Opinion
No. 4872.
Argued July 14, 1960.
Decided July 19, 1960.
1. A vote at a special school district meeting to appropriate a particular sum for the construction of a school and to issue bonds therefor was not rendered invalid by the fact that the moderator had previously permitted those attending the meeting to vote upon other proposed sums which were defeated, where no statutory duty of the moderator was violated and no appeal from his ruling was taken by any voter in the course of the meeting.
2. The moderator of a school district meeting is granted by statute (RSA 40:4; 197:19) wide discretion in prescribing rules for the government and conduct of such meetings and parliamentary rules in all their detail are not required to be observed thereat.
PETITION, by the plaintiff, a voting resident of the town of Danville and representing other members of the school district of that town, seeking an order to restrain the defendant school board of Danville from pledging credit of the town by a bond issue for the purpose of securing funds to build a new elementary school. Pursuant to a decree of the Superior Court allowing the Danville school district to hold a special meeting the school district on June 6, 1960, voted to raise, appropriate and to issue bonds in the amount of $95,000 for the construction, equipment and furnishing of a new elementary school. This affirmative vote by ballot received the necessary two-thirds vote, 97 yes and 46 no, but is challenged by the plaintiff as illegal. Trial by the Court on June 14, 1960, resulted in a decree favorable to the school district. The plaintiff's exceptions to the Court's findings and rulings were reserved and transferred by Griffith, J.
The motion on which the balloting occurred read as follows: "To see if the District will vote to raise and appropriate a sum of $95,000.00 for the construction, equipment and furnishing of such new elementary school and the acquisition of any real property that may be necessary for its location; and whether the district will vote to raise such sum through the issuance of serial notes or bonds upon the credit of the district for all or any portion of the sum so raised and appropriated; and to authorize the school board to determine the terms and condition upon which the notes or bonds shall be issued including their sale and the time and place of payment of principal and interest, `in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Finance Act, New Hampshire Revised Laws Annotated, Chapter 33, and any amendments thereto.'"
This vote contained the same language as the article in the warrant except that the amount in the latter was "a sum not to exceed $98,000" instead of $95,000. The ballot vote to raise $95,000 prevailed only after motions to appropriate $60,000 and $98,000 had been defeated. It is the contention of the plaintiff that after the initial defeat of the motions to appropriate $60,000 and $98,000 it was illegal for the school district meeting to take a subsequent vote to raise, appropriate and issue bonds in the sum of $95,000. Additional facts are stated in the opinion.
Robert Shaw (by brief and orally), for the plaintiff.
George H. Grinnell (by brief and orally), for the defendant.
Mr. Justice Holmes' reminder "that the machinery of government would not work if it were not allowed a little play in its joints" (Bain Peanut Co. of Texas v. Pinson, 282 U.S. 499, 501), has had particular application in this jurisdiction to town and school meetings. More than three-quarters of a century ago it was established in Hill v. Goodwin, 56 N.H. 441, 447, that parliamentary rules in all their detail were not required to be followed in town meetings. "However wise or necessary such rules may be for legislative bodies, they are not adapted to the successful or prompt dispatch of business in town-meetings; and the statute therefore wisely allows the moderator a large discretion in prescribing rules for the government of his meeting, subject only to revision by the town." Hill v. Goodwin, supra. While this statement was made in regard to a town meeting, a similar statute and a similar rule applies in the conduct of school district meetings. RSA 40:4 and RSA 197:19. The latter statute reads as follows: "The moderator shall have the like power and duty as a moderator of a town meeting to conduct the business and to preserve order, and may administer oaths to district officers and in the district business. In case of a vacancy or absence a moderator pro tempore may be chosen." These sections give the moderator a wide discretion in prescribing rules for the government of a school district meeting. Leonard v. School District, 98 N.H. 296.
It has been the consistent practice of the courts of this state to construe liberally votes at town and school meetings without regard to technicalities or the strict rules of parliamentary procedure. New London v. Davis, 73 N.H. 72; Amey v. Pittsburg School District, 95 N.H. 386; Mace v. Salomon, 99 N.H. 370. Irregularities "where a moderator failed to observe the niceties of parliamentary procedure involving no violation of statutes" (Leonard v. School District, 98 N.H. 296, 298) are not sufficient to void the action of a school district meeting. In the present dispute there is no question about official neglect of duty on the part of the moderator. State v. Waterhouse, 71 N.H. 488. Likewise there is no question that no appeal was taken by any voter from the rulings of the moderator during the course of the meeting. Since it does not appear that the procedure adopted by the school district violated any statutory duty but at most was a violation of parliamentary procedure, there is no basis for holding that the resulting vote was void or illegal. Wood v. Milton, 197 Mass. 531.
Petition dismissed.
All concurred.