Consider Voting “No” on Any Referendum The First Time It Is On The Ballot Whether It Is For A Municipality, Fire District, Park District, School District Or Other Government Initiative


A “NO” VOTE ON  A REFERENDUM
MAYBE  A “YES” VOTE FOR THE MUNICIPALITY, PARK DISTRICT, FIRE DISTRICT,  SCHOOLS OR OTHER GOVERNMENTAL BODIES
Here’s why:

Voting NO returns the question to the Elected Governing  Board for reconsideration and much needed revision. The large dollar  referendums maybe an issue in itself, but a far greater issue is how the elected governing board made its determination and how and where it could contain costs and par off the “fat” in the plan.

Will it go for the designated purpose or will it enrich a consultant and provide for wants instead of needs?
It is not easy to publicly encourage a NO vote on a public  referendum, especially if it involves fire protection, police protection, schools, health initiatives or other purposes of public safety. Undoubtedly some may label this position as anti-public safety, or  anti-school, and some will consider it unfair to the elected board members who are over worked and underpaid for what they’re supposed to accomplish.

You should recognize that every board member  has the public interest as their highest priority. However citizen awareness and a willingness of citizens or citizen groups to speak up are vital to accountable government.
Briefly
I  believe that the fiscal magnitude of any project goes far beyond what is needed to accommodate the public need in many instances, or more specifically that a whole lot of wants have been added to what is really needed.
Extra scrutiny needs to be given to any of the  agreements that the elected bodies have structured with its consultants, project managers, financial consultants, attorneys, architects, etc., , which give these consulting companies far more control over public moneys   than is warranted, and a far bigger piece of the referendum dollars than justified.
I  believe that the needs and the wants of any governmental body should be segregated into separate questions on the ballot, so that voters could express preference by voting yes on the items they consider to be essential, and voting no on those things they consider unimportant.
We believe financial sustainability requires a fiscally conservative approach to meeting the future needs of any elected governmental body.
Lastly, I  believe that returning the question to the elected governing board  for reconsideration and revision, and utilizing input from many, experienced, business, engineering, construction, and educational professionals in your community, who would be willing to offer their expertise at no cost to the elected governmental body, would yield a more cost effective program at less expense to taxpayers.
Here are some key facts you should consider:
• Most elected governmental bodies select  a consultant;  to create its facilities plans and manage the project. That selection and the process the elected governmental bodies are inherently flawed and in many cases  suggest a complete breakdown in fiscal oversight and accountability.
•  Questions about a referendum, always raises similar serious questions. Most elected governing boards pick consultants to head up the design and usage of public dollars  with no questions being asked. No questions in spite of the fact that these consultants will reap millions in revenue.
I  strongly encourage you to look beyond the hype and get the facts, and know the facts before you vote.

Please read the consultants contracts, find out how much is being reaped by all of these consultants  and the referendum project list, and ask yourself.

Is this where you want referendum dollars to go?

Maybe a “NO” vote will cause the elected board to reduce the grandiose costs to the taxpayers and result in a more fiscally conservative proposal.

The rising tide of populism is carried by an undercurrent of political opportunism, and referendums provide the perfect opportunity to strengthen this surge. When we reduce complex issues into yes-or-no questions, we similarly simplify the debate. This kind of debate is ripe for hijack. Rhetoric begins to take precedence over discussion of the issue at hand, which often becomes conflated with other—often unrelated—social and political grievances.

Worse still, referendums are continuously deployed as a political tool. Often they are a calculated, strategic move by political leaders to assert their power.

Maybe, the taxpayer should have an opportunity to vote in parts on the proposal to reassert their power, not just a blanket authorization to spend money delegated to consultants and administrative appointees………………………….think before you vote.

Demand transparency as well as a conservative usage of your tax dollars  !!!

About royfmc

BS in Environmental Engineering from Northwestern University's McCormick College of Engineering MBA from DePaul University's Kellstadt's College of Business JD from DePaul University's College of Law
This entry was posted in #taxation, capital projects, Chicago, Economic Development, Economy, Education, election fraud, Elections, Finance, fire protection, Pritzker, referendum, Referendums, Roy F. McCampbell, Social Media, Special Education, Taxation, vote and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s