SCITUATE — The ballot for the Nov. 6 referendum in which town voters will be asked whether to approve a $9.2-million bond for school renovations is “very misleading and unclear,” according to John Tessitore, chairman of the Scituate Democrat Town Committee.

Submitted to the Rhode Island secretary of state, the ballot asks: “Shall an act passed at the 2007 session of the General Assembly entitled, ‘An act providing for the construction of additions and renovations to the Scituate Middle School/High School Complex and authorizing the financing thereof, including the issue of not more than $9,200,000 in bonds thereof’ be approved.”

Tessitore said, “While $5 million of the $9.2 million is earmarked for ‘additions and renovations’ to the Scituate Middle/High School complex, the remainder _ $4.2 million or 45 percent of the total bond — is targeted for new athletic facilities, including an Astro Turf and lighted football field as well as replacement tennis courts and running track. Yet when you enter the voting booth and read the language, you would never know that a large part of this bond is for athletic facilities.”

The chairman recalled that in 2006 town voters rejected a $5-million bond renovate and expand classrooms.

In January, he said, the newly elected Town Council and School Committee again endorsed the rejected proposal, but added $4.2 million for new field space.

“Clearly, this measure is merely an attempt to get more votes for the previously rejected classroom expansion proposal,” Tessitore said. “As was done with the last major expansion of the school site, which added more classrooms and the existing track and tennis courts more than a decade ago, this bond issue should be split into two separate components allowing for separate votes on the classroom expansion and the athletic facilities, rather than this all-or-nothing approach.”

Tessitore said that the voters should have been given a choice of voting on the two halves separately.

“In these difficult economic times, I believe voters should have a chance to express their opinion for each part of the bond issue, or at least have a referendum question that clearly reflects what the money is going to be spent on. The current plan does neither.

“No one is taking issue with the idea of a bond referendum. We do, however, take strong issue with how it is being presented. Certainly, the voters have a right to expect the wording of a bond issue as it appears on the ballot to correctly reflect the nature of the proposed expenditure. As it now stands, the wording does not, speaking only in the vaguest terms of ‘renovations’ to the middle and high schools. This is a disservice to anyone who has not had time to attend a meeting or to read any literature on the matter—undoubtedly a great many people.

“The even larger issue is the fact that the powers-that-be have not given the voters the chance to speak separately on the monies directed at the school’s academic needs and those directed at athletic facilities. Rather, the town has gone from presenting a $5.2-million bond issue in 2006, which was defeated, to an ‘all or nothing’ $9.2-million bond issue in 2007. Why weren’t we given two bonds and the opportunity to respond to each? Maybe both would have passed, maybe one or the other. But whatever happened, the voters would have had real choices.”

tmorgan@projo.com