Inhabitants of Alford v. Southern Berkshire Regional School Dist.

• Decision Date: 27 March 1974
• Citation: 2 Mass.App.Ct. 98,308 N.E.2d 791
• Parties: INHABITANTS OF ALFORD v. SOUTHERN BERKSHIRE REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT et al.
• Court: Appeals Court of Massachusetts

Page 791

308 N.E.2d 791

2 Mass.App.Ct. 98

INHABITANTS OF ALFORD v. SOUTHERN BERKSHIRE REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT et al.

Appeals Court of Massachusetts, Berkshire.

Argued Sept. 11, 1973.

Decided March 27, 1974.

James P. Dohoney, for plaintiff.

Joseph H. Elcock, Jr., Boston, for Southern Berkshire Regional School District.

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

ARMSTRONG, Justice.

This bill for declaratory and injunctive relief was brought by the town of Alford, one of five member towns of the Southern Berkshire Regional School District (district), to adjudge their rights under an agreement executed and adopted pursuant to G.L. c. 71, §§ 14B and 15 (both added by St.1949, c. 638, § 1), and to require the district to maintain an elementary school consisting of grades one through four in the town of Alford. The town appeals from a final decree which interpreted the agreement to permit the closing of the elementary school in Alford if the regional district school committee (committee) deemed such action to be in the best interests of the students. The judge made a report of material facts. G.L. c. 214, § 23. The evidence is reported.

The district, consisting originally of the towns of Egremont, Monterey, New Marlborough and Sheffield, was formed in 1953 in accordance with the provisions of G.L. c. 71, §§ 14--15, and declared valid by St.1953, c. 422. In 1954 the town of Alford was admitted to the district in accordance with the method provided by the agreement pursuant to § 14B(f). The district, thus expanded, was again validated. St.1954, c. 282.

On December 18, 1969, the committee voted to transfer grades one, two, three and four from the elementary school in Alford to various schools in Egreement and Sheffield, and after September 1, 1970, to use the Alford school exclusively as a kindergarten.

Paragraphs (b) and (c) of § 14B require that a proposed regional school district agreement indicate the types and locations of the regional district schools. The agreement in this case made the following provision:

'3. THE DISTRICT SCHOOLS:--As soon as practicable the Committee shall acquire by purchase or otherwise land in the Town of Sheffield, as near as practicable to the population and geographical center of the District, and shall proceed with the construction, equipping and furnishing of a new school building. Said building shall include necessary facilities to house grades 7--12 for the entire District and, in addition, shall include four (4) classrooms to house 5th and 6th grade students. The District shall thereafter construct and equip such additional school buildings as may be necessary.

'a) The District shall maintain and operate elementary schools in each of the Member Towns, and Member Towns hereby give consent thereto. Such schools shall include all public shcool pupils not served by the facilities provided for in Section 3 above. The District shall assume all expenses of operation and maintenance of said schools and shall pay for insurance coverage or reimburse the Member Towns for any premiums paid by them.'

We are unable to accept the contention of the committee that this agreement is complied with by maintaining only a kindergarten in Alford. The words 'elementary school' in common usage include grades one through six ¹; and although sections 3 and 3(a) of the agreement are not as clear as they might be, they import to us, and must have imported to the voters at the time the district was established, that the committee would maintain at least grades one to four, inclusive, in each of the member towns. ²

The more substantial contention of the committee is, as we understand it, that § 16 invests regional school districts 'with all the powers and duties conferred by law upon school committees'; and that it has long been decided that school committees have power to close schools and to transfer pupils. We do not question that school committees are generally so empowered. Dowd v. Dover, 334 Mass. 23, 26, 133 N.E.2d 501 (1956), and cases cited.

However, it is manifest that the grant in § 16 of all the powers and duties conferred by law upon school committees by implication is made subject to the qualification that such powers and duties must be exercised within the terms of the agreement mandated by § 14B. The agreement is the very basis of the consent of the constituent towns to the creation of a...