School Ballots

When I started writing “Ask the Lawyer” in 2016, my daughter was two years old.

I would like to be able to answer this question like a two-year-old Molly and say simply (and loudly): “NO!” (you don't need a petition).

But time grinds on, so sadly, I have to answer this question like 9-year-old Molly, saying instead with an eye roll:  “You shouldn't have to do that.  It's not specifically required, and no one has had to do that for ages. But I guess there is some sort of precedent, so maybe do it so you don't get trolled?”[1]

The reasons for this convoluted stance is as complex as the reason why my daughter's “craft corner” is still a mess.[2]

Here they are:

As many of you know, the board of a public library (of any kind) can require a school board to put a vote to “establish or increase” a levy in support of that library per Education Law Section 259(1)(a).

In 2007, the NY Legislature amended [3] 259(1)(a) to specify that such a levy: “shall be submitted to the voters of the district as proposed by the library board of trustees...”

Lest anyone get confused as to why the Legislature would make such a change, the memo in support of the bill explained:

This legislation would amend Section 259 of the education law to clarify the ability of a library board of trustees to place budget proposals before voters for approval. Paragraph a of Subdivision 1 of Section 259 is amended to authorize only budget proposals approved by the library board of trustees to be placed on a ballot. [emphasis added]

This purpose of the amendment is explained in the section of the legislative memo ‘justifying’ the amendment:

JUSTIFICATION:

This bill clarifies and conforms provisions relating to library budget votes. The amendment to paragraph a (budget votes in school district public library) conforms the mechanism for placing a vote on the ballot to that already in Paragraph b (budget votes on municipal funding of other types of libraries). Ensuring endorsement of the proposition by the library board of trustees will eliminate the potential for multiple and conflicting library budget proposals on the same ballot. School budget propositions are currently subject to approval of the school board.

...

 While interpreting statutes is a complex exercise, ‘plain language’ is an important factor.  In this case, the plain language of both the 2007 amendment and its supporting memo indicate that to avoid “multiple and conflicting library budget proposals,” the path to a school district ballot is via the library board, for terms “as proposed by the library board of trustees.” And since this is per Education law 259(1)(a), which clearly states the resolution is “as proposed by the board” no petition is required.

Okay, great.  So the library board can adopt a resolution to propose to the voters of the district, and the voters of the district have the power to say ‘yes’ or ‘no.’

I would love to stop this RAQ there, but there is another wrinkle to consider here: is there a way for the voters to put such a resolution on the school district ballot?

This question is raised by two sections of the Education Law.

First: Section 259(1)(b), pertaining to most[4] municipal ballots, which provides:

1. Except as provided in subparagraph two of this paragraph, whenever qualified voters of a municipality, in a number equal to at least ten per centum of the total number of votes cast in such municipality for governor at the last gubernatorial election, shall so petition and the library board of trustees shall endorse, the question of establishing or increasing the amount of funding of the annual contribution for the operating budget of a registered public or free association library by such municipality to a sum specified in said petition, shall be voted on at the next general election of such municipality, provided that due public notice of the proposed action shall have been given.

Second: Education Law Section 2008, which empowers school district voters to initiate a vote on taxes.

This combo is nicely summarized in an opinion from the New York State Comptroller in 1981, when the authority of a library board to put the appropriation on the ballot was still a bit shaky[5]:

Therefore, it is the opinion of this Department that where a library board requests an appropriation proposition to be placed on the ballot at the annual meeting of a central school district, the board of education must comply. Such a proposition may also be submitted to the voters by petition under section 2008(2) of the Education Law or the board could include such a proposition with a revote called under section 2007.  The notice of any meeting where such a proposition will be voted on should so state. [emphasis added]

But that was back in 1981.  Since the 2007 amendment to Education Law 259 made it very clear that only a budget “endorsed by the library board” can be put to a school district vote, it would follow that the voters no longer have the power to submit a petition under Education 2008 (without the endorsement of the board).

So: is a petition signed by a certain number of voters required to put a budget before the voters of a school district?  No.  Just like a school board, the library board doesn't have to obtain a petition to exercise its authority under 259 and submit a budget for a vote.  And can a group of voters use their powers under Education Law 2008 to force a vote?  Again, the language and history of the law suggests the answer is ‘no.’

The tricky thing with all of this is that while the language is clear, the changes to Education Law 259(1)(a) have not been put to a legal test, and there is enough ambiguity for a school district to want to stick with a tried-and-true (pre-2007) practice and insist that a school district ballot 1) must be initiated by a petition signed by the right number of voters; OR 2) can be initiated by district voters per 2008 without the need for board approval.  What can I say?  Lawyers love precedent.[6]

And now, of course, I have to give a disclaimer.

Sitting here in my lawyer cave, I can argue what the language of the law ‘suggests.’  BUT until we get a test case to settle the issue—like how the 2022 Eisenhauer v. Watertown[7] case settled whether school district taxes can support a municipal library without violating the NY Constitution[8]—we won't have absolute certainty.  So, libraries should work carefully with their counsel, who should work carefully with the counsel for the school district, to confirm the process and language of school district ballots. Clear, open channels of communication between the library, the district, and the town can avoid problems down the road—and of course, libraries should always get a written opinion when budgets and funding are on the line.

Thank you for an important question!

[1] Yes, my daughter talks like both a lawyer and a Youtuber.  Since most people reading this are librarians, there's a strong chance the children in your life talk this way, too.  Yay, reading and multi-media literacy!

[2] “I was going to clean up but I couldn't find anywhere to put the dried mint and the glue gun, so I stuffed all the pipe cleaners in an old shoe box and called it a day.”—Not an exact quote, but a good paraphrase.

[3] Bill #A5107, sponsored by Assemblymember Eddington, and likely worked on by many people you know in “LibraryWorld” (at the time, I was in HigherEdWorld).

[4] The law makes excludes from the term “municipality” a city with a population of one million or more, and includes a county when the public libraries located in such county are members of a federated public library system whose central library is located in a city of more than three hundred thousand inhabitants.

[5] Reporter 1981 N.Y. Comp. LEXIS 726 * | 1981 N.Y. St. Comp. 176 ** Opinion No. 81-167

[6] It's a lawyer's security blanket.

[7] (Matter of Eisenhauer v Watertown City Sch. Dist., 208 AD3d 952 [4th Dept 2022]), appeal dismissed by (Eisenhauer v Watertown City Sch. Dist., 39 NY3d 944 [2022]).  By the way, the case has more going on than just constitutional issues, so give it a read.  It has nice language on the autonomy and independence of municipal libraries.

[8] Personally, I didn't think that question was up for debate, but the decision at all three levels of review (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, and Court of Appeals) now leaves no room for doubt.

Imagine walking through a metal maze, wearing magnet shoes, trying to solve a Rubik's Cube coated in honey.

Visualizing that? Metal floor.  Magnet shoes.  Lots of honey.

Okay.

This…is an even stickier problem.

Why is it sticky?  Because for any library but a school district library, there is no definitive answer.

To show you why, let me extract you from the metal maze and bring you into the weeds of New York's Real Property Tax Law ("RPTL") Section 726.[1]

Specifically, let's look at Section 726, sub-section 1(c), which controls a school district's refund of taxes paid by those who have successfully fought to reduce their property assessment.

Since 2014, this portion of the RPTL has given tax-levying school districts the following authority:

"A school district which levies taxes on behalf of a school district public library [that must be refunded to a taxpayer] may charge back to such public library the portion of such refund attributable to library purposes."

Prior to 2014, school districts had no such express authority.  The law was silent on this topic. This lead the New York State Comptroller to write three decisive opinions (in 1975, 1979, and 1995) stating that school districts who levied funds for public libraries did NOT have that authority.[2]  In other words, if a refund was owed: the district was stuck.

So stalwart was the Comptroller's stance on this ("Comptroller" just sounds like someone in charge, right?) that in 2007, it was cited by the NY Commissioner of Education when they decided that a school district's attempt to "charge back" an association library's portion of a refund--by withholding an equivalent amount from the following year's levy--was forbidden.[3]

So, there we were until 2014: a Comptroller-confirmed approached that was a great deal for libraries.

But not such a great deal for New York's school districts, right? When a refund came a-knocking, they were left holding the bag.

By 2014, the complaints had gotten so loud, the Assembly added the above-quoted section to RPTL 726, while commenting:

Existing law is silent on whether a school district may charge back court ordered refunds. Opinions of the State Comptroller (95-15, 79-103, 75-1210) have consistently, held that school districts are lacking in the necessary statutory authority. This legislation corrects an apparent oversight in Real Property Tax Low [sic]. It was never the intent of the Legislature to prohibit school districts %% inch[sic] levy taxes on behalf of a school district public library from apportioning the library portion of certiorata and small claims assessment review refunds to such libraries. The inequity of requiring a school district to refund a library's share of tax certiorari debt from the school district's own resources is clear.[4]

From a certain point of view, legislation to correct this "inequity" makes a lot of sense.  If you're running a school district, you're probably already struggling to get new orchestra instruments.  Now out of the blue you have to issue a tax refund to the local over-assessed big box store?  The last thing you want to do is also eat the portion owed by the local library.  Good thing the legislature fixed that, right?

But a sharp reader has probably noticed: in trying to clear up one problem, the legislature created another.

What does that language in 726 (c)1 say, exactly?

"A school district which levies taxes on behalf of a school district public library [that must be refunded to a taxpayer] may charge back to such public library the portion of such refund attributable to library purposes."

What's the problem here?  The black letter law of the new section of 726(c)1 only names school district public libraries.  Association libraries, special district, municipal libraries--these are all left out. And even though there are sections of the Education Law where "all types of libraries [are] treated equally,"[5]  and school districts can levy taxes for any kind of library,[6] without clear authority to indicate anything different, I would not be comfortable stating that the new section of 726(c)(1) has positioned school districts to charge back any taxes from anything other than a school district public library.  The language is just too specific.

So, when a non-school district public library gets a charge-back bill from a school district,[7] what's a public library do? 

First, as they say in the intergalactic travel biz: DON'T PANIC.  You'll figure something out.

Second: Gather your paperwork (the charge back bill, the court papers related to the Article 7 assessment challenge if you got them, and the most recent correspondence with the district).

Third: Assemble your team. Who is "your team"?  In New York, it should (at least) be: your Treasurer, your board chair (or other designated member/s), a rep from your system,[8] and a lawyer.[9]

Fourth: After an initial meeting, someone from your team might want chat with the assessor, and maintain some routine contact--you'll want some intel on how much more of this could happen. 

Fifth:  After gathering all the intel you can, your team should formulate a recommended "Response," to be authorized by the library's board. 

What will the Response authorized by the board provide?  I can't say.  Looking at the diversity of library-related legal cases, it is clear that New York's libraries are very diverse in their approach to taxes and risk.  Some, after assessing the validity of the back charge (and the resources needed to fight it), might just eat the cost.  Others might ask the Comptroller for an opinion about the 2014 change to the law, holding off on paying up until they get a reply.  And still others might attack the validity of the adjustment, or band together with other entities to formulate a broader strategy.

What is important is that whatever is done is based on good information, and a well-informed decision of the board.  Whatever strategy your library adopts, it should consider the relationship with the school district as a whole.  Remember, they didn't cause this mess.

Thank you for submitting this sticky question.  I wish my answer was simpler, but right now, the law does not allow for an easy response. 

Someday we'll take off the magnets and put down the honey.

[1] Yes, you're still holding the Rubik's Cube.  Don't worry, there are no bees in these weeds to be attracted by the honey.

[2] Opinions number 95-15, 79-103, and 75-1210.

[3] Decision No. 15,662.

[4] New York State Assembly Bill Search and Legislative Information for Bill Number A05310 (2014).

[5] Section 259, for instance, (which as commented by the Education Commissioner in the Croton Free Library decision), "provides that moneys received by a municipality or school district from taxes or other public sources are to be paid over to the treasurers" of all kinds of libraries just the same.

[6] A function of convention, more so than law; see the "Ask the Lawyer" on school tax levies: Taxes RAQs

[7] Do not confuse a charge-back bill from a school district with a charge-back bill from a municipality or other entity!  This commentary only pertains to school districts…in the year 2020…until there is some authority from the Comptroller, the courts, or the legislature to sort this mishegas out.

[8] Depending on what's happening in your region, this might not be their first charge-back rodeo.

[9] A lawyer is critical, because there is more than one kind of tax adjustment proceeding, and RPTL 726 only applies to adjustments under Article 7.  The lawyer's job will be to make sure the adjustment and charge back demand is legit (or not), and to assess the risks of paying (or not).