Case Title: Pominville v. Addison Central Supervisory Union

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1990-02-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P. 40
as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports.
Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
Court, 111 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05602 of any errors in order
that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.
 
 
                                No. 89-156
 
 
Richard Pominville, Francis C.               Supreme Court
Broughton, William Holdman, Thomas
H. Dwyer, Deacy F. Leonard, Daniel           On Appeal from
K. C. Zee, et al.                            Addison Superior Court
 
           v.                                February Term, 1990
 
Addison Central Supervisory
Union - Middlebury Union High
School District #3
 
 
Frank G. Mahady, J.
 
Olin R. McGill Jr., Middlebury, for plaintiff-appellants
 
Kelley, Meub, Powers & English, Ltd., Middlebury, for defendant-appellee
 
 
PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Peck, Gibson, Dooley and Morse, JJ.
 
 
     MORSE, J.  We decide in this appeal that a union school district budget
may be established by Australian ballot only as proposed by its school board
upon affirmative vote at the annual or subsequent meeting.  16 V.S.A. {
711a.  We affirm the judgment of the Addison Superior Court, which
dismissed the action on the merits.
     The Middlebury Union High School District #3's annual budget for the
1989-90 school year was duly warned for a vote by Australian ballot to be
conducted on Town Meeting Day, Tuesday, March 7, 1989.  On January 25, 1989,
a petition signed by approximately ten percent of the district's voters was
presented to the school board requesting that an article be included in the
warning proposing a lower budget than the one proposed by the board. (FN1) The
board declined to place plaintiffs' petition in the warning of the March 7
meeting.  Plaintiffs then brought suit to compel the board to include the
petitioned article in the business of the meeting.  Injunctive relief was
denied by the trial court, the complaint was dismissed, and this appeal
followed.
     Plaintiffs premise their argument on the statute authorizing five
percent of the  voters to compel by petition a municipality to place an
 article in the warning of the annual town meeting.  17 V.S.A. { 2642(a). (FN2)
     Against the general authority of { 2642(a), the Legislature has enacted
specific procedures for voting on school budgets by Australian ballot.  16
V.S.A. { 711e (referencing the procedures set forth in 17 V.S.A. { 2680 for
local elections using the Australian ballot system).  Of particular
relevance to this appeal, { 711e(f) provides:
 
	   If the proposed budget is rejected, the union district
	  board shall prepare a revised budget.  The board shall
          establish a date for vote on the revised budget, and
          shall take appropriate steps to warn the vote.  The date
          of the vote shall be at least seven days following the
          public notice.  The vote on the revised budget shall be
          by Australian ballot and shall take place in the same
          locations that the first vote was taken.  The budget
          shall be established if a majority of all votes cast are
          in favor.  If the revised budget is rejected, the board
          shall repeat the procedure in this subsection until the
          budget is adopted.
     Plaintiffs maintain, however, that the Legislature also provided that
"[u]nless clearly inconsistent, the provisions of chapter 55 [{{ 2630-2689]
of Title 17 shall apply to actions taken under this section [16 V.S.A. {
711e]. . . ."  16 V.S.A. { 711e(g) (emphasis added).  They argue that since
17 V.S.A. { 2642(a) is a provision of chapter 55 of Title 17 and not
"clearly inconsistent" with 16 V.S.A. { 711e(f), { 2642(a) should control
and their petitioned article should be included in the warning.  We reject
this argument because { 711e is sufficiently inconsistent with { 2642(a) so
that the procedure specified in { 711e must control the establishment of a
school budget by Australian ballot.
     Plaintiffs point to the fact that the words "If the proposed budget is
rejected" in { 711e(f) do not require that the school board propose the
budget.  They say the budget could be "proposed" by those who sign the
petition envisioned by { 2642(a).
     Section 711e(f) must be read in pari materia with the rest of the
statutory scheme dealing with the creation of school budgets.  16 V.S.A. {
706q(c)(2) dictates that the school board shall prepare an annual report
including the "budget proposed for the next year" to be distributed before
the annual meeting.  Section 711a requires the school board "at each annual
meeting [to] present an estimate of the expenses for the ensuing year" and {
711e(c) requires the question, when voted by Australian ballot, to be
substantially as follows:
 
          "Shall the (union school district name) adopt a budget
          of $             .00 for school year ___________?"

     We cannot reconcile plaintiffs' petition with { 711e(f).  Section
711e(f) describes the procedures that must be followed in the event that the
school board's first budget proposal is defeated.  Simply put, if we were to
grant plaintiffs' request that their proposal be included on the ballot as
an alternative to the school board's, and the voters approved plaintiffs'
proposed alternative, the procedures in { 711e(f) would have been ignored
and the will of the Legislature defeated.
     It is apparent that the Legislature did not want to risk having a
school budget gutted by what our court has called "'the uncertain disposal
of the "fierce democracie".'"  Buttolph v. Osborn, 119 Vt. 116, 119,