It is a budget that was developed to respond to changing and enhanced student needs, and a community-wide desire for fiscal responsibility. In addition, three two-sided postcard mailings sent to district residences constitute improper advocacy. The proposed budget includes funding for these critical areas, while maintaining fiscal responsibility. This format, including the exclamatory phrases on the front of each card, provides more than objective information on the proposed budget and advocates in favor of the particular aspect of the proposed budget presented in the postcards. The postcard cannot be deemed to advocate or provide partisan information on the proposed budget vote since it does not describe what those benefits are but merely states that a meeting will be held on such subject.
Petitioner submits no evidence to indicate what occurred at the meeting.
I find petitioner has failed to sustain her burden of proof that the postcard involved the improper use of district funds. Nevertheless, in view of the postcard's language that 'specific benefits' to students would be discussed, I am concerned whether district funds were used for partisan advocacy at the informational meeting. To the extent objective information was presented on the proposed budget, any district expense with respect to the mailing of the postcard would be permissible. However, I advise respondents that the district's participation in a presentation of only the benefits of the proposed budget, or a presentation that primarily stressed such benefits, would constitute an improper use of district funds to advocate in favor of the budget.