TIVERTON — A Superior Court judge has denied an attempt by four petitioners to place a proposed electors' petition budget proposal on the ballot for the May 20 Financial Town Referendum (FTR).
As a result, it appears that there will be just one budget discussed at the Financial Town Hearing Thursday May 4 at 7 p.m. in the Tiverton Middle School Cafetorium, and one budget on the FTR ballot — the one put forth by the Tiverton Budget Committee. Unless, of course, there is some extraordinary and successful appeal of the judge's decision, an eventuality considered unlikely.
The Tiverton School Committee is meeting in executive session tonight, Wednesday, at 7 p.m. in the Tiverton High School to hear a report from the school committee's lawyer Stephen Robinson and discuss what to do next.
For about an hour Tuesday, lawyers for the town (Solicitor Anthony DeSisto) and for the four petitioners and the Tiverton School Department (Stephen Robinson and Vicki Bejma) debated their differences in front of Superior Court Judge Brian Van Couyghen.
The judge was to have delivered his decision Tuesday at 3:30 p.m., but delayed it until 9:30 Wednesday morning, when for about half an hour he delivered it orally from the bench.
According to Mr. DeSisto, in rendering his opinion, the judge reviewed the facts and the exhibits (which included the town charter, the notices of important dates in preparing the town's budget, the petitioners' docket, the budget committee's budget, and other materials), and the standards that in his view applied.
"The petition was void," said the judge, according to Mr. DeSisto, for the reason that the charter required that either a specific budget accompany the petition or petitioner's budget be remanded to the budget committee.
Instead, the petitioners called for their budget to be referred to the school committee and the town council for final determination (not the budget committee).
Mr. DeSisto said the judge denied the injunctive and mandamus relief the petitioners had sought, saying that they had failed to show "irreparable harm" would occur, apparently on the grounds that it would be money alone that would be lost.
"A question of money didn't arise to the level of immediate and irreparable harm," in the judge's opinion, Mr. Robinson said. "Money is hard to characterize as immediate and irreparable harm," he said, which is what you have to show in seeking the kind of judicial relief the petitioners were seeking.
The judge said the voters had a "compelling interest" and "needed confidence that the process was properly followed," said Mr. DeSisto.
Mr. Robinson said the case was decided on a "technicality, to avoid having the voters have a choice."
"The charter clause," involved in the case [Section 301] Mr. Robinson said, "Is almost incomprehensible."
"The judge found the petition fatally defective," Mr. Robinson said, "because the budget committee has the bottom-line say where the changes would be made, and the budget committee was not included. The petition said the budget should go back to the school committee and the town council."
Mr. Robinson said, that clause in the charter "is exceedingly obscure and highly ambiguous, and ambiguity should be resolved in favor of placing the matter on the ballot."
"I think the decision is disappointing," said Dr. Jerome Larkin, school committee chairman and one of the four petitioners. "The intention of Mr. Katz was to deny the voters a choice, and he succeeded. I doubt anyone will attend the Financial Town Hearing."
The other petitioners were Sally A. Black (a school committee member), and Joan Chabot and Randy Lebeau (both town council members — Ms. Chabot is council president
Justin Katz, a member of the budget committee, had filed the complaint against the petitioner's elector budget petition, that the Board of Canvassers invalidated, and that led to the appeal to Superior Court.
The petitioners said their intent "is to restore funding cut by the Tiverton Budget Committee from the original budget proposals made in January 2017 by the Tiverton Town Council and Tiverton School Committee."
The Budget Committee is proposing a total budget (for the schools and the town) of $49.4 million, and a proposed levy of $38.4 million.
That's less than the elector petitioners, who are proposing a total budget of $49.7 million, and a proposed levy of $38.8 million.
In short, the petitioners would have appropriated $248,499 more to the schools, and $59,461 more to the town than the budget committee.
Budget committee cuts, the petitioners said in support of their petition "were in funding to library services, the waste water treatment program, appropriations to community service organizations such as the Visiting Nurses Association, East Bay Community Action Program, Parents as Teachers and Newport County Women's Resources which provide the safety net for our most vulnerable citizens, the winter recreation program and the school department."