A BETTER SCHOOL BUDGET

Even those with misgivings about the school consolidation effort should welcome the part of the law that creates a new school budget approval process. Beginning this month, multicommunity school districts across the state will use the same budget approval process. It’s a process that proponents say builds community consensus around what often is a contentious issue.

Historically, school districts have sought voter approval for budgets in a referendum. In a district like the 11-town SAD 3 in western Waldo County, residents would go to their town office to vote on a dozen or so budget articles. When the votes were counted, if just one article failed collectively among the district towns, the budget was defeated. The school board could schedule a second referendum vote, with a reduced amount in the article that failed.

But typically, the school board would schedule a districtwide budget meeting to deal with the matter. Those residents who wanted to see the budget proposal decreased would have to drive from their homes, perhaps in the outlying towns, to attend the meeting in the high school gym. Often, far fewer would attend the meeting than had voted; in some districts, 100 people at the meeting could overturn the will of 1,000 who voted at the polls. And budget conservatives rightly complain that the district meetings are stacked with teachers, school staff and their families, who often vote to pass the original budget.

The new process has school districts reversing the process. They will host a districtwide meeting, at which the budget is explained, and then voters are asked to endorse each of at least 11 categories. Residents can argue for lowering or raising amounts in the categories, then they vote on each one. When the entire budget is “validated,” as the new process terms it, the meeting ends, but not the process. After at least 14 days pass, the budget is put to voters in a simple yes or no referendum.

Actually, this budget approval process has been in state law since 2001. The only substantive difference in the old version was that the referendum vote had to come within three business days of the meeting. The idea was to not allow budget proponents or opponents to “spin” the facts. That approach elevated the importance of the meeting, but it seems the public would be better informed by allowing for news coverage and opinion writing to follow the validation meeting.

In the new process, if the budget is defeated at the polls, the district schedules another meeting, and the cycle begins over.

The new process has the potential to get the public engaged in the budget in a much more constructive way. The proof will come soon enough. And of course, it helps when budgets have increases of 2 percent to 3 percent, instead of the 5 percent to 8 percent seen in many districts.