Atwood Et Al v Regional School District 15 - 1975

Argued October 8---decision released November 25, 1975

Action for a declaratory judgment determining
the validity of a referendum for the appropriation
of funds for the construction of a new regional
high school and "for other purposes, and for an
injunction, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Waterbury
and tried to the court, David M. Shea, J.; judgment in favor of the
and appeal by the plaintiffs. No error.

The plaintiffs, taxpayers and residents of the towns of Middlebury
and Southbury , appealed from a declaratory judgment which
determined that a referendum held in those towns for, inter
alia, the appropriation of funds for the construction of a new
regional high school and the authorization to issue bonds and
notes to defray that appropriation was valid . Middlebury had
approved the proposal by a plurality of 434 votes. South·
bury had rejected it by a plurality of 283 votes. The combined
votes resulted in a plurality of 151 votes in favor of the
proposal. The controlling issue here turned on whether the
construction of the new high school constituted an amendment
to the original plan for the establishment of th e regional school
district encompassing the two towns and thus, under the statute
( § 10-47c) dealing generally with amendments to such plans,
required approval by a majority of the votes cast in each town,
or whether the proposal to issue bonds for the construction of
the new high school fell into the category of "bond issues," and
needed , under the statute ( § 10-56) dealin g specifically with
bond issues, the approval of only a majori ty of the votes cast
in the district as a whole. Since it is a well-established principle
of statutory construction that specific terms governing a given
subject prevail over general language and since an amendment
to § 10-56 removed the exercise of the powers set forth in ~ 10-56
from the coverage of § 10-47c, § 10-47c must be construed to
apply only to fundamental amendments to the terms of the
regional school district plan and not, as here, to the Issuance
of bonds for the construction of new facilities. Accordingly
since the issuance of the bonds for the construction of th e new
high school required only a plurality of the votes cast in th e district,
the referendum was valid.

Standing of the plaintiffs as taxpayers, discussed.

NOVEMBER, 1975 613

Atwood v, Regional School District No. 15

MARY ATWOOD ET AL. V. REGIONAL S CHOOL
DISTRICT No. 15 ET AL.

HOUSE, C. J ., LOISELLE, BODANSKI, LONGO a n d BARBER, JS.

The appellants filed a motion for reargument
which was denied.

Judicial district of Waterbury and tried to the court,

David M. Shea, J .; judgment in favor of the defendants
and appeal by the plaintiffs. No error.
Kenneth H. Murray, for the appellants (plaintiffs)

Thomas L. Brayton, with whom was J ohn J.
Cotter, for the appellee (named defendant).

BARBER, J . The plaintiffs, taxpayers of the towns
of Middlebury and Southbury, brought this action
in the Superior Court seeking a declaratory judgment
to determine whether a referendum held in
those towns resulted in an authorization for the
appropriation of funds for the purchase of land ,
for the construction of a new regional high school,
and for alterations to the present high school, and in
an authorization to issue bonds and notes to defray
that appropriation. The plaintiffs also sought incidental
injunctive relief. The court overruled a
claim that the plaintiffs lacked the necessary
standing as taxpayers to maintain the action and
decided that the referendum resulted in a valid
appropriation and authorization.
The plaintiffs have appealed, raising the issue of
whether th e referendum requir ed a majority vote
of the regional school district as a whole, pursuant
to General Statutes § 10-56, or a majority of each
town, pursuant to General Statutes § 10-47c. The
parties submitted the ease to the trial court upon
a written stipulation of facts .
On December 18, 1968, the voters of Middlebury
and Southbury by referenda approved a proposal
to join their school systems into (kindergarten
through grade 12) regional school system, to be
known as Regional School District No. 15. Prior
to the referenda a temporary regional school study
committee had been established pursuant to General
Statutes § 10-39, as in effect at that time. The
temporary regional school study committee performed
its designated function, holding meetings and
submitting a report to the participating towns of
Middlebury and Southbury and the state board of
education, al as required by General Statutes
§ 10-43, as in effect at the time. The report of the
study committee recommended, amoung other things,
that grades 9-12 be housed in the existing Southbury
high school. Subsequent to the referenda, Regional
School District No. 15 became operative in the two
towns, its affairs being administered by a regional
board of education pursuant to the provisions of
General Statutes 10-46.

In October, 1973. the regional board of education
submitted a report recommending the purchase,
building and equipping of a new school complex for
Regional School District No. 15 to be located in the
town of Southbury and to be known as Pomperaug
Regional High School. After informational public
meetings were held in both towns to explain the pro-
posal, a referendum was held December 11, 1973,
presenting the question: "Shall Regional School
District No.15 appropriate eleven million seven
hundred thirtenn thousand dollars, $11,713,000,
for purchase of land, construction of a new regional
high school, and alterations to the present high
school, and issue bonds and notes to defray such
appropriation?" Middlebury approved the proposal
by a plurality of 434 votes, and Southbury rejected
it by a plurality of 283 votes. The combined votes
resulted in a plurality of 151 votes in favor of the
proposal. Regional School District No. 15 maintains
that a majority vote in the regional school district
as a whole was sufficient to approve the proposal
pursuant to General Statutes § 10-56. Subsequent
to the referendum but prior to the bringing of this
action, Regional School District No. 15 actually
issued tax anticipation notes, purchased real estate,
and paid certain items of expense under the construction
agreements for said building.

It appears from the stipulation of facts that the
plaintiffs are residents, electors owning real estate,
and taxpayers of the towns of Middlebury and
Southbury who have an interest in all the expenditures
made by Regional School District No. 15.
It is further stipulated that total reimbursable
funds to th e regional school district as a result of
the bond issue will he $9,178,000. The balance
required to be made up by th e participating towns
will amount to $2,535,000, which will be required to
be paid from general funds of the towns to which
th e plaintiffs pay their taxes.

The plaintiffs' right to seek a declaratory judgment
involv es the jurisdiction of the cour t. Rothkopf
v. Danbury, 156 Conn. 347, 352, 242 A.2d 771;
Riley v. Liquor Control Commission, 153 Conn. 242,
248, 215 A.2d 402. A question of jurisdiction once
raised must be considered on appeal. C.8.E.A., Inc.
v. Connecticut Personnel Policy Board, 165 Conn.
448, 452, 334 A.2d 909. The defendants raised the
question of jurisdiction before the trial court and
have pursued it before this court.

An action for a declaratory judgment is a special
proceeding. General Statutes § 52-29. Practice
616 NOVEMBER, 1975 169 Conn 613
Atwood v, Regional School Distriet No. 15

Now we turn to the principal issue, which involves
consideration of several sections of part III of
chapter 164 of the General Statutes, pertaining to
the establishment and operation of regional school
districts. A brief preliminary discussion of portions
of the statutory scheme set out in part III
will aid in understanding the conflicting claims of
the parties.

The procedure for establishing a regional school
district is as follows : First, a temporary study
committee is appointed by the legislative bodies
of the towns involved to study the advisability of
Book § 309 provides that no declaratory judgment
may be rendered upon the complaint of any person
"unless he has an interest , legal or equitable, by
reason of danger of loss or of uncertainty as to his
rights or other jural relations." A plaintiff seeking
a declaratory judgment must allege and prove more
than that he is a taxpayer and has an interest in
the expenditures involved. Gannon v , S anders, 157
Conn. 1, 7, 244 A.2d 397; Goyle v, Housing
Authority, 151 Conn. 421, 424, 198 A.2d 709. To
have standing, a taxpayer must prove that he is
directly affected in a pecuniary manner . Bassett
v, Desmond, 140 Conn. 426, 432, 101 A.2d 294;
74 Am. Jur. 2d, Taxpayers' Actions, § 20. Compare
Rothkopf v, Danbury, supra, 354, where the plaintiffs
claimed to have standing "in view of their
direct voice in the affairs of town government,"
and this was held to be insufficient. It is clear, given
the stipulated facts in this case, that the proposed
bond issue would increase the plaintiffs' taxes to
some extent. The trial court correctly ruled that
the plaintiffs have the requisite interest to maintain
this action.


The basic conflict between the parties involves
two statutes restricting the powers of the regional
board. Seetion 10-56 permits the board to issue
bonds to raise funds for the building of schools,
but requires a referendum beforehand with a
plurality of the dis trict as a whole approving th e
issuance.' Section 1O-47c provides that, with certain
exceptions, " the terms of the plan approved through
establishing a regional school district. General
Statutes §§ 10-39, 10-40. The temporary study
committee prepares a final report which contains
its findings and recommendations concerning the
towns to be included, the grade levels to be provided,
the facilities to be provided, the size of the board
and the number of representatives from each town,
estimates of th e cost, and similar matters.
§ 10·43 (a) . The state board of education examines
the report, determines whether " the proposed plan"
complies with the pertinent state regulations, and
either accepts or rejects "the recommendations of
the committee." § 10-43 (b). If the recommendations
are accepted by the state board, the towns
involved then hold referenda, the question presented
being whether a regional school district shall be
established "in accordance with the plan approved
by the state board." § 10·45. Once established, a
regional board "may build, add to or equip schools
for the benefit of the towns comprising the district."


Referenda pursuant to section 10-45" may be
amended only after referenda in each town in the
district, with a plurality in each town approving
the amendment. '
The plaintiffs point out that the report of the
study committee prior to the establishment of
Regional School District No, 15 made no mention
of the construction of a new high school, and, in
erect buildings and equip the same/for school purposes, if 80 authorized
b)' referendum. Such referendum shall be conducted in accordance
with the procedure provided in section 10-41c except that any
person entitled to vote under section 7·6 may vote and the question
shall be determined by the majority of those persons -voting in the
regional school district as a whole. . . • " (Emphasis added.)

~ II[General Statutes ] Sec. 1O·47c. AMENDMENT OF PLAN.

With the
exception of the terms which pertain to the capital contribution of
member towns, the transfer of property to the regional school dis-
trict, the grades included and the towns to be served by the regional
school district, the terms of the plan approved through referenda.
pursuant to section 10-45 may be amended as follows: If a regional
board of education finds it advisable to amend the plan or if the
legislative body of a town served by the regional board of education
requests amendment of such plan, th e regional board of education
shall prepare a report on the proposed amendment, including the
question to be presented, file a copy with the state board of education
and the clerk of each member town and make copies of such
report available to the public at a district meeting called to present
the plan . After such public hearing, the board shall set the date
for referenda which shall be held simultaneously in each member
town between the hours of six a.m. and eight p.m. At least thirty
days before the date of the referenda, the regional board of education
shall notify the town clerk in each member town to call the
referendum on the specified date to vote on the specified question.
The warning of such referenda shall be published, the vote taken
and the results thereof canvassed and declared in the same manner
as is provided for the election of officers of a town, except that
absentee voting shall not be permitted in other than a special or
regular election. The town clerk of each town shall certify the vote
of his town to the regional board of education. If the majority vote
in each town of the diltrict is in favor of the proposed amendment
to the plan, such amendment shall take effect immediately."
(Emphasis added.)

NOVEMBER, 1975 619
Atwood 11. Regional School District No. I:i

The plaintiffs point out that the report of the
study committee prior to the establishment of
Regional School District No. 15 made no mention
of the construction of a new high school, and in
fact, recommended that the existing Southbury
high school serve as the regional high school.
Therefore, plaintiffs contend, the proposal to construct
a new high school constitutes an amendment
to the plan approved by the referenda of December
18, 1968, and may be approved only by a plurality
in each town. The school district, on the other hand,
contends that the proposal to issue bonds for the
construction of the new high school falls into the
category of "bond issues," and need only be
approved by a majority in the district as a whole,
pursuant to ~ 10-56.
The defendant contends that the provisions of
~ 10-47c do not apply to it, basing its argument upon
the history of part III. Sections 10-56 and 10-47c
originated as two of the twenty-eight sections of
the Public Acts 1969, No. 698, which repealed the
prior statutes concerning the establishment and
operation of regional school distri cts, and substituted
what is now all of part III. Public Act No. 698
introduced the concept of a "plan" for the regional
district. Since the referenda establishing Regional
School District No. 15 were held prior to the enactment
of Public Act No. 698, the question presented
was not whether the "proposed plan approved by
the state board of education" should be adopted,
but whether "a regional school distriet . . . for the
purpose of providing the necessary facilities and
administering grades K through 12" should be
established. Public Acts 1965, No. 411, ~ 3.
Although ~ 10-47c provides for the amendment of
the "terms of the plan approved through referenda,"
the fact that the December 18, 1968 referenda did
not mention a "plan" does not, despite the defendant's
argument to the contrary, automatically
exempt Regional School District No. 15 from the

620 NOVEMBER, 1975 169 Conn 613
Atwood e. Regional School Dist rict No. 15

Provisions of that section. Although Public Act
No. 698 contains no definition of the term "plan, "
the language of §§ 10-43 and 10-45 compels the con-
clusion that the "plan" consists of the recommendations
found in the final report of the studycommittee.
The recommendations of the study committee for
Regional School District No. 15,
including those concerning the use of then existent
high school facilities, constitute " terms of the plan"
for the district as that phrase is used in § 10-47c.
The defendant also argues that the provisions of
Public Act No. 698 should not be applied retroactively
to previously existing districts, but in so
arguing it has apparently overlooked § 10-63h
which specifically applies Public Act No. 698 to
existing districts .

Merely determining that the provisions of § 10-47c
literally apply to the proposal to construct a new
high school in Regional School District No. 15 does
not conclude the issue. The provisions of § 10-56
also literally apply to th e issuing of the bonds necessary
to build the high school. Both sections cannot
be construed as governing the procedure for
approving the proposed project. Such a construc-
tion would require first a plurality in each town
to approve the construction of the school, and then
a plurality in th e district as a whole to approve the
issuance of the necessary bonds. The second
approval, though explicitly required by § 10-56,
would be reduced to a meaningless formality.
Separate parts of an act should, so far as possible,
be reconciled and given a reasonable construction.
Hutchison v, Board of Zoning Appeals, 140 Conn.
381, 385, 100 A.2d 839. Courts should not adopt
a construction of a statute leading to "difficult and
possibly bizarre results." City Savings Bank v,

169 Conn 613 NOVEMBER, 1975
Atwood e. Regional School Distri ct No. 15
621
Lawler, 163 Conn. 149, 159, 302 A.2d 252; Muller v.
Town Planning &'; Z oning Oommission, 145 Conn.
325, 331, 142 A.2d 524.

By its own terms, § 1O.47~does not provide th e
sole procedure for amendment of the "terms of the
plan;"- in that it excludes from its provision those
terms relating to grade levels to be provided, towns
to be included,. and other specified matters. It is
not unreasonable to suppose that terms of the plan
relating to areas other than those specifically
excluded were also intended to be excepted from
the provisions of ~ 10-47c. This supposition is supported
by th e fact that though ~ 10-47c refers to
amendments of the terms of the plan generally,
~ 10-56 specifically provides a procedure for the
approval of bond issues. "It is a well-settled principle
of construction that specific terms covering
the given subject matter will prevail over general
language of the same or another statute which might
otherwise prove controlling. Charlton. Press, In c.
v. Sullivan, 153 Conn. 103, 110, 214 A.2d 354. Where
there are two provisions in a statute, one of which
is general and desigued to apply to cases generally,
and the other is particular and relates to only one
case or subject within the scope of a general provision,
then th e particular provision must prevail;
and if both cannot apply, the particular provision
will be treated as an exception to the general provision.
K elly v , Dewey, 111 Conn. 281, 292, 149 A.
840." Meriden v , Board of Tax Review, 161 Conn .
396, 401-402, 288 A.2d 435. Further support for
the conclusion that bond issues were intended to be
exempt from ~ 10-47c is found in Public Act
No. 74-239 which inserted into ~ 10-56 th e following
language: "The exercise of any or all of the powers
set forth in this section shall not be construed to
be an amendment of a regional plan pursuant to
. .. section 1O-47c." " [A]n amendment which in
effect construes and clarifies a prior statute must
be accepted as the legislative declaration of the
meaning of the original act." Hartford v, Suffield,
137 Conn. 341, 346, 77 A.2d 760; see also Erlenbau,gh
v. United States, 409 U.S. 239, 243-44, 93 S. Ct. 477,
34 L. Ed. 2d 446, and Brown v. Cato, 147 Conn. 418,
421, 162 A.2d 175.

The removal from the coverage of ~ 1O-47c of
those "terms of the plan" relating to the facilities
to be provided by the region and estimates of their
cost, when combined with the four specific exceptions
found in the statute itself, leaves some question
as to what remains within its coverage. Clearly,
those recommendations of the study committee
which concern the size of the regional board, and
the number of representatives from each town on
the board, can only be altered in accordance with
~ 1O-47c. That the extra ordinary requirement of
approval by a plurality in each town is a prerequisite
to such fundamental changes is not surprising,
since such changes directly affect the voting
rights of each individual elector. Other matters
( of fundamental importance, such as the formation
"or dissolution of a regional district; ~~ 10-45,
1O-63a; the expansion of a district; ~ 10-47b (b);
or the admission of a new town into the district;
~~ 10-39, 10-45; similarly require a plurality
approval by each town involved. We conclude that
~10-47c applies only to fundamental amendments
of the terms of the plan and does not apply to the
issuance of bonds for the construction of new
facilities.

. There is no error .

In this opinion the other judges concurred.