Recently, Netflix emailed me and other subscribers to notify us of a price “update.” Besides not welcoming the need to pay Netflix an extra $30 each year, I was annoyed that the company used intentionally ambiguous language to describe their rate increase.
But while it is unsurprising for companies to maximize profits through obfuscation, we should expect plainer talk from local governments tasked with providing public services on a not-for-profit basis while holding the power to compel payment through taxation. Unfortunately, when local governments go to the ballot to raise our taxes, they often resort to Netflix-style ambiguity and even deception.
Take the case of Acalanes Union High School District (AUHSD), which serves Lamorinda, southwestern Walnut Creek and adjacent communities. The board has called an expensive special election on May 6 to obtain voter approval for a new $130 parcel tax that will take the district’s total parcel taxes up to $431 in the 2025-26 tax year, followed by cost-of-living increases on the new tax thereafter.
But if two of us had not sued the county clerk-recorder, casual readers of the forthcoming ballot materials would not have realized this. The 75-word ballot summary submitted by the school board spoke of a tax with “annual adjustments.” One would have to dive into the details of Measure T to learn that the parcel tax will be increased based on changes in the area consumer price index with a floor of 0% and a ceiling of 3%.
Worse, the county’s “impartial” analysis said that Measure T would increase the parcel tax from $112 to $130, missing the fact that the new parcel tax was additive to existing taxes and omitting any reference to an additional $189 parcel tax that AUHSD already has in place.
After a hearing on March 4, Superior Court Judge Edmund G. Weil ordered the county to change the ballot summary to say “annual inflation adjustments” and to alter the analysis to remove deceptive language about the current amount of and proposed changes in the parcel taxes. Weil’s changes were not as extensive as we had hoped for but represented a large step forward toward providing busy voters with more accurate information about Measure T.
The fact that taxpayer advocates must sue to insure non-deceptive ballot materials speaks to the dysfunction of the revenue measure process in the Bay Area and throughout California.
AUHSD paid pollster True North Research $31,000 to test different parcel tax levels and ballot measure word choices with likely voters. The district then turned to revenue measure consulting firm TeamCivX to fashion ballot language intended to maximize the chances of passage, rather than maximize clarity to the voters. But Weil also ruled that the artfully crafted language violated the section of the state Elections Code that governs wording for ballot measures, forcing the county clerk-recorder to make last-minute edits.
AUHSD and all California local governments should reconsider their use of pollsters and ballot measure consultants. Rather, they should determine how much additional revenue they need to carry out their functions and then share their thinking with the public in plain language. While I cannot promise that this approach will flip everyone at taxpayer groups to a yes position, I can guarantee that you will be depriving my side from being able to make the critique I have offered here.
Marc Joffe is a Walnut Creek resident and president of the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association. Joffe and Moraga resident Adrian Malagon were plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the county clerk/recorder that led to the court-ordered changes in Measure T.