not underscored as new language. That is an obvious editing error that could lead to confusion.

If you voted no on 12, then you are obligated to vote no on 16, but that would eliminate the entire proposition requiring the registration of people or business who want to contribute to a candidate.

We should all want to know who gave money to certain candidates. That obligation to register as a financial donor has been an important element of this year’s election.

Propositions 19 and 24 are also somewhat contradictory.

If you don’t want an advisory committee, then just vote yes on both of them and that committee goes away.

However, if you want an advisory committee, you have to no on 24, but if you don’t care if that committee presents questions to candidates 90 days before the election and spend money putting those answers in a pamphlet, then you should vote yes.

The obvious question is, what if the voters approved the language on 24 — eliminating the advisory committee — but voted no on 16 requiring the eliminated committee to provide the questions and answers to the candidates and publish those in a booklet?

Even the most contested proposition — No. 1 — has verbiage that insinuates incest when dealing with the utility. If you have direct dealings with the MEA of $10,000 or more or work for the utility it’s pretty clear you can’t be on the board of directors. However, if you, or someone you are married to, or someone you can’t legally marry — a cousin or uncle — has similar dealings or even indirect dealings, none of you can be on the board. If that bylaw had been in place when the co-op was founded, there likely couldn’t have been a board of directors.

There are still several old-money families around here with streets named for them who can’t serve if that bylaw passes. That seems too much.