REFERENDUM WORDING

There has been considerable discussion lately about the upcoming referendum, and how it will worded. I will admit that it would be nice to ask a "simple" question on the ballot, but state law does not alway allow it. For example, here is the wording of the referendum in the spring of 2006 (which ended up in a tie vote):

Actual Wording: BE IT RESOLVED by the School Board of the School District of Ripon, Fond du Lac, Winnebago and Green Lake Counties, Wisconsin that there shall be issued pursuant to Chapter 67 of the Wisconsin Statutes, general obligation bonds in an amount not to exceed $1,500,000 for the public purpose of paying the cost of replacing and acquiring fine arts equipment, music instruments and uniforms, and auditorium equipment and stage curtains; and improving school facilities including installing, maintaining and replacing artificial turf at Ingalls Field and the gymnasium floor at Ripon High School.

I do not have the exact wording from the referendum in the fall of 2006, though I do have the notes from the July 17, 2006 School Board meeting:

2. Consider approval of three (3) initial resolutions authorizing general obligation bonds in amounts not to exceed $925,000 (Number I); $750,000 (Number II); and $250,000 (Number III) collectively totaling $1,925,000 (#07-05) Attached are the three (3) referendum questions for curricular needs—fine arts, technology education, and gymnasium (Number I); Ingalls Field artificial turf (Number II); and an endowment fund for future replacement of the Ingalls Field playing surface (Number III). This agenda items is the initial authorization to borrow the money, pending voter approval.

I know some people have misinterpreted the referendum to be an "up-and-down" vote on FieldTurf on Ingalls Field, but as you can see, the wording was clear in the spring, and the notes in the fall were clear - the permission being asked was to borrow money for the projects. Let's hope that the referendum questions in April are, once again, clear on what the money is being spent on. I know some people are leery that the district will try to "slip" something into the referendum or be ambiguous in the wording, but I think that is the least of anyone's worries when it comes to the referendum issue.