School Bonding Soundly Beaten

Nearly 10,000 Ann Arbor School District voters turned out yesterday, despite bitterly cold weather, to soundly defeat a $15,525,000 bonding issue by a nearly 2-to-l margin. The final tallies showed 3,388 voters in favor of the proposal, and 6,233 against. Only one precinct in seven- Precinct 3, Burns Park School - approved the proposal, by a se vote margin. The defeat of 'the $15.5 million issue is only the second such rejection out of nine bonding proposals in the past 15 years. In May of 1963, a $6 million bond issue was narrowly defeated. The most recent bond issue of $18 million was approved by a substantial margin on Nov. 30, 1965. The last two millage proposals in the district were defeated, however. In May of 1967, a oVís-mill school tax hike, which had been earmarked for teachers' salaries, was defeated by a slim margin of 327 votes. An identical 5V&-miü increase was subsequently rejected in June this time by 587 votes. The Board of Education was seeking funds in yesterday's election, which drew 9,646 voters, to finance a f o u r-y e a r building program, which would have included a third senior high school, a fifth junior high an elementary school and additions to existing elementary buildings, library additions and construction, a building and grounds facility, an apprenticeItraining facility, an administraItion building and a number of I renovations. I The school board's proposit i o n generated considerable criticism from the start, however, as the Chamber of Commerce, Junior Chamber of Commerce and Executive Board of the National Assoeiaion for the Advancement of Colored People went on record in opposition to the bond issue. The Parent-Teacher Legislativel Committee and a number of Parent - Teacher Organizationsl supported the proposal. I School Board Presidenll lazen J. Schumacher, Jr. I sued a statement early last I vening, when it was apparent I hat the proposal had been deeated: "Today, we received a :lear statement from the voters not to proceed with our planned jbuilding program. Unfortunately, the needs will still remain. The board must now determine where it goes from here." Acting Supt. W. Scott Westerman Jr. declined to comment and said he would let the board speak for him at this time. The trustees have given no absolute indication of when they will return to the voters for approval of the building program. According to state law, the board cannot ask the voters to consider the same proposition for a minimum of six months. Theoretically, the board coulcl alter the proposition and thus _ legally schedule an election I sooner than the summer of 1968, I but this is very unlikely. It is more probable that I other bond proposal (perhaps a I reduced one) will be combined I with an operating millage I posal and the election of school I board candidates next June. Trustee Paul H. Johnson, who ■ was the only school board ■ ber to vote against approving I the bond issue, commented I day on the election results. I "Let's hope the message is now I clear," he said. "Some board members have I been quoted as saying that the I trustees 'have no pipeline to the I voters.' Well, I think this I tion proves that a pipeline to I the voters should be established. I "The board must gain a real I sensitivity to the voters' feelings I and adapt to these sentiments I for the good of the community." ■■ Johnson said he h o p e d the I board would make a complete I I reassessment of its policies, in I the light of the election results. I f He will release a prepared I i statement on the subject during I 1 tomorrow's regular Board of I I Education meeting. I I . It was apparent early in the I I evening that the bonding I I posal would be defeated. The I I first precinct to report in, I I cinct 3, Burns Park School, I I showed approval by only seven I ■ votes. By 9 p.m., an hour I Ier the polls closed, four addiI tional precincts had soundly I I feated the proposal. The returns I were completed by 9:30 p.m. - The breakdown of precinct reI turns were as follows: ! Precinct 1, Jones School, Yes 1-390; No- 680; total b a 1 1 o t s f cast- 1073. Precinct 2, Angelí School, Yes -420; No- 570; total b a 1 1 o t s cast- 992. Precint 3, Burns Park School, Yes- 468; No- 461; total ballots , ! cast- 931. Precinct 4, Eberwhite School, I Yes- 743; No- 1,656; total balI lots cast- 2,406. 1 Precinct 5, Haisley School, I' Yes- 535; No- 1,411; total balI lots cast- 1,946. ■ Precinct 6, Wines School, Yes I -392; No- 449; total ballots I cast- 842. I Precinct 7, Stone School, Yes ■ _440; No- 1,006; total ballots I cast- 1,456.