Windham Taxpayers Ass'n v. Board of Selectmen of Town of Windham
Decision Date | 01 August 1995 |
Docket Number | No. 15242,15242 |
Citation | 234 Conn. 513,662 A.2d 1281 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | , 102 Ed. Law Rep. 1116 WINDHAM TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION et al. v. BOARD OF SELECTMEN OF THE TOWN OF WINDHAM et al. |
Richard S. Cody, with whom, on the brief, was Joseph B. Mathieu, Hartford, for appellants-appellees (defendants).
Lori Welch-Rubin, New Haven, for appellees-appellants (plaintiffs).
Mary-Michelle U. Hirschoff, Bethany, filed a brief for the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities as amicus curiae.
Before BORDEN, BERDON, NORCOTT, KATZ and SPEAR, JJ.
The dispositive issue in this appeal and cross appeal is whether the defendant board of selectmen (board) 1 was required to submit a proper petition by the plaintiff Windham Taxpayers Association (association), 2 pursuant to a special town meeting, to a special referendum for the purpose of reconsidering an appropriation of money to construct a school. In order to consider that issue, we must address the underlying issue of whether General Statutes § 7-1, 3 which requires that a town meeting be held upon petition of twenty or more qualified voters, preempts a town's charter, enacted pursuant to the Home Rule Act, 4 that vests legislative authority in a board of selectmen and delineates the limited situations requiring a town meeting. We conclude that because the procedures for reconsideration of a prior legislative act are of local concern, the charter controls the resolution of this issue and that, therefore, the board was empowered to decide whether to reconsider the appropriation.
The trial court, Foley, J., found the following relevant facts. In 1990, discussions began for the construction of a new middle school in Windham. On March 1, 1994, a town meeting was held to consider the appropriation of $24,500,000 for the design and construction of a new middle school to be located on Quarry Street in the Willimantic section of Windham. 5 The town decided to send this issue to a referendum vote, which, if passed, would also authorize the issuance of bonds and other obligations to help finance the construction of the school. On March 15, 1994, Windham passed this referendum by a four vote majority. Following the passage of the referendum, Windham entered into a contract with the architectural firm of Russell Gibson von Dohlen, Inc., to design and construct the school.
On March 28, 1994, 702 individuals qualified to vote in Windham presented a petition to the board pursuant to General Statutes §§ 7-1, 6 7-2, 7 and 7-7, 8 requesting that the board call a special town meeting for the purpose of setting the time and place of a special referendum to rescind the action on the ballot question of March 15, 1994. 9 The board rejected the March 28 petition and did not call a town meeting.
Subsequently, on April 29, 1994, thirty-eight individuals qualified to vote in Windham presented a petition to the board requesting it to call a special town meeting to reconsider the March 28 petition for the purpose of rescinding the action on the ballot question of March 15. The board also rejected this petition.
After the board's decision to reject the March 28 referendum petition, the plaintiffs brought this action against the defendants seeking: 10 The trial court determined that the plaintiffs were not entitled to either mandamus or injunctive relief.
The trial court first determined that the plaintiffs had both voter and taxpayer standing to bring the action against the defendants. Rood and Edelman had voter standing because they were aggrieved by the board's failure to hold the requested town meeting at which they would have had the right to vote. The trial court also found that, because Rood and Edelman had suffered an injury in the form of increased taxes to pay for the new school, they had taxpayer standing. Furthermore, the trial court found that the association had standing 11
On the merits, the trial court focused on the defendants' contention that the board was not required to submit the March 28 petition to a town meeting because such a petition did not fall within one of the four enumerated categories in Section XI-3 of the town charter, which delineates the circumstances requiring a town meeting. 12 The trial court disagreed with the defendants' position, concluding that these provisions of the charter were preempted by §§ 7-1, 7-2, 7-6 and 7-7 because, in the court's view, there was a conflict between the charter and the statutes. The court reasoned that state law protects the power of initiative, which cannot be destroyed by a conflicting town charter. See General Statutes §§ 7-1, 7-2, 7-6 and 7-7. The trial court stated: (Citations omitted; emphasis in original.)
In considering whether to issue a writ of mandamus, the trial court examined whether the plaintiffs' petitions to the board were proper. It concluded that they were not for a proper purpose because there was no provision in either petition for the protection of the architects who had contracted with Windham to construct the new school. Thus, the court concluded: "Accordingly, based upon the facts of this case where a referendum has occurred allowing for the expenditure of public funds, and where an attempt is made to subsequently rescind the prior vote, this court holds that it is proper for the selectmen to reject a proposed initiative that fails to protect persons who have acted upon the faith of the [prior] vote and fails to provide for payment of legal obligations of the [municipality] arising from contracts already made and entered into by the [municipality] prior to such rescission." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Accordingly, the trial court denied the plaintiffs' request for writs of mandamus. 13
Thereafter, the defendants appealed and the plaintiffs cross appealed to the Appellate Court. We transferred the appeal and the cross appeal to this court pursuant to Practice Book § 4023 and General Statutes § 51-199(c).
On appeal, the defendants, although agreeing with the trial court's denial of the plaintiffs' claims for relief, claim that the trial court incorrectly decided that: (1) General Statutes §§ 7-1, 7-2 and 7-7 required the board to hold a town meeting upon the petition of twenty or more qualified voters, notwithstanding contrary provisions in Windham's town charter; (2) the plaintiffs had standing to maintain an action for mandamus and injunctive relief; (3) the plaintiffs' action presented a justiciable controversy; and (4) the court could rely on the testimony of former town selectmen in determining whether the board was required to hold a town meeting. On their cross appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the petitions were presented for a proper purpose because the architects' interests were adequately protected by contract law and, consequently, the trial court improperly denied their request to compel the board to hold a referendum.
Before reaching the merits of the case, we must address the jurisdictional issues presented by this appeal. "A possible absence of subject matter jurisdiction must be addressed and decided whenever the issue is raised." Sadloski v. Manchester, 228 Conn. 79, 84, 634 A.2d 888 (1993).
We first determine whether this court has...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gay and Lesbian Law Students Ass'n at University of Connecticut School of Law v. Board of Trustees, University of Connecticut
...Con Assn. of Health Care Facilities, Inc. v. Worrell, supra, 199 Conn. at 616, 508 A.2d 743; accord Windham Taxpayers Assn. v. Board of Selectmen, 234 Conn. 513, 527, 662 A.2d 1281 (1995). The plaintiff argues that it has sustained its burden of proof and has satisfied this test. 8 The defe......
-
Meyers v. Cornwell Quality Tools, Inc.
...is that the party claiming error be aggrieved by the decision of the trial court....' " Windham Taxpayers Assn. v. Board of Selectmen, 234 Conn. 513, 522, 662 A.2d 1281 (1995), quoting Milford v. Local 1566, 200 Conn. 91, 95-96, 510 A.2d 177 (1986); see Practice Book § 4000. Pursuant to our......
-
IN RE ALLISON
...and injuriously affected by the decision." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Windham Taxpayers Assn. v. Board of Selectmen, 234 Conn. 513, 522-23, 662 A.2d 1281 (1995); see also General Statutes § It cannot be disputed that the petitioner has satisfied the first prong o......
-
Ganim v. Smith & Wesson Corp.
...to it by the state or that are necessary for it to discharge its duties and carry out its purposes. Windham Taxpayers Assn. v. Board of Selectmen, 234 Conn. 513, 529, 662 A. 2d 1281 (1995). In light of these principles, we cannot read the general provisions of the Home Rule Act on which the......