Phillips v. Maurer, 67 N.Y.2d 672 (1986)
A board of education exceeds its statutory authority when it uses public funds to disseminate information patently designed to exhort the electorate to vote in favor of a particular position advocated by the board.
Summary
This case addresses the extent to which a school board can use public funds to advocate for its proposed budget and bond issue. The Court of Appeals held that while school boards have the authority to educate and inform voters, they cannot use public money to create and distribute materials that explicitly urge voters to support the board’s position. The advertisement in question, while containing some informational content, crossed the line by including subjective statements and urging a “yes” vote, thus exceeding the scope of permissible educational efforts.
Facts
The Wheatland-Chili school district’s Board of Education created an advertisement to promote its proposed annual budget and bond issue. The advertisement included factual information about the budget and bond issue. However, it also contained explicit endorsements, urging residents to vote “yes” for the proposal. The advertisement stated, “The Board of Education urges residents to vote ‘Yes’ for the proposed budget and bond issue, because it believes both are in the best interest of the District” and “By voting ‘Yes’ * * * you will help protect our school facilities and the quality of education in our District”.
Procedural History
The case originated after the advertisement was published. The Acting Commissioner of Education did not restrain the board from purchasing the advertisement with district funds. The Appellate Division initially agreed that the Education Law authorized the board’s actions. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order and reinstated the Supreme Court’s judgment, finding that the advertisement exceeded the permissible scope of a board’s authority.
Issue(s)
Whether a board of education can use public funds to disseminate information that explicitly urges the electorate to vote in favor of a particular position advocated by the board, specifically a proposed budget and bond issue.
Holding
No, because the advertisement exceeded the publication of information “reasonably necessary” to educate the public and there was no rational basis for the Acting Commissioner’s failure to restrain the board from purchasing it with district funds.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals acknowledged that Education Law §§ 1716 and 1709 (33) authorize a board of education to present a proposed annual budget with educational and informational material. However, the court drew a line between educating and informing the public, and advocating for a particular outcome. The court cited Stern v Kramarsky, 84 Misc 2d 447, 452, stating that