The referendum date for the public to decide by vote whether the Delphi Community School Corporation is allowed to proceed with a building project that may cost $21 million over 20 years, including interest, was changed from May 5 to June 2.

According to Carroll County Clerk Nancy Mattox, the ballot question, although appropriately worded before it was certified, was questioned by the school corporation. After further consideration by the county election board, it was re-certified as of March 4. The special election can then be held 90 days from the final certification.

The school corporation building project referendum timeline is as follows:

• Oct. 13, 2008 - the board of school trustees voted to continue the 1028 public hearing and table the vote needed to proceed with the project;

• Nov. 20 - the board formally voted and adopted a resolution to proceed with the project;

• Dec. 16 - petitions were filed with the county clerk requesting a special election to vote on the matter.

Petitions with the appropriate number of signatures to bring about a special election were submitted by Katrina Coghill, Connie Myer, high school P.E. teacher Norma Carpenter, art teacher Sherri Cripe (who carried two petitions) and bus driver and Education Foundation President Leanne Aldrich.

However, the special election date is not the only issue with the current referendum process. The other issue, voiced by at least one school patron, has been the use of school equipment, personnel and students to promote the corporation's position about the project.

One parent objected to the use of students to promote the school corporation's position at freshman orientation, which began at 6:30 p.m. March 4.

"I was there to hear about high school, not to hear about the project," Jonella Beale told the Comet Thursday.

She explained four students gave a 20-minute PowerPoint display in between other presentations about students entering high school. She said the students were introduced and the audience was given the information that the same presentation would be given by students to community groups and civic organizations.

"This seemed like it was done as a school project," Beale continued. "This went over the line. This was inappropriate."

"That shouldn't have been part of freshman orientation," she added.

She said she did not believe she could voice her opinion at the time. Beale said she "felt captive to be there." She said she did not feel comfortable asking the students questions because she did not want to "put them on the spot."

"This was definitely a one-sided presentation," she concluded.

Superintendent Ralph Walker, when contacted by the Comet, said he did not know the presentation was given at freshman orientation.

"I was not aware this was going to happen," he said Tuesday. "I regret there was anything conveyed to the public about the building project at the recent freshman orientation."

"In the future, we will do everything we can to ensure that in a public forum on school property, nothing is mentioned regarding the building project or referendum," he added.

The commissioner of the Indiana Department of Local Government Finance issued a memorandum to county auditors, county council members and school corporation officials Nov. 25.

"The purpose of this memorandum is to inform all local officials of the new referendum/ local public question process and the amended petition and remonstrance process…" The memorandum read, in part, "For the referendum/local public question process, beginning with the adoption of the ordinance or resolution making a preliminary determination and continuing through the day on which a local public question is submitted to the voters, the political subdivision may not promote a position on the referendum/local public question."

The memorandum continued to explain the political subdivision "may not promote a position on the local public question by doing any of the following:

• Allowing the use of facilities or equipment, including mail and messaging systems for public relations purposes to promote a position… unless equal access to the facilities or equipment is given to persons with a position opposite to that of the political subdivision.

• Spending money controlled by the political subdivision to promote a position on the petition or remonstrance or to pay for gathering of signatures…

• Using an employee to promote a position on the petition or remonstrance during normal working hours or paid overtime or otherwise forcing an employee to promote a position on the petition or remonstrance at any time.

• …Using students to transport written materials to their homes or in any way directly involving students in a school-organized promotion of a position: or including a statement within another communication sent to the students' residences.

• A person may not solicit or collect signatures for a petition or remonstrance on property owned or controlled by the political subdivision."

The letter contained two additional restrictions specifically for school corporations:

• "A school corporation's staff and employees may not personally identify a student as the child of a parent or guardian who supports or opposes a petition or remonstrance.

• A person or organization that has a contract or arrangement with a school corporation for the use of any facilities may not spend any money to promote a position on the petition or remonstrance. …"