Towns and cities around the state will be required to hold an extra referendum on their local school budgets this year, thanks to the school consolidation law.

Among the provisions in the law is a requirement that towns hold a budget validation referendum at which residents decide whether to ratify the school budget that already had been approved at the annual town meeting or by a municipal council.

This is the first time most towns will use the budget validation referendum method, and some local school officials are warning voters that the required language on the ballot is confusing.

The school consolidation law mandates that the budget validation referendum be held within 10 days of the annual town meeting where voters already will have approved a school budget.

“This was not my idea and I don’t think it’s a good idea,” said Arthur Wittine, superintendent of schools for Union 93. “The ballot includes very misleading language.”

The goal of the validation question is simply to ask voters if they will reapprove the budget they approved at town meeting, according to Wittine. But the referendum language, which is prescribed by state law, is confusing, he said, and confusion over the wording could trigger a “no” vote, which would override the decision at the town meeting.

The ballot for the Union 93 town of Blue Hill, for example, reads: “Do you favor the Blue Hill School Department budget for the upcoming school year that was adopted at the April 5 Town Meeting and that includes locally raised funds that exceed the required local contribution as described in the Essential Programs and Services Funding Act?”

The instructions to the voter, which are required to be included on the ballot, note that “A yes vote allows additional funds to be raised for K-12 public education” and that “a no vote means additional funds cannot be raised for K-12 public education.”

That wording makes it sound as if voters are being asked to approve spending more local money than was approved at the town meeting, and that is not the case, Wittine said. The language seems designed to encourage residents to vote “no” on the validation question.

“If you read that question, how would you vote? You’d vote ‘no’ because you’d say that they want more local money and you’ve just approved spending local money at the town meeting,” he said.

The language is designed to encourage defeat of the budget in the validation vote, said Robert Webster, superintendent of schools in Union 76. Voters in Union 76 towns – Brooklin, Sedgwick, Deer Isle and Stonington – will vote on school budgets later this year.

The confusing language is not surprising, Webster said, noting that much of the language stemming from the state budget last year – including the school consolidation law – has been written that way.

“The folks in the Legislature who want to reduce that 55 percent that the state is supposed to be raising are doing what they can to word these required questions so that it encourages defeat,” he said. “They’re stacking the deck.”

Two of the towns in Union 93 – Penobscot and Brooksville – held town meetings Tuesday and will be among the first to deal with the budget validation referendum. Both towns have scheduled votes for next week.

The other towns in the union – Castine and Blue Hill – hold their town meetings later this spring. A “no” vote, Wittine said, would send those school committees back to the drawing board.

“We’d be back to square one,” he said. “We’d have to build a new budget, have another town meeting and present that budget and then schedule another budget validation referendum.”

Current law does not permit the school department to include additional explanation on the ballot, so Wittine and the school committees have prepared an information sheet that is being distributed to voters at the annual town meetings. The flier explains the wording and encourages residents to support the budget that was approved at town meeting.

“We have to try to inform as many folks as we can and convince them that they should vote ‘yes,'” he said.

rhewitt@bangordailynews.net

667-9394