The Somerset reporter. [volume] (Skowhegan, Me.) 1868-1909, 1899-03-30
The School Question Settled.

Il
uation in our town relative to the en-
ployment of superintendent of schools
by the school committee, and the election
of superintendent by the town at the
March meeting. The matter was refer
red to Mr.. Cornish at the instance of the
selectmen and the reference was con-
Cured in by the school committee. We
understand the conclusions are accepted
by the parties interested. Mr.. Merrill,
who was elected by the town, has enter
ed upon the performance of the duties of
superintendent.
Following is the text of the opinion:
| have examined the questions you
submitted To me in regard 10 the com
plication in our school affairs and have
endeavored to reach conclusion that is
satisfactory TO myself. The statute of
1897, Chapter 296, has never been cou-
strued by our court to my knowledge,
so that there is no precedent to which |
can refer or upon which | can base my
opinion. The question is not free from
doubt and is ore upon which attorneys
might easily differ. My own ideas aIe
MS follows:
|. Your first question is this: "Were
the proceedings regular during the meet
ngs of '9S of the school board and was
the committee authorized and did they
have power to elect A. A. Badger for
three months, namely, to June ~, 1898,
and were they authorized and did they
have authority to make contract with
him from June 27, '9S to June u, 80:
If so, is that contract still binding upon
the towns forming the union and is the
town of Skowhegan liable 10 pay Mr..
Badger its proportionate part under said
contract?'
The proceedings of the school board
during the meetings of '9S seem TO be
regular as tar as organization, etc, are
concerned and | think the committee
was authorized and did have the power
to elect Badger for three months, name
ly, to June u, '9S, and also had power to
make contract with HIM for the bal.
anee of the municipal year but not be
yond that time. 1t seems to me that the
contemplation of the statute Is that
W hen such u union of committees is au-
thorized by vote of the respective town,
the Joint committee shall Immediately
organic, choose superintendent for
the municipal year, apportion the ex-
penses, etc, but | do not think they
have power TO elect superintendent for
a longer time than the municipal year,
and that therefore the term OF Badger
expired when that municipal year closed.
This Joint committee are but the agents
of the towns aud if they had authority
to elect for one year and three months,
then they have authority to elect for five
years or ten, or any period, and hardly
think such power was intended to be or
WAS conferred upon them. | do not
think it was intended that the powers of
the union committee should supersede
the powers Of the town itself which
created them. Evidently SRowhegan
did not bind itself by the vote of March,
1898, to II union for a longer time than
the current year. Ii that town saw tit,
it could adopt another policy for the
wear 1899 and choose its own superuten-
dent; yet if the action of the jUlut com
mittee in 1898 in making the contract
with Badger until June u, 1899, was
valid, tapn that committee preempted
the time between the beginning of the
municipal year of 1899 and June u,
1899, so that the new superintendent
could not begin his duties until thai
time. Could il be that there would be
two superintendents at the same time OF
that the second must st nd in allegiance
until the time of the first should expire
| think this would be granting commit
tee which is but an agent too great pow.
ers and would be making them supreme
over the town that created them. There
fore in answer to your first question /
would say that in my opinion the term
of office of Mr.. Badger expired when the
municipal year of 1898 80 closed and
that there is no contract binding upon
the town for longer term than that.
2. Your second question is: IF the
towns of Madison aud Skowhegan form
ed legal union, for how long time
does said union continue under the votes
as passed, namely, does the union con.
tnue for d.. finite or indefinite time !?
If said union continues for III indefinite
time, then does the action OF Skowhegan
under Art. u in the warrant Of 1899
fl ct dissolution of the union formed
between said townsY'
La answer to this would say that the
statute seems to contemplate an annual
vote in regard to the union, although it
each year the town is supposed to pass
upon the various questions coming up
during that year, still it might be that if
both towns i'm 1898 voted to unite and
nothing was done by either town in the
meeting of 1899 inconsistent with such
union, and the necessary steps were
taken in 1899 to carry along the union
the same as in 1898 without objection, il
might be | say. that under those circum-
stances The lint committee might be
implicitly held to have the power con-
fprred upon them; hut il seems 10 me
that the vote OF Skowhtgan in 1899 was
entirely inconsistent with the idea of
such union ard that when the town
voted 10 elect a superintendent of
schools and did elect one, 1t practically
if not in express words, voted to dscon-
tinue the union. 1t could not be that
there would be superintendent of
schools for Skowhegan elected and paid
by Skowhegan and another chosen by
the ioi7t committee of the two towns,
and since the town of Skowhegan had
the right in March, 1899, TO dissolve the
union, | think it exercised that right
=" hen it passed the vote 10 question.
8. Your third question is: "Can the
town of Skow hogan dissolve the unioE
formed with Madison in 1898 in any
manner except by inserting in its town
warrant an article to see If the town will
vote to dissolve such union; that is,
can the dissolution be presumed by an
act of Skowhegan inconsistent with
its previous act of 1898, or must its
vote tn disanlvp he as definite and DO9i.