Title: Conn v. Middlebury Union H.S. District #3

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

CONN_V_MIDDLEBURY_UNION_HS_DISTRICT_3.93-420; 162 Vt. 498; 648 A.2d 1385


[Filed 02-Sep-1994]

 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. 93-420


 Samuel Conn, et al.                          Supreme Court

                                              On Appeal from
      v.                                      Addison Superior Court

 Middlebury Union High School                 March Term, 1994
 District #3


 Edward J. Cashman, J.

 Gerard F. Trudeau, Middlebury, for plaintiffs-appellants

 Richard G. English of Powers, English & Carroll, Ltd., Middlebury, for
    defendant-appellee

 Julian R. Goodrich of Goodrich & Rice and John A. Nelson, Montpelier, for
    amicus curiae Vermont School Boards Association


 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.



      JOHNSON, J.   Plaintiffs appeal from a superior court decision, which
 concluded that defendant Middlebury Union High School District #3 was
 authorized to borrow money for a period exceeding one year without following
 the procedure set forth in 24 V.S.A. {{ 1751-1785 to obtain bond approval.
 We hold that the school district had no authority to borrow money beyond
 one year without a bond vote and, therefore, reverse.
      On May 18, 1993, the district school board decided to call a special
 meeting of the district electorate to obtain authorization to borrow
 $180,000 for a period not to exceed five years, to construct a building for

 

 high school vocational training.  It also decided to request approval to
 borrow $90,000 for a five-year period, to prepare plans for another new
 building.  The special meeting was scheduled for June 29, 1993, and warnings
 were issued according to notice requirements.  One week prior to the
 meeting, the school district sent an informational letter with a copy of the
 warning to each voter in the district.  A majority of voters present at the
 June 29 meeting approved both articles by floor vote.
      On July 2, 1993, plaintiffs filed a petition requesting that the
 superior court enjoin defendant from borrowing the $270,000 and set a date
 for a bond vote on the two articles to proceed by Australian ballot as
 required by 24 V.S.A. { 1758.  Plaintiffs maintained that the floor vote at
 the June 29 meeting was inadequate to authorize the school district to
 borrow money for a period longer than one year, and that the school district
 was required to follow the statutory procedures for bond approval set out
 at 24 V.S.A. {{ 1751-1785.  Plaintiffs also argued that the board improperly
 influenced the vote, in violation of 17 V.S.A. { 2666, by sending an
 informational letter about the proposed school construction to each voter in
 the district, and that the board exceeded its authority by spending district
 funds to send the letter.
      Defendant maintained that the June 29 vote was a valid exercise of the
 general borrowing power pursuant to 24 V.S.A. { 1788.  It denied any
 improper influence on the vote and contended that the letter sent to voters
 merely provided information regarding the two articles.  The superior court
 rejected defendant's argument that 24 V.S.A. { 1788 authorized the June 29
 floor vote, but found that the vote was a valid exercise of power under 16
 V.S.A. { 562(9) because payments on the notes could be made with anticipated

 

 annual revenues.  The court also concluded that the letter sent to voters
 did not violate 17 V.S.A. { 2666 but, rather, was authorized conduct in
 furtherance of the duty to protect and maintain the assets of the district.
 Consequently, the court denied plaintiffs' petition, and plaintiffs
 appealed.
                                     I.
      The principal issue for decision is whether a school district has
 express or implied power to borrow money for longer than one year without
 complying with the bond statute.  See 24 V.S.A. {{ 1751-1785.  Plaintiffs
 argue that the floor vote was inadequate to authorize the school district to
 borrow money for the school improvements.  They maintain that to borrow
 money for a period exceeding one year, the school district must obtain bond
 approval, and that under the bond statute, the vote must be held by
 Australian ballot.  See 24 V.S.A. { 1758 (vote on issuing bonds "shall be by
 Australian ballot").
      A school district is defined as a municipal corporation.  See 24 V.S.A.
 { 1751(1).  We have held that a municipality possesses only those powers or
 rights expressly granted to it by the Legislature, those fairly implied
 because necessary to carry the latter into effect, and those essential to
 the declared purposes of the municipality.  Robes v. Town of Hartford, ___
 Vt. ___, ___,