NH Center for Public Policy Studies

Topics:

State Budget

NH's Healthcare System

Education

Mental Health and Substance Abuse

What is NH?/Graph of the Month

Local Government

Corrections and Juvenile Justice

Legislative Orientation 2007

Information that Matters

Jobs, Wages and Economic Development

|View Past Topics|

SB2 at 5: Bonds, Ballots, and the Deliberative Session

Brief Description | Full Report (PDF)

Executive Summary

SB2—the “official-ballot meeting” law—has worked well enough over the last five years in New Hampshire that towns and school districts continue to adopt its procedures, particularly because the official-ballot process does make it easier for more people to vote on town and school business. A legislated adjustment in 1999 made it somewhat easier for those towns and school districts to approve bond articles and that change may have made SB2 more palatable to many

voters. Additional legislation is needed to make SB2 fulfill basic requirements of fairness and accountability. Until such legislation is passed, schools and towns should reject SB2 and consider some of the alternative governance structures authorized by New Hampshire law. This report focuses on how communities decide whether to borrow money for major

expenditures such as building a new school or sewer system, renovating a town hall or park, or purchasing land. Such decisions are often among the most controversial and expensive choices a community will make in any given year. State law recognizes the magnitude of a decision to bond for such projects by requiring super-majorities for approving bonds and by stipulating a number of procedural steps to guarantee clarity and accountability. The law treats official-ballot jurisdictions differently from traditional-meeting jurisdictions. This report explains those differences and shows how they influence the outcome of community decision-making. The paper analyzes all of the bond articles that went to voters from 1998 through 2001, updating reports the Center published in February 20001 and March 20012, and examining:

the particular impact of the state’s “official-ballot law,” known as Senate Bill 2 or “SB2”
the impact of changes in the size of the majority required for adoption of bond articles in official-ballot jurisdictions, and
the impact of the jurisdictions’ equalized tax rates on their willingness to undertake capital projects

Findings

The national economy began to soften at just about the time New Hampshire voters cast theirballots on bond articles in early 2001. Spending on bonds was down somewhat from 2000, but voters made no sharp breaks from 2000 in terms of the number of bond articles on their warrants or the percentage of bonds they approved.
Towns and school districts with traditional meetings approved somewhat higher percentages of bond articles in 2001 than did their counterparts with official-ballot meetings. Traditionalmeeting jurisdictions approved substantially more spending per capita on bond projects than their counterparts. Official-ballot school districts, for example, approved $164 per capita while traditional-meeting districts approved $431 per capita.
School boards proposed much larger bonds than boards of selectmen, and voters approved much more spending on school bonds than municipal bonds. Voters statewide approved only about 28 percent of the dollar value of proposed school-district bond projects, however, leaving roughly $258 million in school projects without sufficient support to move forward. 3 In contrast, voters approved 50 percent of the dollar value of proposed municipal bond projects.
The 1999 statute allowing official-ballot jurisdictions to approve bonds with a three-fifths (60 percent majority) rather than the two-thirds (66.7 percent) majority required in traditionalmeeting jurisdictions kept a rough parity between the two types of jurisdictions in terms of their approval of bonds. Without that provision, official-ballot communities would have rejected a much higher percentage of bond articles than traditional-meeting communities.
At this writing, the 60-percent provision is still held up in a federal court, having been challenged by voters in several SB2 communities. Voters in official-ballot jurisdictions approved 22 bond articles in 2000 and 2001 with majorities between 60 percent and 66.7 percent; these projects have been held up because of problems that would beset lenders if the statute were to be struck down. Inflation is driving up the costs of some of those delayed projects, necessitating two jurisdictions to propose bonds in 2001 to cover the increased costs.
Official-ballot jurisdictions had significantly higher voter participation on bond articles in 2001 than traditional-meeting jurisdictions, continuing a trend that has been obvious in each of the five years since SB2 became an option.
Although turnout has been high at the polls in SB2 jurisdictions, participation in the required “deliberative sessions” that establish the final wording of the articles on the warrant remains low, by most accounts. A simple majority of those present at the deliberative session can amend the articles proposed by elected school boards and boards of selectmen. Those present at a deliberative session do not have the authority to add or delete warrant articles, but they can amend the amount to be raised in any spending articles to zero, effectively defeating the proposal for a year. Thus, very small unelected coalitions can determine what choices whole communities may consider when they go to the polls. The failure of voters to embrace the deliberative session as a meeting with just as much significance as a traditional open meeting threatens the legitimacy of the official-ballot process as a tool for democratic decision-making.