Opinion
No. LLI CV 07 4006100S
July 21, 2009
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
In this action the plaintiffs, John M. Pratt, Jr. and Susan A. Scherf, ask that the court enjoin the defendant, Board of Education, Regional School District No. 14, from implementing a plan to reconfigure the grades at the two primary schools in the district. The parties filed a stipulation of facts, presented evidence, and filed post-trial briefs, the last of which was filed on March 30, 2009.
Facts
The parties stipulated to 31 paragraphs of facts, only the most significant of which will be repeated here. In March 1968, the Towns of Bethlehem and Woodbury ("Towns") established a temporary regional study committee, pursuant to C.G.S. § 10-39, to study the advisability of establishing a regional school district, to estimate the cost, and to make recommendations to their respective towns. In April 1968, the study committee issued a final report, containing findings and recommendations, which was submitted to the Towns and to the State Board of Education. The final report was mailed to postal box holders in both Towns, and was presented to the residents of the Towns at public hearings. On May 1, 1968, the State Board of Education approved the final report.
Separate referenda on whether to regionalize were held on May 20, 1968 in each town, pursuant to C.G.S. §§ 10-43(b), 10-45 and 9-369a. The proposed question for vote in the final report was:
"Shall the Town of _________ join with the following Towns ____________ in establishment of a regional school district with the schools located in the Towns of Bethlehem and Woodbury for the purpose of providing the necessary facilities and administering grades Kindergarten through 12 of the public schools?
CT Page 12220
YES____ No______
A majority of the votes in Bethlehem and in Woodbury were in favor of regionalization. Thus, Region School District #14 was established on May 20, 1968. The defendant, Board of Education was established in 1969.
On May 20, 1968, the date of the referenda, the schools in the Towns were: Elementary education (Kindergarten through Grade 5) housed in elementary school buildings, one in Bethlehem and one in Woodbury; a single middle school (Grades 6 though 8) was housed in a building then occupied in Woodbury; and a single high school was housed in Woodbury.
At the conclusion of the 2006-2007 school year the school in the Towns were: Elementary education (Kindergarten through Grade 5) housed in elementary school buildings, one in Bethlehem and one in Woodbury; a single middle school (Grades 6 through 8) is housed in the Middle School in Woodbury; and a single High school is located in Woodbury.
At its October 16, 2006 meeting the defendant voted "to authorize the Superintendent to reconfigure the schools to make Bethlehem a K-2 school and Mitchell a 3-5 school." Implementation of reconfiguration, as defined by the defendant, served to make Bethlehem Elementary School into a K-2 school for all district students, and Mitchell Elementary School in Woodbury into a grade 3-5 school for all district students, commencing with the 2007-2008 school year. Therefore, Woodbury K-2 students entering school in the 2007-2008 attended the school in Bethlehem; Bethlehem 3-5 students entering school in the 2007-2008 school year attended the school in Bethlehem. The defendant has never amended the Plan pursuant to C.G.S. § 10-47c.
The Plan is the Regional Plan, also known as the Final Report of the temporary regional school study committee.
The plaintiffs, John M. Pratt, Jr. And Susan A. Scherf, have been and are residents, voters and taxpayers of the Town of Bethlehem. Ms. Sherf had two children attending Bethlehem Elementary School during the 2006-2007 school, and has two children who were to attend elementary grades during the 2007-2008 school year. Mr. Pratt has one grandchild attending an elementary grade during the 2007-2008 school year.
The following additional facts are found based upon the testimony and documents received at the trial. The Final Report of the temporary regional school study committee, which was mailed to all postal box holders in the two towns in 1968 prior to vote on regionalization, includes these recommendations: "That grades K through 5 be housed in elementary school buildings in Bethlehem and Woodbury." The primary purpose of reconfiguration in 2006 was to ease a perceived overcrowding at Mitchell Elementary School. In the past, as a way of changing the distribution of students, the defendant had adjusted the boundary line that defined which elementary school students in the Region would attend the Bethlehem school and which students in the Region would attend the Woodbury school. Thus, the dividing line has not always followed the boundary line separating the two towns.
The reconfiguration of the district has resulted in significant changes in busing and class schedules. The total number of bus runs has increased, as have delays for some families. The schedules at the schools have been changed. Although the plaintiffs claim that the classroom instruction time has decreased, the evidence is inconclusive on this point.
The plaintiffs argue that the reconfiguration of the elementary schools represents an amendment to the defendant's Regional Plan within the meaning of C.G.S. § 10-47c, and that, before the defendant can effectuate such an amendment, it must follow the procedure set forth in C.G.S. § 10-47c which would require a majority vote in each town. The plaintiffs contend that the failure of the defendant to abide by the procedure outlined in C.G.S. § 10-47c entitles them to a mandatory injunction to reverse the reconfiguration. The defendant argues that the reconfiguration is not an amendment to the Regional Plan and does not require a referendum in each town.
Initially, the plaintiffs argue that: "Common sense informs us that the defendant did not have the legal authority to amend The Plan to the extent of eliminating two (2) of the four (4) schools in Region 14, and establishing two new and different schools, without a plurality vote in both towns." They make a passionate argument that the additional busing and schedule modifications are so extreme that they are obviously beyond the authority of the defendant. But, such arguments must fail because, although common sense is always a valuable commodity, this court must apply the state educational statutes to the facts of this case without regard to whether the court might agree with the decisions made by the defendant. The same answer must be given to the plaintiff's second argument that the defendant has acted in bad faith and with unclean hands. The court views the issue in this case as one of statutory interpretation rather than one of equity.
The sole issue for the court is whether C.G.S. § 10-47c dictates that the Regional Plan be amended by referenda in both towns before the defendant is entitled to make the changes in grades at the schools in both towns. Resolution of this issue is guided by the Supreme Court's decision in Atwood v. Regional School District No. 15, 169 Conn. 613 (1975), the only appellate decision which is of assistance on this point. The defendant in that case, Regional School District No. 15, was created in 1968 by the towns of Middlebury and Southbury. Id. at 614-15. The temporary regional school study committee had prepared a Final Report which recommended that grades 9-12 be housed in the existing Southbury high school. Id. at 615. In 1973 the regional board of education submitted a report recommending the purchase, building and equipping a new high school complex in Southbury. Id. The regional board held a referendum on the appropriation of more than $11,000,000 and the issuance of bonds and notes for the purchase of land, construction of a new high school and alterations to the old high school. Middlebury approved the proposal by a plurality of 434 votes, and Southbury rejected it by a plurality of 283 votes. Id. The combined votes resulted in a plurality of 151 votes in favor of the proposal. Id. at 615-16. Regional School District No. 15 maintained that a majority vote in the regional school district as a whole was sufficient to approve the proposal pursuant to § 10-56. Id. at 616.
The court decided the case of Regional School District No. 12 v. Town of Bridgewater, Superior Court, judicial district of Litchfield, Docket No. 074006134 (March 3, 2008) [ 45 Conn. L. Rptr. 159] in which this issue was discussed. That case is presently on appeal. I had hoped that a decision would be rendered by the Supreme Court which would clarify the issue. That decision has not been made as of today's date.
The plaintiffs, taxpayers from both towns, brought an action seeking a declaratory judgment to determine whether the referendum was effective without a plurality in each town approving an amendment to the "plan" pursuant to § 10-47c. Id. at 614. The Supreme Court summed up the competing arguments this way:
The basic conflict between the parties involves two statutes restricting the powers of the regional board. Section 10-56 permits the board to issue bonds to raise funds for the building of schools, but requires a referendum beforehand with a plurality of the district as a whole approving the issuance. Section 10-47c provides that, with certain exceptions, "the terms of the plan approved through referenda pursuant to section 10-45" may be amended only after Referenda in each town in the district, with a plurality in each town approving the amendment.
The plaintiffs point out that the report of the study committee prior to the establishment of Regional School District No. 15 made no mention of the construction of a new high school, and, in fact, recommended that the existing Southbury high school serve as the regional high school. Therefore, plaintiffs contend, the proposal to construct a new high school constitutes an amendment to the plan approved by the referenda of December 18, 1968, and may be approved only by a plurality in each town. The school district, on the other hand, contends that the proposal to issue bonds for the construction of the new high school falls into the category of "bond issues," and need only be approved by a majority in the district as a whole, pursuant to § 10-56. Id. at 613-15.
In Atwood, the Supreme Court first determined that the "plan" referred to in § 10-47c consists of the recommendations found in the final report of the study committee. "The recommendations of the study committee for regional School District No. 15, including those concerning the use of then existent high school facilities, constitute `terms of the plan' for the district as that phrase is used in § 10-47c." Id. at 621.
Next, the Supreme Court determined that § 10-47c does not provide the sole procedure for amendment to the terms of the plan, and that there are areas other than those specifically excluded which were also intended to be excepted from its provisions. Id. at 622. One of these is the specific provision in § 10-47c for the approval of bond issues. Id.
Finally, the court stated:
The removal from the coverage of § 10-47c of those "terms of the plan" relating to the facilities to be provided by the region and estimates of their cost, when combined with the four specific exceptions found in the statute itself, leaves some question as to what remains within its coverage. Clearly, those recommendations of the study committee which concern the size of the regional board, and the number of representatives from each town on the board, can only be altered in accordance with § 10-47c. That the extraordinary requirement of approval by a plurality in each town is a prerequisite to such fundamental changes is not surprising, since such changes directly affect the voting rights of each individual elector. Other matters of fundamental importance, such as the formation or dissolution of a regional district; §§ 10-45, 10-63a; the expansion of a district; § 10-47b(b); or the admission of a new town into the district, §§ 10-39, 10-45; similarly require a plurality approval by each town involved. We conclude that § 10-47c applies only to fundamental amendments of the terms of the plan, and does not apply to the issuance of bonds for the construction of new facilities. Id. at 623.
In Atwood the court recognized that there is "some question" as to what remains within the coverage of § 10-47c after the four specific exceptions are removed. The court mentions two items which remain: the recommendations of the study committee which concern the size of the regional board, and the number of representatives from each town on the board. Id. Perhaps there are more areas but the court does not identify them specifically. The only guidance offered as to the nature of these other areas is that they would "directly affect the voting rights of each individual elector." Id. We must conclude from this that the denial of the "extraordinary requirement of approval by a plurality in each town" of the proposal to build a new high school in Southbury is not one of those unspecified areas which "directly affect the voting rights of each individual elector."
The plaintiff's reconfiguration of the grades at the two elementary schools is not like a proposal to change the size of the regional board or a proposal to change the number of representatives from each town on the board. These amendments could have the direct affect of diluting the voting power of individual electors. Here, the plaintiff's reconfiguration of the grades, like the proposal to issue bonds for a new high school, will have no direct affect on the voting rights of individual electors.
It is certainly true that the grade changes made by the defendant are significant. The additional busing and schedule changes will impact the school children and their families in significant ways. But, in this context, "significant" is not the same as "fundamental importance." First, it is not clear that the change even conflicts with the language of the Regional Plan. The Plan recommends: "That Grades K through 5 be housed in elementary school buildings in Bethlehem and Woodbury." Strictly speaking, that is still true. Both schools remain elementary schools. Grades K through 5 are still housed in the elementary school buildings in Bethlehem and Woodbury.
According to Webster's Third International Dictionary, "elementary school" means: "A school in which elementary subjects (as reading, writing, spelling, and arithmetic) are taught to children from about six to about twelve years of age which in the U.S. covers the first six or eight years."
But, even if the language of the Regional Plan means that both buildings must contain all of the K-5 grades, the change made by the defendant is not a fundamental amendment of the Regional Plan because it does not directly affect the voting rights of each individual voter. For this reason, the defendant was not required to amend the Regional Plan by referenda in each town. The action of the defendant falls squarely within the mandate of C.G.S. § 10-220(a) that boards of education ". . . shall designate the schools which shall be attended by the various children within the school district." It is not for this court to determine whether it would have been wiser for the defendant to readjust the boundary line between the two schools in order to ease the perceived overcrowding of Mitchell Elementary School.
For these reasons, judgment shall enter in favor of the defendant.