Temporary Injunction Denied. Towns may not have standing to sue.

Here is the judge’s decision on Sandown and Danville’s request for a temporary injunction against the TRSD.

Order 218-2015-CV-00706



Filed under Sandown Issues

9 responses to “Temporary Injunction Denied. Towns may not have standing to sue.

  1. wdr

    Maybe he was thinking of another district when he factored in his decision…I did notice a lot of “Sanborn” references in his statement…

    • Judge Schulman is an absolutely outstanding judge. He wrote a very clear decision. I didn’t notice any Sanborn errors…

      • Mark Acciard

        I notice something in the Order. On page 2, bottom it says that Article 2 and 11 were defeated by the voters, Pages 4 & 5 talk about the District’s Counsel admitting that if these articles are defeated, the District can not operate school, Yet on page 6 top it says these two Articles were PASSED without amendment

      • Without going back to read it, could he have meant they were passed at Deliberative without amendment?

  2. wdr

    Just typographical errors if you will. If you read the very first paragraph..”…the towns of Sanborn and Danville…”. Then on the on his page 2 “Overview” – “Timberlane is a cooperative school district comprised of four towns including Sanborn and Danville…” – sorry, my mother used to work at a small newspaper years ago and I used to go in and proofread articles after school sometimes…I still pick up on “minor” details like this all the time!

  3. Curt Springer

    I would change the title to be “Towns most likely don’t have standing to sue.” Yes he gave them 30 days to respond but he basically denied any point that they might reasonably make.

    I do hope my selectmen and yours will not spend more tax dollars on lawyers trying to come up with tortured logic about why they should have standing.

  4. Curt Springer

    And even if he had found standing the judge would have denied the motion for a preliminary injunction and based on his decision it is hard to imagine that they would prevail after a hearing on the merits. The judge is doing us taxpayers a favor by putting an end to this effort now, assuming that the selectmen let it drop.

  5. wdr

    Let’s look at it all from this perspective. Way back when it was originally proposed by Metzler et al that by shutting down SC it would be a cost savings of around $744,000. And the voting public were led to believe that the school would lie vacant. It was proposed that more research should be done (Article 12, March 10, 2015) to make sure there would be enough room to consolidate SC into SN but the majority of the voting public disagreed with that assumption because we were all misled and had the wool pulled over our eyes by Metzler (save for the majority of Sandown voters). And lo’ and behold when it actually came time to do the research it was determined that indeed there would not be enough room to consolidate both schools. Thus the incarnation of the TLC, pre-K and Kindergarten “consolidation” into SC. I ask – is there still going to be a net savings of 3/4 of a million dollars by doing this? I think we were all fleeced on this account. (Oh, and by the way – seeing that SC stays open, are we going to anticipate adding into the 2016/17 budget to spend $416,000 for kitchen repairs/upgrades, or will that be covered by the surplus along with the sprinkler system for SN?)
    Now bear with me – this isn’t just “sour grapes” here – I would like you all to think about this, and I mean really put some thought into this flawed voting process. What if it was an issue that affected the children of your town but had no affect for the majority of the children from the other 3 towns. You would hope the entire voting district would actually put some concerted thought into these ballot questions pertaining to that one town. But in all reality it turns into a 3 against 1 beat down. Such as the case from this past March where Sandown voted in a nearly 3 to 1 ratio to approve “Conduct Impact and Consolidation Plan…” yet the rest of the district overwhelmingly rejected this. How could this process be considered democratically fair? Listen folks, we weren’t asking much out of that question. To the 1058 voters of Atkinson, Danville and Plaistow that voted “YES” to approve the study – thank you, we appreciate your actually aiming your thoughts and concerns to the children that will ultimately be affected! And to the 2668 against it shame on you for not thinking outside your own little box. Your next trip to the ballot booth please be sure not to vote with spite but rather please be more aware of the facts. Needless to say, although Article 12 was shot down during the election, Metzler still went against the will of the majority and created the “Sandown Consolidation Committee” where, guess what? They created a Consolidation Plan and proposed it 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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s