Title: Santi v. Roxbury Town School District

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Santi v. Roxbury Town School District  (96-093); 165 Vt 476; 685 A.2d 301

[Opinion Filed 27-Sep-1996]
                   

       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, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.


                                 No. 96-093


Amedeo Santi, et al.                              Supreme Court

                                                  On Appeal from
    v.                                            Washington Superior Court

Roxbury Town School District, et al.              April Term, 1996


John P. Meaker, J.

       Ann Danseyar Gelfon, Roxbury, for plaintiffs-appellants

       Anthony B. Lamb and Mary L. Desautels, Law Offices of Anthony B. Lamb,
  Burlington, for defendants-appellees


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


       DOOLEY, J.   Plaintiffs, voters of the Town of Roxbury, seek an
  injunction to compel the Roxbury Town School District to hold a second
  reconsideration vote on the 1995 school budget.  The Washington Superior
  Court held that a second reconsideration vote was not available to them. 
  We affirm.

       The town's school budget was first voted by conventional ballot at
  town meeting on March 7, 1995.  The voters at the meeting approved the
  following question: "Shall the Roxbury Town School District vote a sum of
  money in the amount of $897,084.00 for current expenses of which
  $482,074.00 is to be raised from property taxes?"

       On March 21, 1995, more than five percent of the qualified voters of
  the town filed a petition for reconsideration.  On May 24, 1995, the town
  convened a special school district meeting to vote upon the reconsideration
  petition.  By conventional ballot, a majority of the voters present voted
  to reconsider the budget.

       As a result of the reconsideration vote, the school board revised the
  school budget and

 

  resubmitted it to the voters for approval.  On July 19, 1995, by Australian
  ballot, the voters disapproved a revised budget in an amount of $871,799
  for current expenses, of which $477,188 was to be raised from property
  taxes.  The school board again revised the budget and resubmitted it to the
  voters.  On September 12, 1995, by Australian ballot, the voters
  disapproved a budget of $825,742, with $431,131 to be raised from property
  taxes.

       On October 26, 1995, again by Australian ballot, the voters approved
  the following question: "Shall the Roxbury Town School District vote to
  approve a revised budget in the amount of $815,758.00 for current expenses,
  of which $421,147.00 is to be raised from property taxes?"

       On November 16, 1995, more than five percent of the voters filed a
  petition for a reconsideration vote on the question adopted on October
  26th.  The refusal of the school district to schedule the reconsideration
  vote led to this litigation.

       On January 16, 1996, plaintiffs sued the Roxbury Town School District,
  three members of the school board and the tax collector for the Town of
  Roxbury seeking an injunction preventing any tax collection while the suit
  was pending, preventing expenditures in excess of the district borrowing
  authority, and requiring the reconsideration vote demanded.  The court
  dismissed the tax collector as a defendant1 (F) and added the members of the
  selectboard.  After hearing, the court dismissed the action, concluding
  that plaintiffs had no right to a second reconsideration vote.

       The question of whether plaintiffs are entitled to a new
  reconsideration vote turns on the proper construction of two statutes.  16
  V.S.A. § 711e sets forth the procedure when a school district elects to
  have its budget determined by Australian ballot, as has occurred here. 
  Under this section, the "budget shall be established if a majority of the
  votes cast are in favor."  Id. § 711e(d) & (e).  If the budget is rejected,
  the board must "prepare a revised budget" and

 


       resubmit it to the voters, repeating the process, if necessary, until
  a budget is adopted.  Id. § 711e(f).  Two general provisions are important:
  (a) the vote occurs "under the provisions of section 2680 of Title 17," id.
  § 711e(a), and (b) "[u]nless clearly inconsistent, the provisions of
  chapter 55 of Title 17 shall apply to actions taken under this section,"
  id. § 711e(g).

       17 V.S.A. § 2680, part of Vermont's general election law, provides for
  Australian ballot in terms entirely consistent with 16 V.S.A. § 711e. 
  Within chapter 55 of Title 17, however, is the statute relied upon by
  plaintiffs, 17 V.S.A. § 2661(b):

     (b) Where a petition signed by not less than five percent of the
     qualified voters of a municipality requesting reconsideration or
     rescission of a question considered or voted on at a previous
     annual or special meeting is filed with the clerk of the municipality
     within thirty days following the date of that meeting, the legislative
     body shall provide for a vote by the municipality in accordance
     with the petition within sixty days of the submission at an annual
     or special meeting duly warned for that purpose.

  It is followed by a proviso relied upon by defendants:

     (c) A question voted on shall not be presented for reconsideration
     or rescission at more than one subsequent meeting within the
     succeeding twelve months except with the approval of the
     legislative body.

  Id. § 2661(c).

       Plaintiffs argue that 17 V.S.A. § 2661(b)(FN2) governs and gives them a
  right to the reconsideration vote because (a) the right to reconsideration
  is not "clearly inconsistent" with the provisions of 16 V.S.A. § 711e and
  therefore applies to the school district by virtue of § 711e(g), and (b)
  the question of the budget amount of $815,758, as adopted on October 26th,
  had never been presented for reconsideration before, and therefore, §
  2661(c) does not apply.

 

  Defendants respond that (a) the right to reconsideration under 17 V.S.A. §
  2661(b) is "clearly inconsistent" with provisions of 16 V.S.A. § 711e
  because that section provides that the "budget shall be established" if a
  majority of voters approve it, and (b) the "question" being voted on is the
  budget for the 1995-96 school year so that § 2661(c) prohibits a second
  reconsideration of that question without approval of the legislative body. 
  We agree with defendants in part.

       The first issue is whether the right of reconsideration is clearly
  inconsistent with the provisions of 16 V.S.A. § 711e, particularly the
  language that the "budget shall be established" if voted by a majority of
  those voting.  We considered a comparable question in Pominville v. Addison
  Cent. Supervisory Union, 154 Vt. 299, 575 A.2d 196 (1990).  There, voters
  sought to require the school district to present to the voters an
  alternative school budget, different from that being presented by the
  school board.  They claimed the right to do so under 17 V.S.A. § 2642(a),
  authorizing five percent of the voters to place an article on the agenda of
  the annual meeting.  We rejected this provision, concluding that the
  provisions of § 711e were sufficiently inconsistent with a general
  referendum right that § 711e had to control.  Specifically, we held that
  provisions of § 711e gave the school board control over the questions to be
  put to the voters and the referendum right was inconsistent with that
  control.  Pominville, 154 Vt. at 301, 575 A.2d  at 197.  We reasoned:

     [T]he 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,