Thus, when the budget was defeated in May, respondent was obligated to submit for voter approval a proposition for those activities not included in a contingency budget, if respondent wanted to conduct those activities during the school year. Petitioner claims that the August vote was the third vote on the sports and cocurricular activities budget, and that it was improper for the respondent to submit the budget for three votes. Furthermore, respondent was not required to demonstrate that new factors had arisen after the first vote or cite error, fraud or misunderstanding in connection with the first vote in order to resubmit the same budget for a vote. Petitioner has not met her burden of proving that respondent abused its discretion when it decided to present the extracurricular and sports budget for another vote on August 13. Petitioner also asserts that several voting irregularities occurred during the August 13 vote and requests that I invalidate the election.
Petitioner challenges the absentee ballots cast in the election.
Petitioner asserts that 731 absentee ballots were issued, yet 799 absentee ballots were cast. She accuses respondent of inconsistency, possible fraud and gross negligence. Petitioner's Exhibit C contains a list of 731 names of those requesting absentee ballots for the August 13 vote. Respondent states that approximately 200 additional absentee ballots were sent to people on the Dutchess County Board of Elections list of permanently disabled voters who were authorized by the county to vote by absentee ballot. Thus, the total of 799 absentee ballots appears correct.