Brentwood School District v. Budget Committee of the Town of Brentwood

Budget Committee Did Not Seek to “Neuter” Voters
Rockingham Superior Court, Docket No. 218-2015-CV-150
Thursday, March 5, 2015

In this case, a Rockingham Superior Court judge determined that the Brentwood Budget Committee’s proposed operating budget did not violate the New Hampshire Municipal Budget Law, RSA Chapter 32.

This dispute between the Brentwood School District and the Brentwood Budget Committee arose out of the manner in which the budget committee put together its proposed budget. Instead of putting together a line item budget, the budget committee proposed a bottom line figure. That bottom line budget represented the school board’s proposed budget, reduced by $650,000. The committee was not very specific about where the cuts were coming from, except indicating a certain amount was cut from, for example, “regular programs” or “special programs.” Due to the size of the budget cut and the so-called “10% rule,” the voters could not amend the budget to reflect the school board’s originally proposed budget. In addition, there were also questions about whether the budget committee complied with the procedural budgeting requirements, including whether the full committee ever voted to approve its budget. As a result, the school board alleged that the budget committee failed to propose a valid budget under RSA Chapter 32 and that the budget cut effectively took away the ability of the voters to increase the budget by 10% .

First, the judge determined that the budget committee had satisfied the procedural requirements. Although the judge called the committee’s failure to vote to approve the line item allocations at the public hearing “troublesome,” the committee ratified any potential misstep it previously made by approving the disclosed budget subsequent to the hearing. What was important was that the committee held the requisite public hearing and approved a final MS-27 that did not “vary in substance” from the budget presented at that hearing.

Second, the judge determined that there was simply insufficient evidence to establish that the budget committee dishonestly proposed a budget that it knew to be unworkable and that it intentionally neutered the voters such that they could not amend the budget to reflect the school board’s proposed budget. Further, the judge referred to the budget committee’s role as that of “fiscal watchdog,” meaning that a budget committee certainly can seek to make cuts that, in its judgment, result in a more manageable budget for taxpayers, as long as the school district can meet its statutory, state regulatory, and constitutional obligations.