Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elections And Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debate flares over use of word "livability" for May ballot measure after Elections Division strikes term
Summary
Councilors and members of the public debated how the city should label a May local-option levy; a speaker urged the council to call it a "livability levy," while the city attorney explained that the Elections Division removed the word from safe-harbor review and that staff risk personal liability for advocacy outside safe harbor.
Councilors and members of the public discussed the upcoming May ballot measure 24-514, sometimes described in public materials as a "livability levy," during the March 24 city council meeting.
Councilor Nishioka, who introduced factual information on the measure, said staff cannot advocate for or against the levy but that a dedicated city webpage is available for factual information. "If you'll go to the City Of Salem, government, search for local option levy to find that webpage," Nishioka said.
Public commenter Jim Shepke urged the council to refer to the measure expressly as a "livability levy" in city communications, arguing that the phrase is useful shorthand for libraries, parks, recreation and Center 50 Plus and does not by itself advocate passage. "Livability is useful shorthand for libraries, parks, and recreation," Shepke said. He urged the council to direct staff to call the measure what he called its plain name.
City Attorney Dan Acheson explained the Elections Division's safe-harbor review process: jurisdictions may submit informational materials for review and, if found impartial, receive safe-harbor status. Acheson said the city requested use of the word "livability" in safe-harbor materials, but the Elections Division struck the term, telling staff the term is subjective. "If we go outside of our safe harbor provisions and use terms like that, that they specifically struck and said we can't use, there's a strong likelihood that the employees personally will have liability for using it if there's a complaint filed," Acheson said.
Acheson advised the council that while the Elections Division's review is voluntary, the safe-harbor designation reduces the risk that city staff could be accused of improper advocacy while performing official duties. He said the Elections Division has discretion to approve or disallow specific wording and that staff must follow the safe-harbor guidance if they seek the protection it provides.
No formal council action was taken on the wording; councilors and staff said they would continue to provide factual information and follow legal guidance on informational materials.
