Shortly before Tusten’s recent referendum on who should appoint the town bookkeeper, a number of town residents received a hard-copy letter telling them they should vote “no.” We do not say mailed, because even though the letters had stamps on them, the stamps were apparently not cancelled, or not on the letters we were able to track down.

The letter was not signed. It had no return address. And it also completely misrepresented the subject matter of the referendum. The referendum as it appeared on the ballot, in fact, read: “Do you agree with the proposed Local Law #3-2011 which creates the power of appointment of the Town Bookkeeper by the Town Board?”

To be fair, the anonymous letter gave a tip of the hat to this fact in one sentence: “On July 12, 2011 you are being asked to vote on the way the Town of Tusten’s bookkeeper should be hired.” (Though note that the phraseology here, employing the general term “the way,” still leaves the matter a little fuzzy). But the bulk of the letter goes on to argue that the taxpayers can’t afford to keep a full-time bookkeeper, saying why and how the town can’t afford that, and why part-time positions are more desirable. It concludes with the sentence, “Any opportunity to be fiscally conservative should be viewed favorable [sic].”

How on earth did we get from the wording of the referendum to the concept of full-time versus part-time? Good question—but one that any letter recipient who had not been following the issue would be in a position neither to ask nor to answer. Instead, they would assume part-time versus full-time was what the referendum was about. As such, the anonymous letter was a blatant attempt to swing the election by misinforming the electorate. And since the vote ended in a tie, which is counted as a “no,” if this letter succeeded in swinging even one vote, then it succeeded in throwing the election (though as it turns out there will be a re-vote on the referendum in November; see story on page 1).

One point that we find particularly destructive about the methodology of the letter is that it diverted attention away from an actual issue of some complexity into a facile emotional talking point: hands on your wallets! Protect your money from wasteful government! It was effective fear mongering during a time of economic hardship. Such tactics make clear the contempt of the anonymous author(s) for the voters, by aiming at knee-jerk emotions rather than thought.

It might have been different if the letter had clearly stated it as an opinion that, although the referendum was about whether the supervisor or the board should hire the bookkeeper, what the board would probably do with its power would be to name a full-time bookkeeper. It would have been even better if it had adduced a series of facts supporting that opinion. And it would have been best yet if the letter writer had, in addition to identifying him or herself, provided recipients and the press with some recourse to get into a constructive dialogue about the opinions stated, rather than hiding behind anonymity.

As it stands, though, the letter is a blatant example of voter manipulation. We think it is particularly important to call it out at this time because we are going into a much bigger election in November. No one will ever know for sure but, as noted above, there’s a good chance that this ploy worked—which means that whoever sent it will probably try it again when it comes to electing town representatives (not to mention the referendum revote).

The issue here is not, by the way, whether “yes” or “no” was a better vote on the referendum. It’s about what kind of tactics are tolerable in a democracy. We would like to alert the residents of Tusten that there is apparently somebody in town who cares more about winning than they do about a well-informed electorate, and has such little confidence in the merit of their case that they are unwilling to put their name behind it or subject it to the rigors of rational debate.

So, in the future if you receive an anonymous electioneering letter, toss it in the can. Get your information from attending meetings yourselves, from coverage in your local newspaper or reading town minutes online (www.tusten.org). Talk to your neighbors and, if they make an assertion, ask them for the sourcing of their facts. But don’t give away your vote to some faceless stranger who will tell you whatever it takes to get you to vote their way.