DOCKET # THOMAS ARRAS, SEAN MURPHY, GARY SUSLAVICH, KAREN S. MILLER, PETER T. MILLER STATE OF CONNECTICUT JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY V. REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT #14, JODY IAN GOELER, SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS, REGIONAL DISTRICT #I4 BOARD OF EDUCATION, GEORGE BAUER, FORMER CHAIRMAN REGIONAL DISTRICT #14 BOARD OF EDUCATION JOHN CHAPMAN, CHAIRMAN REGIONAL DISTRICT #14 BOARD OF EDUCATION TOWN OF WOODBURY TOWN OF BETHLEHEM GERALD STOMSKI, WOODBURY FIRST SELECTMAN JEFFREY HAMEL, BETHLEHEM FIRST SELECTMAN SEPTEMBER 20, 2013 REVISED COMPLAINT Because the above named Defendants failed to publish legal notices in accordance with Conn. Gen. Stat. 10-47c to warn residents of the towns of Woodbury and Bethlehem concerning a June 18, 2013 Regional School District #14 referendum on the question of expending $63.8 million for renovation of the Nonnewaug High School; because, in doing so, the above named Defendants violated their oaths of office and their duties as public officials to faithfully execute the laws of this State; and because the Defendants appear to be conspiring to have their wrongdoing sanctified nonetheless and to proceed with the illegally noticed referendum result and renovation project; the Defendants now have demonstrated open defiance of the Constitution and the rule law, open defiance of the will and authority of the General Assembly, and open 1
defiance of the will and authority of, and consequences to, the Plaintiffs and to the people of Woodbury and Bethlehem. Therefore, the Plaintiffs have no choice but hereby to respectfully request this Court, forthwith, to declare the June 18, 2013 referendum to have been illegally noticed, to declare the results of the referendum to be null and void ab initio, and immediately to issue a permanent injunction against any, and all, funding and past, present, or future implementation of the renovation of Nonnewaug High School resulting from the June 18, 2013 referendum. The factual and legal basis for this request is more fully set forth below. Exhibits attached. A. Parties. 1. Plaintiff Thomas Arras is a homeowner, taxpayer and resident of Woodbury, Connecticut, 2. Plaintiff Sean Murphy, has children who may attend the Regional School District #14 schools, and is a homeowner, taxpayer and resident of Woodbury, Connecticut. 3. Plaintiff Gary Suslavich, has a school age child, is a homeowner, taxpayer and resident of Woodbury, Connecticut, and served on the Regional District #14 Board of Education during the time the Regional District 414 Board of Education took the actions complained of by the Plaintiffs until June 2013. 4. Plaintiff Karen S. Miller is a homeowner, taxpayer and resident of Bethlehem, Connecticut. 5. Plaintiff Peter T. Miller is a homeowner, taxpayer and resident of Bethlehem, Connecticut. B. Jurisdiction and Venue. 6. The plaintiff brings this action and invokes the jurisdiction of this court, inter alia, 2
pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-1, 52-29, 52-473, 10-47c, 10-46, 10-47c, 10-56, 7-148, 7-3, 7-4, 7-10, 7-12, 7-17, 52-473, 52-485, 52-493, 52-494, the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, Article First of the Connecticut Constitution; and Practice Book 1l- 9, C. Relevant Facts. 7. On April 1, 2013, Defendant Regional District #14 Board of Education unanimously proposed a $68.3 million dollar project to renovate the Nonnewaug High School in the town of Woodbury, Connecticut. 8. At a special meeting held on April 1, Defendant Regional District #14 Board of Education approved the proposed renovation to move to a referendum vote. 9. On May 16, 2013, Defendant Regional District 414 Board of Education set June 18, 2013 as the date for the voters to approve the renovation in the referendum vote. 10. The minutes of a Special Meeting held on May 16, 2013 by the Defendant Regional District #14 reflect that the Defendant Regional School District 414 approved four resolutions regarding the renovation and the referendum, to wit: "RESOLUTION APPROPRIATING $63,820,605 FOR THE RENOVATION OF AND ADDITIONS TO THE NONNEWAUG HIGH SCHOOL, AND AUTHORIZING THE ISSUE OF BONDS AND NOTES IN THE SAME AMOUNT TO FINANCE THE APPROPRIATION RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING REFERENDUM VOTES ON APPROPRIATION AND BOND AND NOTE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE NONNEWAUG HIGH SCHOOL PROJECT RESOLUTION REFERRING 2013 NONNEWAUG HIGH SCHOOL PROJECT TO THE TOWN OF WOODBURY PLANNING COMMISSSION RESOLUTION AUT.HORIZING PREPARATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF EXPLANATORY TEXT FOR REFERENDUM VOTES ON APPROPRIATION AND BOND AND NOTE AUTHORIZATION FOR RENOVATION OF AND ADDITIONS TO NONNEWAUG HIGH SCHOOL" 3
11. More specifically, the first resolution stated that the Regional District #14 Board of Education recommended to the towns comprising the Regional District that they adopt the $63.8 million dollar bond and temporary note authorization for the renovation project. 12. The second resolution stated that the Regional District #14 recommended to the towns comprising the Regional District that the bond and temporary note authorization be approved by referendum vote to be held on June 18, 2013. 13. The second resolution stated also that "notice of said referendum be given by publication and posting at least five days but not more than fifteen days before said date." 14. The second resolution also stated that the notices of the referendum in the towns of Woodbury and Bethlehem were to be substantially in a form spelled out in the second resolution, including the fact that on the ballot for the June 18, 2013 referendum was the following question, "Shall Regional School District #14 appropriate $63,820, 605 for renovations of and additions to Nonnewaug High School, and authorize the issue of bonds and notes in the same amount to finance the appropriation"? 15. On June 18, 2013, the referendum vote was conducted, and the renovation project and bond authorization was approved by a margin of four votes. 16. The June 18, 2013 referendum was held pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes 10-56. 17. Connecticut General Statute 10-56 provides that the referendum was to be conducted in the same manner as provided under Connecticut General Statutes 10-47e. 18. Connecticut General Statute 10-47c provides, in relevant part: "At least thirty days before the date of the referenda, the regional board of education shall notify the town clerk in each member town to call the referendum on the specified date to vote on the specified question. The warning of such referenda shall be published, the vote 4
taken and the results thereof canvassed and declared in the same manner as is provided for the election of officers of a town. The town clerk of each town shall certify the vote of the town to the regional board of education and the Commissioner of Education." 19. Defendants Woodbury Town Clerk Linda Carlson and Bethlehem Town Clerk Kathy Gallo have stated publicly that Defendant Regional District #14 Board of Education sent to them only the minutes from the Regional District #14 Board of Education's May 16, 2013 meeting and did not notify them to call the referendum or to publish a warning of the referendum. 20. Defendants Woodbury Town Clerk Linda Carlson and Bethlehem Town Clerk Kathy Gallo publicly stated that they were given no direction to publish notice of the referendum. 21. Defendant Regional School District #14 Board of Education has admitted publicly that "Bond counsel agrees with this assessment, regarding the towns' responsibility to warn such an election, and drafted referendum package reminder materials based upon this assessment" and that "The district acknowledges that, inadvertently, the reminder letter was not included with the ballot question and minutes calling for referendum". 22. Defendant Bethlehem Town Clerk Kathy Gallo publicly has stated, "In any case like this, we're given direction and we were given no direction to notice it. We were given meeting minutes, and that's it." 23. Defendant Woodbury Town Clerk Linda Carlson publicly has stated, "the bond vote was not legally noticed." 5
24. Defendant Bethlehem Town Clerk Kathy Gallo publicly has stated, "The bottom line still stands. It wasn't noticed. It wasn't legally noticed." 25. Defendants Woodbury Town Clerk Linda Carlson and Bethlehem Town Clerk Kathy Gallo have not officially certified the results of the referendum to the State Board of Education, although they submitted an application to the state Department of Education for reimbursement of funding for the renovation project. 26. Defendant Superintendent of Schools Jody Goeler stated publicly that the lack of a letter [directing the town clerks to notice the referendum] was an oversight by Regional District #14. 27. Defendant Woodbury Town Clerk Linda Carlson stated publicly that she had spoken to region officials about having a meeting between officials from the region and from the towns in order to sort the situation out. 28. Defendant Woodbury First Selectman Gerald Stomski publicly has stated, "We might not agree with the laws. But we have to uphold the laws." 29. Defendants Woodbury First Selectman Gerald Stomski, Bethlehem First Selectman Jeffrey Hamel, and Superintendent of Schools Jody Goeler conspired to have the referendum results validated, despite acknowledging legal notice was not published prior to the referendum. 30. Defendant Superintendent of Schools Jody Goeler admitted publicly that the town clerks did not print legal notices as required by state law. 31. Defendant Woodbury First Selectman Gerald Stomski stated publicly that all sides agree on the underlying facts, and "The school realizes the legal notice wasn't properly done." 6
32. It has been estimated that the cost to a Woodbury taxpayer with property assessed at $350,000 would pay $11,641.00 in additional taxes over 25 years as a result of approval of the referendum and funding of the renovation project. 33. It has been estimated that the cost to a Bethlehem taxpayer with property assessed at $350,000 would pay $10,665.00 in additional taxes over 25 years as a result of approval of the referendum and funding of the renovation project. 34. The Plaintiffs are residents of the towns of Woodbury and Bethlehem, and are property owners who are subject to the additional taxes resulting from approval of the referendum and funding of the renovation project. 35. Plaintiffs Sean Murphy and Gary Suslavich have school age children who are, or may be, attending the Nonnewaug High School and are subject to the direct consequences of approval of the referendum and funding of the renovation project. D. Violations. Count One: Statutory violations. 36. The Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference all other paragraphs of this complaint as if fully set forth herein. 37. The Defendants are subject to, and had a duty to faithfully execute, all relevant provisions of the Connecticut General Statutes contained herein. 38. The Defendants failed to faithfully execute all relevant provisions of the Connecticut General Statutes contained herein. 39. The Defendants' admitted actions in failing to provide proper legal notice prior to the June 18, 2013 referendum violates Connecticut General Statutes 10-56,10-47c, 9-226, 7
9-350, 9-355, 7-9c, 7-465, 9-7b, 9-369, 9-371b, 42-110b, 42-110g, 42-110m, 42-110o, 1-25, 52-557n, and the Woodbury Town Charter Section 204. 40. The Defendants' admitted actions in failing to provide proper legal notice prior to the June 18, 2013 referendum, and in proceeding with the renovation project nonetheless, violated the Plaintiffs' right to know that the conduct and the results of the referendum were fair, proper and otherwise appropriately conducted in accordance with Connecticut General Statutes 10-56,10-47c, 9-226, 9-350, 9-355, 7-9e, 7-465, 9-7b, 9-369, 9-371b, 42-110b, 42-110g, 42-110m, 42-110o, 1-25, 52-557n, and the Woodbury Town Charter Section 204, and to have a fair, proper, and otherwise appropriate referendum, given that an unknown number of resident taxpayers were not warned that the referendum was to take place, and given the result of the referendum was approval of the renovation project by only four votes. 41. The Defendants' admitted actions in failing to provide proper legal notice prior to the June 18, 2013 referendum, and in proceeding with the renovation project nonetheless, deprived the Plaintiffs of their right, pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes 10-56,10-47e, 9-226, 9-350, 9-355, 7-9c, 7-465, 9-7b, 9-369, 9-371b, 42-110b, 42-110g, 42-110m, 42-110o, 1-25, 52-557n, and the Woodbury Town Charter Section 204 to have their government officials to do the right thing in faithfully executing statutory and Constitutional law, and to abide by the plain language of statutory and Constitutional law. 42. Because the Defendants admittedly failed to provide proper legal notice prior to the June 18, 2013 referendum, they neglected to perform the duties required of them, without reasonable cause, in violation of Connecticut General Statutes 10-56,10-47e, 9-226, 9-8
350, 9-355, 7-9c, 7-465, 9-7b, 9-369, 9-371b, 42-110b, 42-110g, 42-110m, 42-110o, 1-25, 52-557n, and the Woodbury Town Charter Section 204. 43. The Defendants' admitted actions in failing to provide proper legal notice prior to the June 18, 2013 referendum violated their mandatory duty pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes 10-56,10-47c, 9-226, 9-350, 9-355, 7-9c, 7-465, 9-7b, 9-369, 9-371b, 42-110b, 42-110g, 42-110m, 42-110o, 1-25, 52-557n, and the Woodbury Town Charter Section 204. 44. The Defendants' admitted actions in failing to provide proper legal notice prior to the June 18, 2013 referendum constitute a misperformance of ministerial acts. 45. Alternatively, the Defendants' admitted actions in failing to provide proper legal notice prior to the June 18, 2013 referendum constitute negligent acts or omissions within the scope of their official duties. 46. The Defendants' admitted actions in failing to provide proper legal notice prior to the June 18, 2013 referendum constitute a breach of the Defendants' duty to faithfully discharge, according to law, their governmental duties, which were mandatory in nature, and not discretionary. 47. The Defendants' actions in jointly agreeing to proceed with the renovation project in seeking state reimbursement for funding of the project and taking other actions to further implement the renovation project, while admitting proper legal notice was not published prior to the June 18, 2013 referendum, denotes a flagrant disregard for their oath of office pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes 1-25 to faithfully execute state statutes and the rule of law. 9
48. The Defendants' admitted actions in failing to provide proper legal notice prior to the June 18, 2013 referendum resulted in direct harm to the Plaintiffs, in violation of Connecticut General Statutes 10-56,10-47e, 9-226, 9-350, 9-355, 7-9c, 7-465, 9-7b, 9-369, 9-371b, 42-110b, 42-110g, 42-110m, 42-110o, 1-25, 52-557n, and the Woodbury To Charter Section 204, such that injunctive and other appropriate legal and equitable relief is required. Count Two: Violations of the United States Constitution. 49. The Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference all other paragraphs of this complaint as if fully set forth herein. 50. The Defendants had a duty to faithfully execute all relevant provisions of the U.S. Constitution contained herein. 51. The Defendants failed to faithfully execute all relevant provisions of the United States Constitution contained herein. 52. The Defendants' admitted actions in failing to provide proper legal notice prior to the June 18, 2013 referendum, and in proceeding with the renovation project nonetheless, deprived the Plaintiffs of their right to assemble and their right to have a fair, proper, and otherwise appropriate referendum under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. 53. The Defendants' admitted actions in failing to provide proper legal notice prior to the June 18, 2013 referendum violates the due process provision of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 54. The Defendants' admitted actions in failing to provide proper legal notice prior to the June 18, 2013 referendum violates the due process provision of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 10
55. The Defendants' admitted actions in failing to provide proper legal notice prior to the June 18, 2013 referendum violates the equal protection provision of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 56. The Defendants' admitted actions in failing to provide proper legal notice prior to the June 18, 2013 referendum constitute a breach of the Defendants' duty to faithfully discharge, according to law, their governmental duties, which were mandatory in nature, and not discretionary. 57. The Defendants' actions in jointly agreeing to proceed with the renovation project in seeking state reimbursement for funding of the project and taking other actions to further implement the renovation project, while admitting proper legal notice was not published prior to the June 18, 2013 referendum, denotes a flagrant disregard for their oath of office to faithfully execute the provisions of the United States Constitution and the rule of law. 58. The Defendants' breach of duty and their admitted actions in failing to provide proper legal notice prior to the June 18, 2013 referendum have resulted in direct harm to the Plaintiffs in violation of their fundamental rights described herein pursuant to the United States Constitution, such that injunctive and other appropriate legal and equitable relief is required. Count Three: Violations of the Connecticut Constitution. 59. The Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference all other paragraphs of this complaint as if fully set forth herein. 60. The Defendants had a duty to faithfully execute all relevant provisions of the Connecticut Constitution contained herein. 11
61. The Defendants failed to faithfully execute all relevant provisions of the Connecticut Constitution contained herein. 62. The Defendants' admitted actions in failing to provide proper legal notice prior to the June 18, 2013 referendum violates the equal rights provision of Article First, 1 of the Connecticut Constitution. 63, The Defendants' admitted actions in failing to provide proper legal notice prior to the June 18, 2013 referendum violates the due process provision of Article First, 8, as amended, of the Connecticut Constitution. 64. The Defendants' admitted actions in failing to provide proper legal notice prior to the June 18, 2013 referendum, deprived the Plaintiffs of their right to assemble and their right to have a fair, proper, and otherwise appropriate referendum under Article First, 14 of the Connecticut Constitution. 65. The Defendants' admitted actions in failing to provide proper legal notice prior to the June 18, 2013 referendum violates the equal protection provision of Article First, 20, as amended, of the Connecticut Constitution. 66. The Defendants' admitted actions in failing to provide proper legal notice prior to the June 18, 2013 referendum constitute a breach of the Defendants' duty to faithfully discharge, according to law, their governmental duties, which were mandatory in nature, and not discretionary. 67. The Defendants' actions in jointly agreeing to proceed with the renovation project in seeking state reimbursement for funding of the project and taking other actions to further implement the renovation project, while admitting proper legal notice was not published 12
prior to the June 18, 2013 referendum, denotes a flagrant disregard for their oath of office to faithfully execute the provisions of the Connecticut Constitution and the rule of law. 68. The Defendants' breach of duty and their admitted actions in failing to provide proper legal notice prior to the June 18, 2013 referendum have resulted in direct harm to the Plaintiffs in violation of their fundamental rights described herein pursuant to the Connecticut Constitution, such that injunctive and other appropriate legal and equitable relief is required. Count Four: Abuse of Authority. 69. The Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference all other paragraphs of this complaint as if fully set forth herein. 70. The Defendants are subject to, and had a duty to faithfully execute, all relevant provisions of the Connecticut General Statutes contained herein. 71. The Defendants failed to faithfully execute all relevant provisions of the Connecticut General Statutes contained herein. 72. The Defendants' admitted actions in failing to provide proper legal notice prior to the June 18, 2013 referendum violates Connecticut General Statutes 10-56,10-47c, 9-226, 9-350, 9-355, 7-9c, 7-465, 9-7b, 9-369, 9-371b, 42-110b, 42-110g, 42-110m, 42-110o, 1-25, 52-557n, and the Woodbury Town Charter Section 204. 73. The Defendants' admitted actions in failing to provide proper legal notice prior to the June 18, 2013 referendum, and in proceeding with the renovation project nonetheless, constitutes an abuse of authority. 74. The Defendants' admitted actions in failing to provide proper legal notice prior to the June 18, 2013 referendum constitute a breach of the Defendants' duty to faithfully 13
discharge, according to law, their governmental duties, which were mandatory in nature, and not discretionary. 75. The Defendants' actions in jointly agreeing to proceed with the renovation project in seeking state reimbursement for funding of the project and taking other actions to further implement the renovation project, while admitting proper legal notice was not published prior to the June 18, 2013 referendum, denotes a flagrant disregard for their oath of office to faithfully execute the provisions of the Connecticut General Statutes, the United States Constitution, and the Connecticut Constitution contained herein, and clear abuse of authority. 76. The Defendants' breach of duty and their admitted actions in failing to provide proper legal notice prior to the June 18, 2013 referendum have resulted in direct harm to the Plaintiffs in violation of their statutory and fundamental Constitutional rights described herein, such that injunctive and other appropriate legal and equitable relief is required. Count Five: Violation of Civil Ri2hts, CGS 47-465, 42 U.S.C. 41983. 77. The Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference all other paragraphs of this complaint as if fully set forth herein. 78. The Defendants' admitted actions in failing to provide proper legal notice prior to the June 18, 2013 referendum violates Connecticut General Statutes 10-56,10-47c, 9-226, 9-350, 9-355, 7-9c, 7-465, 9-7b, 9-369, 9-371b, 42-110b, 42-110g, 42-110m, 42-110o, 1-25, 52-557n, and the Woodbury Town Charter Section 204, as well as the First, Fifth and Fourth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and Article First, 1, 8, 14, and 20 of the Connecticut Constitutions. 14
79. The Defendants, including but not limited to the Town of Woodbury and Town of Bethlehem, have a duty pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes 7-465 to pay on behalf of any employee, including a member of a town board, all sums such employee becomes obligated to pay by reason of the liability imposed upon such employee by law for damages awarded for infringement of any person's civil rights or for physical damages to person or property, if the employee, at the time of the injury or damages complained of, was acting in the performance of his duties and within the scope of his employment. 80. The Defendants' admitted actions in failing to provide proper legal notice prior to the June 18, 2013 referendum, and in proceeding with the renovation project nonetheless, infringed the Plaintiffs' civil and political rights, disenfranchised them, and damaged their property, when the Defendants failed to faithfully execute and appropriately apply Connecticut General Statutes 10-56,10-47c, 9-226, 9-350, 9-355, 7-9c, 7-465, 9-7b, 9-369, 9-371 b, 42-110b, 42-110g, 42-110m, 42-110o, 1-25, 52-557n, the Woodbury Town Charter Section 204, the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and Article First, 1, 8, 14, and 20 of the Connecticut Constitution. 81. The Defendants' breach of duty and their admitted actions in failing to provide proper legal notice prior to the June 18, 2013 referendum have resulted in direct harm to the Plaintiffs in violation of their statutory and fundamental Constitutional rights described herein, such that injunctive and other appropriate legal and equitable relief is required. 15
82. The Defendants had a duty pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 to uphold the rights, privileges, and immunities of the Plaintiffs secured by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. 83. The Defendants' admitted actions in failing to provide proper legal notice prior to the June 18, 2013 referendum, and in proceeding with the renovation project nonetheless, deprived the Plaintiffs of their rights, privileges and immunities secured by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. 84. The Defendants' breach of duty and their admitted actions in failing to provide proper legal notice prior to the June 18, 2013 referendum have resulted in direct harm to the Plaintiffs in violation of their statutory and fundamental Constitutional rights described herein, such that injunctive and other appropriate legal and equitable relief is required. Count Six: CUPTA 85. The Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference all other paragraphs of this complaint as if hilly set forth herein. 86. The Defendants had a duty to engage in fair acts and practices in the conduct of trade or commerce pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes 42-110b, 42-110g, 42-110m, and 42-110o, including in the acts relevant to the June 18, 2013 referendum and issuance of bonds. 87. The Defendants instead engaged in unfair acts and practices in the conduct of trade or commerce pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes 42-110b, 42-110g, 42-110m, and 42-110o, including in the acts relevant to the June 18, 2013 referendum and issuance of bonds, in failing to provide proper legal notice prior to the June 18, 2013 referendum, and in proceeding with the renovation project nonetheless. 16
88. The Defendants' admitted actions in failing to provide proper legal notice prior to the June 18, 2013 referendum, and in proceeding with the renovation project nonetheless, deprived the Plaintiffs of their rights pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes 42-110b, 42-110g, 42-110m, and 42-110o. 89. The Defendants' breach of duty and their admitted actions in failing to provide proper legal notice prior to the June 18, 2013 referendum have resulted in direct harm to the Plaintiffs in violation of their statutory and fundamental Constitutional rights described herein, such that injunctive and other appropriate legal and equitable relief is required. Count Seven: Injunctive relief. 90. The Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference all other paragraphs of this complaint as if fully set forth herein. 91. The Plaintiffs hereby also incorporate their request for injunctive relief regarding Counts One, Two, Three, Four, Five, and Six for the reasons set forth herein. 92. The Plaintiffs have a clear right to have the Defendants act in accordance with their statutory and Constitutional duties. 93. The Plaintiffs have a clear legal right to have the Defendants adhere to the plain language of all applicable statutory and Constitutional provisions, and to hold them accountable when they violate the rule of law and their oaths of office. 94. The Plaintiffs have no other sufficient remedy at law to hold the Defendants accountable. 95. The Plaintiffs took all other reasonable steps to request the Defendants to act only within their limited statutory and Constitutional authority, to no avail. 96. The Plaintiffs have no other sufficient remedy at law other than to seek relief from the judicial department in the form of the instant action. 17
97. The Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the merits of their claim as it is beyond dispute that the Defendants have admitted to their wrongdoing. 98. The Plaintiffs had a clear legal right to have the Defendants act in accordance with their mandatory statutory duty. 99. The Plaintiffs face immediate and irreparable harm from the continued and immediate implementation of the renovation project, absent the issuance of an injunction, when they will be compelled to pay additional taxes resulting not only from the referendum approval, but also from the cloud of doubt surrounding the illegally noticed referendum, and the likelihood of increased bond costs and increased existing and potential litigation fees from other affected individuals due to the negligence of the Defendants. 102. The Plaintiffs also face immediate and irreparable harm from having a government that is allowed to violate their oaths of office and their duties as public officials to faithfully execute the laws of this State; to act in open defiance of the rule of law, and to have their wrongdoing sanctified nonetheless and to proceed with the illegally noticed referendum result and renovation project, thus setting a precedent for future lawlessness on the part of local government officials. 103.The harm the Plaintiffs face without the injunction is far greater than the harm an injunction would visit on the Defendant. The Defendants will suffer little or no harm. Indeed, the Defendants will not have to expend any of the $63.8 million dollars they otherwise would have to expend. On the other hand, without the injunction, the Defendants already have demonstrated their intent to further implementation of the renovation project. The $63.8 million dollar price tag of the project will result in substantially increased costs in taxation to the Plaintiffs. The taxation will occur despite 18
the fact that the Plaintiffs have no assurance that the resulting approval of the project at the referendum accurately reflected the will of the resident taxpayers, when the taxpayers were not provided with any legal notice that the referendum was to take place. Legal notice to all of the residents was crucial in this case because the renovation project was approved at the referendum by only a four-vote margin. Proper legal notice likely would have resulted in a different outcome with the project either approved or disapproved by a far wider margin, thus giving further validity to the will of the people on the subject. By permanently enjoining the results of the referendum, the Defendants would not be harmed, but only would be compelled to take action to remedy their own wrongdoing in accordance with the rule of law. 104.'fhe Defendants would suffer no great harm from doing that which they already are, and were, required to do to act in accordance with the plain language of statutory law and to publish proper legal notice prior to any referendum. 105.Also, any argument the Defendants put forward concerning the need or importance of continuation of the renovation project is without merit. The Defendants would be able to proceed with renovation of Nonnewaug High SchOol, and meet any perceived urgent need, even if this court issues an injunction, because an injunction on a referendum that was not properly noticed does not preclude the Defendants from approving the call for a new referendum that is properly noticed. 106.In addition, while the Defendants may argue that an injunction with result in increased costs to remedy the error, such an argument is unavailing and must be waived when the Defendants' negligent actions were the cause of their own increased costs created by correction of their negligence. 19
107.The Defendants suffer no harm when compelled to act exclusively and permanently within their limited statutory and Constitutional authority. That is not harm. That is what is required of the Defendants. When no harm can come to the Defendants by issuance of an injunction, the injunction must issue. Prayer for Relief: Wherefore, the plaintiffs seek from this court relief and damages as follows: 1. Judgment against the Defendants; 2. An Order declaring the June 18, 2013 referendum, and all actions taken in furtherance of it, to be null and void ab initio for want of proper legal notice; 3. An Order immediately issuing a permanent injunction against any, and all, funding and any, and all, past, present, or future implementation of the resolutions approved at the June 18, 2013 referendum. 4. An Order awarding to the Plaintiffs all attorney's fees and costs incurred in furtherance of this action; 5. Such other legal, compensatory, punitive, and equitable relief as this court deems appropriate. Respectfully submitted, PLAINTIFFS DEBORAH G. STEVENSON Juris No. 416740 Special Public Defender P.O. Box 704 Southbury, CT 06488 Tel.: (860) 354-3590 Fax: (860) 354-9360 Stevenson@dgslawfirm.com 20
CERTIFICATION A copy of the foregoing was sent on this 20th day of September via electronic mail and/or direct mail to the defendants through their counsel: William Stevens, Slavin, Stauffacher & Scott LLC, 27 Siemon Company Drive, Suite 300W, P.O. Box 9, Watertown, CT 06795; Mark Sommaruga, Pullman & Comley TIC, 90 State House Square, Hartford, CT 06103; and Guion & Stevens, 93 West Street, P.O. Box 338, Litchfield, CT 06759. Deborah G. Stevenson 21