Respondent also raises two procedural defenses, failure to state a claim and untimeliness. Respondent further contends that petitioners have failed to demonstrate that any individual would have voted differently but for the alleged misrepresentations, that petitioners have failed to set forth alleged misconduct on the part of the district and that all information given out concerning the referendum was appropriate. Before reaching the merits, I will address a procedural defense raised by respondent. Since the record indicates that the appeal was commenced after the 30 day time limit and petitioners offer no excuse for the delay, the appeal must be dismissed as untimely. Turning to the merits, petitioners allege that the bond vote should be overturned based on the allegations presented.
Petitioners raise a number of issues that they believe warrant overturning the election.
However, the record in this case indicates that respondent and the Phase II committee considered all options relating to the high school and determined that the bond referendum presented to the voters was necessary and in the best interests of the district. While petitioners may disagree on student population projections, respondent documented that it examined student population projections and hired the Capital District Regional Planning Commission to issue a report concerning the projected student population which supported the district's conclusions. The record also indicates that respondent was fully aware of the pending litigation concerning the Town of Guilderland and was briefed on the possible impact of the litigation prior to its determination to submit the bond referendum to district voters. The record also fails to support petitioners' remaining allegations that respondent improperly used the fund balance for debt service, did not adequately consider space alternatives, did not adequately explain the fiscal and tax impact of the project and used its communications to improperly promote the bond vote. Petitioners' disagreement with respondent's course of action, in the absence of any illegality, is insufficient for me to substitute my judgment for respondent's.