Carroll v. City of Malden

• Decision Date: 30 December 1974
• Citation: 2 Mass.App.Ct. 735,320 N.E.2d 843
• Parties: Edna J. CARROLL et al. v. CITY OF MALDEN.
• Court: Appeals Court of Massachusetts

Page 843

320 N.E.2d 843

2 Mass.App.Ct. 735

Edna J. CARROLL et al. v.CITY OF MALDEN.

Appeals Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

Argued Dec. 13, 1973.

Decided Dec. 30, 1974.

Jeffrey M. Freedman, Boston, for plaintiffs.

Philip G. Chesley, Asst. City Sol., Malden, for City of Malden.

Before HALE, C.J., and KEVILLE, GRANT and ARMSTRONG, JJ.

KEVILLE, Judge.

This bill in equity marks the culmination of a five year dispute between the mayor of the city of Malden and the school committee (committee).The controversy centers on the alleged failure of the committee to submit seasonably its budget estimates for the annual support of the public schools to the mayor within the forty-five day period prescribed by G.L. c. 44, § 32as amended through St.1953, c. 79, ¹ in which the mayor must submit his estimate of the entire city budget to the city council (council) for its approval.The bill was brought by ten or more taxable inhabitants of the city under G.L. c. 71, § 34.²The plaintiffs have appealed from a final decree dismissing the bill.

We have before us a report of the evidence, an agreed statement of facts (which does not purport to include all the facts and is, therefore, not to be considered a case stated, seeRing v. Woburn, 311 Mass. 679, 681, 43 N.E.2d 8(1942)) and the judge's findings, rulings and order for decree adopted by him as his statutory report of material facts.In the circumstances all questions of law, fact and discretion are open for our decision.We may find facts not expressly found by the judge.If convinced that he was plainly wrong, we may find facts contrary to his findings.JUERGENS V. VENTURE CAPITAL CORP., 1 MASS.APP., --- , 295 N.E.2D 398(1973)^A.

The facts may be stated as follows: The Malden city government (see n. 1) was organized for the year 1972 on January third.The committee submitted its 1972 budget requests to the mayor on February tenth.The total request by the committee was for $7,759,930.On the following morning the mayor, having determined that he had insufficient time to consider the school budget during the week remaining prior to the expiration of the forty-five day period prescribed for his submission of the entire city budget to the council (see n. 1), directed the controller to assemble and substitute the school expenditures for 1971 for the budget proposed by the committee.That day, February eleventh, the city budget, including the substituted school budget, was sent to the printer.On February fifteenth, the mayor submitted this budget to the city council which adopted it on March twenty-eighth.The total sum thus appropriated for schools was $745,939 less than the amount requested by the committee.

It was the mayor's opinion that the committee had been tardy in submitting its annual budget requests in 1968, 1969, 1970, and 1971.The mayor had, in those years, protested that late submission prevented his examination of the requests, and he had in each of those years, as in 1972, submitted the committee's expenditures for the previous year rather than the amount requested by the committee.Later in each of those years, he had submitted a supplementary budget for the committee following a study of its requests.

Following this practice in 1972, the mayor submitted a supplementary request for the committee in the sum of $728,939 which was adopted by the council.However, including the supplement, the school budget for 1972 fell short of the amount originally requested by the committee by $17,000.$7,000 of the deficiency was earmarked for a feasibility study of a 'Community Schools' program, so called, which the committee claims to be authorized under the provisions of G.L. c. 71, § 71.The remaining $10,000 was part of the committee's OM--7 account entitled 'Maintenance.'³

The reason assigned by the committee at the hearing on this bill for the delay in the submission of its budget to the mayor was that it had been in collective bargaining negotiations with the teachers' association on the question of teachers' salaries since the beginning of the school year.It had hoped to conclude these negotiations successfully so that exact salary figures might be included in the budget.However, the committee was finally obliged to submit estimated figures for teachers' salaries to the mayor because it had not yet been able to reach an agreement with the teachers.Almost all other items in the committee's estimates had been ready well in advance of the submission date.Although he found no reason for the delay, the judge did find '(t)hat the negotiations with the . . . teachers as to salary adjustment . . . (were) not the reason for presenting the budget so late to the mayor.'We need not decide on this record whether the reason assigned by the committee for its delay was sufficiently persuasive for us to have reached a different conclusion from that of the judge since it is only one of the factors for consideration.The decisive question is whether the committee submitted its estimates so late as to preclude their consideration by the mayor prior to the time when he was required to submit the entire city budget to the council.

The mayor was an ex-officio member and a former member of the committee.He attended the committee meeting on February eighth at which the budget estimates were adopted.At that time, and prior thereto in 1972, he made no specific request that these figures be submitted to him at an earlier date.Nor did he at that time disclose to the committee his apparent feeling that a seasonable time for the submission of the school budget had already passed.At the February eighth meeting he expressed only his objection to the 'Community Schools' item and his intention to delete it from the budget.The evidence reveals no effort on the mayor's part to scrutinize the budget estimates submitted by the committee on February tenth before substituting the school expenditures for the preceding year, although a week remained within which he could have met the statutory deadline.

The committee was not required as were other municipal departments to file its budget estimates between November first and December first for the ensuing year.G.L. c. 44, § 31A.Young v. Worcester, 333 Mass. 724, 726, 133 N.E.2d 211(1956);Hilliker v. Springfield, 349 Mass. 353, 357, 207 N.E.2d 895(1965).However, the committee was obliged to submit them to the mayor at some time prior to the expiration of the forty-five day period following the organization of the city government (Young v. Worcester, supra, 333 Mass. at 729, 133 N.E.2d 211) within which he was obliged to submit the total city budget to the council.Hayes v. Brockton, 313 Mass. 641, 650, 48 N.E.2d 683(1943).(See n. 1)Following receipt of the budget from the mayor, the council had forty-five days in which to study and to act upon the budget.G.L. c. 44, § 32(2), as amended through St.1953, c. 79.(See n. 1.)A precise deadline has not been established for the submission of the committee's estimates to the mayor either by statute or judicial decision.SeeYoung v. Worcester, 333 Mass. at 727, 133 N.E.2d 211.It has been stated that 'Since . . . the executive cannot submit 'the annual budget' without the school committee items, a submission earlier than just prior to the expiration of the forty-five day period which omitted these items, and was made without express request to the committee for the items, reasonably made as to time, would not be a compliance with the statute.And a submission by the committee so near to budget submission time as to deprive the executive of an opportunity to consider its effect on the budget total might not be timely.'Young v. Worcester, supra, at 729⁴, 133 N.E.2d at 214.

Without more precise criteria to guide us on the question of timeliness, we do not conclude that the committee's submission of the budget was so late that it precluded adequate consideration by the mayor before the deadline.Nor did it justify his substituting the preceding year's expenditures for the current estimate submitted by the committee on February tenth.As an ex-officio member of the committee, the mayor had prior knowledge of the content of the estimates.Furthermore, there was no indication that he requested an earlier submission of the 1972 estimates although he had ample opportunity to do so.Nor did he attempt to study the estimates in the week remaining prior to the deadline for the submission of the city budget to the council.

We turn to the remaining question whether the deletion of $7,000 for a study of the use of school buildings for a community schools program was warranted.The judge ruled that such programs 'are not any part of the authority vested in school committees under Chapter 71, Section 34.'⁵The only contention offered by the city is that the committee had neither express nor implied authority to 'appropriate' money for such a program.

The question requires an examination of the relationship between G.L. c. 71, § 34, andG.L. c. 71, § 71.⁶Prior to St.1826, c. 143, § 5, which inaugurated the school committee system, the duty to appropriate money for public schools and to make educational policy at the local level was lodged in the town meeting.With the advent of the school committee system, the duty to appropriate remained in the town meeting but the right to make educational policy gradually shifted to the school committee.In the ensuing century and a half, a strong tradition of school committee autonomy has developed supported by judicial decision.Casey v. Everett, 330 Mass. 220, 222--223, 112 N.E.2d 420(1953);Bell v. North Reading, --- Mass. ---, ---^b, 295 N.E.2d 894(1973).As noted in the Casey decision, supra, 330 Mass. at 222--223, 112 N.E.2d at --- G.L. c. 71, § 34, implicitly recognizes that the committee's autonomy in matters pertinent to the management of public schools can be preserved only if the local legislative body is barred from...