CORRECTION: Restraining Order NOT Yet Granted

A previous post today incorrectly stated that Rockingham Superior Court had granted a temporary restraining order against the Timberlane Regional School District.  This was incorrect.  The document I posted was a PROPOSED restraining order requested by the town of Sandown and Danville.  It has not yet been approved.

A judge will consider the matter on July 24, the scheduled date of a temporary hearing.

REQUEST for Restraining Order

My sincere apologies to my readers for misunderstanding the documents.

Advertisements

14 Comments

Filed under Sandown Issues

14 responses to “CORRECTION: Restraining Order NOT Yet Granted

  1. Curt Springer

    Selectmen do not speak for their towns and have no authority to spend money on lawyers and file suits against school districts over budgets and expenditures. School districts and towns are separate corporate bodies and selectmen have limited responsibility only for towns.

    Selectmen are required by law to raise the money required by school budgets and funding formulas, certified by the DRA, and pay it on an agreed schedule to the school district. That is the beginning and end of their responsibilities towards school districts.

    • Curt Springer

      BTW I live in Danville and I have communicated this to Rob Collins and Shawn O’Neill.

    • Erich Beyrent

      Are you saying this is an illegal misappropriation of funds?

      • Curt Springer

        I am saying that the selectmen spending town money on court filing fees and lawyer billable hours to sue the school district is a misappropriation of funds. Town funds should only be spent for town purposes and this is not a town purpose.

    • Mark Acciard

      Curt I would argue that this is somewhat different. The legislative body of the Town voted to restrict appropriated monies to the district for the purpose of operating Sandown Central. They further voted to close the school.

      Therefore the District is violating the expressed wishes of the Legislative body.

  2. Curt Springer

    Email to Danville BOS:

    Please treat this as correspondence from a Danville resident to the Danville Board of Selectmen:

    Ladies and Gentlemen:

    I hold you in the highest regard but in my opinion you have overstepped your authority with respect to your recent actions regarding the Timberlane Regional School District (TRSD):

    It was some time in the 19th century that school districts were separated from town governments to form separate corporations. See RSA 194:1, 2 and 3.

    The selectmen of a town are not the general agents of the town, and do not speak for the town or for its taxpayers regarding budgeting and spending by the district. The only role for the selectmen is to collect the tax money and give it to the district as certified by the Department of Revenue Administration (DRA). See RSA 195:14. There is no authority to withhold money for any reason. The selectmen derive their authority from the town and neither they nor the town have standing to bring suit against the school district, which is a separate corporation, over how it spends its money or manages its assets, and they lack authority to expend town funds for this purpose.

    Please note that at root this is the same argument that you made regarding the question of a selectman serving on a school district budget committee, they are different corporations with different concerns.

    Therefore I ask the following:

    — That you withdraw the request for an injunction against TRSD.

    — That you not use town funds to pay the filing fees or any billable hours that have accrued thus far. The law firm should eat them as they should have known better than to take this on. Failing that I point out to you that I have used my own funds for legal advice regarding town matters three times in the last five years or so.

    — I am told that you have not made the scheduled July 1 payment to the district. If that is correct, and if the reason is your displeasure with the TRSB, please make the payment in full forthwith, in compliance with RSA 195:14.

    — You have documented in your posted minutes of June 22 via email transcripts attached as addenda that you conducted a meeting over email on June 10-11 for the purpose of approving a letter that was sent to TRSB on June 12. This was contrary to RSA 91-A:2-a. Please acknowledge this breach in a public discussion, and also please familiarize yourselves with the circumstances and procedures for an emergency meeting as allowed by RSA 91-A:2 II. You could have achieved your goals on a timely basis with a legal meeting, including having one or more people phone in.

    Please understand that I am not endorsing the actions of the TRSB. It’s just that if I am displeased with them you can’t fight my battles for me, any more than I could enlist them to sue you about how you spend town money.

    Sincerely,
    Curt

    • Jc

      “The selectmen derive their authority
      from the town and neither they nor the town have standing to bring suit
      against the school district, which is a separate corporation, over how
      it spends its money or manages its assets, and they lack authority to
      expend town funds for this purpose.”

      Danville is not bringing suit against TRSD re: “how it spends it’s money or manages its assets” It is bringing a suit representing our town after our town voted to not expend $s
      on two WA. Thus the Selectman DID derive their authority from the town after the town’s majority voted failed to fund both WA. The selectman through the suit are protecting the voters wishes.

      • Curt Springer

        “Our town” does not vote in school district matters, that is the heart of the issue. Danville residents are Timberlane voters and Danville voters. These are two separate corporations. The selectmen have no authority to “protect the voters wishes” in Timberlane matters.

      • JC

        Our town engages TRSD district for educational services. As in, “SAU 55 serving the towns of Atkinson, Danville, Plaistow and Sandown.”

      • DG’s note: There was a reply to JC that imputed an identity to JC. I did not publish the comment because I respect the wishes of people who wish to remain anonymous on this site.

  3. Curt Springer

    I was informed that Danville is not holding up its scheduled payment to the district.

    • This should be confirmed but would not be unexpected. As I am a technical defendant in the suit, I am not going to comment on the merits or legal arguments, pro or con, but I do welcome an open forum about it here. Thank you for writing Curt.

    • Mr. Springer just posted on Support Timberlane that Danville has not withheld their July 1 payment to the district.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s