Respondent states that printed copies of the proposed budget were available in each school building in the district more than 14 days prior to the district's annual meeting on May 18. On May 11, respondent mailed a budget newsletter to district residents. A copy of the newsletter is included in the record, with a bulk mailing receipt indicating that 2,657 items were mailed. The district's annual meeting was conducted on May 18. Petitioners concede that copies of the proposed budget were available at the polling place.
Petitioners present a number of complaints.
Among other things, they complain that the proposed budget was not mailed to every district household following the May 5 budget hearing, but it is unclear whether copies of the proposed budget were available at that meeting. While conceding that copies of the budget were available at the annual meeting, petitioners assert that this left district voters with inadequate time to actually analyze the budget. Petitioners further claim that electioneering occurred at the polls, because respondent's superintendent and other district employees were present to answer questions about the proposed budget and propositions. They further want respondent to adopt a policy on electioneering. Respondent generally denies all allegations of wrongdoing, explains the manner in which the election was conducted, and denies that any electioneering occurred.