The Payson Roundup recently had an article discussing a Tea Party meeting where Transparent Payson was a guest.  The Roundup gives Transparent Payson too much credit.  “You can explain a lot about Payson town politics at the moment by listening to Aal’s critique.”  No critique would be necessary if the Town listened to voters’ will.

The basic pushback on voter involvement, or direct democracy, is that we live in a representative democracy.  We do, but not exclusively.  Some Council Members will state, “We were elected to do XYZ” to justify their actions and hide behind “representative democracy.”  The idea is that voters are not savvy enough to address concerns.  That is not true; ordinary citizens can decide complex issues.

There are challenges in every system.  Representatives are only as good as the information they receive.  Locally, that comes from Town Staff, currently funneled exclusively through the Town Manager as reflected on the organizational flow chart.  The biggest problem with a representative democracy?  Look at the corruption in Washington.  Need we say more?

First, from the Roundup article:

“Aal’s core argument is that the town has ignored the voters, manipulated the figures and failed to follow through on its promises.”

The article also provided direct quotes.

“There’s nothing inherently wrong with infrastructure,” said Aal.  “But there’s something inherently wrong when the process negates the people who are going to pay for it.  We’re taxpayers.  So when you start telling the taxpayers how you’re going to spend their money and ignore their input completely… It’s not the actual project.  It’s not the actual numbers.  It’s the way they go about it.”

You can read the full Roundup Article on their website.

Transparent Payson has never been against a community/aquatic center.

Here is the caveat.  Put the horse before the cart.  That is, ask the citizens for the funding FIRST.  Put it to a vote.  If fifty percent plus one vote say that additional taxes are a good idea, then build the Aquatic Center.  Rules in a democracy dictate you not to forget the role of the governed or the role of the taxed.  We think Payson‘s debt should have been placed before the voters.  It‘s not a radical idea. 

Day to day operation of government must occur from representative democracy.  The government is too complex not to.  We tire of the representative vs. direct deflection.  “Representative” does not mean carte blanche.  It does not remove the voter from the equation.

To put that in context, it helps to understand the historical precedents.  The Arizona Constitution was written in 1910.  The discussion about representative government is largely from the formation of the United States and are arguments from the Revolutionary War period.  When Arizona was conceived, it was during a “progressive period.” Initiatives, referendums, and recalls came about to fight undue influence from corporations such as railroads and others.  Twenty-six states have some form of direct democracy.  There are twenty-four that do not.  The discussion on representative vs. direct would not/could not occur in those twenty-four.

There are unique elements of the Arizona Constitution and the constitutions of Western states in general.  Some examples of the changes from early state constitutions, such as Maryland’s and others, to Arizona’s, are a strong emphasis on individual rights brought about by the Civil War.  To gain statehood, revisions were made to the 1910 document as it was “too progressive.” One of Arizona’s first orders of business was suffrage, passed and adopted into the constitution the same year Arizona was admitted to the Union.  That was before suffrage was enacted at the Federal level in 1920.  That effort was by direct democracy.

The Town of Payson has no issue with direct democracy when it works in their favor.  An example is Green Valley Park.  As a reminder, the Town had a plan for an off-year general obligation bond in 2025.  The Town had the approval of the General Plan on the last ballot.  The recent school bond?  It’s not a TOP matter, but nobody had an issue with direct democracy when it worked in their favor.  Simply glossing over by saying “elected representative” or “representative democracy” is a disservice to history and the importance of the individual.

Arizona requires a vote for indebtedness.  That is, a general obligation bond requires a vote of the people.  A revenue bond does not.  By doing what Wall Street does, Wall Street found some workarounds, such as a hybrid bond.  The bond proposal of $70m explicitly states it is not a hybrid.  If you read the indenture agreement, the revenue bond imposes some requirements on the Town that make it as close to a shotgun/hybrid as can be.  Some bullet points on the issues:

• The funds were not allocated and can be used for any purpose.
• The total debt burden to Payson is $112,429,225.00 ($112m) to obtain about $65 million in the bank.  About $9M is placed in a dead pool to meet bond requirements.  They can also allocate the money for prior land purchases to “reimburse” the general fund.  We suspect about $53M for actual projects.
• The bond has access to state-shared revenue and the recent increase in sales tax (TPT.)
• The bond automatically increases excise tax if funds fall below a threshold.

That is far from a straight revenue bond. It is servitude, much like a general obligation bond. As soon as the “representatives” start reading all the documents, we can have more faith in them.

Transparent Payson is not now, nor will it ever be, willing to silence citizens’ voices with cries of “representative democracy” when representatives fail to represent us.

 Voters and taxpayers have a role in the system that cannot be replaced with hollow arguments of “Representative Democracy.”