In the Matter of December 9, 2014 Special School Election

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-0653-14T2
APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
March 4, 2015
IN THE MATTER OF DECEMBER 9, 2014
SPECIAL SCHOOL ELECTION. APPELLATE DIVISION
_______________________________________
Argued February 11, 2015 - Decided March 4, 2015
Before Judges Waugh, Maven, and Carroll.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Law Division, Cape May County, L-
463-14.
Brett E.J. Gorman argued the cause for
appellant Board of Education of the Lower
Cape May Regional School District, Cape May
County (Parker McCay P.A., attorneys; Mr.
Gorman, on the brief).
James B. Arsenault, Jr., Acting County
Counsel, argued the cause for respondent
County of Cape May.
Francis J. Campbell argued the cause for
respondent Township of Lower (Campbell &
Pruchnik LLC, attorneys; Mr. Campbell, on
the brief).
Frank L. Corrado argued the cause for
respondent Borough of West Cape May (Barry,
Corrado & Grassi, P.C., attorneys, join in
the brief of respondent Township of Lower).
Kerri A. Wright argued the cause for
respondent City of Cape May (Porzio,
Bromberg & Newman, attorneys; Vito A.
Gagliardi, Jr., of counsel and on the brief;
Ms. Wright and Okechi C. Ogbuokiri, on the
brief).
The opinion of the court was delivered by
CARROLL, J.A.D.
In this case of first impression, we are called upon to
determine which entity must bear the cost of a special school
election held pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:13-57 when a municipality
seeks to withdraw from a limited purpose regional school
district. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that such
cost must be borne by the school district and not the
municipality that initiates the withdrawal request.
I.
The Lower Cape May School District (the District) is a
limited purpose school district educating students in grades
seven through twelve who reside in the Borough of West Cape May
(West Cape May), the City of Cape May (Cape May), and the
Township of Lower (Lower). On April 2, 2014, Cape May filed a
petition seeking authorization from the Commissioner of
Education to conduct a referendum to consider Cape May's request
to withdraw from the District. On April 9, Lower filed an
answer in which it did not oppose the requested referendum. On
April 15, the District filed an answer in which it noted the
negative impact Cape May's withdrawal would have, but ultimately
2 A-0653-14T2
agreed that the matter should be submitted to the voters in the
school district. West Cape May did not file an answer to the
petition.
On July 18, the New Jersey Department of Education's State
Board of Review held a public hearing and verbally approved Cape
May's petition. On October 22, the Board issued a written
decision, noting that "the legal voters of Cape May and the
constituent districts will have the opportunity, at a special
school election, to vote on whether Cape May shall be permitted
to withdraw from the limited purpose regional school district."
Meanwhile, on July 24, Rita Fulginiti, the Cape May County
Clerk, sent a letter to Cape May requesting payment for the cost
of the special school election. On July 31, Cape May responded
that the District was responsible for the cost, citing New
Jersey's statutory scheme and past precedent.
On August 29, the Cape May Executive County Superintendent,
following consultation with the constituent districts, scheduled
the special school election for December 9. However, Cape May
and the District remained unable to agree on who would be
responsible for the cost of the special election. Consequently,
on September 19, the County of Cape May (the County) filed a
declaratory judgment action, requesting that the court determine
the issue.
3 A-0653-14T2
The parties appeared for oral argument on September 25.
The following day the judge issued a comprehensive written
opinion, concluding that the District should bear the cost of
the special election and directing it to make payment to the
County.
II.
On appeal, the parties reiterate the arguments they
advanced before the trial court. The District, Lower, and West
Cape May all contend that because the special election was
initiated by Cape May's petition, and only Cape May stood to
benefit from the election, it alone should bear the cost. They
argue that "[i]n every circumstance the Legislature's guiding
principle is that the party seeking the election is responsible
for its costs." As examples, they cite N.J.S.A. 19:45-2,
obligating the State of New Jersey to be financially responsible
for election costs incurred on its behalf; N.J.S.A. 19:45-4,
obligating counties to pay for costs for elections held on their
behalf; and, with respect to municipalities, N.J.S.A. 19:45-5,
which provides:
All costs, charges and expenses
incurred by the municipal clerk or any other
officer or official of a municipality in
carrying out the provisions of this title
shall be paid by such municipality except as
herein otherwise provided.
4 A-0653-14T2
Where any election is held in and for a
municipality only, all costs, charges and
expenses, including the compensation of the
members of the district boards of the
municipality and the compensation and
expenses of the county board and the clerk
thereof, for such elections, shall be paid
by the municipality.
Additionally, the District argues that public policy dictates
that educational funds be used for the benefit of its students,
rather than to fund elections.
Cape May argues in opposition that, pursuant to N.J.S.A.
18A:13-57, a special school election is required as part of the
withdrawal process, and is designed to protect the interests of
all the constituent municipalities of a regional school
district. Cape May contends that N.J.S.A. 19:60-12 specifically
obligates a school district to pay the cost of such a special
school election, as the trial court correctly determined.
III.
An appellate court reviews a question of statutory
interpretation de novo. Maeker v. Ross, 219 N.J. 565, 574-75
(2014). The primary goal of statutory analysis is to glean the
Legislature's intent. State v. Rangel, 213 N.J. 500, 508
(2013); State v. Gelman, 195 N.J. 475, 482 (2008). When
determining legislative intent, we begin by looking to the plain
language of the statute, "giving words 'their ordinary meaning
and significance.'" Rangel, supra, 213 N.J. at 509 (quoting
5 A-0653-14T2
DiProspero v. Penn, 183 N.J. 477, 492 (2005)). "We do not view
words and phrases in isolation but rather in their proper
context and in relationship to other parts of a statute, so that
meaning can be given to the whole of an enactment." Ibid.Furthermore, statutory analysis is conducted under the
presumption that the Legislature created a logical scheme that
should be interpreted to avoid contradictions. See State v.
Hudson, 209 N.J. 513, 542 (2012). If a statute's plain language
is not sufficient to determine legislative intent, then other
extrinsic aids, such as legislative history, can be used in
analysis. See Gelman, supra, 195 N.J. at 482.
N.J.S.A. 18A:13-51 to -81 articulates the process to be
followed when a municipality seeks to withdraw from a limited
purpose regional school district. The process is initiated when
a constituent municipality, "by resolution, appl[ies] to the
county superintendent of schools to make an investigation as to
the advisability of [such] withdrawal." N.J.S.A. 18A:13-51.
The executive county superintendent must then issue a report
"discussing the educational and financial effect of the
withdrawal." N.J.S.A. 18A:13-52. Prior to issuing this report,
the county superintendent may require the constituent
municipalities, school districts, and the regional district to
6 A-0653-14T2
submit a feasibility study addressing the impact of the proposed
withdrawal. Ibid.Within thirty days of the filing of the county
superintendent's report, the municipal governing body or the
board of education of the withdrawing district may then petition
the Commissioner of Education for permission to submit the issue
to the voters of the withdrawing district and the remaining
districts within the regional district. N.J.S.A. 18A:13-54.
After the filing of any answers to the petition, the
Commissioner then submits the matter to a board of review, which
is similarly tasked with determining "the effect of the proposed
withdrawal . . . upon the educational and financial condition of
the withdrawing and the remaining districts." N.J.S.A. 18A:13-
56.
If three of the four members who comprise the board of
review vote to approve the application, then:
[T]he county superintendent shall, after
conferring with the boards of education of
the constituent districts, fix a day and a
time on said day for holding a special
school election, at which time the question
whether or not the withdrawing school
district shall withdraw from the regional
district . . . shall be submitted to the
legal voters of the withdrawing district and
to the legal voters within the remainder of
the regional district . . . .
[N.J.S.A. 18A:13-57 (emphasis added).]
7 A-0653-14T2
While the statute is silent as to who bears the expense of
the special school election, we determine that resolution of the
cost issue is governed by N.J.S.A. 19:60-12 (emphasis added),
which provides in relevant part that:
All costs, charges and expenses, including
the compensation of the members of the
district boards and the compensation and
expenses of the county board of elections,
the county superintendent of elections, the
clerk of the county, and the municipal
clerks for any school election held at a
time other than the time of the general
election shall be paid by the board of
education of the school district.
"'School election' means any annual or special election to be
held in and for a local or regional school district established
pursuant to chapter 8 or chapter 13 of Title 18A of the New
Jersey Statutes." N.J.S.A. 19:1-1 (emphasis added). A "special
election" is further defined as "an election which is not
provided for by law to be held at stated intervals." Ibid.In the present case, the election is not one provided for
by law to be held at stated intervals. Rather, it is a special
school election held at a time other than the time of the
general election, thus bringing it within the ambit of N.J.S.A.
19:60-12. Accordingly, when read together, N.J.S.A. 19:60-12,
N.J.S.A. 19:1-1, and N.J.S.A. 18A:13-57 clearly obligate the
District to bear the cost of the special election to determine
Cape May's right to withdraw from the District.
8 A-0653-14T2
Even though resort to legislative history is unnecessary,
we nonetheless find it enlightening. The statutory procedure
for withdrawal from a limited purpose regional school district,
including N.J.S.A. 18A:13-57, became effective in 1976. L.
1975, c. 360. Although the statutory framework was subsequently
amended to also provide a mechanism for dissolution, L. 1993, c.
255, §§ 1-6, the term "special school election" has appeared in
N.J.S.A. 18A:13-57 since 1976.
N.J.S.A. 19:60-12 was later enacted in 1995. L. 1995, c.
278, § 12. As enacted, the provision read:
All costs, charges and expenses, including
the compensation of the members of the
district boards and the compensation and
expenses of the county board of elections,
the county superintendent of elections and
the clerk [] of the county for any school
election shall be paid by the board of
education of the school district. All
costs, charges and expenses submitted to the
board of education for payment shall be
itemized and shall include the separate
identification of costs to prepare, print
and distribute sample ballots.
[L. 1995, c. 278, § 12 (emphasis added).]
In the next section, the bill added the definition for "school
election," in the same form as currently contained in N.J.S.A.
19:1-1. L. 1995, c. 278, § 13. The stated purpose of these
enactments was to
transfer[] the jurisdiction of conducting
school board elections from the local boards
9 A-0653-14T2
of education to the county boards of
election. The bill requires school
districts to continue to pay the costs of
conducting district elections, which
includes compensating poll workers and
reimbursing the county board and county
clerk for expenses incurred to conduct such
elections.
[Legislative Fiscal Estimate to A. 1705
(July 20, 1995).]
Based on the order in which these statutes were enacted, it
is presumed that the Legislature was aware of the existence of a
special election for withdrawal under N.J.S.A. 18A:13-57 when it
enacted N.J.S.A. 19:60-12 and amended N.J.S.A. 19:1-1. "'The
Legislature is presumed to be familiar with its own enactments
. . . .'" In re Petition for Referendum on Trenton Ordinance
09-02, 201 N.J. 349, 359 (2010) (quoting State v. Federanko, 26
N.J. 119, 129 (1958)). A review of this legislative history
strengthens our conclusion that the District is required to pay
the cost of the election to determine Cape May's proposed
withdrawal from the regional school district.
Affirmed.
10 A-0653-14T2