For a quick post just before the election, let’s take up the suggestion from some folks that the Tiverton Taxpayers Association (TTA) is some sort of “special interest.”  A basic question must come first:  What is a special interest?

For those of us who study political philosophy, “special interest” is a completely neutral term.  It refers to an organization or group whose motivation for political activity is not general, but specific, or special.  If your group advocates for things that affect everybody equally (or, at least, that don’t benefit your group in particular), you are a “general interest.”  If your group is trying to get taxpayer dollars for something that uniquely benefits your group, then you’re a “special interest.”

There’s nothing wrong with that.  To some extent, it’s how our government is supposed to work.  But that’s what the words mean.

TTA advocates for increased value for the taxpayer dollar and, where appropriate, lower taxes.  That applies to everybody.  Even if one were to insist that TTA members have more-expensive houses (and therefore pay higher taxes), the reality is that the benefits of TTA advocacy are broadly distributed.  That’s true not only because every homeowner pays taxes, but also because a high tax rate in Tiverton appears to reduce the value of high-end houses, which shifts the tax burden toward the owners of lower-end houses.  In short, TTA is a general interest group.

So what would be a special interest group?  One obvious example would be a labor union representing a category of town employees.  The entire mission of the unions is to increase the compensation and leverage of their members.  That will often involve promoting the work that union members do (which is theoretically of general benefit), but the unions’ role in our system is to advocate for the employees as a special group.  The term, “special interest,” could also apply (but less strongly) to residents who rely on a particular service that other residents don’t use.

By any of these measures, TTA cannot reasonably be called a “special interest.”

Using taxpayer dollars, the Town of Tiverton sent a booklet to Tiverton residents that claims to be a “Voter Information Guide” about the “Proposed Amendments to the Town Charter.”  Because it has the town seal on the cover, and because Section 1218 of the Home Rule Charter would make it illegal to send campaign advocacy using town resources, voters might assume that the booklet provides straightforward, objective information to educate them about the ballot questions and make a decision about whether the charter changes they would make are a good idea.  That is why Section 1218 allows “the distribution or publication of election, ballot question, or referendum information by the Town Clerk, the Board of Canvassers, or a Charter Review Commission.”

However, the Voter Information Guide is not objective, and according Town Clerk Nancy Mello, the content was written by the Town Solicitor and the Town Council.  That would be the same Town Solicitor who stands to gain substantial power if the charter changes go through and the same Town Council that blocked the elected Charter Review Commission’s proposals and pushed its own onto the ballot.  Unsurprisingly, the guide is not simply “information”; it’s advocacy.

Thus, on Question 10, voters are told that the “intent… is to ensure that this revenue is used in a manner that will bring a long-term financial benefit” and “provide a reduction in the property tax requirement.”  That is not, objectively, what the charter change would do, and based on years’ worth of statements from members of the council, it isn’t even clear that it is the “intent” of the people who wrote it.

The “Effect of Change” section about Question 11 is even more obviously advocacy:  “Improves the Financial Town Referendum process, clarifies language to lessen the likelihood of litigation and charter complaints, and brings the Tiverton Financial Town Referendum process in line with the budget processes for other Rhode Island municipalities with financial referendums.”  This is not only opinion, but it is opinion with a purpose.  The word “improves” shows that the authors of that sentence are encouraging voters to approve Question 11.

Whether this electioneering by the Town Council crosses the line and violates the charter would have to be the subject of a charter complaint.  Of course, if Question #6 passes, then the same Town Solicitor who helped the council block other charter changes, who helped to write the guide, and who can be fired if he makes the Town Council unhappy would have the power to dismiss the complaint, with no standard of review or appeal process.

(Incidentally, the Voter Information Guide has the wrong information about polling places.  For the correct locations, see here.)

Follow the Daily Tiverton Truth Flash on Facebook.

Perhaps the central concern TTA has with the changes to the Home Rule Charter that the Town Council has placed on next week’s ballot is one of trust.  With the gambling revenue (Question 10), for example, council members have shifted what they say the change would do as well as what they think it should do.

Among the latest assertions has been that the council can’t spend money off the budget by law.  Put aside the fact that the council’s lawyer, Town Solicitor Anthony DeSisto, has been arguing the exact opposite for more than a year.  Section 203 of the Tiverton Home Rule Charter permits the Town Council to spend up to $500,000 at a time without voter approval.  In 2014, the Town Council decided to buy the gas station at Grinnell’s Beach using this provision, and they made that decision in executive session (that is, without public debate).

But that isn’t all.  Among the matters discussed by town’s Budget Committee earlier this year was the use of police detail fees to buy cars for the force.  Whenever the town’s officers are present on a non-official detail, such as road construction, the town receives a fee for the officer’s time and for his or her vehicle.  The practice has been to treat this money as a negative expense, rather than revenue that appears in the budget process.

Another example is the stamp tax, or the money that the town collects when real estate is transferred from one party to another.  At a 1999 financial town meeting, voters passed a referendum to provide 60% of this revenue to the open space commission.  Referendums at annual budget votes are only supposed to be good for the year that they are passed, but this stamp tax division has continued ever since, with the town simply not reporting the revenue in the budget on which we vote.  In the current fiscal year, an estimated $105,000 in revenue was simply not acknowledged.

These are just the off-budget spending items that have come to light recently.  Who knows what other side deals and special arrangements exist?

However one feels about any of these uses of government money, these examples show that nobody should believe that the Town Council will feel legally obligated to put gambling revenue in the budget if Question #10 gives the council control over it.

Follow the Daily Tiverton Truth Flash on Facebook.