|
Save Region 14 Elementary |
|
Reconsideration Not Reconfiguration |
|
Website Design and Hosting donated by Coasis® LLC www.coasis.com All contents are copyright © Coasis® LLC a Microsoft® Gold Certified Partner. All rights reserved. |
|
Pratt v Region 14... |
|
Pratt v. Region 14 Board of Education
In March of 1968, acting according to then-existing Connecticut General Statutes providing for the creation of regional school districts, the towns of Bethlehem and Woodbury established a temporary regional study committee. In April of 1968, the temporary regional study committee issued its final report for the proposed regional school district including its findings regarding the advisability of forming a region as well as a series of recommendations pertaining to the future organizational structure of the proposed region. The final report was subsequently submitted to both the State Board of Education and the respective towns for approval, mailed to every box holder in Bethlehem and Woodbury, and finally a public hearing was held to present the report. The question of regionalization was presented to the voters on May 20, 1968 with majority votes in both Bethlehem and Woodbury approving regionalization.
On page one of the final report, in bold-faced print, the temporary regional study committee outlined a series of EIGHT recommendations including but not limited to, two recommendations (hereafter "recommendation two" and "recommendation three"):
. . . That grades kindergarten through twelve be divided into elementary schools (grades K through 5), a middle school (grades 6 through 8), and a high school (grades 9 through 12).
. . . . . That grades K through 5 be housed in the elementary school buildings in Bethlehem and Woodbury.
In Atwood v. Regional School District No. 15, 169 Conn. 613 (1975), the Supreme Court determined that the language of sections 10-43 and 10-45 of the Connecticut General statutes compels the conclusion that the 'plan' consists of the recommendations found in the final report of the temporary study committee. CGS 10-47c states that the terms of the "plan" must be amended via referendum vote with each town in the region approving the amendment to the original plan.
Based on Atwood, CGS 10-47c, as well as the relevant statutory scheme relating to the formation of a regional school district to which 10-47c belongs, Part III, Chapter 164 (hereafter "Regionalization statutes"), the plaintiffs, Pratt and Scherf, have submitted that the Region 14 Board of Education did not have the legal authority to implement the "reconfiguration" of Region 14. The plaintiffs have argued that the reconfiguration eliminated the K through 5 elementary schools formed under the 1968 regionalization plan and replaced them instead with a consolidated Primary School in Bethlehem housing grades K-2 and a consolidated Intermediate school in Woodbury housing grades 3-5. The plaintiffs submit that reconfiguration amounts to a de-facto amendment of the regional plan for Region 14 and that the Region 14 Board of Education must FIRST seek approval of that amendment via a 10-47c vote in Bethlehem and Woodbury.
Prior to the release of the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Regional School District Number 12 v. Bridgewater (SC 18174) it was somewhat unclear as to what actually constituted an "amendment" to the Plan. The Atwood court found that an amendment must be "fundamental" to warrant a referendum vote. The Litchfield Superior court found that a "fundamental" amendment as defined by the Atwood Court did not require the Region 14 Board to hold a 10-47c vote on reconfiguration, specifically, that the "reconfiguration of the grades at the two elementary schools is not like a proposal to change the size of a regional board or a proposal to change the number of representatives from each town on the board. These amendments could have the direct affect of diluting the voting power of individual electors. Here the plaintiff's reconfiguration of the grades, like the proposal to issue bonds for a new high school, will have no direct affect on the voting rights of the individual electors."
A few days after the Litchfield Superior court released its decision, the Supreme Court decided the case of Regional School District Number 12 v. Bridgewater and subsequently clarified the amendment standard in question. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the Atwood Court's conclusion that the recommendations found in the final report constitute the Regional Plan, but found that there was no basis for the court's previous suggestion in Atwood that only those amendments "affecting the size of the board or the number of representatives from each town" warrant referenda approval. Furthermore, the Supreme Court states that "nothing in the relevant statutory scheme expressly grants regional school districts the power to create or modify the terms of a plan." Additionally, the Court determined that the legislature enacted 10-47c so that "the individual towns that had voted to join a regional school district in reliance on the recommendations of the study committee -- i.e, the "plan"-- would have the opportunity to vote on any change to an existing plan that is not incidental, regardless of the nature of the change."
According to the Supreme Court, whether or not a change is "merely incidental" must be determined on a case by case basis considering the following:
1. Is the proposal of a type that a reasonable person would expect it to be included in the original plan?
AND
2. Whether it is reasonably likely that the inclusion of the proposal in the original plan could have affected an elector's vote?
Appropriately, reargument was allowed to consider the implications of the Supreme Court's decision in Region 12 for Pratt v. Region 14. Based on the Supreme Court ruling in Region 12, the Litchfield Superior Court reversed its original ruling and found for the Plaintiffs, John Pratt and Susan Scherf. The Court found that the consolidation and subsequent elimination of two Plan designated Kindergarten through five elementary schools is a non-incidental change to the Region 14 1968 Regionalization Plan. According to CT general statute 10-47C and the Supreme Court ruling in Region 12, all non incidental changes to regional Plans MUST be amended via referendum vote and must be approved by EACH member town of the Region. Put simply, BOTH Bethlehem and Woodbury must separately vote to approve the amendment. This is consistent with the position Families for Region 14 has been advancing since late 2006.
On December 12, 2009, Judge John Pickard of the Litchfield Superior Court granted the Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief and ordered that the Region 14 Board of Education restore the K through five elementary schools in both Bethlehem and Woodbury as per the 1968 Regionalization Plan.
April 1968 Original Region 14 Regionalization Plan: Regional school study (April 1968).pdf (Document forming Region 14 in a 1968 referendum)
August 2006 Plaintiff’s Trial Brief: August 2006 Plaintiff’s Trial Brief.pdf August 2006 Supplemental Brief 10-220: August 2006 Supplemental Brief 10-220.pdf March 2009 Plaintiff’s Post-Trial Brief: March 2009 Plaintiff’s Post-Trial Brief.pdf July 2009 Supreme Court Ruling Region 12 v Bridgewater: July 2009 Supreme Court Ruling Region 12 v Bridgewater.pdf July 2009 Superior Court Ruling Pratt v Region 14 (Pre-Supreme Court/Re-Argument): July 2009 Superior Court Ruling Pratt v Region 14.pdf October 2009 Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law In Support of Motion to Re-Argue: October 2009 Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law In Support of Motion to Re-Argue.pdf December 2009 Final Superior Court Ruling Pratt v Region 14: December 2009 Final Superior Court Ruling Pratt v Region 14.pdf Link to Case Detail: http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/CaseDetail/PublicCaseDetail.aspx?DocketNo=LLICV074006100S
|
|
Save Region 14 Elementary |
|
Reconsideration Not Reconfiguration |
|
This website is optimized for Internet Explorer |
|
Top left to right: Shannon Tredennick, Jen Iannucci, Nancy Hawley, Neil Cable, Brian Krin, Michelle Brown, Mardie Ford, Kristen Briody, Karen Mullen, Carolan Dwyer, Bill Stuart, Sharon Benedict, Erica Barber, Pam Gengenbach, Alan Brown, Vivian Wainwright, Ed Wainwright |
|
Region 12 Save Our Schools (SOS) and Families for Region 14 (FFR14) Join Forces to Protect Voter Rights in Regional School Districts. |