That brief item in VersagiVoice has generated several conversations with Royal Oak residents and questions from the Detroit Free Press. I'll publish any useful dialogue as it occurs, but here I want to point out a parallel. When the previous Royal Oak School Trustees failed to heed the groundswell of opposition to its proposed school closing/consolidation plan and related millage request, the millage was roundly defeated and some trustees were ousted in the next election. They were held accountable.

Had that School Board been made up of appointed rather than of elected volunteers, citizens would have been forced to attempt to replace the volunteers by pressuring the City Commission, which made the appointments in the first place. Not necessarily "politics," but certainly that extra, essentially bureaucratic, layer makes it more difficult for residents to monitor and enforce accountability.

Conversations about the relationship between my proposal for an elected Library Board and what happened to the School Board led me to another topic: I asked State Representative Dave Woodward, "Can you direct me to the enabling legislation which permits school districts to repeatedly hold votes for money after they lose. Relatedly, what is the reasoning behind such permission and are there other entities with similar privileges."

Representative Woodward told me he would research the matter and get back to me. And a few days later, he replied:

The short answer to your question is that according to the school code section 380.1026 school districts are not allowed to put identical language before the voters more often than every six months. However, if the language is slightly changed then the initiative could go forward again. I have a copy of the school code with the specific language marked that I have mailed out to you.

There is not one clear one-size-fits-all answer as far as the reasoning behind this specific provision in the code. It allows for issues to be put before the voters of a municipality, as democracy requires. I think that we can all imagine the worst case scenario of such a code, school districts wasting money repeatedly putting forward bond proposals that fail.

However, we must also take into account the strong aspects of that particular section of the code. For one thing, as it is written the code allows for strong local control. Some communities have rejected a particular bond because of a controversial provision included. Is it appropriate for the school board to be able to address the controversy and have the public vote again? The school board is elected to work for the district and act on behalf of the people; would this local control strong code allow them to do that?

You often play the devil's advocate in VersagiVoice -- exploring multiple sides of complex issues -- and I think that it is important to do that here as well.

As for your question of other entities with similar permission, my instinct tells me that local units of government have similar permission, but for that answer we would need to delve into municipal codes, which I would be more than willing to do if you have specific questions.

Representative Woodward then went on to offer help on another request I had made.