Editor’s note: This commentary is by Lyonel B. Tracy, Ed.D., who is former education commissioner in New Hampshire and the former superintendent of schools for the Orleans Southwest Supervisory Union. He lives in East Haven.
[H]as the Vermont Legislature tampered with the upcoming school budget votes and possibly violated its own code of conduct expressly documented in Title 17 of the Vermont Statutes Annotated? The statute in question reads as follows:
§ 2666. Improper influence
Neither the warning, the notice, the official voter information cards, nor the ballot itself shall include any opinion or comment by any town body or officer or other person on any matter to be voted on.
In the upcoming votes for school budgets in Vermont, a new wrinkle has been inserted within every Australian ballot budget article presented to local voters. Additional wording, extended beyond simply asking for voters to declare their intentions as to whether or not they approve the school board’s proposed budget, includes two statements that appear to unduly influence the outcome. The required reading of that Australian ballot article from Title 16, § 563. “Powers of school boards; form of vote,” is as follows:
“Article #1 (School Budget):
Shall the voters of the school district approve the school board to expend $ ______, which is the amount the school board has determined to be necessary for the ensuing fiscal year? It is estimated that this proposed budget, if approved, will result in education spending of $______ per equalized pupil. This projected spending per equalized pupil is ______ % higher/lower than spending for the current year.
At any rate, are other school boards also feeling the pressure of legislative tampering as they attempt get budgets passed?
The statements in bold are the new editorial comments, disguised as providing additional information to assist an informed vote, but actually carrying a subliminal message that encourages voters to reject the budget when the per equalized pupil spending appears to increase substantially. Following past practice, voters would have been presented only with the initial question. However, with the additional statements, a new message has been added.
In the case of East Haven, the budget is $943,058, the per equalized pupil estimated spending for FY17 is listed as $15,981, and the percent of increase declared as 44.40 percent higher than spending for the current year (FY16). Other voters can fill the blanks as listed in their own town reports.
Why should this information seem inflammatory, you ask? And why wouldn’t voters reject spending that is an increase of 44 percent? First, the comparisons between the actual spending in the current year and the estimated cost are not congruent. Only by using actual-to-actual or estimated-to-estimated spending can accurate comparisons be made. And since no actual figures exist for the upcoming budgetary year, only estimates should be used. In the East Haven example above, the estimated per equalized pupil spending for FY16 was listed in the town report as $13,077. That computes to an increase of a little under 19 percent, not the 44 percent published for voters to consider. Is the 19 percent increase still too high for voters to approve? Perhaps, but at least it provides more accurate information than the political arithmetic above.
Secondly, within the $943,058 budget is included a deficit of $159,953 for costs of equalized pupils in the school year 2014-2015 (FY15). It is a debt to be paid, not budgeted expenses for students in FY17. A more accurate estimated budget projected cost of educating East Haven students in the upcoming year would have to be determined by subtracting the deficit debt. That would leave a budget of $783,105. Now the estimated per pupil spending would compute to $13,273, an increase of $196, or 0.99 percent. Given that updated information (simply to assist an informed vote, of course), would not the taxpayers of East Haven be more likely to approve the budget?
At any rate, are other school boards also feeling the pressure of legislative tampering as they attempt get budgets passed? Are not several of our political leaders in Vermont, and especially most legislators, leading an assault to dismantle rural education? Certainly the tenor being projected by Act 46 is not a friendly one toward small school districts (ex, Walden, Peacham, Danville) that have documented a personalized education for students for years. That said, both the secretary of state and the secretary of education have been charged by legislators to draft language for this year’s budget article. The following statute reads:
From Title 16, Subchapter 1A: Government Of School Districts
§ 428. Budget to be voted: (b) If the electorate of a school district votes for its budget by Australian ballot, it shall do so using ballot language jointly developed by the Secretary of Education and the Secretary of State and adopted by the State Board, by rule.
Where are the minutes of the State Board’s vote to adopt this change? Did the Office of the Secretary of State and the Agency of Education collaborate in an intentional and meaningful way to craft this new wording, or was it imposed by legislators? In any case, why the abrupt change? And was the State Board consulted to confirm the change? A record of that must exist …
In conclusion, a closer look at the intent and the meaning of this unusual and dramatic shift deserves attention. A democracy depends upon the integrity, honesty, and fairness of elections. While the intent may have been well-meant, this encroachment on the electoral process is harmful to the state and its citizenry.
