Casey v. Town of Yarmouth
Decision Date | 21 January 2021 |
Docket Number | Docket no. 2:19-cv-00392-GZS |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maine |
Parties | Meghan CASEY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TOWN OF YARMOUTH, Defendant. |
Emma Eaton Bond, Zachary L. Heiden, American Civil Liberties Union of Maine, Portland, ME, for Plaintiffs.
Daniel J. Murphy, Bernstein Shur, Portland, ME, for Defendant.
George Z. Singal, United States District Judge Before the Court are two motions: Plaintiffs' Motion for Judgment on a Stipulated Record (ECF No. 14) and Defendant's Motion for Judgment on a Stipulated Record (ECF No. 16). Via these cross-motions, the parties ask the Court to resolve this matter in which Plaintiffs, six Yarmouth residents, including a member of the Town Council, challenge the constitutionality of an amendment to the Town's charter.1 As explained herein, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion (ECF No. 16) and DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion (ECF No. 14).
When facing cross-motions for judgment on a stipulated record, the Court, in addition to resolving any legal disputes, "may ‘decide any significant issues of material fact that [it] discovers’ in the stipulated record." Thompson v. Cloud, 764 F.3d 82, 90 (1st Cir. 2014) ( ). In rendering judgment, the Court makes findings of fact on any disputed factual issues in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52. See OneBeacon America Ins. Co. v. Johnny's Selected Seeds Inc., No. 1:12-cv-00375-JAW, 2014 WL 1569517, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53098 (D. Me. April 17, 2014). Thus, pursuant to Rule 52(a), the Court sets forth the following factual findings based on the stipulated record.
Defendant Town of Yarmouth is located in Cumberland County, Maine. Under its charter, "[t]he administration of all the fiscal, prudential and municipal affairs of [the] town" is vested in a seven-member Town Council, except for "the general management, care, conduct and control of the schools of the town," which is vested in a separate School Committee. (Joint Ex. 2-A ("Charter") (ECF No. 13-6), PageID # 140.) Councilors are elected to terms lasting three years during which they are paid "$1,000 per year for attendance at meetings of the Council or its subcommittees." (Id., PageID #s 142–43.)
The Council's enumerated powers include the power to recommend the annual budget, which is subject to a public vote at the annual Town Meeting. (Id., PageID # 143.) Early in the budget development process, the School Committee presents "budget estimates in detail of the several sums required during the ensuing budget year for the support of the public schools" to the Town Manager. (Id., PageID #s 148–49.) The Town Manager then submits "a budget and an explanatory budget message" to the Council. (Id., PageID # 150.) The Council then "approve[s] the budget with or without amendments." (Id. ) The Council's authority is limited to setting a recommended "final determination of the total appropriation to be made to each of the several offices, departments and agencies of the town, including the department of education." (Id. ) After a public hearing, the Council finalizes its recommended budget for the Town Meeting vote. Voters at this annual meeting are not permitted to "increase the amount of any appropriation above the amount recommended by the council or make any appropriation not recommended by the council and [may] not increase the amount of any bond issue above the amount recommended by the council." (Id., PageID # 155.) In short, as explained by Town Manager Nathaniel Tupper, "the Town Council effectively creates a ceiling on appropriations for competing departments of the Town and the voters cannot override the Town Council's determination ... to increase a particular department's proposed budget allocation."2 (Tupper Decl. (ECF No. 17-1), PageID # 651.)
Prior to November 2018, the charter set forth the following qualifications for Councilors:
(Id., PageID #s 165–66.) In November 2018, the following amendment (the "Charter Amendment" or the "Amendment") was adopted by a referendum vote:
(Id. ) To summarize, the Amendment prohibited any paid official or employee of the Town or its school department from serving on the Council, but any current employee-councilors would be allowed to finish their term.
Prior to the Amendment, Councilors had already been subject to both a Maine statute and their own Council Rules governing conflicts. Under the Council Rules:
Councilors are required ... to disclose any potential conflict of interest they may have in any agenda item before the Council. Once a disclosure is made, the Councilor shall either abstain from the decision-making process (including any discussion, deliberation and/or vote) regarding that agenda item or shall explain why he or she believes his or her abstention is not necessary.
(Joint Ex. 1-B (ECF No. 13-3), PageID # 84.) Under the relevant Maine statute, 30-A M.R.S.A. § 2605, "[t]he vote of a body is voidable when any official in an official position votes on any question in which that official has a direct or an indirect pecuniary interest." 30-A M.R.S.A. § 2605(1). The statute further requires officials to avoid giving the appearance of conflict by disclosure or abstention. 30-A M.R.S.A. § 2605(6). However, the statute also contains a carveout concerning teachers: "This subsection does not prohibit a member of a city or town council or a member of a quasi-municipal corporation who is a teacher from making or renewing a teacher employment contract with the municipality or quasi-municipal corporation for which the member serves." 30-A M.R.S.A. § 2605(4)(A) ( ).
Plaintiff Meghan Casey is a teacher at Yarmouth High School and a current Councilor. (Casey Decl. (ECF No. 15-1), PageID # 575.) Casey was elected in June 2018. (Id. ) During her tenure on the Council, Casey has not recused herself at meetings or hearings considering the annual budget. (Id., PageID # 577.) She wishes to campaign for re-election and to serve an additional term. (Id., PageID # 576.) Casey also maintains that the Charter Amendment denies her the ability "to select a candidate that she believes is most qualified to serve in office if that candidate is an employee of the town or school department." (Joint Ex. 3-A (ECF No. 13-10), PageID # 255.)
Plaintiff Elizabeth Reinsborough was an administrative assistant at Harrison Middle School until her retirement in September 2020. (E. Reinsborough Decl. (ECF No. 15-3), PageID # 581.) She has an interest in running for the Yarmouth Town Council. (Id. ) She wishes "to be able to talk to candidates for town council and to decide for [herself] whether or not they would make a good councilor." (Id., PageID # 582.) Ultimately, Ms. Reinsborough asserts that she may or may not decide to vote for someone who is a Town or school department employee. (Id. )
Plaintiff Mark Reinsborough is employed by Yarmouth as a volunteer firefighter. (M. Reinsborough Decl. (ECF No. 15-4), PageID # 583.) He is...
To continue reading
Request your trial