If North Haven wants a town meeting to vote on budgetary transfers, the town will have to seek legal action in superior court, according to Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal.

Blumenthal replied on Oct. 22 to an inquiry sent to his office by Board of Finance members Timothy Doheny and Richard Monico regarding town meeting. In their Sept. 16 letter, Doheny and Monico asked Blumenthal whether the Board of Finance had sole authority to approve budgetary transfers, or if a town meeting had to approve the transfers.

In order to close out the 2008-09 fiscal year, the Board of Finance voted Aug. 19 to approve a budgetary transfer of $1.69 million from under-expenditures to balance over-expenditures. Doheny, Monico, and a number of residents have opposed the transfers, believing that because North Haven’s form of government uses town meeting as legislature, a town meeting should have been held to vote on the transfers.

However, town attorney Richard Parrett has opined that because no additional money was added to the budget – the transfers involved money already within the budget – there was no need for a town meeting. The budgetary transfers were concluded without a town meeting.

In his response to Doheny and Monico’s letter, Blumenthal said that his office did not have the authority make an official ruling on the case.

“My office has no authority to advise municipal officials regarding their duties and responsibilities under local town charters or state statutes concerning budgets and appropriations,” the Attorney General wrote.

Blumenthal pointed back to Parrett as the source of official ruling on such a matter.

“Connecticut law deems the town attorney as the proper source of such advice as well as to defend town officials acting on such advice,” Blumenthal wrote.

Blumenthal did not specify his opinion on the actual matter – instead, he restated Parrett’s interpretation without voicing his own assessment.

“This question was appropriately proposed to the town attorney, who rendered an opinion on August 28, 2008 interpreting North Haven’s charter and several state statutes to require a town meeting only when additional funds have not already been appropriated in the budget,” Blumenthal wrote. “Stated another way, if one line item receives additional funds from another line item in the budget such transfer requires only approval by the Board of Finance.”

If North Haven officials find fault with Parrett’s opinion, Blumenthal wrote, then the town must pursue the ruling of a higher court, and on its own time and money.

“Under state law, if a municipal official disagrees with the town attorney’s opinion,” the Attorney General wrote, “the official may pursue a legal action in the superior court, seeking a declaratory ruling on the legal question. I understand this process requires an expenditure of money and time, but this is the only other option available to municipal officials under state law.”

Blumenthal stated that he understood the uncertainty on the tricky matter.

“I appreciate the confusion on the part of municipal officials attempting to follow somewhat unclear state statutes, further complicated by additional provisions in the town charter,” Blumenthal wrote. “As the town attorney’s opinion indicates, there are no court rulings to provide further clarification concerning these statutory provisions.”

Monico wished that Blumenthal had specifically stated his interpretation of the statutes in question. “I’m disappointed that the Attorney General would not comment on state statute,” he said. “You would think that fell under his jurisdiction.”

Monico added that he and Doheny were not seeking a final judgment from Blumenthal, but instead wanted his opinion in a complicated matter involving the confluence of state statute and town charter.

“We weren’t asking for his answer to be etched in stone,” Monico said. “His opinion and interpretation of state statute would have helped our leaders make a decision.”

Monico still believes that Parrett’s opinion goes against state statute. “If you’ve read the actual state statute, it seems black and white to me,” he said. “And this doesn’t seem to coincide with the statutes.”

Parrett was gratified by Blumenthal’s letter. “I’m pleased with it,” the town attorney said. “It clearly states that the town is not doing anything improper.”

Parrett believed that the difference in opinion derives partly from archaic amendments to the state statute that governs municipal boards of finance.

“The statute was passed over 100 years ago,” he said. “State legislators have added amendments over the years because they wanted to simplify things for towns. But they’ve forgot to take other stuff out. The state legislature probably needs to clean up the statute so that it is not confusing - because it is confusing.”

In his letter, Blumenthal seemed to agree with Parrett that the statute was confusing and in need of attention from state officials. “Clarification should be sought – and I would join in this effort – from state legislature,” he wrote.

Parrett questioned how a town meeting could be held after budgetary transfers had already been completed. “It doesn’t make any sense to have a town meeting when something is already done and the books are already closed,” he said.

The town attorney remained confident that legislation backed his opinion. “State statute doesn’t say that town meeting has to be held for transfers,” he said, “it gives the Board of Finance the hand to do that, as does the town charter.”

Part of the issue stems from Connecticut General Statute 7-348, which Monico and Doheny believe makes town meetings mandatory for any budgetary transfer over $20,000. In his Aug. 28 written opinion on the matter, Parrett stated that 7-348 defined that $20,000 in question as “additional appropriations,” which he wrote were different than transfers of money that already existed within the budget.