I am curious if I am the only citizen of Summit County who questions the appropriateness of our School Board using taxpayer-funded websites and publications to promote their support for passage of 3B regardless of their intent.

What I would ask all citizens to consider is whether public funds should be expended by civil servants resulting in support of any candidate, proposition or amendment? The Summit School District website, which appears to be funded as part of the $5.1 million appropriation that includes “Tech Funds,” has an extensive presentation as to why 3B funds are needed. Similarly, Tiger Tracks, which recently had a similar presentation, is listed under the $1.4 million Student Activity Fund.

I realize defense is “We are not trying to sway the voters, we just want to make sure they have all the facts.” Unfortunately, as human beings, we all tend to filter the facts through our own biases. A description of how minor the tax levy would be is an opinion, not fact. Even the “facts” the Board presented have been challenged by opponents of 3B. These opponents are put in the position of trying to have their voice heard, while supporters benefit from government funded publications. Is that how we want our government to work?

Regardless of your position on 3B, I consider what you would think if a town worker posted “facts” on the town website that depicted the schools as overfunded and wasting money? Or a staff member at the county sent out letters with a list of facts that candidate A was a criminal. Is the argument that “we are only presenting the facts” a suitable defense? Or should any government official desiring to present “facts” that will influence voters be required to do so at their own expense?