192 Conn. 426 | Conn. | 1984
In these actions the plaintiffs as taxpayers of the city of New Haven sought a declaratory judgment that the tax rate of 74.29 mills for the fiscal year July 1,1982, through June 30,1983, voted by the board of aldermen was illegal and that the lawful rate was 73.30 mills as originally recommended by the board of finance. An injunction against collection of taxes at the higher rate and a writ of mandamus to implement the lower rate was also claimed, as well as general equitable relief. The court rendered judgment for the defendants, the city of New Haven and various city officials, and the plaintiffs have appealed.
The principal issue presented by the appeal is whether certain provisions of the charter of the city of New Haven relating to the date when the budget estimates and tax rate recommendation of the board of finance are to be submitted to the board of aldermen are mandatory, so that any revision thereof made after such date, for whatever reason, becomes a nullity. We conclude that, where there is sufficient justification, the board of finance may modify its submission to the board of aldermen even after expiration of the time prescribed by the charter. Accordingly, we find no error.
The controlling provision of the New Haven charter is § 58,
As the trial court found, the original budget of the board of finance with total appropriations of $134,306,502 and a tax rate of 73.30 mills for the
On May 18, 1982, the board of finance learned that its budget estimate of $19,572,539 to be received from the state during the fiscal year was $510,539 too high and that a utility bill of $244,310.04 for electric service to the New Haven Coliseum had to be paid in order to avoid cessation of electricity supplied to the Coliseum. The board also had become aware that because of the action of the board of aldermen on April 19, 1982, the program of services to the elderly was underfunded in the budget which it had submitted before that date by $214,000. On May 20, 1982, the board of finance amended its estimated budget to reflect the reduction in anticipated revenues and the two additional expenditures, resulting in a revised total outlay and a new tax rate of 74.30 mills. The board of aldermen held a public hearing on the amended budget on May 27,1982, and approved it on June 7,1982, the first Monday of that month, as prescribed by the charter. On June 15, 1982, the mayor signed the budget voted by the aldermen.
The only significant challenge made by the plaintiffs to the facts as found by the trial court concerns whether the board of finance discovered or reasonably should have discovered the items omitted or incorrectly stated in the budget proposal before it was submitted. Our review of the evidence relating to these matters indicates sufficient support for the finding of the court that a unique problem confronted the board of finance because of the information they received after the date specified by the charter for submission of the budget,
In this appeal the plaintiffs focus
“For the reason that individuals or the public should not be made to suffer for the dereliction of public officers, provisions regulating the duties of public officers and specifying the time for their performance are in that regard generally directory.” 2A Sutherland, Statutory Construction (4th Ed. Sands) § 57.19. Unless there is reason to believe that the legislature intended that the duty not be performed at all except within the time prescribed or that the time restriction should be considered a limitation upon the power of the tardy officer, failure to act within the time specified should not invalidate the action taken. Id. “It is of course difficult to lay down a general rule to determine in all cases when the provisions of a statute are merely directory and when mandatory or imperative, but, of all the rules mentioned, the test most satisfactory and conclusive is, whether the prescribed mode of action is of the essence of the thing to be accomplished, or in other words, whether it relates to matter material or immaterial — to matter of convenience or of substance.” Gallup v. Smith, 59 Conn. 354, 358, 22 A. 334 (1890); see Engle v. Personnel Appeal Board, 175 Conn. 127, 130, 394 A.2d 731 (1978).
The New Haven charter divides the budget making authority between the board of finance and the board of aldermen. The aldermen may reallocate the total amount of appropriations recommended by the board of finance, increasing or decreasing separate items, and it may decrease, but not increase, the total. An overriding consideration is that “the total amount of such annual appropriations for any year shall not exceed the estimated income for that year.” Once the board of
On previous occasions we have held that acts of a public official performed at a time beyond the limit prescribed are nonetheless effective. State ex rel. Arcudi v. Iassogna, 165 Conn. 203, 205, 332 A.2d 90 (1973) (appointment of unemployment commissioner after expiration of date prescribed by statute); Donohue v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 155 Conn. 550, 554, 235 A.2d 643 (1967) (decision rendered by zoning board of appeals after time limited by statute); Colt v. Eves, supra, 252-55 (selection of names on jury list after date prescribed). Despite the imperative “shall,” which is used in setting the date for submission of the board of finance proposal, as well as throughout § 58 of the charter, we are persuaded that the legislature never intended that failure of the board of finance to comply with this time limit should nullify any subsequent action taken. This court has consistently shown “a disposition to look through the literal meaning of words and forms of procedure to the essential purposes to be served.” Conners v. New Haven, 101 Conn. 191, 198, 125 A. 375 (1924). The use of the word “shall,” though significant, does not invariably create a mandatory duty
There is no error.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.
Section 58 of the charter of the city of New Haven provides as follows: “Sec. 58. BUDGETARY PROCEDURES.
“In the months of March and April in each year, the board of finance shall make estimates of the amount of money necessary to be appropriated for the expenses of said city for the fiscal year next ensuing, beginning July first, and of the rate of taxation required to meet the same, and shall classify such expenses under appropriate heads and departments. In the preparation of such estimates, said board of finance shall give notice to each board or department of a definite time when and place where it
In the trial court the plaintiffs also stressed the failure of the board of finance to hold a public hearing on the revisions to the budget before they were sent to the board of aldermen on May 20,1982. The board of aider-men, which had previously concluded its public hearings on the original budget, held an additional public hearing upon the amended budget on May 27, 1982. The charter does not restrict the power of the board of finance to revise the budget proposal after presentation at the public hearing before the board of finance or require it to hold a further public hearing on those revisions.