Appeal of JOHN W. and KATHLEEN A.M. EISENHAUER from action of the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of Watertown regarding a budget vote proposition.

Decision No. 18,466

(August 13, 2024)

Government Justice Center, attorneys for petitioner, Cameron J. Macdonald, Esq., of counsel

Ferrara Fiorenza, P.C., attorneys for respondent, Heather M. Cole, Esq., of counsel

ROSA., Commissioner.--Petitioners appeal from a determination of the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of Watertown (“respondent”) declining to place a proposition on a school district ballot.  The appeal must be dismissed.

Petitioners are taxpayers who reside within respondent’s district.  Prior to the events giving rise to this appeal, petitioners filed a lawsuit against respondent, among others, challenging the placement of a proposition on the 2020 school district election ballot.  The proposition proposed a tax on property within the district for the benefit of the Roswell P. Flower Memorial Library (the “library”) pursuant to Education Law § 259.  The Appellate Division, Fourth Department dismissed petitioners’ claims as without merit (Matter of Eisenhauer v Watertown City Sch. Dist., 208 AD3d 952, 955 [4th Dept 2022], appeal dismissed, 39 NY3d 944 [2022]).[1]

In March 2023, petitioners requested placement of the following proposition on respondent’s May 16, 2023 ballot:  “Shall the Board of Education of the Watertown City School District be directed to reduce the annual tax levy for the [library] from seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000.00) to zero dollars ($0.00) thereby eliminating the tax in its entirety?”  By resolution adopted April 4, 2023, respondent rejected petitioners’ application, reasoning that petitioners did not collect enough signatures.  Respondent further noted that “there may be further deficiencies and improprieties impacting the sufficiency of the [p]etition.”  This appeal ensued.  Petitioners’ request for interim relief was denied on May 9, 2023.

Petitioners argue that respondent improperly denied their petition as it contained the requisite number of signatures.  Petitioners further complain that respondent did not specify the petition’s other alleged deficiencies.  For relief, petitioners seek, among other things, that the proposition be placed on a future annual budget vote.

Respondent argues that the appeal should be dismissed for failure to join the library as a necessary party and as without merit.

With regard to the library’s necessary party status, a person or entity whose rights would be adversely affected by a determination in favor of a petitioner is a necessary party and must be joined as such (Appeal of Sutton, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,331; Appeal of Murray, 48 id. 517, Decision No. 15,934).  Joinder requires that a party be clearly named as a respondent in the caption and served with a copy of the notice of petition and petition, informing the party to appear in the appeal and to answer the allegations contained in the petition (Appeal of Sutton, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,331; Appeal of Murray, 48 id. 517).

While respondent argues that the outcome of this proceeding could adversely affect the library, petitioners merely seek to place a proposition on an annual election ballot.  The presence or absence thereof does not have an adverse effect on the library.  Although the library has an interest in the outcome of such a proposition, its rights would only be affected by a vote adverse to its interests (compare Appeal of Goltz, 39 Ed Dept Rep 766, Decision No. 14,374).

Turning to the merits, a board of education my reject a proposition if it does not fall within the power of the voters (Education Law § 2035 [2]).  In an appeal to the Commissioner, a petitioner has the burden of demonstrating a clear legal right to the relief requested and establishing the facts upon which he or she seeks relief (8 NYCRR 275.10; Appeal of P.C. and K.C., 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,337; Appeal of Aversa, 48 id. 523, Decision No. 15,936; Appeal of Hansen, 48 id. 354, Decision No. 15,884).

Petitioners have not demonstrated that their proposition to eliminate the library’s annual tax levy falls within the power of the voters.  Education Law § 259 (1) (b) (1) states, in relevant part, that

... whenever twenty-five qualified voters of a municipality shall so petition and the library board of trustees shall endorse, the question of establishing or increasing the amount of funding ... [for certain] librar[ies] ... shall be voted on at the next general election of such municipality.

In Matter of George F. Johnson Mem. Lib. v Town Bd. of Town of Union, the Appellate Division, Third Department held that the verbs “establish[] or increas[e]” do not authorize a voter proposition reducing or eliminating library funding.  The court specifically stated that it was “difficult to conceive how such terms could be interpreted to permit a ballot proposition decreasing or eliminating funding as [petitioners’] ballot proposition seeks to do” (55 AD3d 1036, 1038 [3d Dept 2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 702 [2009]; see 1981 Opinions of the State Comptroller, No. 81-167 [1981 WL 16740]).  Indeed, when the Legislature recently amended the number of signatures needed to place a proposition on the ballot, the sponsor described the bill as establishing “the number of petitioners necessary to call for a vote on increasing the amount of funding of the annual contribution for the operating budget of a registered public or free association library” (Sponsor’s Mem, 2024 S.B. 3594 [emphasis added]).  Thus, I find that respondent appropriately denied petitioners’ proposition as outside the scope of Education Law § 259 (1) (a).[2]

In light of this disposition, I need not address the parties’ remaining contentions.

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

END OF FILE