With the Board of Selectmen (BOS) setting a date for the Academy community center and school renewal referendum—projects totaling close to $150 million dollars—residents have had many questions about why that date has been chosen, what the other options were, and what the referendum will potentially look like.

The way Madison is planning to carry out the stand-alone referendum, and which Madison has used before when holding referenda, falls under a specific state statute that applies only to municipalities that have a town meeting form of government, according to First Selectman Peggy Lyons and the town’s bond counsel Glenn Rybacki.

Questions to appear on state ballots, such as the November presidential ballot, are more restricted as far as timing and procedure, and fall under different state statutes. Either style of referenda will come with many restrictions the town will have to navigate stemming from its charter, limitations on usage of voting machinery, and logistics in setting up the election—everything from ordering ballots to staffing polling locations.

A vote taken by the BOS last month didn’t create any legally binding commitment to having the referendum for Academy and the schools on any particular date. Instead, it functioned as a public statement that the BOS would “take all actions necessary to present the [p]rojects to the voters of the town at a referendum, anticipated to be during the first full week of October.”

Lyons has stated that doing this is important to give those involved in the projects, particularly the schools, a date to focus on as they put together a communications plan around informing residents and advocating for their plan, which was approved by the Board of Education (BOE) last September.

It was also important to give residents clarity on when to expect to vote on the projects, Lyons said, though the two Republican members of the BOS protested that the date was set without prior public notice (see “Republicans Push Back on Unannounced Vote on October Date for School, Academy Referenda” on page 9).

There is no commitment as far as the precise wording of the question. The town will have this vetted by legal counsel over the next few months, according to Lyons.

The questions legally must be separate; it will be possible to vote “Yes” for one project and “No” for another, according to town officials. There is also no requirement that they both be voted on at the same time, though Board of Finance (BOF) Chair Jean Fitzgerald told The Source in January that she strongly believes they should, and Lyons has said she will respect Fitzgerald’s stance on the issue.

“If approved, these two capital projects will have an impact on people’s taxes and...it’s the BOF’s responsibility to make sure every taxpayer has a clear understanding of what that impact will be,” Fitzgerald said. “It would be disingenuous of us if we were to put one project before the public now and then come back later and ask for more money for another.”

Timing Possibilities

The two Republican members of the BOS, Bruce Wilson and Erin Duques, have also voiced their disapproval of an October, stand-alone referendum, which would only have the two projects on it and no other elections or questions.

It is legally permissible to put the two questions alongside either the May budget referendum, or on the November presidential ballot, which includes all federal and state offices as well as any other ballot issues approved by the state. Town Clerk Nancy Martucci said that, from the perspective of the Town Clerk’s Office, it is “not possible at all” logistically, at this point, to get the questions on the May 19 budget referendum.

Martucci cited everything from printing absentee ballots to legal requirements for bonding, saying that there simply wasn’t time to make it happen.

State Requirements

To put the questions on the November ballot, there is a very strict state mandated deadline of Sept. 3 for the town to certify the questions before submitting them to Secretary of the State, with other town approvals and actions required before that date.

A separate, stand-alone date would fit under an entirely distinct state statute, according to Rybacki. That statute, 7-7, allows the BOS with at least five days notice to take a question from the town meeting agenda and cause it to be presented to all the voters of the town, essentially acting as a referendum, but technically remaining part of an “adjourned town meeting,” according to Rybacki.

These sorts of referendum are specifically exempt from another state statute, 7-9c, which requires a 30-day warning between the BOS and clerk setting a referendum and the actual vote. This kind of referendum must be held more than seven, but less than 14 days after the town meeting.

Because the projects both involve borrowing money as well as changing the usage of town property, Madison’s charter requires they be approved by the BOF. State statute 8-24 requires the Planning & Zoning Commission (PZC) to review the projects also and make sure they fit the town’s “master plan,” Rybacki said.

The usage of town land also stipulates a town meeting, according to the charter, which must also be properly noticed 10 days in advance.

The Physical Ballot

The other major restriction is the voting machines. State law requires all voting machines to be locked and not used for 14 days following any election or referendum. They must additionally be programmed and locked 10 days prior to any election or referendum. This means that effectively, the referendum cannot be held within 24 days of another election or vote that uses the machines.

One window for a stand-alone referendum as far as voting machine availability is in the summer, between the May 19 budget vote and a likely Aug. 11 state primary. Representatives of the schools and other advocates say a summer vote is likely to reduce turnout and engagement drastically.

The only other window for voting machines is in late summer to early fall, 24 days after the Aug. 11 state primary and 24 days before the Nov. 3 presidential election, a window of a little over a month, between Sept. 5 and Oct. 9.

Limited Advocacy

Lyons, BOE Chair Katie Stein, and other town officials have stated that they want to push the date of certifying the referenda questions as far back as possible due to a state law that restricts certain types of advocacy and outreach before a referendum—a so-called “quiet period.”

Those restrictions, which bar the use of town money on advocacy and outreach, among other things, begin once the questions have been officially approved by the BOS. The latest the town can wait would be Oct. 9. Aiming to have the referendum on a Tuesday, Lyons and others have said Oct. 6 is the target date.

In order to have time to schedule, notice, and hold the town meeting, and to get approvals from the BOF and PZC, the BOS would approve the questions on Sept. 14, beginning the quiet period, and schedule a town meeting on Sept. 29 to approve the referendum.

At that same Sept. 14 meeting, the BOS will set the referendum to happen under 7-7 in the state statutes, and will publicly notice both the meeting and the referendum at least 10 days before the meeting is to occur.

The town meeting—targeted for Sept. 29—is required to function like any other town meeting, but instead of a vote by those present, the meeting will be adjourned to the referendum on Oct. 6.

Putting the referendum questions on the Nov. 3 presidential ballot means they would have to be certified in time for the Sept. 3 date, with all the approvals of by the BOF and PZC before that date. That means the quiet period would begin on or around that date.

Stein and school district officials have made it clear they would strongly prefer to have time during the fall semester without the advocacy restrictions, while Duques and Wilson have questioned whether those restrictions are truly an impediment to educating the public.

Town and school officials are still allowed to disseminate factual information during the quiet period, though Superintendent of Schools Tom Scarice told the BOS recently that the state has recently tightened what is allowed.

At press time, Scarice had not responded to requests by The Source for more details on the quiet period.

The cost of the referenda has also been the subject of some debate. A stand-alone referendum would cost the town somewhere between $7,000 to $10,000, according to town officials.

Martucci said that while putting the questions on the Nov. 3 ballot would be cheaper, it would still cost the town “a few thousand” additional dollars to cover additional staffing and “extra manpower” to answers questions and assist residents with the ballot.