Sweetman v. St. Elections Enforcement Comm'n Bd. of Educ.
Decision Date | 22 June 1999 |
Parties | (Conn. 1999) CHARLES F. SWEETMAN, JR. v. STATE ELECTIONS ENFORCEMENT COMMISSION BOARD OF EDUCATION OF REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NUMBER 17 ET AL. v. STATE ELECTIONS ENFORCEMENT COMMISSION 15919, 15920 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
John C. Yavis, Jr., with whom were Kari L. Olson and, on the brief, Joseph P. Fasi, for the appellant in the first case (plaintiff Charles F. Sweetman, Jr.). Charles L. Howard, with whom were Sheila A. Huddleston and, on the brief, Alisa N. Fay, for the appellants in the second case (plaintiff board of education of Regional School District Number 17 et al.). Gregory T. D'Auria, assistant attorney general, with whom were Jeffrey Garfield, Joan Andrews and, on the brief, Richard Blumenthal, attorney general, and Carolyn K. Querijero, assistant attorney general, for the appellee in both cases (defendant state elections enforcement commission). Patrice McCarthy and Joan G. Libby filed a brief for the Connecticut Association of Boards of Education et al. as amici curiae.
Callahan, C. J., and Borden, Berdon, Palmer and Ronan, Js.
OPINION
This consolidated appeal calls upon us to resolve a number of issues surrounding the expenditure of public funds by the plaintiffs, the board of education of Regional School District Number 17 (board), certain individual members of the board, and Charles F. Sweetman, Jr., the superintendent and chief executive officer of the board (collectively, the plaintiffs). 1 In broad strokes, the plaintiffs used public funds to print and distribute a pamphlet discussing an upcoming referendum on the budget that the board had proposed (pamphlet). The defendant, the state elections enforcement commission (commission), determined that this pamphlet improperly advocated an affirmative vote on the referendum in violation of General Statutes §§ 9-369b. 2 Accordingly, the commission directed the plaintiffs to (1) "strictly comply" with §§ 9-369b and (2) reimburse the district for $2573.68, the cost of printing and mailing the pamphlet. In addition, the commission imposed a civil penalty of $1000 on Sweetman. The trial court dismissed the plaintiffs' appeals from these orders. 3 We decline the plaintiffs' invitation to disturb this ruling.
The commission found the following facts. "By letter dated June 8, 1996 . . . [a] complainant requested that the [commission] investigate [the pamphlet, which was] mailed to households in Regional School District No. 17 [district] at public expense by the [board] in April [of] 1996 concerning an upcoming referendum . . . ." The complainant alleged a violation of §§ 9-369b (a), which prohibits the "expenditure of state or municipal funds . . . to influence . . . vote[s] . . . ." 4
The district
"[A]ll members of the board are members of the budget subcommittee." This subcommittee
Based upon its independent review of the pamphlet, the commission concluded that, . . . (Emphasis added.) The commission further concluded that the board "approved the [pamphlet] for printing and distribution, and that [Sweetman] is administratively and professionally responsible for sending the [pamphlet] to households within the district." Accordingly, the commission found that the "board, its individual members, and [Sweetman] violated [§§ 9-369b] by authorizing the expenditure of municipal funds to prepare, reproduce, and distribute the [pamphlet]." The commission characterized this violation as "a serious offense."
With respect to Sweetman's responsibility for distributing the pamphlet, the commission explained that he had previously "taken decisive action to stop the board from committing what he felt would be a violation of the General Statutes ( ) by locking them out of a designated meeting place." Moreover, the commission emphasized that Sweetman was "under prior order of the commission to ensure the district's compliance with [§§ 9-369b], pursuant to two prior cases . . . ." 5
With respect to the board's responsibility for distributing the pamphlet, the commission explained that "seven of the ten present board members were board members at the time the Commission approved [a] consent agreement and order with . . . Sweetman [consent order]. 6 . . . The board members were: Helen Reeve, James E. Sheppard, Robert J. Bilafer, Robert S. Daves, Edward A. Vynalek, Anne E. Wolak and Michael F. Dagostino. . . . [I]n October [of] 1995, board members were informed of the consent [order] by the then chairman in a board meeting, and by press release distributed to board members. A copy of the consent agreement and order itself was distributed to the four board officers, which at the time included . . . Bilafer and Sheppard. . . . Board members' testimony to the contrary that they were unaware of the [consent order] is improbable, at best.
"It is found that . . . Sweetman and the seven board members identified . . . above, have not demonstrated good faith in attempting to comply with the provisions of [§§ 9-369b]."
Based upon the foregoing findings and Conclusions, the commission issued the following order:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ramos v. Vernon
...v. Rosado, 218 Conn. 239, 251 n.12, 588 A.2d 1066 (1991)." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Sweetman v. State Elections Enforcement Commission, 249 Conn. 296, 319 n.19, 732 A.2d 144 (1999). Although we conclude that Richard Ramos has not abandoned his free speech claim under the state co......
-
Roth v. Weston
...under the Connecticut constitution. Ramos v. Vernon, 254 Conn. 799, 814-15, 761 A.2d 705 (2000); Sweetman v. State Elections Enforcement Commission, 249 Conn. 296, 319 n.19, 732 A.2d 144 (1999); State v. Robinson, 227 Conn. 711, 721-22, 631 A.2d 288 (1993). We limit our inquiry, therefore, ......
-
State v. Jarmon, AC 42357
...a lesser degree of specificity than in criminal statutes ...." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Sweetman v. State Elections Enforcement Commission , 249 Conn. 296, 323, 732 A.2d 144 (1999). The defendant fails to demonstrate that this regulation is penal and should receive closer scrutin......
-
Hartford Cty. Sheriffs Dept. v. Blumenthal
...to ascertain what a statute means by looking at only portions of the enactment in the abstract. See Sweetman v. State Elections Enforcement Commission, 249 Conn. 296, 732 A.2d 144, (1999); State v. Spears, 234 Conn. 78, 91, 662 A.2d 80, cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1009, 116 S.Ct. 565, 133 L.Ed.2......
-
1999 Connecticut Appellate Review
...supra note 35. 94. 251 Conn. 567, 740 A.2d 856 (1999). 95. See supra, note 61. 96. 248 Conn. 793, 812 n. 15, 730 A.2d 1149 (1999). 97. 249 Conn. 296, 319 n. 19, 732 A.2d 144 (1999). 98. While the chart lists six concurrences, there are actually only five, as judges Schaller and Dupont joint......