Classroom 2000 Vote Appealed to Supreme Court

Today, legal papers were filed in State Supreme Court instituting an Article 78 proceeding which seeks to overturn State Education Commissioner Richard Mills decision refusing to invalidate the Monticello School District Classroom 2000 Proposal. (Copy of full text of the lawsuit on People's Voice Internet site.)

In April of 1997, several taxpayers filed an appeal with the State Education Commissioner to overturn the budget vote that enabled the Monticello Central School District to borrow $34 million to construct a new school and make improvements to existing facilities. The Commissioner issued his decision on March 13, 1998 upholding the results of last year's vote.

The taxpayers claim that the Monticello Central School District (MCSD) mislead voters by distributing false and misleading literature which stated that $10 million of the proposed $34 million would come from a lease of the Middle School building to BOCES.

Contrary to the statements made by the school district in its literature, no formal or binding lease agreement existed at the time of the vote in March 1997.

The taxpayers contend that had the School District not mislead the voters, the budget would have been defeated as it had been in December of 1996. They claim the literature sent to the voters by the School District stating the "lease is assured and therefore $10 million will be paid by BOCES" resulted in the budget proposal being approved.

In the legal papers filed to date with the education commissioner, the School District has admitted no lease exists with BOCES.

The School Board has also now concurred that there are several legal requirements which must be met before such a lease can be entered into.

Although the State Commissioner of Education acknowledged that the School District and BOCES have not taken the necessary steps to enter into a lease, and,

in fact no lease ever existed, he denied the taxpayers petition to overturn the vote.

The main basis for his decision was that the Taxpayers failed to show that these mislead voters would have voted against the proposal.

The taxpayers contend that they should not have to prove how voters would have voted had the School District not willfully mislead them. The fact that false and inaccurate information was distributed should have been enough to overturn the election.

In reaching his decision, the Education Commissioner failed, or was reluctant to consider, that there was never any legally binding "commitment" on behalf of BOCES to lease the Monticello Middle School building, for any lease amount, or for any term of years. Therefore, the ten million dollar assurance was never worth more than the proverbial paper it was printed on.

The commissioner, in relying upon the personal "commitment" between BOCES Superintendent Kevin Colpoys and Monticello Central School Superintendent Eileen Casey, instead of a binding "commitment" between BOCES and MCSD, failed to consider the fact that one of the employees might leave the district and Kevin Colpoys, has in fact, left BOCES.

The education commissioner's decision does not address the fact that a school district cannot enter into a twenty-year lease without voter approval. This provision of the law invalidates the possibility of the proposed lease. And what about the fact that MCSD taxpayers will pay one-third of the $10 million in lease payments back to BOCES as its contribution to BOCES.

His decision also does not comment upon the fact that neither BOCES nor the MCSD obtained the required appraisal to determine the Fair Market Rental Value of the Middle School property to assure the accuracy of the $10,000,000.00 lease. For instance, if the property were only valued at $5 million, what then?

Nor did the commissioner comment upon the requirement of the State Education Law that a finding be made by both the MCSD and BOCES that the proposed lease is in the best financial interests of MCSD and BOCES.

In the commissioner's decision he reasoned that the School District made it clear that the lease was contingent upon the passage of the referendum, and concluded "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." However, as noted above, "what if" the formalities of a binding lease agreement, yet to be worked out, cannot be or are not worked out. Shall we look back and conclude, as the commissioner did, that "respondent (School District) may have been overly optimistic in its depiction of the lease situation." (Opinion Ed. Commissioner, page 8) Or, will the commissioner assure the taxpayers that the Department of Education will pick up the tab?

The commissioner's decision, if not overturned, requires that the taxpayers will pay $10 million over the next twenty years even if a lease is not formalized for the Middle School building with BOCES.

The commissioner's decision denies the voters their constitutional right to approve or disapprove a thirty-four million-dollar referendum which made assurances that even the commissioner considered optimistic.

It is now a year later, there is no lease agreement, binding or otherwise, and upon information and belief, none of the contingencies that the commissioner trusted would be worked out, have been.

The Commissioner may not have been able to consider these facts in his decision of Friday the thirteenth, but these facts will most likely continue to haunt the voter/taxpayers of this district.

Monticello Prepares New Budget

The Monticello school board plans to present a $38.5 million tentative budget for next year.

Next years budget will be approximately 8 percent more than this year. A 3.6 percent increase will be for regular operating expenses. This includes $360,000 earmarked for four new buses and a handicapped-accessible bus.

In addition, as a result of the Year 2000 Classroom vote (see first story) $1.6 million has been included for the first mortgage payment on the project. This represents 4.5 percent of the increase.

The amount that will be raised by school property taxes will be $22.1 million.

A public hearing on the budget is set for May 7. The School Board is tentatively set to vote for the budget May 19.

The actual amount of a tax increase will not be known until the state passes a budget.

---

The People's Voice is funded by donations from concerned taxpayers. It does not accept paid advertisements. Many articles are supplied by readers. If you would like to add your voice as a taxpayer, feel free to do so.

All attempts are made to publish accurate information. If inaccurate information is printed, and the inaccuracy is brought to our attention we will publish a correction.

---