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
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]
