Petitioner contends that respondent authorized payments to district employees without formal resolution or public vote. Petitioner contends that respondent's failure to pass formal resolutions authorizing these payments constitutes a waste of taxpayer funds. Petitioner also objects to certain capital expenditures. Although the petition is unclear, petitioner appears to contend that respondent failed to obtain voter approval for the relocation of the district's business office and Superintendent's office. Petitioner further asserts that respondent distributed misleading and nonobjective information prior to three district-wide votes concerning transportation purchases.
Petitioner also objects to the establishment of an educational allowance for the superintendent.
Although it's not entirely clear, petitioner appears to contend that respondent should not have reimbursed the superintendent for educational expenses incurred in working toward her doctorate, because she had stated in her 1993 application for employment that she anticipated receiving her doctorate in 1993. Finally, petitioner maintains that respondent misrepresented information to the public in an informational budget document distributed in May 1994. In its answer, respondent denies that it made any improper payments to employees. Respondent maintains that all payments were made pursuant to contracts, which had been approved by the board of education, or pursuant to applicable collective bargaining agreements. Thus, respondent maintains that it did not waste taxpayer funds.