1

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA

BECKY ERWIN, Plaintiff, v. CASE NO.: SEMINOLE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, Defendant. ______________________________________/

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, BECKY ERWIN (“Erwin”), and sues the Defendant,

SEMINOLE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD (“School Board”), and alleges:

1. Plaintiff brings this action to enjoin the placement on the November 2012 general

election ballot of a certain ballot measure proposed by resolution of the Seminole County School

Board (the “Ballot Measure”). The proposed Ballot Measure cannot lawfully be submitted to the

voters of Seminole County because the Ballot Measure’s ballot title and ballot language are

clearly misleading to the voting public, improperly contain political rhetoric inviting an

emotional response, improperly and inaccurately contain assertions of opinions disguised as

statements of fact, and violate statutory ballot accuracy requirements.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Article V,

Section 5(b), of the Florida Constitution and Sections 26.012 and 86.011, Florida Statutes.

3. This Court has jurisdiction to grant (a) declaratory relief pursuant to Article V,

Section 5(b), of the Florida Constitution and Section 86.011, Florida Statutes, and (b) injunctive

2

relief pursuant to Article V, Section 5(b) of the Florida Constitution, Section 26.012(3), Florida

Statutes, and Rule 1.610, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.

4. Venue is proper in Seminole County, Florida, pursuant to Section 47.011, Florida

Statutes, because Defendant Seminole County School Board is located in Seminole County,

Florida.

PARTIES

5. Plaintiff Becky Erwin is a resident of Seminole County, Florida, and a citizen and

taxpayer of the State of Florida. Plaintiff Erwin is a registered voter in Seminole County, Florida.

She has regularly voted in Seminole County general elections and on ballot proposals presented

at those elections, and intends to vote in the November 2012 general election.

6. Defendant Seminole County School Board is the governing body of the public

school district for Seminole County, Florida.

FACTS

7. On June 26, 2012, at a meeting of the Seminole County School Board, the School

Board adopted Resolution No. 2012-06, advancing a proposal for an increase to the Seminole

County School District ad valorem tax millage, to be voted on by the electorate of Seminole

County, Florida, in the November 2012 general election.

8. Specifically, in the resolution, the Seminole County School Board directed the

Seminole County Board of County Commissioners to place the following ballot title and ballot

question on the November 2012 general election ballot in Seminole County (“Ballot Measure”):

3

BALLOT TITLE:

SEMINOLE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT AD VALOREM MILLAGE ELECTION

BALLOT QUESTION: Shall Seminole County School District ad valorem millage be increased by up to one mill beginning July 1, 2013, and ending not more than four (4) fiscal years later on June 30, 2017, for essential operating expenses to: preserve “A” rated academic, vocational, arts, and athletic programs; retain highly qualified teachers; and repair and maintain school buildings with annual reporting to the county’s citizens to ensure fiscal stewardship of the funds?

COUNT I MISLEADING, IMPROPER, AND INACCURATE BALLOT MEASURE LANGUAGE

(Violation of Section 101.161, Florida Statutes)

9. The allegations in Paragraphs 1 through 8 of the Complaint are realleged.

10. The Ballot Measure’s ballot title and ballot question adopted by the Seminole

County School Board are clearly misleading to the voting public, improperly contain political

rhetoric inviting an emotional response, and improperly and inaccurately contain assertions of

opinion disguised as statements of fact, all in violation of Section 101.161, Florida Statutes.

11. The ballot question is misleading in that its phrase

for essential operating expenses to: preserve “A” rated academic, vocational, arts, and athletic programs; retain highly qualified teachers; and repair and maintain school buildings… (emphasis supplied)

inaccurately suggests to voters that it is essential that the proposed tax increase pass in order for

any of the popular enumerated programs to survive. Put another way, the ballot question

misleadingly suggests to voters that, but for the approval of the proposed tax increase, it is a

certainty that each of the popular enumerated programs will be substantially diminished or cease

to be. Such assertions are the subject of heavy public debate, and as such constitute

inappropriate assertions of opinion disguised as statements of fact. At best, such inaccurate

4

assertions constitute improper political rhetoric inviting an emotional response, which has no

place in ballot language under Florida law.

12. The ballot question is also misleading in that by listing a small set of popular

programs upon which the funds raised by the tax increase might be used, the ballot question

suggests to voters that the funds raised by the tax increase will, in fact, be used on those

programs, or even that such funds must be used only for those programs. The fact of the matter

is that the funds raised by the proposed tax increase would not be legally designated for the

cherry-picked programs listed in the ballot language, but rather, the funds raised could be used

for increasing administrator salaries, swelling the bureaucracy of Seminole County Schools with

more non-teacher administrators, implementing coordinated salary increases to facilitate union

dues increases, or any number of other less popular activities.

13. The ballot question is also misleading in that its phrase “with annual reporting to

the county’s citizens to ensure fiscal stewardship of the funds” inaccurately suggests to voters

that because the Seminole County School Board would issue an annual report, “fiscal

stewardship of the funds” would somehow be “ensured”. At best, the completely unsupported

assertion in ballot language that “fiscal stewardship” would be “ensured” constitutes

impermissible political rhetoric that renders the ballot language improper and violative of

Section 101.161, Florida Statutes.

14. The ballot question is also misleading in that its phrase “Shall Seminole County

School District ad valorem millage be increased by up to one mill” introduces a fatal lack of

clarity concerning the substance of the ballot proposal, by improperly proposing the

authorization of an ad valorem tax millage “range”. The ballot question fails to indicate what the

actual ad valorem tax millage rate would be year to year during the life of the tax increase

5

proposed. It also fails to identify who would make the determination of what the millage would

be within the range proposed from year to year, or upon what criteria this decision might be

based. Notably, Sections 1011.73(2) and 1011.71(9), Florida Statutes, make no provision for the

authorization of additional tax millage “ranges” or an attendant power in the School Board to

vary such voter-approved additional tax millages without going back to the voters. By deviating

from the framework of the statutory authority upon which the School Board acts, it has

introduced a fatal lack of clarity into its ballot measure.

15. Finally, both the ballot title and ballot language are misleading in that both

contain a surprising omission for a ballot measure purporting to inform voters of the chief

purpose of a tax increase measure: The word “tax” is nowhere to be found in either the ballot

title or ballot language. Instead, in a question posed to the lay electorate, the ballot title and

ballot language rely on two highly technical legal terms of art (“ad valorem”, “millage”) to

allegedly provide the required “clear and unambiguous” explanation that property taxes were

going to go up if the measure passed. Indeed, the avoidance of the word “tax” goes so far as to

deviate from the language of the very statute authorizing the ballot question, Section 1011.73(2),

Florida Statutes, which by its terms empowers school boards to proffer ballot proposals to

increase “ad valorem tax millage”. The Ballot Measure’s artful avoidance of the word “tax” in a

tax increase ballot measure plainly demonstrates an attempt to “hide the ball” from the Seminole

County electorate.

16. For all of these reasons, the Ballot Measure, with the accompanying ballot title

and ballot question, may not lawfully be placed on the ballot for the November 2012 general

election.

6

17. Plaintiff will suffer immediate and irreparable harm if the Ballot Measure, with

the accompanying ballot title and ballot question, is placed on the ballot for the November 2012

general election.

18. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law, and it is in the public interest to ensure

that Seminole County voters are accurately informed and not mislead as to the true effect of the

Ballot Measure by deceptive omissions, improper and inaccurate assertions of opinion as fact,

and improper political rhetoric contained within official ballot language.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:

(a) Declare that the Ballot Measure’s ballot title and ballot question are misleading,

improperly contain political rhetoric inviting an emotional response, and do not accurately

inform Seminole County voters of the true effect of the proposed Ballot Measure, all in violation

of Section 101.161, Florida Statutes;

(b) Enjoin Defendant Seminole County School Board, and all persons and entities

acting under its direction or in concert with it, from placing the Ballot Measure on the ballot for

the November 2012 general election;

(c) Award to plaintiff the attorney’s fees, expenses, and costs incurred in prosecuting

this action; and

(d) Order such other and further relief as this Court may deem appropriate.

7

Dated: July _______, 2012 ___________________________

Wade C. Vose, Esq. wvose@voselaw.com Florida Bar No. 685021 Philip S. Kaprow, Esq. Florida Bar No. 378940 Gretchen R. H. Vose, Esq. Florida Bar No. 169913

Eve Bouchard, Esq. Florida Bar No. 0035398 Vose Law Firm LLP

324 W. Morse Blvd. Winter Park, Florida 32789 Telephone (407) 645-3735 Facsimile (407) 628-5670

Attorneys for Plaintiff