The appeal must be dismissed. Petitioner also alleges that the district distributed promotional rather than informational literature in connection with the bond vote. Petitioner's request for interim relief pending a decision on the merits was denied on April 2, 1997.
Respondents raise a number of defenses including timeliness.
Petitioner contends that the appeal was late because he requested information from the district pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law and that the district delayed in fulfilling his request. However, the contents of the referendum literature of which petitioner complains was public information, available in advance of the bond vote. Also, according to petitioner, he became aware that the district hired the public relations firm on February 2, 1997. Petitioner also argues that since the district was on a contingency budget during the 1996-97 school year and since the contract with the public relations firm continued into that school year, his appeal challenging that contract is timely because he brought it within that school year. The two cases are distinguishable.