NOW COMES the Respondent, Oyster River School Board by its attorneys Soule, Leslie, Kidder, Sayward & Loughman and for the reasons set forth below and contained in the attached Memorandum respectfully requests this Honorable Court reconsider its December 27, 1999 decision.

1. In their amended pleadings the Petitioners alleged that 1999 Chapter 2:3 was narrow in scope and that it was passed "to address issues raised by the resolution of the Claremont lawsuit." See, Motion to Amend, Paragraph 17.

2. The Petitioners' allegation misquotes the statute and ignores its legislative history which was only summarily reviewed by the Court. Chapter 2:3 allowed special school and town meetings to address "any issue raised by the resolution of the Claremont lawsuit." (Emphasis added).

3. There is a detailed record in the legislative history construing this language that specifically illuminates the bill's sponsor, Peter Burling's intent that the language be as broad and unlimiting as possible and that the Finance Committee "concurred" with the sentiment that the language "any issue raised by the resolution of Claremont" meant that under the legislation there was "nothing a second meeting couldn't do".

4. The Court's decision that the Legislature's limits on the actions to be taken at a special meeting under Chapter 2:3 prevented the bond vote here does not consider the specific legislative history and should be reconsidered.

5. Further, the Petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof to establish that the Oyster River School vote of November 16 to consider the affordability of a bond in view of the resolution of the Claremont lawsuit did not fall within the broad legislative authorization in Chapter 2:3 that districts and towns could hold a special meeting to consider "any issue raised by the resolution of the Claremont lawsuit".

6. Finally, the record and the evidence reveal that at the first session of the annual School District meeting on February 2, 1999 members of the public and the Petitioner Jere Beckman himself urged the School District to delay voting on the bond until after the Claremont lawsuit was resolved. In addition, letters to the Editor and columns in the local newspapers leading up to and following the District's March vote cited the uncertainty of the Claremont lawsuit as a reason for delaying or defeating the bond vote thereby tying the Oyster River School District's subsequent November 16 vote, at issue here, directly into the resolution of the Claremont lawsuit.

WHEREFORE, the Respondents respectfully request that this Honorable Court:

(a) Reconsider its decision and dismiss the Petitioners' request to overturn the vote of over 3000 voters of the Oyster River School District approving the bond issue;

(b) Schedule a hearing at the soonest possible convenience if the court is not persuaded by the content of this motion; and

(c) For such other and further relief as the Court deems just.

Respectfully submitted this 5th day of January 2000.

THE OYSTER RIVER SCHOOL BOARD,
By Their Attorneys,
Soule, Leslie, Kidder, Sayward & Loughman
By: [signed]
Gordon B. Graham
220 Main Street
Salem, NH 03079
(603) 898-9776
N.H. Bar No. 981

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion to Reconsider has this day been forwarded to Plaintiffs counsel, Anthony McManus at 100 Central Avenue, Dover, NH 03820

[signed]
Gordon B. Graham

Last update on 8-Jan-00 at 11:10 PM.

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

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