Title: Putter v. Montpelier Public School System

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Putter v. Montpelier Public School System  (96-419); 166 Vt. 463; 697 A.2d 354

[Filed 6-Jun-1997]

       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. 96-419

David Putter                                 Supreme Court

                                             On Appeal from
    v.                                       Washington Superior Court

Montpelier Public School                     March Term, 1997
System, et al.

John P. Meaker, J.

Joshua R. Diamond, Montpelier, for plaintiff-appellant

Douglas D. LeBrun of Dinse, Erdmann, Knapp & McAndrew, P.C., Burlington, for
defendants-appellees

PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, and Morse, JJ.

       MORSE, J.   Plaintiff David Putter appeals from a judgment of the
  Washington Superior Court dismissing as untimely his action to invalidate a
  municipal election, but allowing him to proceed with his claim for other
  forms of relief.  We conclude that the judgment was correct, although for
  reasons different from those stated by the trial court, and affirm. I. On
  March 5, 1996, voters in the City of Montpelier approved the annual
  operating budget proposed by the Board of School Commissioners, as well as
  a multi-million-dollar bond proposal for the construction of various school
  improvements.  Four weeks after the election, plaintiff filed this action
  against the Montpelier Public School System, claiming that the election had
  been tainted by the Board's funding, publication and distribution, shortly
  before the election, of a newsletter entitled "Class Acts."  The
  newsletter's lead article focused on the reasons underlying the proposed
  2.4% operating budget increase and school bond proposal.  It stated that
  "[s]tudent learning will remain the focus for our schools for the immediate
  future if our

 

  operating budget and facility bond proposals are supported," and warned
  that without the increased funding some reduction in programs, services and
  educational opportunities would occur.

       The twelve-page newsletter contained two other articles relating to
  the upcoming election. One addressed the proposed budget in a
  question-and-answer format, explaining that approval was necessary to avoid
  further cuts in services and programs and to maintain the current student-
  to-teacher ratio; the article also contained graphs and charts illustrating
  the respective local, state and federal shares of the budget.  Another
  story addressed the bond proposal, describing the current shortcomings in
  existing school facilities and detailing how and where the bond monies
  would be spent.  Each of the foregoing articles contained a subcaption and
  a cartoon urging readers to "Vote Yes" on the ballot proposals. In addition
  to the materials referenced in the complaint, plaintiff claims to have
  subsequently discovered that defendant also distributed leaflets and
  promotional stickers advocating passage of the school bond.

       Plaintiff alleged that by expending public funds and resources in a
  "partisan" fashion, defendant had "improperly influenced the election on
  Article 13" (the bond proposal).  In five separate counts, he claimed that
  defendant had thereby: (1) exceeded its lawful authority; (2) conferred a
  government "emolument" upon the private citizens who created the articles
  in violation of Chapter I, Article 7 of the Vermont Constitution; (3)
  violated the guarantee of a republican form of government set forth in
  Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, and contravened
  Chapter I, Articles 6 and 8 of the Vermont Constitution, which provide,
  respectively, that all officers of government are the "trustees and
  servants" of the people, and that "all elections ought to be free and
  without corruption"; (4) engaged in "viewpoint discrimination" in violation
  of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and its equivalent
  in the Vermont Constitution; and (5) compelled plaintiff to endorse a
  political position he opposed, contrary to the free speech clauses of the
  United States and Vermont Constitutions.

 

       The allegations of federal constitutional law were brought under 42
  U.S.C. § 1983, which confers a private federal right of action for damages
  and injunctive relief against state actors who deprive any citizen of
  "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws." 
  In these, as in the other counts, plaintiff sought a variety of remedies,
  including a declaration that the election approving the bond proposal was
  invalid; an order enjoining defendant from utilizing public resources to
  advocate a partisan position; reimbursement for all funds illegally
  expended; and damages and attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988.

       Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground, among others,
  that the suit was untimely under 17 V.S.A. § 2603.  Under that section,
  "[t]he result of an election for any office, other than for the general
  assembly, or public question may be contested by any legal voter entitled
  to vote on the office or public question to be contested."  Id. § 2603(a). 
  A contest is initiated by filing a complaint in superior court alleging
  that errors were committed in the conduct of the election, that there was
  fraud in the electoral process, or "that for any other reason" the election
  was invalid.  Id. § 2603(b).  The complaint must be filed within fifteen
  days after the election, or, if there is a recount, within ten days after a
  court issues its judgment on the recount.  Id. § 2603(c).

       Plaintiff opposed the motion claiming that suit under § 1983 is
  governed by the local statute of limitations applicable to personal injury
  actions, which in Vermont is three years.  See 12 V.S.A. § 512(4).  The
  trial court selected the limitations period most analogous to the specific
  forms of relief sought, applying the fifteen-day period to plaintiff's
  effort to invalidate the election, and the three-year period to the extent
  that plaintiff was seeking relief for other injuries.  Accordingly, the
  trial court dismissed as untimely the challenge to the election result, but
  otherwise allowed the action to proceed.  Finally, finding no reason for
  delay, the trial court ordered entry of final judgment with respect to the
  order dismissing the challenge to the election result.  See V.R.C.P. 54(b).

                                     II.

 

       Whether the trial court properly applied the fifteen-day limitations
  period of 17 V.S.A. § 2603(c) to the federal claims presents an interesting
  question, but not one that the Court must decide in this matter.  The
  United States Supreme Court has held, to be sure, that a single state
  statute of limitations applies to "all § 1983 claims," and that the most
  appropriate limitations period is that applicable to personal injury
  actions.  Wilson v. Garcia,