This commentary is by Jessica Miller, a resident of Cabot.
As of Oct. 29, 2016, the Australian ballot method of voting on all school and town budgets was adopted by the town of Cabot.
In 2021, it took three tries before the Cabot School District’s budget was passed. The first vote was on April 6, 2021, which included the same articles voted every year, including the budget and voter approval for borrowing money from a bank to pay its lawful debts and expenses for the fiscal year. The budget article was the only one that didn’t pass.
The second budget vote, as a lone article, took place on May 18, 2021, and it did not pass. The third budget vote, again as a lone article, took place on June 22, 2021, and it finally passed.
The statute governing school deficits is 24 VSA 1523 (b), which says, “When a school budget at the end of the fiscal year contemplated by section 1683 of this title has a deficit, unless the voters have borrowed funds to repay the deficit over a term of 3 years or less, or unless the deficit has been refunded pursuant to chapter 53 of this title, the school board shall add an amount sufficient to pay the deficit to its next adopted budget and report the total to the Secretary of Education for purposes of calculating education spending.”
Although there have been school deficits in the past, there has never been a separate article in the annual budget for voter authorization for a bank deficit loan. When the school budget was formulated, any deficit was factored into the total amount of the budget.
Again, Article 5 of the school’s first budget vote requiring voter approval for the school to borrow money to pay its lawful debts and expenses for the fiscal year ending June 30. 2022, was approved at a that time.
In early August 2021, the Cabot School warned of a special election on Aug. 10, 2021, to authorize a bank loan not to exceed $285,000 for a period not to exceed three years for the purposes of retiring the FY 2020 deficit of the general fund. So, after already factoring the deficit into the 2021 budget, the school was now asking the voters for a separate deficit loan.
According to the Cabot school superintendent, “The deficit of $359,173 was factored into the budget, but the board failed to warn a separate article asking the voters for permission to take out the deficit loan. That we included it in the budget did not mean that we had taken out the loan already.”
The chairman of the school board reported in the local newspaper, “The initial payment on this loan was included in an anticipated expense in the approved FY 2022 budget.” This suggests that, if there was an actual deficit loan, it had already been secured and needed no further authorization from the voters.
When I asked the superintendent why the amount of the deficit listed in the school annual report was $359,173 but the amount asked for in the special election was $285,000, he said the school had found some surplus funds to reduce the said deficit.
Without mentioning the amount of this newly found money, the math is simple to figure. But the fact remains that, if the deficit was factored into the budget, the taxpayers are still paying for that total amount of the budget, which includes the deficit. And, if the board receives a bank deficit loan (which, by itself, must be repaid by the taxpayers), does this borrowed money lower the budget that the voters previously approved? Or does it go into the coffers of the school?
Furthermore, by calling the special election for a deficit loan a public question, the board could conduct the election by a floor vote. The superintendent asked the school district’s lawyer, “Is there any reason we cannot warn an article and do it using a floor vote?” Without any legal authority, it was determined the bank loan deficit article was a public question.
But any vote on a school deficit is obviously a budget question and should, as of Cabot’s 2016 adoption of Australian ballot for any budget vote, have been held by Australian ballot.
By holding a voice vote from the floor, the board circumvented Australian ballot and effectively restricted the turnout, especially at a time of pandemic. And, in so doing, created a path toward further voter suppression by setting a precedent for getting around the Australian ballot method of voting.
Only 31 voters, including myself, attended that election. I voiced the only opposition and was quickly silenced.
Circumventing Australian ballot by having a voice vote from the floor for a duplicate deficit loan of $285,000 was inappropriate, if not fraudulent.
