I am deeply troubled by the flier recently sent by the City of Olympia (and the City of Tumwater) regarding the Regional Fire Authority ballot measure Proposition No 1.
As a resident of Olympia, I rely on my City to be a trustworthy source of information about issues affecting Olympia residents, including ballot measures. However, the recent flier has violated my sense of trust.
While the RFA flier claims to be "for Information only: not intended to support or oppose the ballot proposition," it is clearly intended to promote the RFA proposal. A balanced informational flier about the proposed RFA would evenly address its pros and cons.
This flier only presents the point of view of the proposition’s proponents. It fails, for example, to mention that the RFA will impose a new, historically large increase in fees associated with property tax bills for citizens in both
Tumwater and Olympia and will not fund a single new firefighter, fire engine, or fire station in the RFA seven-year Strategic Plan.
I have no objection to proponents or opponents of the RFA ballot measure using private funding to influence voters to support their point of view. However, the 24" x 9" four-fold full-color fliers in question cost $22,242.38 to print and mail, and we taxpayers in Olympia and Tumwater will shoulder this cost.
As a citizen who believes in transparency and good governance, this really rubs me the wrong way.
~ Lisa Ornstein, Olympia
The opinions above are, of course, those of the writer and not of The JOLT. Got something you want to get off your chest? Post your comment below, or write it up and send it to us. We'll likely run it the same day we get it.
Editor's Note: To see the March 29, 2023, debate between proponents and opponents of Proposition 1, please click here.
6 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
Larry Dzieza
Thank you. Your points are well taken.
Friday, April 7, 2023 Report this
JohnGear
Amen, Lisa. Ever since it arrived I have had that flyer sitting by my computer, waiting for a chance to write City Hall to express my dismay to see such a slick (as in slippery) and grossly biased piece being presented with a straight face as "not intended to support or oppose the ballot proposition." Trying to label that piece as neutral suggests one of two things about the person who approved that piece of propaganda:
(a) either they were fine with making flat misrepresentation about neutrality and they don't care how the voters respond, or
(b) they have no business in a position that requires good judgment.
I started out a few months ago completely ignorant of the RFA issue, but since then a lot of reading and the tactics of the "pro" campaign -- tactics like sending out a clearly "pro" mailpiece at taxpayer expense and claiming that it's neutral -- have convinced me to vote no and to encourage others to do the same.
In my day job, I help people who have been ripped off by con men and shady businesses. It's striking to see a political campaign like the yes campaign here use so many of the same sales tactics that the worst used car dealers and high-pressure sales folks use: lots of appeals to emotions, a false sense of urgency being pushed, and an absolute refusal to discuss weaknesses and alternatives to the proposal being pushed on the marks (in this case, us, the voters). I hope the proposal fails so that we can get past the false binary of this one proposal and go back to the drawing board and really look at our options.
The no camp's website, SaveOurFD.org, is a wealth of information, and it's all pretty carefully sourced and footnoted. I urge any voter to review it before voting.
Saturday, April 8, 2023 Report this
JW
You're troubled; the other writer yesterday was not only troubled but also "saddened" by the flier.
Slightly melodramatic. You'd think the vote was to defund an orphanage.
Should they have sent a blank paper with only text instead of pictures accurately representing the contents? If they sent a similar flier for the parks or arts special elections in years past, did they have pictures of parks or arts on them? Wouldn't that also be "trying to influence" the voters with pictures?
And what about the text? How else are they supposed to describe the proposition except by describing what it is and the goal of the proposition is intended to be? Unlike the opposition, they're sticking to what it is and not spinning out scare language.
Saturday, April 8, 2023 Report this
ElaineLouise
This is so contrary to goals in both cities. This will cause a ripple effect for homeowners and renters who are already struggling to make ends meet. Every month all our utilities keep rising. All of our services keep rising and we seem unable to stop the flow. Olympia is already unaffordable with Tumwater not far behind. We don't need another agency to oversee an already burdened and complex system. Lacey opted not to participate and that should send a message right there.
Saturday, April 8, 2023 Report this
sherndon
Thank you, Lisa. I have submitted a short letter to The Olympian expressing my concern about the obvious bias in the flyer from the City purporting to be only "informational." I expected better. Fortunately, the Forum (sponsored by the JOLT and the League of Women Voters) offered multiple perspectives so voters could decide for themselves. But I fear not everyone will have had the opportunity to see that event.
Sandra Herndon, Olympia
Saturday, April 8, 2023 Report this
bouscouleuse
If you are interested in seeing an example of presenting genuinely balanced pro and con perspectives about the Regional Fire Authority Ballot Proposition No. 1, visit Olympia Indivisible's voter education webpage: https://www.olympiaindivisible.org/regional-fire-authority.html.
Democracy is strengthened when voters are well informed about the issues on which they are asked to vote. However, the ballot for Proposition 1 which Olympia and Tumwater affords only 250 words each for the Vote For/Against statements and only 75 words for rebuttal statements.
Because the proposed RFA merger proposition is a complex issue with very significant consequences for residents of Olympia and Tumwater, Olympia Indivisible reached out to the authors of the Vote For/Against ballot statements in late February, 2023 to ask if they would be willing to provide us with 1000-word statements and 250-word rebuttals (along with related charts and tables) to be posted on Olympia Indivisible's website, in an effort to give Olympia and Tumwater voters vital information which might otherwise be unavailable.
The authors kindly agreed, and the Thurston County Auditor Election Office kindly made available the ballot title and explanatory statement. You can read their statements and rebuttals at https://www.olympiaindivisible.org/regional-fire-authority.html.
Saturday, April 8, 2023 Report this