When do public expenditures promoting a ballot bond proposal cross the line from being informational to campaigning?
That’s the question some Canyons School District constituents are asking after receiving several mailers in the past couple of weeks that seem to push for a “yes” vote on a $283 million bond proposal to renovate and update schools in the district.
The return address on some of the mailers is that of the Canyons School District, which begs the question: Is district money being spent on the pro-bond campaign?
That would be illegal and a class B misdemeanor. But Mark Thomas, Utah’s elections director, says the state statute in question contains exceptions and allows the district to detail reasons for the bond.
Canyons School District spokesman Jeff Haney says the district has followed that rule and, in one newsletter, presented both sides of the argument to voters.
But Wendy Davis, a constituent who filed a complaint with the lieutenant governor’s office after learning that Friends of Canyons School District, a political issues committee (PIC) that launched the campaign, did not register with the state, as required by law.
After her complaint, the PIC did register last week, and Thomas says that issue is resolved.
But Davis argues there still has been a lack of transparency as to who has financed the campaign, which has included the mailers along with large billboards and lawn signs.
The PIC hasn’t filed any financial disclosure information.
Thomas said the most recent financial disclosure statement was due Sept. 30 and would include donations and expenditures through Sept. 25. He said it is unclear whether Friends of Canyons School District raised or spent any money before that. The next financial disclosure statement is due Oct. 31, seven days before the election.
Better late than never • The Utah Department of Transportation’s Mountain View Corridor, a highway running from Davis County through the west side of the Salt Lake Valley, has been underway for several years, with crews completing it in sections.
UDOT has had to buy homes standing in the way so it can demolish them to make way for the thoroughfare.
That caused a bit of a problem for neighbors in West Valley City, where 104 homes were slated for destruction from 3500 South to 4100 South near 5600 West, but not all the abandoned homes came down right away.
Two vacated homes were left standing for months. Not only were they an eyesore, but they also were a nuisance that left neighbors with safety concerns.
Windows were broken out, with garbage and weeds taking over yards, said neighbor Isaac Nelson. At one point, he said, a police agency held a SWAT training exercise in one of the homes that left it even in worse shape.
Neighbors suspected squatters were living in the shacklike homes and also worried about wild animals taking up residence there.
The happy news is that when Nelson posted photos of the homes on UDOT’s Facebook page, the agency took action.
One home was demolished within days of Nelson’s postings. Another was cleaned up and a fence was built around the yard.
“That home had some asbestos issues,” said UDOT spokesman John Gleason. “So we are cleaning that up before we take down the home.”
He said the two houses must have slipped through the cracks until Nelson’s post made officials aware of the problem.
“We appreciate when people reach out to us and let us know of a problem,” Gleason said. “When [Nelson] posted the pictures on our page, we agreed that we needed to address it right away.”
He said summer was a busy construction season so, with all the projects underway, the homes in that West Valley City corridor were missed.
City priorities • Attorney Joe Hatch was dismayed last week when he saw that his car, parked in front of his house, had been burglarized and vandalized.
Thieves had broken a back window to get into the car and then stole a duffel bag containing a few items.
Hatch called Salt Lake City police to report the burglary and basically was informed they don’t make house calls. He was told to go to the city’s website, fill out the online form and take a picture of the damage. He also was told to clean the broken glass off the street.
So Hatch scooped up two dustpans of shattered glass. Because it was early in the day and he was upset about the vandalism, he accidentally put the waste in the blue recycling bin rather than the garbage can.
Later that day, while he was at work, there was a loud pounding on his home’s door. His wife, who was recovering from surgery, went to the door and was scolded by a recycling officer for putting glass in the recycling bin.
So enforcers don’t have time to investigate a burglary, but they do have time to go to a house and berate an occupant over two dustpans of glass.