NOW COME Jere R. Beckman et als, plaintiffs in the above-entitled action, and by their attorney, move to amend their Petition by adding the following paragraphs:

16. Defendants appear to be relying on the legislation passed as House Bill 111 that allows local districts to call special meetings without court approval.

17. That legislation is narrow in scope. It was passed to allow districts "to address issues raised by resolution of the Claremont lawsuit".

18. The bond issue in question is not a matter that is related in any way to the Claremont lawsuit. This proposal has been before the voters of the district on two or three previous occasions over a number of years.

19. The legislation specifically validates only those "obligations and indebtedness incurred under this chapter on or after January 1, 1999 which mature on or before March 31, 2000.

20. The bond issue in question is a 20 year bond that clearly does not meet this limitation, and the district has exceeded the specific conditions of the authority granted in this legislation.

21. The legislative history of House Bill 111 makes it clear that the legislation is to permit short term borrowing of relatively small amounts of money, and to guarantee those loans in order to allow districts to meet their ongoing budget obligation to the next annual district meeting.

22. The bond issue in question is for close to $20 million and is clearly not what was intended by this legislation and is beyond the authority granted.

23. Defendants are not prejudiced by this amendment since the issues raised by the original Petition were the validity of the special meeting of November 16, 1999 and the statutory requirements for such meeting.

24. Plaintiffs were Pro se at the time the original Petition was drafted and filed.

25. Defendants' position on the adoption of the bond issue and their reliance on House Bill 111 was not made clear until the filing of their answer.

26. The amendment does not change the relief requested in Plaintiff's original Petition, which remains a prayer to invalidate the action taken at the special meeting of November 16, 1999.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs pray;

a. That the amendment be allowed.

b. For such other and further relief as may be just.

Dated this ________ day of December, 1999.

Respectfully submitted,
JERE R. BECKMAN, ET ALS
By Their Attorney

ANTHONY A. McMANUS, ESQUIRE

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
COUNTY OF STRAFFORD, SS.

On this _______ day of December, 1999, I hereby certify that a copy of the within Motion has been given to Gordon B. Graham, Esquire, 220 Main Street, Salem, NH 03073.

ANTHONY A. McMANUS, ESQUIRE

Last update on 29-Dec-99 at 7:36 PM.

http://www.orol.org/schools/orhs/issues/lawsuit/ss99e220/amend.html

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