The appeal must be dismissed. District voters rejected all three propositions and respondent submitted one scaled-down proposition to the voters on June 20, 2000. That proposition passed by a vote of 984 to 856.
Petitioner alleges that voter turnout was reduced because of inadequate notice of the referendum.
Petitioner contends that senior citizens and people with disabilities were discriminated against because of the late notice. Petitioner also alleges that respondent presented voters with inaccurate information concerning student enrollment and the total cost of the bonds, including interest. Petitioner further claims that respondent misstated the percentage of the project costs that would be eligible for State aid. In addition, petitioner alleges that there is the appearance of ethical impropriety because an employee of the architectural firm retained by respondent for the project is the son of respondent's president. Petitioner further alleges that a portion of the current bond issue is to cover work that should have been completed in a prior construction project performed by the same architectural firm.