Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Finance Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Proposal to put SAU budgets on the ballot draws strong practical objections from school leaders
Summary
Representative Bass said HB 564 would require separate ballot approval of SAU operating budgets to give voters a clear choice about administrative spending; witnesses for school boards and SAUs opposed the change citing administrative complexity and existing alternatives for multi‑district SAUs.
Representative Bass (prime sponsor) presented House Bill 5 64, a proposal to require school‑administrative‑unit (SAU) budgets to be separated from school district budgets and placed on ballots as distinct warrant articles so voters could approve SAU operating expenses separately from district operating budgets.
Bass said SAU administrative expenses are often buried in district budgets and difficult for voters to isolate; making them separate warrant articles would improve transparency and allow voters to accept or reject SAU spending. He said recent laws requiring SAU administrative cost breakout and website posting do not allow voters to vote on SAU budgets and that HB 564 would give voters that choice.
Many witnesses opposed the bill. Barry Christina (NHSBA) and Jerry Frew (NHSAA) said single‑district SAUs typically do not maintain separate SAU operating budgets; multi‑district SAUs already have separate SAU budgets. Witnesses described complex apportionment formulas and practical challenges in administering separate SAU ballots for SAUs that serve multiple school districts (weighted votes, different town election calendars, how to collect and tally ballots from multiple district meetings). Scott Gross (business administrator, Goffstown SAU 19) described concerns about weighted votes between towns and said implementing the bill would complicate election administration and could disadvantage larger contributing towns in some years. Eric Power (School District Governance Association) argued the practice already exists for multi‑district SAUs and that the bill would extend existing alternative procedures statewide.
SAU and school administration witnesses recommended more targeted changes (improved website disclosure and Department of Education reporting) rather than a wholesale requirement for separate SAU ballot articles. The committee did not vote; witnesses and the sponsor discussed technical drafting issues and practical implementation questions.
