Alternative voting procedures established under 20 MRSA §226-A

MAINE STATE LEGISLATURE The following document is provided by the LAW AND LEGISLATIVE DIGITAL LIBRARY at the Maine State Law and Legislative Reference Library http://legislature.maine.gov/lawlib Reproduced from scanned originals with text recognition applied (searchable text may contain some errors and/or omissions) -· '~/4.....~.....,._,--..,-.:..:...._.....v·\ .,. ,.,.-J._~,.,_. •• ..,_,_J; Rep. Harold L. Hanson House of Representatives State House Augusta., Maine 04333 Dear Repreeentative Hanson: February 21, 1979 This is in response to your opin::Lon request of Februar-i; 13, 1979, and is a followup to our conversation of February 14, 1979. You have raised several questions rcga.rdinr, tho alternative votin1:, procedures et,ta.bllshed under 20 M.R.S.A. §226-A. You ha.ve incUcatcd both in :vour l<.>tter und in OUl' conversation tha.t those questions could be reduced to the followinr; three: 1. Whether the bud,e;et or a part of the budeet must be approved by each of the member municipalities within the School Adrn1nistrative Dl~tr:lct? 2. Whether the failure of part of the budr:et to be e.pproved would require that the whole budget be acted upon at a subsequent district budget meeting hold in accordance with section 226 of 'fltle 20? 3. Whethe1• the board of directors has to present on alternate operating school budget, or part thereof, to replace the proposed bud~et or part thereof which wrui not approved by the voters at the aubaequent district budget meeting held 1n accordance with 20 M.R.S.A. §226? In response to the first question, 20 M.R.S.A. §226-A does not requ:trc approval by each m.micipality within the School Adm1n1atrat1ve District in order for tl1e budget or part tl1ereof to be effective. Rather., 20 M.R.S.A. §226-A, sub-§5, mandates that the votes be cast and counted 1n the manner provided in 20 M.R.S.A. §225. Section 225, oub-§4, paragraph C requires that the board of clirectors determine whether the total votes caat 1n the district approve a given article. 1I'herefore, it 1n the total votes cast within the district which will decide whether the budget, or a part thereof JI has been approved. "~··-Ji'eoru[lrj' 21, 1979 Page 2 Regarding your second queatlon, only if the total budget were not approved would it be necessary to reconsider the entire budp.:et at the subsequent district budget meeting. 20 M.R.S.A. §226-A, sub-§6, specifically authorizes u subsequent district budp;ct meeting to be held "for the purpose of approving an alternate operating school budget to replace the proposed budget or the part thereof which the voters fatl to approve." ( cmphasio nupplied) • Accord1ngly, only theme ::ttr.ms within the proposed budget which a.re not n.pproved at the or1p:imLl budr;et meetinp; wouJ.d hC' the oub.ject of subncquent dlotrict budget mcct:t.np:n unc1m~ the proviolons of §226-A, sub-§6. Finally, the fr,overning bod,v of the School Adminlstrative District would be re<7.u.:lrcd to present :m altcrn:.'1te version of the budr;et, or pnrt thereof., which the voters failed to approve at the regular budget meetin,r.i;. Since a subsequent district budget meeting to act upon those articles which were not approved by the voters would be held at a single place withln the district, those articles would be subject to rrocliflca.tion by motion fran the floor. It in entirely possible that the alternate operating school budget, or parts thereof, could be modified at the district budget rreeting so that the original budget, or part thereof, which was defeated by the voters at the original budget meeting might be approved at the subsequent budget rr..eeting. I trust the above answers the questions which you ha.ve raised rcgarcl1.ng this rro.tter. Should further clarification be needed, please contact me. WGB:lm cc: H. Sawin Millett, Jr., Ccmnissioner Dale Douglass Renpectfully yom's, Waldemar G. Buschnann Assistant Attorney General