There’s a story today about the removal from the ballot of one of two referendum questions concerning our public school district. (The story rightly describes this as a ‘pause.’) See, Whitewater referendum ‘paused’.
I’ve written about a referendum approved in August for Whitewater’s public schools. The first question of two authorized for the November ballot requested approval by extension, for five more years, of about six-hundred thousand in spending and taxation beyond the state revenue limits. (See, A Referendum for Whitewater, Wisconsin’s Schools and A Referendum for Whitewater, Wisconsin’s Schools (Part 2).)
About a week ago, the district announced that the school board would entertain a vote canceling the first referendum question. From that moment, I’d say two things were certain. First, that there would have been no proposal for cancellation unless the votes for cancellation were already in hand. Second, that cancellation depended on an additional source of revenue, not on a reduction in district expenditures.
There’s no skill in seeing anything of this.
The talk today is that the first referendum question been rescinded by unanimous vote of Whitewater’s school board.
It wouldn’t have passed, as results of a similar referendum for the much wealthier Williams Bay district show. (“Two-thirds of voters in the Williams Bay School District on Tuesday turned down a referendum to allow the district to exceed the state-imposed revenue cap.”) I don’t know what the margin would have been in the Whitewater vote, but it seems unlikely that the effort would have been successful.
I was waiting, however, for a solid and serious case in its favor, to consider that case on the merits. Such a case never came; the advocacy on behalf of exceeding the revenue limits was vague, with a bit of error mixed in. Not once did the school district’s website highlight points in favor of the referendum on its main page; the lieutenant governor, soon to leave office, got more attention for her brief visit. (It’s just odd to talk about an ‘anti-referendum group’ when there was no serious, detailed pro-referendum case. )
The district rightly touts a commitment to academics, athletics, and activities, but the referendum effort wasn’t up to a competent academic standard. Part of the district’s advocacy was misuse of terms of art: tax neutrality is a policy of imposing taxes so that they do not divert, don’t favor, present consumption between alternatives. Exceeding the revenue caps for another five years isn’t an exercise in making a tax neutral. It’s simply an exercise in taxing.
This question will be back again; there will be time to consider it another day.