NOW COME Jere R. Beckman, et als, Plaintiffs in the above-entitled action, and by their attorney, state as follows:

Plaintiffs believe the facts as found by the Court are accurate. The November 16, 1999 vote was not related to any issue raised by the resolution of the Claremont lawsuit. It is a bond issue for a construction project that had been considered by the District, in essentially the same form, on at least two previous occasions. It was no more related to the Claremont lawsuit in November of 1999 than it was in March of 1999 or March of 1998 when previously brought before the voters.

The fact that the Board thought it might be an "easier sell" because of the projected revenues from the proposed Claremont distribution, does not bring the November meeting within the ambit of HB 111.

The legislative history is clear that this was a one-shot bill designed to help a local school district over the uncertainty then existing regarding the ability of a district to borrow "small amounts of money from local banks" and guarantee these loans. The law provided that the district did not have to go through the time and expense of having the Superior Court declare an emergency nevertheless, that kind of an emergency which was "raised by the resolution of the Claremont suit" had to exist.

Plaintiffs feel that the court correctly interpreted the law and the legislative history as they relate to the proper basis for calling any meeting and the fifty percent voter requirement in this instance.

Plaintiffs' believe, however, that the Court erred in its ruling that the district did not violate the requirement that any borrowing be limited to loans that mature prior to March 31, 2000.

In their earlier memo Plaintiffs reviewed the legislative history in which comments were made, over and over, that House Bill 111 was for a very specific purpose.

It was designed to assist "those towns and school districts which might have some obligation or need to borrow relatively small amounts of money on a stopgap basis to get through this transition...to permit...local banks to make loans to local school districts to help them over the tough time we are right now in." (Representative Burling) (emphasis added)

"...This was intended to be enabling legislation so that a local community bank...could make loans to them to help tide them over during this transitional period". (The Governor's Legal Counsel) (emphasis added)

"Moreover we are not talking about a great deal of money here. We are only looking at a 15-month window that is not---and there are going to be obligations that are going to mature March 31, 2000." (The State Banking Commissioner) (emphasis added)

"...The borrowing would occur at the $100,000 - $200,000 level...". (The Representative of the Municipal Association}

The legislation itself is absolutely specific: "Any obligation of any municipal government...and any obligation purchased or acquired on or after January 1, 1999 which mature prior to March 31, 200D, shall be a legal investment,...". (HB 111)

Section 2.3 of HB 111 is not independent from the first two sections. The entire Bill is an integrated legislative scheme to bail local school districts out of the uncertainty created by the Claremont decree. In the first two sections the Bill allows districts to borrow, if necessary, to get through to the next annual meeting and to guarantee that borrowing to the banks which will provide the money. But the borrowing is to be limited solely to those obligations which will mature prior to March 31, 2000.

How does a district go about doing that? If it truly relates to issues arising out of Claremont they may call a special meeting, and in this sole instance, they are relieved of the requirement of a Superior Court approval of "necessity".

The final consideration that the District warrant for the November meeting (introduced at the earlier hearing) asks for authority to issue the bond "in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Finance Act (RSA Chapter 33)". HB 111 amended Chapter 33 by adding a new section, RSA Chapter 33:19. Again, consistent with the legislative scheme described above. This section states "...any obligation and indebtedness incurred under this Chapter on or after January 1, 1999 which mature on or before March 31, 2000 shall be a valid and enforceable obligation...".

Thus, the Defendants in this case violated the statute in two aspects: The first, as the Court correctly found, was that the school construction bond was not an issue related to the Claremont decision. Since it was a special meeting called without Superior Court approval the fifty percent voter requirement applied.

But second, even if this was a Claremont related issue, bonding for that purpose is limited to short term borrowing and any related indebtedness must mature prior to March 31, 2000. The bond voted on November 16, 1999 is a twenty year bond for $19.9 million, clearly not a "small amount of money borrowed "from local banks".

Finally, Defendants claim that the later passage of the funding mechanism (HB 117) "resolved the educational funding crisis and removed the uncertainty for district voters". (Most recent Memo, p. 4) It is interesting to note, however, as did Counsel for Defendants at the hearing, that HB 117 has a sunsetting provision which makes any "resolution" a temporary thing. The "uncertainty" has not been removed.

Plaintiffs believe that this underlies the overall scheme of the legislature, and the limitation in HB 111 that any bonding by a district was to be short term.

Dated this 10th day at January, 2000.

Respectfully submitted,
JERE R. BECKMAN, ET ALS
By Their Attorney
[signed]
ANTHONY A. McMANUS, ESQUIRE

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
COUNTY OF STRAFFORD, SS.

On this 10th day of January, 2000, I hereby certify that a copy of the within has been mailed to Gordon B. Graham, Esquire, 220 Main Street, Salem, NH 03079.

[signed]
ANTHONY A. McMANUS, ESQUIRE

Last update on 13-Jan-00 at 11:22 PM.

file:///MinnieMouse/Desktop%20Folder/answer_memo.html

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