2009-360, Charles P. Forsberg & a. v. Kearsarge Regional School District

from our decision addressing a similar issue in

(

School District (school district), is a cooperative school district consisting of the School District, 156 N.H. 560 (2007). The respondent, Kearsarge Regional

The following relevant facts are supported by the record or are taken

Sullivan, J.) dismissing their petition for declaratory judgment. We affirm. the Kearsarge Regional School District, appeal an order of the Superior Court DALIANIS, J. The petitioners, Charles P. Forsberg and other residents of

for the respondent. F. Loughman and Maureen L. Pomeroy on the brief, and Ms. Loughman orally), Soule, Leslie, Kidder, Sayward & Loughman, P.L.L.C., of Salem (Barbara

the Supreme Court under Rule 33(2), by brief and orally, for the petitioners. Charles P. Forsberg, non-lawyer representative appearing by approval of to press. Errors may be reported by E-mail at the following address:

page is: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme. CHARLES P. FORSBERG & a.

No. 2009-360 editorial errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion goes Merrimack Hampshire, One Charles Doe Drive, Concord, New Hampshire 03301, of any Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme Court of New ___________________________

a.m. on the morning of their release. The direct address of the court's home reporter@courts.state.nh.us. Opinions are available on the Internet by 9:00

well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as p. 2 Municipal Budget Committee in the year 2007 and beyond.” operating budget amount, other than [that proposed by] the School Board and the year 2006-2007, so that there appears at least one additional choice of

2009), and, therefore, is unlawful. that this section of the charter conflicts with RSA chapter 49-B (2003 & Supp.

“The Petitioners desire that the following question be put before the voters in

section XI, A(5)(e) of the charter permits such recommendations, they contend

there was a heading called a “preamble summary” on the petition, which read: defeated by a vote of 2,671 to 851. article to amend the charter was enclosed inside a border. Outside the border, 40:13, IX(b) (Supp. 2009). On the petition, the text of the proposed warrant

article. The trial court dismissed their petition. This appeal followed. the official ballot; and (2) remove the preamble summary from the warrant the school board and municipal budget committee (MBC) recommendations to article on the official ballot. Although the petitioners do not dispute that lawful to add the school board and MBC recommendations to the warrant

Committee] does not recommend.” The proposed charter amendment was unsupported by the evidence or legally erroneous. question of law, which we review de novo. Cf. Town of Hooksett v. Baines, 148 judgment unless its decision is an unsustainable exercise of discretion, or is Whether the charter conflicts with RSA chapter 49-B constitutes a incurred or mandated by law, and reduced by one-time expenditures. RSA

superior court, arguing, among other things, that it was unlawful to: (1) add The petitioners first argue that the trial court erred in ruling that it was

Canaan, 147 N.H. 623, 624 (2002).

following the text of the proposed amendment were parenthetical notations We will not disturb a trial court’s dismissal of a petition for declaratory budget adjusted for debt service, contracts, and other obligations previously 2007 official ballot, but without the preamble summary language. In addition, other budget proposals. A “default budget” is the previous year’s operating automatically include an option to vote for a “default budget” in addition to the

Thereafter, Forsberg and others petitioned for declaratory relief in

The proposed charter amendment was placed as a warrant article on the

procedures for voting on budget proposals so that the official ballot would

charter (the charter).

In 2006, Forsberg initiated a citizen petition to amend the charter

Wilmot. In 1997, the school district voters adopted a home rule municipal towns of Bradford, Newbury, New London, Springfield, Sutton, Warner and with the general laws or the constitution of this state. p. 3 the resulting charter is neither in conflict with nor inconsistent municipal charter relative to their form of government so long as

interpreted to allow towns and cities to adopt, amend, or revise a

stated purpose. Accordingly, this chapter shall be strictly the greatest extent possible in the effectuation of this chapter’s state shall . . . be construed to be consistent with this chapter to

government as set forth in this chapter. The general laws of this

that necessary to carry out the amendment of a charter or form of any power in, or confer any power upon, any city or town beyond interest. . . . Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to create

articles unrelated to appropriations, such as the one at issue here. procedures and practices when there is a corresponding state permits the school board and the MBC to post recommendations on warrant

however, the general court recognizes a need to require uniform appropriations. RSA 32:5, V (Supp. 2009). Thus, the charter expressly

government that best addresses local needs. At the same time, those appearing in the warrant as part of a special warrant article regarding provides a vehicle whereby a municipality may adopt a form of state of New Hampshire. To that end, the general court hereby

32:5, V on the posted warrant.” The articles “already requiring a notation” are a recommendation on each article not already requiring a notation under RSA powers recognized by article 39, part first, of the constitution of the provides, “The School Board and the MBC shall each have the option of posting

It is the purpose of this chapter to implement the home rule for warrant articles appearing on the official ballot. Subsection A(5)(e) entitled “Home Rule - Municipal Charters.” It provides, in pertinent part: RSA 49-B:1 (2003) is the “Purpose and Intent” section of the chapter

whole. legislature’s intent as expressed in the words of the statute considered as a Section XI, A(5) of the charter establishes the school district’s procedures

Liam Hooksett, LLC v. Boynton, 157 N.H. 625, 628 (2008). statute in the context of the overall statutory scheme and not in isolation. language that the legislature did not see fit to include. Id. We also interpret a intent, and we will not consider what the legislature might have said or add unambiguous, we need not look beyond it for further indication of legislative meaning to the words used. Id. When a statute’s language is plain and the language of the statute, and, where possible, ascribe the plain and ordinary Appeal of Parkland Med. Ctr., 158 N.H. 67, 72 (2008). We first examine

with statutory scheme for home rule). We are the final arbiters of the N.H. 625, 627-30 (2002) (reviewing whether charter provision was inconsistent authority of the general court.”

not change the charter or form of government. proposed amendment. vote. The recommendation is not an exercise of legislative authority and it does

because, in doing so, municipalities impermissibly intrude into the legislative which cities and towns may amend their actual forms of government.” Within thirty days of the report, these authorities “shall review the proposed appear on the ballot. RSA p. 4 49-B:1 is part of “the statutory framework through disagree. RSA 49-B:1 is not relevant to whether the recommendations may

school district or the MBC from making recommendations with respect to the district’s actual form of government. The amendment to the charter occurs by this state.” RSA p. 4 49-B:5-a, I(c). Nothing in these provisions prohibits the . . . charter amendment to insure that it is consistent with the general laws of amend their retirement systems or impose term limits on elected officials commissioner of the department of revenue administration.” RSA 49-B:5-a, I. clerk . . . file a report with the secretary of state, attorney general, and the power “beyond that necessary to carry out the amendment of a charter.” We RSA 49-B:5-a (Supp. 2009). RSA 49-B:5-a mandates that “[t]he municipal We also reject the petitioners’ argument that the charter conflicts with

school district into a city department.

669 (quotation omitted). The recommendation is not used to amend the school

provide municipalities with the authority to enact rent control ordinances,

acts which do not literally change the charter or forms of government.’” recommendations on warrant articles proposing the default budget option is a the petitioners contend that the option to place the school board and MBC In arguing that section XI, A(5) of the charter conflicts with RSA p. 4 49-B:1,

addition, a city does not have the authority to amend its charter to make the authorize City of Manchester, 150 N.H. at 671. In

p. 4 49-B in no way provides or suggests that . . . towns . . . have the right to 481 (quotation, brackets and ellipses omitted). “RSA chapter 49-B does not

the voter’s guide said the following . . . : ‘This provision will not affect special power necessary to carry out such changes.” cities.” Id. “When article 39 was proposed as a constitutional amendment . . . applicable home rule statutes, which “confer substantial power on home-rule (1982). “These home rule powers must be exercised in accordance with” conflict with general law.” Harriman v. City of Lebanon, 122 N.H. p. 4 477, 482

municipalities to amend their charters in any way which is not in

I, Article 39 of the State Constitution “has granted the legislature the power to

cautioned, however, that the constitutional authority supporting RSA chapter City of Manchester, 150 N.H. 66 p. 4 4, 669 (2004) (quotation omitted). “We have

towns may amend their actual forms of government, and grants them the “RSA chapter p. 4 49-B provides the statutory framework through which cities and to the official ballot was lawful. p. 5 MBC recommendations.

court erred in ruling that adding the school board and MBC recommendations chapter 49-B preempts the charter provision that permits school board and No additional authority is necessary. Accordingly, we cannot say that the trial by the school district provides the authority for adding the recommendations.

authorizes additional municipal regulation. Accordingly, we disagree that RSA other State law. The statutory scheme relative to home rule, by its very nature, laws or the constitution of this state.” Section XI, A(5) of the charter adopted B:1. The petitioners do not argue that the charter provision conflicts with any

resulting charter is neither in conflict with nor inconsistent with the general inconsistent with the general laws or the constitution of this state.” RSA 49- revise a municipal charter relative to their form of government so long as the no consequence. RSA 49-B:1 “allow[s] towns and cities to adopt, amend, or

local needs,” as long as “the resulting charter is neither in conflict with nor 5 whereby a municipality may adopt a form of government that best addresses there may be no statute that specifically authorizes the recommendations is of to place exclusive control in the State’s hands, but to “provide[ ] a vehicle

adding school board and MBC recommendations to a warrant article. That and municipal charters. To the contrary, the very purpose of home rule is not

The petitioners also argue that there is “no statutory authority” for counter to the legislative intent underlying the chapter governing home rule

control in the State’s hands.” demonstrative of the State’s intent to preempt that field by placing exclusive

legislation is invalid if it is repugnant to, or inconsistent with, State law.” contradicts RSA chapter 49-B; nor is there anything that otherwise runs We see nothing in section XI, A(5) of the charter that expressly

of elections and Part I, Article 11 of the State Constitution. because it could nonetheless authorize additional municipal regulation.” Id. statutory scheme does not automatically result in preemption, however,

issue of state preemption. We considered a similar issue in deciding whether a and comprehensive State statutory scheme governing a particular field is legislative intent underlying a statutory scheme.” Id. “Generally, a detailed either expressly contradicts a statute or otherwise runs counter to the 627 (quotation omitted). “Thus, preemption will occur when local legislation

“The preemption doctrine flows from the principle that municipal

preempted by the State’s comprehensive statutory scheme governing the field 626. We held that it could not because such a charter provision was

chapter 49-B and the charter, the petitioners argue that this case raises an In support of their contention that there is a conflict between RSA p. 6 6

same reason. also not raised in the notice of appeal, and we will not address them for the

accordingly, we will not address it. However, this issue was not raised in the petitioners’ notice of appeal, and,

BRODERICK, C.J.