New Law Lets Schools Shift Election, Pass Budget Without Voter OK

A bill signed by the governor Tuesday gives school districts the ability to pass budgets without seeking voter approval and move elections from April to November.

Under the new law, there are three ways by which the election can be moved and voter approval of the budget rendered unnecessary, counsel John Comegno explained to the school board Tuesday:

• By referendum, if a petition to place it on the ballot is signed by at least 15 percent of the number of voters in the last presidential election ().
• By the passage of a resolution by the board of education.
• By the passage of a resolution by township council.

The law’s supporters say moving the vote to November could increase voter turnout, which is notoriously low during school elections in April.

The move would also save the district the cost thousands of dollars, Comegno said, because there would be no “duplicative costs” by holding the school election with the general election in November.

“We’ve got the voting booths, we’ve got buildings open and personnel designated for the purpose of holding the regular election,” he said.

Lynn Shugars, district business administrator and board secretary, said the district spends about $24,000 a year to hold elections in April.

Though the board didn’t take action Tuesday—they’re scheduled to vote on the change at a special meeting next Tuesday—several members expressed reservations about taking away the public’s right to vote on the budget.

“My concern is that the taxpayers really won’t have a voice in the budget going forward if we go ahead with this,” said Board Member Linda Alexandroff. “You know, school boards across the state can do whatever they’d like to do without anybody questioning how we’re spending our money. To me that’s a little bit backward thinking and I’m having a little bit of a problem with that.”

Comegno explained the board—if it went ahead with the changes—would still have to seek voter approval if the budget exceeded the state’s 2 percent cap. But Board Member Kevin O’Sullivan suggested the pressure of having to satisfy voters makes the board and administration more careful with the budget.

“Absent having that election and voting on the number, all of a sudden the natural cap goes to 2 percent and everybody says, ‘OK, it’s 2 percent,’” he said.

Comegno reminded board members while the public has the power to approve or disapprove a proposed budget, a rejection has a “limited impact” because voters don’t determine what to cut from a rejected budget—that’s typically decided between the school district and the municipality.

He also addressed the fact that the law grants the municipality the power to shift the school election date—independent of the district—by saying it “sounds like something that might be in front of the Appellate Division in November.”

Board President Don Mishler said the board would vote on the proposed changes at its Jan. 24 meeting, but did not elaborate on what action the board might take. While no one committed to a decision Tuesday, the tenor of several board members seemed in opposition to the shift.

Comegno said the board does not have to pass a resolution if it doesn’t plan to change anything.

A couple other interesting considerations associated with the new law:

• If the board acts before Jan. 31 (a rumored deadline to make the changes effective this year) and the election is moved, current board members whose seats were supposed to expire in April would remain on the board until the end of the year. Candidates who would have appeared on the ballot in April would now appear on the November general election ballot.
• Critics of the change argue holding school elections in November would inject partisan influence into the campaigns.