by Linda Brenckle
The Regional School Committee (RSC) last night adjourned without taking action on the March 17th request of Northborough Town Manager, Mr. John Coderre, for the RSC to initiate a declaratory judgment to resolve the question of allocation of the MSBA reimbursement. Mr. Coderre summarized his thoughts succinctly when he said, “By doing nothing, they are doing something.” The adjournment amounted to declining Northborough’s request.
Attorney Thomas A. Mullen opened the special meeting by summarizing his sense of the case and explaining the declaratory judgment action, which would declare the rights and liabilities of both parties. He explained that the result could be appealed. He recommended that the RSC not initiate the declaratory judgment. “You don’t have a dog in the fight,” he said. In his view the disagreement is between the towns of Northborough and Southborough and, although the RSC might be named if either town files, the RSC could answer that it would not take a position. Mr. Mullen believes the question of whether the Regional Agreement or Chapter 70B supersedes is complex with little precedent in law. He suggested the RSC avoid the expense and the appearance of suing constituent towns.
RSC member Lynne Winter voiced a concern that resonated through committee comments, “[seeking a declaratory judgment] is a serious step to take…how does each town perceive the action we might take…a declaratory judgment doesn’t keep us in the middle.” Susan Sartori, however, voiced a dissenting opinion when she said, “Northborough doesn’t think we’re being neutral [by not seeking a declaratory judgment]”. In the end, the RSC vote to adjourn was unanimous.
The disbursement of the MSBA funds has been in question since 2003 but it now comes to the forefront for Northborough residents who will be asked to vote on Article 22 of the Town Warrant to authorize use of $100,000 for legal fees to seek a declaratory judgment. Mr. Coderre said this is Northborough’s next step.
Watch for upcoming posts on the history of the issue at hand.
Legal Position Offered by Northboro Citizen William C. Jeas
April 1, 2010 (and as previously dated same position since 2007)
TO: Northboro Appropriations Committee Chairman Elaine Kelly
Subject: The Legal Basis for Allocation & Distribution of State Aid back to the Two Towns for the Algonquin H.S. Construction Project is Rooted in Constitutional Law as Delineated in Appropriation Law, and its Legal Acts by Citizen-Appropriators’ Ballot Box Votes.
Algonquin Regional High School(ARHS) officials believe some sort of reimbursement compromise should be negotiated, or some other means relied upon for the allocation of State Aid for the ARHS Construction Project – yet there’s no such legitimate basis to “compromise”; the only basis is…Constitutional Law, and the laws embedded in the democratic legal acts for appropriations.
The basis for State reimbursement is found in Appropriation Law,…not revenue law, nor contract law. That is the basis to “allocate” State Bldg Aid, and to be accomplished in the same relative proportions as each of the two Towns’ “Citizen-Appropriators” gave of their original democratic Ballot Box Prop 2.5% Override assent in their Appropriations; and, to thus allowed the “Raising of Revenues” from its citizens for the Algonquin High School construction project. Nothing can be any more simple, and pervasive to understand, and accept in our citizen-controlled democracy from which all taxing matters are decided in a town; done so, always and exclusively by the town’s citizen-legislators and citizen-appropriators, at a legislative session (i.e., Town Meeting and Prop. 2.5% Ballot Box).
Thus, this is the only authoritative basis on how the relative distribution of State Aid shall be allocated back to the two Towns. Allocation is to be in the “same proportion” as legally voted upon in the original ARHS appropriation. No other basis of distribution of State monies is acceptable nor a lawful basis to Northboro citizens. (re. the Mass. Constitution & U.S. Constitution).
Follow the …Constitution. Follow “Appropriation Law.” The Constitution and the Town voters’ ballots cast for the original Prop 2.5% Override “Appropriation” for the ARHS construction project set into motion, and established the authoritative legal basis, under “Appropriation Law” by citizens to “raise the revenue” through taxation. This legal “appropriation act” by Town citizens stands above, and rule supreme over all other beliefs, with respect to how to quantitatively allocate the State Aid reimbursement back to the Town of Northboro. It’s to be allocated in the same exact proportion as the same percentage Northboro citizens voted upon in their Prop. 2.5% Debt Override sharing of the Debt. No other basis shall be allowed. To otherwise, is fraught with legal objection.
Recommendation:
Kindly request this citizen-appropriator position be communicated to Town Counsel, should Town Counsel be consulted for an opinion
Respectfully Submitted,
William C. Jeas, a Northboro Citizen-Appropriator
Northboro, MA
508-393-3518
billjeas@sprintmail.com