Income tax information altered on Web site after state request.

Byline: Matt Cooper The Register-Guard

Lane County government should make its public information on the income tax proposal more balanced, but no decision has been made on whether the county violated state election law by advocating for the tax, state Elections Division officials said Friday.

The county Web site recently included information on the income tax proposal that was unclear, unbalanced, problematic and worded to persuade and create a sense of urgency, according to a letter the state elections division sent to the county.

No county officials returned calls Friday to comment. However, the county Web site had "updated" tax information Friday afternoon that appeared to be an effort to address the state's concerns.

With ballots mailed out for the May 15 election, voters are deciding whether to adopt a countywide income tax of 1.1 percent to replace a possible loss of federal aid and cover the cost of all county services for 10 years.

Opponents with the "We Said No" political action committee have filed a complaint with the state, arguing that the county's presentation of tax information violated a state law that prohibits public employees from performing political advocacy on work time, the state said.

It will take months to investigate and decide whether the county violated the law, the state said.

But state elections officials suggested that the county immediately make five changes to some information.

The state focused on a two-page document on the county Web site titled, `Ballot Measure 20-129,' which refers to the income tax proposal. The state said:

The document was unbalanced, with tax deductions and exemptions highlighted but the tax rate and cost to taxpayers less conspicuous or absent altogether.

The opening paragraph referred to the "uncertainty" of future federal aid, setting a tone that strays from neutrality to create a sense of urgency.

The county referred to the instability of federal funding without explaining the problem clearly.

The county listed services and functions "at risk" without explaining in a neutral, informative way what the risk amounts to. The county should more clearly explain how reductions would limit the ability to provide services.

The county used the words "cut" and "cuts," both words that the state routinely advises against using in impartial information. "This word has a raw and emotional tone to it and should be replaced by a more neutral word such as 'reduction,' ' the state said.

By late Friday afternoon, the county had replaced the word "cut" with "reduction" and made other changes that appeared to be in response to the state's concerns.