Appeal of Town of Troy

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2014-0094, Appeal of Town of Troy, the court
on January 21, 2015, issued the following order:

Having considered the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, the court
concludes that a formal written opinion is unnecessary in this case.

The Town of Troy (town) appeals an order of the New Hampshire State
Board of Education (BOE). The BOE denied a petition for declaratory judgment
filed by the town which sought a ruling to invalidate a vote by the Monadnock
Regional School District (MRSD). The town is a member of that district. Laws
1961, ch. 233. The town argues that: (1) the BOE’s decision is not consistent
with the language or purpose of the contested regulation; (2) due process
required that the town receive notice before the BOE voted on the town’s petition;
and (3) the articles of agreement established by the MRSD form a contract and
the actions taken by the MRSD violated the contract. We affirm.

We briefly summarize the record before us. The MRSD was established in
1961. Laws 1961, ch. 233. A change in the apportionment formula for operating
costs was approved at the annual district meeting in March 2013. At its July 18,
2013 meeting, the BOE adopted the following motion: “[T]hat the State Board of
Education, having found that the vote was properly noticed and the necessary
approval by the voters having been obtained, does now issue its certificate to the
Monadnock Regional Cooperative School District.” The minutes of the July
meeting also stated that issuance of the certificate “will provide the district with
conclusive evidence of lawful adoption of a change in the Monadnock Regional
Cooperative School District apportionment formula for operating expenses.”
Under the BOE’s administrative rules, any party to the BOE’s decision is
authorized to file a motion for rehearing within thirty days of the day of the
decision. N.H. Admin. Rules, Ed. 213.02.

More than seven months after the annual district meeting, the town filed a
petition for declaratory judgment with the BOE seeking a declaration that “the
amendment adopted at the 2013 annual meeting [of the MRSD] to the
Monadnock Regional School District allocation of expenses be declared null and
void and of no effect.” The town argued that because the revised apportionment
formula was neither proposed nor recommended by the MRSD board, it did not
comply with the requirements imposed by statute to set the apportionment
formula.

On November 26, 2013, the BOE issued its ruling in which it concluded
that it lacked jurisdiction to grant the relief requested in the town’s petition for
declaratory judgment. The BOE explained that the town’s petition requested
nullification of the March 2013 adoption of the revised apportionment formula, a
request for equitable relief that was outside the BOE’s jurisdiction. The BOE
further ruled that to the extent that the town’s petition might “be construed as a
motion to reconsider the BOE’s July 2013 decision certifying the vote and
approving the apportionment formula, the motion is significantly untimely and
therefore DENIED.”

RSA chapter 541 governs our review of the board’s decisions. See N.H.
Admin. Rules, Ed 213.01. Under RSA 541:13 (2007), we will not set aside the
board’s order except for errors of law, unless we are satisfied, by a clear
preponderance of the evidence, that it is unjust or unreasonable.

The record before us indicates that the MRSD board discussed the
petitioned article as early as January 8, 2013. The language of the proposed
article was approved at the February 9, 2013 meeting of the MRSD; the BOE
approved the proposed language at its February 20, 2013 meeting. The article
was adopted in March 2013 at the MRSD annual meeting. Given the public
nature of the proceedings, the town had notice of the proposed article before the
school district voted to revise the apportionment formula, and notice of the
school district’s action in approving the article.

Based upon our review of the BOE’s order, the town’s challenges to it,
and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that the town has not
demonstrated reversible error. Gallo v. Traina, 166 N.H. ___, ___ (decided
September 12, 2014) (appealing party has burden of demonstrating reversible
error).

Affirmed.

DALIANIS, C.J., and HICKS, CONBOY, LYNN, and BASSETT, JJ.,
concurred.

Eileen Fox,
Clerk

2