Title: Brennan v. Town of Colchester

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Brennan v. Town of Colchester (98-219); 169 Vt. 175; 730 A.2d 601

[Filed 9-Apr-1999]

  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. 98-219

Patrick Brennan, et al.	                            Supreme Court

                                                    On Appeal from
     v.		                                    Chittenden Superior Court

Town of Colchester	                            January Term, 1999

Linda Levitt, J.

John L. Franco, Jr., Burlington, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Robert C. Roesler of Roesler, Whittlesey, Meekins & Amidon, Burlington, for 
  Defendant-Appellant.

PRESENT: Amestoy, C.J., Morse, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ., and Cashman, D.J., 
         Specially Assigned 

       AMESTOY, C.J.   Defendant Town of Colchester appeals the decision of
  the Chittenden  Superior Court granting a preliminary injunction to
  reinstate plaintiffs Patrick Brennan and  Gabriel Handy to their positions
  on the Colchester planning commission.  The Town appeals a  partial final
  judgment of the superior court, which held that the plaintiffs could only
  be removed  from the commission for cause and were entitled to procedural
  due process, including notice of  their proposed removal from the
  commission and a hearing.  We hold that 24 V.S.A. § 4323(a)  permits
  removal from the commission without cause and does not implicate procedural
  due  process.  Accordingly, we reverse.

       The facts of this case are uncontested.  Plaintiffs Patrick Brennan
  and Gabriel Handy

  
 

  were appointed to the Colchester planning commission for terms of four
  years, which expire on June  30, 2001, and June 30, 2000, respectively.  On
  February 3, 1998, the Colchester selectboard met  and unanimously passed a
  motion to disband the planning commission for purposes of  reorganization. 
  The following day, the chair of the Colchester selectboard sent a letter to
  each  member of the planning commission, including plaintiffs, stating that
  the commission had been  disbanded, and that the former members could
  reapply for their positions.

       Plaintiffs filed a complaint in the Chittenden Superior Court
  requesting declaratory and  injunctive relief.  They alleged that their
  removal from the planning commission was improper  because the selectboard
  failed to notify them of the proposed removal and the cause therefor, and 
  did not provide them a hearing on the matter.  Plaintiffs also alleged that
  their dismissal was void  because it exceeded the lawful authority of the
  selectboard.  Finally, plaintiffs alleged that the  selectboard's action
  violated their civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by depriving them of due 
  process.  

       Plaintiffs requested a temporary restraining order enjoining the
  selectboard from  appointing replacements for their unexpired positions and
  mandating that plaintiffs be reseated.  The court held that 24 V.S.A. §
  4323(a) requires a municipal legislative body to show cause and  provide
  procedural due process before removing members of a planning commission,
  and granted  plaintiffs' motion for injunctive relief.  Plaintiffs then
  moved for partial final judgment on Count  I of their complaint, alleging
  the selectboard exceeded its authority under state law, and Count II, 
  alleging violation of plaintiffs' civil rights.  The court granted the
  motion on both counts and this  appeal followed.  We review de novo the
  superior court's holding that 24 V.S.A. § 4323(a)  implies a right to
  procedural due process, including notice of a proposed removal and the
  bases  therefor, and the right to a hearing.  	

       The removal of members of a municipal planning commission is governed
  by the Vermont  Planning and Development Act, see 24 V.S.A. §§ 4301-4496. 
  The relevant subsection states in  pertinent part: 

          Members of a planning commission shall be appointed and any 
          vacancy filled by the legislative body of a municipality.  The term 
          of each member shall be for four years . . . .   Any member may be 
          removed at any time by unanimous vote of the legislative body.  
          Any appointment to fill a vacancy shall be for the unexpired term.

  Id. § 4323(a).

       In cases of statutory interpretation, our obligation is to effectuate
  the intent of the  Legislature.  See Spears v. Town of Enosburg, 153 Vt.
  259, 261, 571 A.2d 604, 605 (1989).  The  first step in determining the
  legislative intent "is to look at the language of the statute itself," and 
  to "presume the Legislature intended the plain, ordinary meaning of the
  language."  State v.  O'Neill, 165 Vt. 270, 275,