NOW COMES the Oyster River School District, by its attorneys, Soule, Leslie, Kidder, Sayward & Loughman, and answers the Petition as follows:

1. The allegations of paragraph 1 do not call for an answer.

2. Petitioner has named the Oyster River School Board as defendant. The proper party defendant should be the Oyster River School District, and not its School Board.

1. Defendant admits the first three sentences and the next to last sentence of paragraph 1. Defendant denies the remaining sentences of paragraph 1. By way of further answer, the warrant included three bond articles, Articles 3, 4 and 5. Article 3, was a School Board proposal, for a $20,000,000 bond issue for renovation of the Oyster River High School and construction of an addition to the high school. Article 4, was a petition warrant article, proposing a bond issue in the amount of $15,00O,500, for renovation and construction of an addition to the high school. Article 4 also included the following language:

   "In the event that more than one article appropriating a sum of money for work related to high school enlargement receives the required majority of votes, no more than the sum specified in any one article may be appropriated."

   Article 4 was amended twice. The first amendment eliminated the preceding language. The second amendment reduced the dollar amount of the warrant article to one dollar. That amendment was voted on by ballot, and received a vote of 367 in favor and 71 against.

2. Defendant admits the first sentence of paragraph 2. Defendant denies the second sentence of paragraph 2. BY WAY OF FURTHER ANSWER, in fact, there was considerable discussion of Article 5, which was a petition article proposing construction of a second high school in the Oyster River School District. The petitioners who submitted Article 5 attempted to amend the article at the meeting to increase the appropriation amount by $2,800,000, to provide for renovation of the existing high school, in addition to the $10,000,000 initially proposed in the article, for construction of a second high school. The proposal to amend Article 5 by increasing the appropriation amount by $2,800,000 was defeated.

3. Defendant denies paragraph 3. BY WAY OF FURTHER ANSWER, Article 11 was a petition warrant article proposing certain changes to the curriculum and education plan for the Oyster River School District. After lengthy discussion, the article was amended. Development of a curriculum and education plan is the responsibility of the school board, not of the school district meeting. The meeting was advised that any vote taken under Article 11 would be advisory only and not binding on the school board.

4. Defendant denies paragraph 4, except that Defendant admits that the warrant articles, as amended, were placed on the official ballot, for the March 14, 2000 official ballot voting. BY WAY OF FURTHER ANSWER, Article 3, which was the school board proposal, was approved by 65.5 percent of the voters, receiving 2,168 "yes" votes and 1,143 "no" votes, for a total of 3,311 votes. Article 4, submitted by petitioner and others, was defeated 2,094 votes to 770 votes. Article 5, the petition article proposing a second high school, was defeated 2,482 votes to 679 votes. Article 6, appropriating interest, for Article 3, received a 73.2 percent majority, 2,339 "yes" votes to 855 "no" votes.

5. The allegations in paragraph 5 state a legal conclusion and do not call for an answer. If an answer is called for, Defendant admits the first sentence of paragraph 5. Defendant denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 5. BY WAY OF FURTHER ANSWER, under RSA 40:13 (SB 2), the annual district meeting is held in two sessions. Both sessions of the annual meeting are legislative sessions, and the body, that convenes, at both sessions, is the legislative body for the school district. RSA 40:13 IV expressly provides that the first session may amend warrant articles, "subject to the following limitations: (a) warrant articles whose wording is prescribed by law shall not be amended (b) warrant articles that are amended shall be placed on the official ballot for a final vote on the main motion, as amended." There is nothing in the SB 2 to suggest that the authority of the deliberative session of a school district meeting, held under SB 2 is any different, from the authority of the deliberative session of an annual school district meeting, operating under the traditional town form of government, with regard to amendment of warrant articles. Under New Hampshire law, deliberative meetings have broad latitude in amending warrant articles, subject only to the prohibition against changing the subject matter of the article, even where the effect of the amendment is "to nullify".

6. Paragraph 6 states a legal conclusion, and does not call for an answer. If an answer is called for, Defendant admits the first sentence of paragraph 6, and denies the rest of paragraph 6. BY WAY OF FURTHER ANSWER, the deliberative meeting, in a Senate Bill 2 school district is also the legislative body. There is no quorum requirement for the deliberative meeting.

BY WAY OF FURTHER ANSWER,

7. The School Board is not the proper party Defendant. The proper party Defendant is the School District. The actions complained of were actions of the voters of the Oyster River School District, at the deliberative meeting and of the moderator of that meeting, not the School Board members.

8. The action should be dismissed for laches. If Petitioner believed that the official ballot should have been prepared differently, he should have sought relief in this court before the official ballot voting.

9. Petitioner seeks an improper remedy. Each article in the school district meeting warrant is voted separately. Alleged irregularities in the procedure as to Articles 4 and 5 can not be relied upon to invalidate the vote under Article 3, where no irregularity has been alleged for Article 3.

10. Petitioner does not have standing because he is not one of the petitioners who signed the submitted warrant articles 4 and 5.

I hereby certify that on April 19, 2000, a copy of the foregoing document was hand delivered to Kevin E. Shenefiel, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

[signed] Barbara F. Loughman

\\Amy\c-amy\Amy Docs\OYSTER\Answer re Shenefiel 4.11.doc

SOULE, LESLIE, KIDDER,
SAYWARD & LOUGHMAN
P. L. L. C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SALEM & LACONIA
NEW HAMPSHIRE

Last update on 20-Apr-00 at 10:52 PM.

http://www.orol.org/schools/orhs/issues/lawsuit/ss00e056/answer.html

This page is edited by David K. Taylor. Please send questions or comments to editor@orol.org.