Case Title: In re Petition of VT Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Citation: 165 Vt 634, 687 A.2d 883

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1994-04-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
In re Petition of Vermont Electric Cooperative, Inc.  (93-525); 165 Vt 634;
687 A.2d 883

[Opinion Filed 29-Apr-1994]

[Motion for Reargument Denied 24-Oct-1996]


                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 93-525

                              MARCH TERM, 1994


 Petition of Vermont Electric      }          APPEALED FROM:
 Cooperative, Inc.                 }
                                   }
                                   }          Public Service Board
                                   }
                                   }          DOCKET NO. 5246

              In the above entitled cause the Clerk will enter:

      This case arises out of an attempt by the Village of Derby Line, under
 the Municipal Enabling Act, 30 V.S.A. {{ 2901-2924, to acquire Vermont
 Electric Cooperative's facilities serving the Village.  The idea for the
 attempt originated at a meeting of the Village trustees in February 1986.
 At a March 1986 informational meeting, the Village trustees decided to place
 on the annual village meeting ballot the question whether the Village should
 allocate $200,000.00 to acquire VEC's plant in Derby Line.  At the village
 meeting the Derby Line voters overwhelmingly approved acquisition of the
 plant.  On April 2, 1986, a day later, the trustees notified VEC by letter,
 as required by 30 V.S.A. { 2906, and inquired if VEC was willing to sell its
 plant in the village.  On June 26, 1986, under 30 V.S.A. { 2907, VEC
 responded to the Village's inquiry.

      In a proceeding before the Public Service Board the Village asserted
 that VEC's response was negative and that it was consequently authorized to
 take the plant by eminent domain.  30 V.S.A. { 2910.  VEC, however, claimed
 its response was affirmative and petitioned the Board to determine the
 amount of plant and property to be purchased by the Village under 30 V.S.A.
 { 2909.  In its December 14, 1988 Order, the Board concluded that VEC's
 response to the Village was affirmative under 30 V.S.A. { 2907 and remanded
 VEC's petition to the hearing examiner for further proceedings.

      In 1990, both parties filed testimony before the examiner and, in
 January 1992, a hearing schedule was set.  Finally, in February 1992, VEC
 provided a detailed list of electric plant that it proposed to transfer to
 the Village in response to the April 2, 1986 notice.  Notwithstanding this
 proposal, on May 25, 1992, VEC filed a motion to dismiss the proceedings
 relating to the Village's attempt to acquire the electric facilities.  VEC
 alleged the meetings conducted by the Village preceding the April 1, 1986
 vote and the April 2, 1986 action of the trustees in signing the notice
 failed to comply with statutory requirements of the Municipal Enabling Act
 and Vermont's Open Meeting Law.  30 V.S.A. Ch. 79; 1 V.S.A. { 312.

      The hearing examiner determined that the February 1986 and March 1986
 meetings were valid but that the April 2, 1986 signing of the notice to VEC

 

 failed to comply with Vermont's Open Meeting Law.  The Board upheld the
 hearing examiner's determination and dismissed the petition.

      The Village appeals the determination that the action of signing the
 April 2 notice failed to comply with the Open Meeting Law.  VEC cross-
 appeals the Board's determination that the February and March meetings
 complied with the Municipal Enabling Act and the Open Meeting Law.  We
 reverse the Board's decision with respect to the April 2, 1986 notice and
 affirm the cross-appeal.

      The doctrine of laches precludes VEC's motion to dismiss.  "Laches is
 the failure to assert a right for an unreasonable and unexplained period of
 time when the delay has been prejudicial to the adverse party, rendering it
 inequitable to enforce the right."  Stamato v. Quazzo, 139 Vt. 155, 157,