Elementary at Booth PK-2 and Burnham 3-5 and WPS K-5

R12 Option 6 - K-2 Roxbury, 3-5 BW, WPS and MS/HS

SOS Option 6B <Click for Outline.
The Schedule below is data from Resource Schedule #9 for the Elementary Grades for combining the schools in Roxbury and Bridgewater and leaving WPS as K-5.

Elementary School Costs and Savings

R12 Option 6 - K-2 Roxbury, 3-5 BW, WPS and MS/HS

SOS Option 6B <Click for Outline.

This Schedule was prepared by using Resource 15 for the sole purpose 
of calculating the savings for the Option 6 Option.

Region 12 CT Supreme Court Decision August-9-2009

REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NUMBER 12 v. TOWN OF BRIDGEWATER

REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NUMBER 12 v. TOWN OF BRIDGEWATER.

No. 18174.

Argued May 28, 2009. -- August 04, 2009

ROGERS, C.J., and NORCOTT, PALMER, ZARELLA and McLACHLAN, Js. 

Robert M. Shields, Jr., with whom were Wesley W. Horton, Hartford, and Charles W. Bauer, Burlington, for the appellant (defendant).George J. Kelly, Jr., with whom, on the brief, was Richard D. O'Connor, Hartford, for the appellee (plaintiff).

 The issue in this appeal is whether the modification of the terms of the regional school plan establishing the plaintiff, Regional School District No. 12, to delete a provision whereby the plaintiff's elementary grade levels would remain in their hometown schools, and to add a provision whereby those grade levels would be consolidated into a single school,  constitutes an amendment to the plan under General Statutes § 10-47c.¹  The plaintiff filed an action for a judgment declaring that the modification did not constitute an amendment under § 10-47c, and the defendant, the town of Bridgewater, filed a counterclaim seeking a declaration that the modification was an amendment and an order of mandamus requiring the regional board of education (board) to conduct a referendum on the amendment pursuant to § 10-47c.   The trial court rendered judgment declaring that the modification did not constitute an amendment subject to the referendum provisions of § 10-47c, and the defendant then filed this appeal.²  We conclude that the modification was an amendment of the regional school plan under § 10-47c.   Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.

 The trial court found the following facts.³  In April, 1967, the defendant and the towns of Roxbury and Washington formed a temporary regional school study committee (study committee) pursuant to statute.   In May of 1967, the study committee issued its final report containing its findings and recommendations, including a recommendation that “[e]lementary grades [kindergarten through fifth grade] [are] to remain in their present home town schools.”   Thereafter, the final report was presented to residents of the three towns at public hearings.   In August, 1967, each town held a referendum on the question of whether it should join with the two other towns “in the establishment of a regional school district with the schools located in the towns of Bridgewater, Roxbury, and Washington, for the purposes of providing the necessary facilities and administering grades [kindergarten] to [twelfth grade] of the public schools?”   Each town approved the referendum.   Shortly thereafter, the state board of education approved the establishment of the district.

In March, 2007, the board voted to enter into an option agreement to purchase land in Roxbury as a potential site for a consolidated elementary school.   On May 8, 2007, the defendant conducted a town meeting at which it adopted the following resolution:  “Resolved, that the [defendant] requests, pursuant to ․ [§ ] 10-47c, that the [r]egional [s]chool [d]istrict [no.] 12 plan, as approved by the [s]tate [b]oard of [e]ducation on May 11, 1967, be amended by deleting the term, ‘Elementary grades [kindergarten through fifth grade] to remain in their present home town schools' and inserting in its place ‘The district consolidate [e]lementary grades [kindergarten through fifth grade] into a single [e]lementary [s]chool ․ to be located in ․ Roxbury.’ ”   The  defendant  forwarded a copy of the resolution to the board.

Thereafter, the board notified the defendant and the towns of Washington and Roxbury that the resolution adopted at the defendant's town meeting did not constitute an amendment to the regional school plan under § 10-47c.   The board then held a special meeting at which it approved a motion to adopt a resolution to appropriate funds and to authorize the issuance of bonds and temporary notes to finance the construction of a consolidated elementary school to be located in Roxbury.   The board also adopted a motion authorizing a referendum on the new school project and the issuance of bonds and temporary notes to finance the project pursuant to General Statutes § 10-56.⁴  Pursuant to this motion, the board delivered to the town clerks of the three towns a notice of a referendum to be held on June 19, 2007.   Because of technical defects in the notice process, the referendum ultimately was cancelled.

Thereafter, the plaintiff brought an action seeking a declaratory judgment as to whether its plan to build a consolidated elementary school constituted an amendment to the regional school plan adopted in 1967, and therefore was subject to the referendum provision of § 10-47c, which requires a majority vote in each town  in favor of the proposed amendment, or whether the proposal to appropriate funds for the new school was subject only to the referendum provision of § 10-56, which requires a majority vote of the regional school district as a whole for approval.   The defendant brought a counterclaim seeking, inter alia, a declaratory judgment that the resolution adopted at its May 8, 2007 town meeting constituted an amendment to the regional school plan and an order of mandamus directing the board to hold a referendum on the amendment pursuant to § 10-47c.   After a hearing, the trial court rendered judgment declaring that the defendant's resolution did not constitute an amendment under § 10-47c, and that the plaintiff was entitled to conduct a referendum on the proposal to obtain funding for the new consolidated elementary school under § 10-56.

 This appeal followed.   The defendant contends that the study committee recommendations approved by referendum in 1967 constitute a regional school “plan,” within the meaning of § 10-47c, and that the modification of that plan to delete the recommendation that the elementary grades remain in their respective hometowns and to add a provision that the elementary grades be consolidated into a single school constitutes an amendment subject to the referendum provision of § 10-47c, which provides:  “If the majority vote in each town of the district is in favor of the proposed amendment to the plan, such amendment shall take effect immediately.”   The plaintiff contends that, to the contrary, under this court's decision in Atwood v. Regional School District No. 15, 169 Conn. 613, 363 A.2d 1038 (1975), a proposal to construct a new school and to obtain financing for the school is not an amendment to a regional school plan subject to the referendum provision of § 10-47c, but is a financing proposal subject only to the referendum provision of § 10-56(a), which provides that the referendum “question shall be determined by the majority of those persons voting in the regional school district as a whole.”   We agree with the defendant.

 

 

Mandamus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mandamus is a judicial remedy — in the form of an order from a superior court, to any government subordinate court, corporation, or public authority — to do (or forbear from doing) some specific act which that body is obliged under law to do (or refrain from doing) — and which is in the nature of public duty, and in certain cases one of a statutory duty. It cannot be issued to compel an authority to do something against statutory provision. For example, it cannot be used to force a lower court to reject or authorize applications that have been made, but if the court refuses to rule one way or the other then a mandamus can be used to order the court to rule on the applications.

Mandamus may be a command to do an administrative action or not to take a particular action, and it is supplemented by legal rights. In the American legal system it must be a judicially enforceable and legally protected right before one suffering a grievance can ask for a mandamus. A person can be said to be aggrieved only when he is denied a legal right by someone who has a legal duty to do something and abstains from doing it.

 

Injunction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For restraining or protective orders (family law & harassment), see Restraining order.

An injunction is an equitable remedy in the form of a court order that requires a party to do or refrain from doing specific acts. A party that fails to comply with an injunction faces criminal or civil penalties and may have to pay damages or accept sanctions. In some cases, breaches of injunctions are considered serious criminal offenses that merit arrest and possible prison sentences.

Rationale[edit]

This injunctive power to restore the status quo ante; that is, to make whole again someone whose rights have been violated, is essential to the concept of fairness (equity). For example, money damages would be of scant benefit to a land owner who wished simply to prevent someone from repeatedly trespassing on his land.

An injunction offers a court a number of devices for managing the parties and enforcing their compliance, including the possibility of modification and dissolution, contempt, and the specificity requirement.^[1] These managerial features are one way the injunction is distinguished from another common remedy that does not involve the payment of money, the declaratory judgment.^[1] Another way these two remedies are distinguished is that the declaratory judgment is sometimes available at an earlier point in a dispute than the injunction.^[1]