The plaintiff filed this petition seeking to invalidate the results of the March 14, 2000 ballot vote held at the Annual Meeting of the Oyster River School District. Specifically, the plaintiff seeks to invalidate the vote on Article 3 of the 2000 warrant, and allow the plaintiff to resubmit Articles 4, 5 and 11 in their original form as they appeared prior to certain amendments. The defendant objects, arguing that the amendments to the articles were authorized, and the vote was valid.

Article 3 of the 2000 warrant, prepared and submitted by the School Board, proposed the spending of 20 million dollars for renovations of the Oyster River High School and construction of an addition. Article 4 of the warrant, a petition article, presented a similar bond issue in the amount of 15.5 million dollars. Article 5 of the warrant, another petition article, proposed construction of a second high school at a cost of 10 million dollars. Articles 4 and 5 contained language which would prevent duplicate spending should more than one bond issue relating to the high school pass. Article 11 was an advisory article, containing three separate proposals unrelated to the school bond issue.

The first session of the Annual Meeting, the deliberative meeting, was held on February 8, 2000. At that meeting, Article 4 was amended to reduce the dollar amount to one dollar. Similarly, Article 5 was amended to reduce the dollar amount to one dollar. Article 11 was amended to eliminate the last of the three proposals contained in that article.

The second session of the Annual Meeting, for official ballot voting, was held on March 14, 2000. At that meeting, Article 3 and Article 11 were adopted, and Articles 4 and 5 were rejected.

The plaintiff argues that the amendments to Articles 4, 5 and 11 were made in violation of the provisions of RSA 40:13, which requires voting by official ballot in towns adopting that process. The plaintiff asserts that the primary purpose of enacting RSA 40:13 was to eliminate the ability of a small minority of persons attending town meetings from voting on issues that affect the vast majority of voters. The plaintiff argues that the purpose of the statute is not achieved when a small group uses the amendment procedures at the deliberative session to essentially eliminate a warrant article by reducing the dollar amount to one dollar, thereby preventing the article from being voted on by voters at the second session, when the majority of voters participate in the process.

In response, the defendant argues that the authority of the voters to amend warrant articles at the deliberative meeting includes the authority to amend appropriation articles to one dollar. The defendant asserts that the legislative history of Senate Bill 2 makes it clear that voters at the deliberative meeting have this authority. In addition, the defendant cites two superior court cases in which such authority was found to exist. Finally, the defendant notes that both the New Hampshire Department of Revenue Administration and the Municipal Association have advised school districts that the best way to deal with multiple warrant articles covering the same subject matter is for the deliberative meeting to choose the one it wants and amend the others to zero, or one dollar.

In accordance with the rules of statutory construction, the court looks first to the language of the applicable statutes. See Appeal of Soucy, 139 N.H. 110, 116 (1994). Where statutory language is not specifically defined, the court gives the language "its plain and ordinary meaning, if possible." Id. "In doing so, [the court] must keep in mind the intent of the legislation, which is determined by examining the construction of the statute as a whole, and not simply by examining isolated words and phrases found therein." Id.

RSA 40:13 establishes the procedures to be followed by all political subdivisions which adopt the use of official ballot voting on all issues. The statute divides the annual meeting into two sessions, the first for finalizing the warrant and the second for voting on the warrant. The first session (the deliberative session), consists of "explanation, discussion, and debate of each warrant article." RSA 40:13, IV. With regard to the amendment of warrant articles, the statute provides,

Warrant articles may be amended at the first session, 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.

RSA 40:13, IV.

Nothing in the statute prohibits voters from essentially eliminating the substance of a warrant article by amending the dollar amount of the article to one dollar. In Tucker v. Goffstown, 97-E-103 (Hills. Cty. Super. Ct. North, March 25, 1997), the court found that voters may substantially change the intent of a warrant article at the deliberative session, so long as the subject matter remains the same. Although that decision is not binding on this court, the court agrees with the analysis and conclusion reached in this case. See also Moreau v. Exeter School District, 99-E-87 (Rock. Cty. Super. Ct., August 31, 1999) (stating that amendments may range from "a minor improvement, to a complete reversal, to a deletion," so long as the amended article is placed on the official ballot for a final vote).

Considering the plain language of RSA 40:13, and its legislative history, the court finds that the voters at a deliberative meeting have the authority to substantially amend warrant articles, even if an article is amended to one dollar.

Accordingly, the plaintiff's Petition: for a new vote to be held on issues originally raised in Articles 3, 4, 5, and 11 of the 2000 warrant is DENIED

So ORDERED.

Date: 5/1/00

[signed]
Peter H. Fauver
Presiding Justice

¹Both plaintiff and defendant agree that the proper defendant to this action is Oyster River School District, rather than Oyster River School Board. Accordingly, Motion to Amend Party is GRANTED.

Last update on 6-May-00 at 10:54 PM.

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

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