Matter of Woodburn v. Village of Owego
151 A.D.3d 1216
| N.Y. App. Div. | 2017Background
- In Oct 2015 the Village of Owego Board contracted Siena College to draft and mail a $7,500 public opinion survey to village residents about the future of the village police department.
- In Nov 2015 the Board approved dissemination of an eight-question survey scheduled for January 2016; petitioners (two village residents) sued in Dec 2015 seeking to annul the Oct and Nov resolutions and to enjoin the survey as an impermissible advisory referendum.
- Supreme Court granted a stay of the Nov survey; in Jan 2016 the Board revised the survey and approved a new version, prompting petitioners to amend their pleading to challenge the Jan 2016 resolution as well.
- Supreme Court found petitioners had common-law taxpayer standing, granted the amended petition, annulled the Oct, Nov and Jan resolutions, declared the Nov and Jan surveys impermissible advisory referenda/opinion polls, and permanently enjoined respondents from conducting such surveys.
- On appeal, the Appellate Division (3d Dep't) agreed petitioners had taxpayer standing but reversed on the merits, holding Village Law § 4-412 authorizes the Board to expend public funds on public opinion surveys and that the challenged questionnaires were not forbidden advisory referenda.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioners have standing to challenge the Board's resolutions | Petitioners lack other avenues; public-significance warrants taxpayer standing | Respondents argued petitioners lacked standing | Court: Petitioners have common-law taxpayer standing |
| Whether Village Law permits spending public funds to conduct public opinion surveys/polls | Surveys are impermissible advisory referenda or polls; Board cannot expend funds for them | Village Law § 4-412 grants broad general authority to take measures, including public surveys | Court: § 4-412 authorizes the Board to conduct such public opinion surveys |
| Whether the Nov/Jan questionnaires were impermissible advisory referenda | Characterized the questionnaires as advisory referenda that cannot be held without express statutory authority | Questionnaires sought sampling of public sentiment, not a ballot vote; not placed on election ballot | Court: The instruments were permissible surveys, not prohibited advisory referenda |
| Reliance on AG/Comptroller opinions and prior cases interpreting "polls" | Petitioners relied on AG/Comptroller opinions finding such polls impermissible | Respondents argued those opinions are erroneous and not binding; historical use of word "polls" denotes ballot referenda | Court: Administrative opinions were not binding; case law shows "polls" historically meant a ballot vote, so non-ballot surveys are allowed |
Key Cases Cited
- Colella v. Board of Assessors of County of Nassau, 95 N.Y.2d 401 (affirming circumstances supporting taxpayer standing)
- Kupferman v. Katz, 13 N.Y.2d 932 (discussing limits on advisory referenda and "polls")
- Ricket v. Mahan, 97 A.D.3d 1062 (taxpayer standing where issue of public significance and no other avenue for review)
- Brucia v. County of Suffolk, 90 A.D.2d 762 (advisory referenda not authorized absent express statutory authority)
- Mills v. Sweeney, 219 N.Y. 213 (illustrating advisory questions placed before electorate at balloting are treated as referenda)
- McCabe v. Voorhis, 243 N.Y. 401 (authority on limits of advisory referenda)