Press release - Schulman, et al. v. Monticello CSD

Press release - Schulman, et al. v. Monticello CSD April 13, 1998
Press Release

Petitioners say "Let the Voters Decide"

The petitioners who appealed to the Commissioner of Education claiming that the MCSD deceived voters before the March 1997 referendum by informing them that a twenty (20) year lease with BOCES for the Middle School building was "assured" and would reduce the ultimate expense of the $34 million school building/repair project by $10,000,000.00 are appealing the Commissioner's decision to the Supreme Court in Albany. The Order to Show Cause was signed on Friday.

Petitioners contend that the voters/taxpaers of the MCSD, who will ultimately bear the burden of this tax levy, and not the Commissioner of Education, should determine whether the $34 million referendum should be validated, with the knowledge that the $10 million offset is not attainable and that no lease offset is assured.

The Commissioner found that the petitioners failed to prove improper conduct and that the alleged irregularities actually affected the outcome of the election. The Commissioner found:

There is no requirement that a lease be executed prior to a bond referendum. Moreover, since respondent made clear that the lease was contingent on the passage of the referendum, it is common sense to assume, and a responsible voter could deduce, that the formalities of the lease agreement had yet to be worked out once the referendum passed. To the extent that the status of the lease may have been misleading by the omission of the lease execution requirements, it certainly does not appear to be willful or intentional. Moreover, as respondent points out, this information, along with information about provisions of the Education and Finance Law relating to district obligations or construction contracts, was not required to be provided in the information booklet.

In reaching his decision the Commissioner relied upon "the long-term and on going discussions between MCSD and the Boces" and concluded, " find that it was not unreasonable for the district to include in its literature information about the BOCES "commitment" to lease the middle school, contingent on the passage of the referendum."

Petitioners point out, however, in reaching his decision, the Commissioner ignored the fact that no legally binding "commitment" on behalf of BOCES to lease the Monticello middle school building ever existed when he characterized MCSD's opinion that the lease was "firm" and the $10 million "assured" as "optimistic", not untrue; not improper conduct.

The Commissioner's optimism was fueled by his appraisal of the personal "commitment" between Colpoys and Casey notwithstanding the fact that Colpoys took his leave and notwithstanding the fact that MCSD could never deliver on the $10 million offset since the district taxpayers fund 30.9% of the BOCES Administrative Budget restricting the offset, if realized, to $6 million. Petitioners point out that although the Commissioner found "it is common sense to assume . . . that the formalities of the lease agreement had yet to be worked out once the referendum passed," "if'' those formalities cannot be or are not worked out, the voter/taxpayers in the district will assume the financial consequences, of a $34 million tax levy with little or no offset, and that they, and not the Commissioner, are entitled to exercise their constitutional right to approve or disapprove a thirty four million dollar referendum knowing that no offset might ever be achieved.

District voters/taxpayers voted at the march, 1997 referendum, or not, believing that 1/3 of the $34 million tax levy would be offset by lease payments, when in truth and fact, that offset could never be achieved. Petitioners contend that they cannot prove who would have voted and how they would have voted, had the fact and not the fiction of the offset been known, but, that the voter/taxpayers of the district having been significantly deceived, singularly possess the right to determine whether they wish to pass and ultimately pay for a $34 million referendum with little and perhaps no offset.