Author: Municipal Finance Legal Guidance
This month's Ask DLS features frequently asked questions concerning drafting articles for town meeting warrants. Please let us know if you have other areas of interest or send a question to cityandtown@dor.state.ma.us. We would like to hear from you.
What is the purpose of a warrant article?
The purpose of a warrant article is to give notice of the subject matter to be acted on at town meeting. Generally, if the subject involves a matter that requires an expenditure, the meeting may decide the amount to spend, the financing source and other details.
It is important to note that all action taken by town meeting is taken by votes upon which a motion is made. Warrant articles are not themselves a motion as they are not self-starting and, as noted above, are intended to merely state the limits of the subject matter to be acted upon.
What must be included in a valid warrant article?
Warrant articles must contain a specific appropriated amount in order to be certified under G.L. c. 41, § 15A. G.L. c. 59, § 23 additionally requires that all appropriations be totaled to enter into the calculation of a town's tax rate and the town accountant needs a sum certain in order to prepare warrants in accordance with G.L. c. 41, § 56. The article should also include the applicable funding source.
What if a town meeting warrant article fails to name a funding source?
Where an otherwise valid vote has taken place, without an appropriation source, a vote may be deemed valid but by default the source is considered "raise and appropriate."
Can a funding source be changed on the floor of town meeting?
As a general rule, a town meeting warrant article may be amended on the floor of town meeting through a motion. As noted above, warrant articles are considered mere abstracts of propositions to be acted upon by the town and to provide mere general notice to town meeting of what will come before it for action and consideration. Haven v. Lowell, 46 Mass. 35 (1842); Coffin v. Lawrence, 143 Mass. 110 (1886); Tuckerman v. Moynihan, 282 Mass. 562 (1933); Fish v. Canton, 322 Mass. 219 (1948). An article that provides notice of a particular project the town will consider to undertake that is likely to require the expenditure of money will be sufficient even if it fails to include words such as "appropriate a sum of money" or "to make an appropriation therefor." Blackburn v. Walpole, 26 Mass. 97 (1829). Massachusetts courts have broadly interpreted money articles and have upheld votes where the funding source is ultimately different from that specified in the article. As such, if the voters are informed that an expenditure is being considered, the town meeting could choose to appropriate from the levy rather than the funding source described in the article.
Can a town meeting vote be found invalid due to a warrant article defect?
Under G.L. c. 40, § 32, the state attorney general’s office reviews town meeting bylaws and, additionally, courts are sometimes asked to review the legality of warrant articles. Only in limited circumstances has a town meeting vote be found invalid by the court. Examples include if the language in the warrant is misleading, if language included or excluded in a warrant article substantially alters the article's meaning, if an article conflicts with a state or federal statutory scheme, if the funding amount of an article requires subjective interpretation by municipal finance officials or if the warrant fails to sufficiently state the nature of the matters to be acted upon.
The Court recent held, in Boss v. Leverett, 484 Mass. 553 (2020), that no evidence was presented showing that voters were confused by a particular vote but further that no authority was cited that says if they were confused then that confusion empowers the Court to order a new vote be taken. In that case, the warrant met the standard of indicating with substantial certainty the nature of the business to be acted on and, as such, the vote was valid.
What if town meeting would like to make an appropriation contingent on a ballot question and “contingency” was not included in the warrant?
Town meeting may make any appropriation contingent on a Proposition 2½ ballot question even if “contingency” language was not included in the warrant article under which the vote was taken. Any language in the vote that indicates the appropriation is subject to the approval of a Proposition 2½ question is sufficient. See our Prop 2 ½ ballot question guidance.
Helpful Resources
City & Town is brought to you by:
Editor: Dan Bertrand
Editorial Board: Marcia Bohinc, Linda Bradley, Tracy Callahan, Sean Cronin, Emily Izzo, Paula King, Jennifer Mcallister and Tony Rassias
| Date published: | April 7, 2022 |
|---|