Hecker v. McKernan

• Decision Date: 20 December 1963
• Citation: 196 A.2d 38,105 N.H. 195
• Parties: Carl M. HECKER v. Allan C. McKERNAN et al.
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

Page 38

196 A.2d 38

105 N.H. 195

Carl M. HECKER v. Allan C. McKERNAN et al.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire.

Argued Dec. 3, 1963.

Decided Dec. 20, 1963.

Carl M. Hecker, pro se, filed no brief.

Wiggin, Nourie, Sundeen, Nassikas & Pingree and Booth, Wadleigh, Langdell, Starr & Peters, Manchester (H. G. Pingree and Richard C. Kohls, Manchester, orally), for defendants.

BLANDIN, Justice.

The first question which confronts us is the plaintiff's claim that the failure to include the item of the proposed bond issue in the printed budget form submitted to the State Tax Commission invalidates the vote taken at the School District meeting on May 23, 1963. He insists that this is so, even though the Tax Commission was in fact properly notified of the vote.

At the outset, upon this and all other aspects of the case, we bear in mind the familiar principle that votes passed at town meetings should be liberally construed, and if they fall within the authorized power of the town, subtle distinctions will not be made to defeat the plain intent of the voters. Amey v. Pittsburgh School District, 95 N.H. 386, 388, 64 A.2d 1. Where two constructions of a statute are permissible, the one which preserves the validity of the vote must prevail. 95 N.H. 388-389, 64 A.2d 3.

The statutes governing this matter, so far as material, read as follows:

'Preparation of Budget. It shall be the duty of the budget committee to prepare budgets according to forms prescribed by the tax commission for town expenditures, village expenditures, and school expenditures * * *. In the preparation of the budgets the budget committee shall consult the selectmen, school board, village district commissioners, and other officers and departments as to the costs of government, revenue anticipated, and services performed * * *. It shall also be the duty of * * * school boards * * * to prepare and submit to the budget committee of the town an itemized statement of expected receipts and expenditures for the ensuing year at such time as said budget committee shall fix.' RSA 32:5 Supp.

'Reports. Upon completion of the budgets, as provided in * * * this chapter, the chairman of the budget committee shall forward to the state tax commission a copy of each budget as approved by the budget committee. * * *' RSA 32:7.

The decisive question here is whether it was the intent of the Legislature, in enacting RSA ch. 32, to compel the inclusion of capital appropriations to be raised by borrowing within the printed budget form prepared for the budget committee and submitted to the Tax Commission. The purpose of sections 5 (supp) and 7, Id., taken in the context of chapter 32 (Davis v. W. T. Grant Company, 88 N.H. 204, 207, 185 A. 889), appears to have been to provide a committee with special knowledge to oversee and analyze the expenditures of the various town departments and districts. In this manner the electorate, which would ordinarily be without the detailed knowledge necessary to vote intelligently on certain budgetary problems, might be given sufficient information to determine the annual amounts necessary to properly manage town affairs. Lebanon v. Lebanon Water Works, 98 N.H. 328, 330, 100 A.2d 167.

This is well illustrated in the present case. According to the agreed facts, a proposed article relative to the appropriation of money for the high school was presented to the town budget committee which met on February 15, 1963, following a public hearing as required by RSA 32:5 (supp). The article, together with the budget committee's recommendation that the proposal be adopted, was printed in the 1962 town report which was distributed to every resident of the town. The Manchester Union-Leader carried at least two news items prior to the vote by the school district on the article. In the news items it stated that the budget committee had reported favorably on the plan. The school board and an associated group of interested citizens held a series of public meetings to discuss the proposed high school, at most of which it was stated that the budget committee had reported favorably on the plan. At the school district's annual meeting, a member of the budget committee informed the voters there of the committee's position. Following the meeting a certified copy of the vote was forwarded to the Tax Commission in accordance with RSA 32:7.

While RSA 32:5 (supp) is phrased in terms of expected revenues and 'expenditures,' the purpose of the statute indicates that appropriations from which expenditures may later be made should also be included in the budget form sent to the Tax Commission. However upon the agreed facts in this case it appears that the fundamental objective of fully informing the voters and the Tax Commission of the action to be taken and taken at the district meeting with reference to the bond issue was substantially complied with. Our conclusion therefore...