I caution respondents, however, to refrain from speculating about the effect future proposals might have on property values in an attempt to persuade the public to take a particular position on such propositions. I also note that one of respondents' documents concededly overstates the amount of State aid that would be available if the proposed capital project were approved. Other documents contain more accurate information and respondents assert that efforts were made to correct any errors at a public informational meeting. The record does not support the conclusion that respondents intended to mislead the voters. I also have examined the document attached to the petition as Exhibit C, a letter signed by the district's Athletic Director and the two co-presidents of the Croton Booster Club.
Respondents concede that the letter constitutes impermissible advocacy.
However, they argue that it was produced without their knowledge or approval and that the Booster Club assumed the expense of preparing and distributing the letter. Here, petitioners have failed to prove that respondent Castro or other school district personnel conducted meetings regarding the proposed capital project that were not open to the public or that they improperly advocated for passage of the proposition at such informational meetings. Respondent Castro states in a sworn affidavit that all meetings at which she spoke were open to the public and that she continued her longstanding practice of making herself available to a variety of community groups to present information about the schools. There is no evidence in the record that any member of the public sought to attend such meetings and were excluded. Here, petitioners present an affidavit of one resident who states that she would have voted no but for the district's advocacy.