Palermo v. Ulatowski

Citations: 97 Conn. App. 521; 904 A.2d 1278; 2006 Conn. App. LEXIS 398Docket: AC 26065

Court: Connecticut Appellate Court; September 12, 2006; Connecticut; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The case centers on the conflict between the electorate's authority to legislate through referendum and the obligation of elected officials to follow the law. Plaintiff Linda Palermo appeals a trial court decision favoring the defendants, contesting the court's rejection of her attempt to prevent the town of Stratford from enacting its 2004-2005 budget. Palermo argues this budget exceeds the 2 percent cap established by Stratford Town Ordinance 14-29, adopted following a referendum in 1991. She seeks an injunction against the budget's implementation and reimbursement for expenses incurred in the legal action. The defendants counter that 14-29 is invalid and unenforceable. The trial court, in a December 2005 decision, upheld this view, declaring the ordinance exceeds the electorate's legislative power and is void for vagueness. The court denied Palermo's request for injunctive relief, leading to her appeal, which contends that 14-29 should be enforced. The appellate court highlights that the standard of review for injunctions emphasizes the discretion of the trial court, and unless there is clear abuse of that discretion, the lower court's ruling is upheld.

A town charter, established through a special act of the General Assembly or the Home Rule Act, serves as the fundamental legal framework for a municipality, creating and defining its powers. It functions similarly to a state constitution in relation to municipal ordinances, which are legislative enactments that govern local law and conduct. Ordinances must align with the charter, as any ordinance that conflicts with or exceeds the charter's provisions is deemed void. 

In the case at hand, both parties reference the town charter to argue the validity of §14-29. The plaintiff claims that §14-29 is a legitimate exercise of the electorate's referendum power as outlined in Section 8.3.1 of the Stratford town charter. Conversely, the defendants acknowledge the electorate's referendum powers but assert that these powers are explicitly limited, arguing that §14-29 improperly influences the budget-making process, contradicting the charter's stipulations.

The court determined that it did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff's request for an injunction, as Section 8.3.1 clearly defines the roles of town officials and the electorate, specifically excluding the electorate's referendum powers concerning budgetary issues.

The court ruled that Section 14-29 is invalid due to the electorate's exceeding its powers under the town charter when adopting it via referendum. The town charter mandates specific budgetary processes, including the requirement for the town council to enact an annual appropriation ordinance based on the budget prepared by the town manager. The court emphasized that allowing the electorate to initiate budget-related ordinances through referendum would undermine the established budgetary procedures outlined in the charter. Consequently, the court affirmed its decision to declare the ordinance invalid and denied the plaintiffs' request for an injunction, with concurrence from other judges. The defendants included Patricia Ulatowski, town clerk, and eleven members of the Stratford town council, including chairman Joseph Crudo. Relevant provisions of the town charter restrict tax increases to a two-percent limit based on prior budgeted expenditures and outline the budget submission timeline and requirements.