It has spawned scores of decisions on the subject by the commissioner of education, and these decisions further define the boundaries of permissible activity. If a district engages in impermissible advocacy that actually affects the outcome of a vote, the commissioner may annul the results of a budget vote and order a new one. The commissioner also may remove from office school officials who engage in a willful violation of Phillips vs. Maurer or neglect their duty to adhere to the court's ruling in that case. In addition, he can withhold state funding from any district that violates the prohibition against impermissible advocacy. Below are summaries of commissioner's decisions that illustrate the key rules that districts must follow.
Board members retain the right to speak as individuals .
School board members and other school officials, when acting in their individual, unofficial capacity, do not forfeit their First Amendment free speech rights to espouse personal views on the budget or other ballot propositions. Dissemination of purely factual information is permissible . Districts may distribute purely factual materials on the school budget or other ballot propositions through means aimed at reaching the electorate as a whole. In Appeal of Prentice , for instance, a school district published a full-page advertisement on the proposed budget in the Sunday edition of the local newspaper, just two days before the budget vote. The vote was challenged by a district resident who claimed that a portion of the newspaper advertisement underestimated the average yearly cost per household and thereby induced voters who might have opposed the budget to stay home.