By Andrea Falkenhagen
East Valley Tribune
November 5, 2005
Voters take note: A
publicity pamphlet sent out by the Paradise Valley Unified School
District might be misleading.
For Tuesday’s election, district officials compiled information and
mailed pamphlets to residents in the district at a cost of roughly
$46,000.
The "pro" and "con"
statements are written by interested parties, but are not
factchecked by anyone at the Maricopa County Elections Office, which
printed the pamphlets, said Yvonne Reed, the office’s spokeswoman.
"The message is not altered in any way. As long as they aren’t
vulgar, it’s their opportunity to express their opinion," she said.
"If they have the wrong figures, the wrong figure has to be printed
in there — it’s their opinion."
That irks Scottsdale resident Graham Kettle, who said the
information he has received from the Paradise Valley district
regarding the possible annexation of his neighborhood has been
"inaccurate and misleading."
"The pamphlet omits key information. I think it is scandalous that
they did not put the financial information in that. It’s totally
wrong when you have an election and you don’t give voters the full
information," Kettle said.
The election has four ballot issues: A $161 million bond; a budget
override of $9.1 million; a chance to join a Maricopa County program
that would expand the number of vocational classes offered in the
district; and whether residents of an "unorganized" territory
outside Paradise Valley district boundaries should join the
district.
As required by law, the district sent information it collected
regarding the financial implications of the bond issue and capital
override question.
But it was not legally required to include financial implications of
a boundary change.
Voters in the unorganized area would see their taxes rise by roughly
$2,030 on a $500,000 home if they join the Paradise Valley school
district, said Joe Maltagliati, an auditor with the Maricopa County
Treasurer’s Office.
But a possible domino effect could raise taxes by even more, said
Michael Hunter, vice president of the Arizona Tax Research
Association. That information should have been presented in the
pamphlet, he said.
Besides the omission, the pamphlet also contains contradictory
information. Out of four statements, three cite different
information about the number of Paradise Valley district students
living in the territory, ranging from 150 to "more than 200" to "the
majority of" nearly 500 school-age children.
The correct number, as of Thursday, was 181 students, said Judi
Willis, spokeswoman for the Paradise Valley Unified School District.
The reason for the confusion, she said, was that the enrollment
numbers were uncertain during summer, and they can change daily.
But Petra Cervino, a mother who wrote a "pro" statement for the
publicity pamphlet, said she worries some children are not being
accounted for in the information that is being distributed.
She believes 300 to 500 school-age children live in the area.
Finding information about local elections is difficult, said Bonnie
Saunders, president of the League of Women Voters of Arizona.
"I hope they look at the (booklets)," Saunders said. "They are
valuable. But I don’t know that we intend for that to be the only
thing people read."
