Appeal of Board of Directors of Grimes Independent School Dist.

• Decision Date: 15 December 1964
• Docket Number: No. 51406,51406
• Citation: 257 Iowa 106,131 N.W.2d 802
• Parties: Appeal of BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF GRIMES INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT. Appeal of Board of Directors of Grimes Independent School District (Appellant) from decision of State Board of Public Instruction in the matter of the proposed Dallas Community School District in Dallas and Polk Counties, Iowa in proceedings captioned before State Department of Public Instruction as: 'BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF the WEBSTER TOWNSHIP INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellees, v. COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION OF POLK COUNTY, Iowa, County Board of Education of Dallas County, Iowa, Board of Directors of Grimes Independent School District, Grimes, Iowa, Board of Directors of Dallas Center Community School District, Dallas Center, Iowa, and the Board of Directors of Grant Independent Number Seven School District, Grimes, Iowa', Appellants.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

Page 802

131 N.W.2d 802

257 Iowa 106

Appeal of BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF GRIMES INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT Appeal of Board of Directors of Grimes Independent School District (Appellant)from decision of State Board of Public Instruction in the matter of the proposed Dallas Community School District in Dallas and Polk Counties, Iowa in proceedings captioned before State Department of Public Instruction as: 'BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF the WEBSTER TOWNSHIP INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellees, v.COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION OF POLK COUNTY, Iowa, County Board of Education of Dallas County, Iowa, Board of Directors of Grimes Independent School District, Grimes, Iowa, Board of Directors of Dallas Center Community School District, Dallas Center, Iowa, and the Board of Directors of Grant Independent Number Seven School District, Grimes, Iowa', Appellants.

No. 51406.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Dec. 15, 1964.

Leo Ballard, Des Moines, for appellants.

Willis & Sackett, Perry, and Irish & Skinner, Altonna, for appellees.

MOORE, Justice.

On March 28, 1963, pursuant to Chapter 275, Code of 1962, I.C.A., a petition was filed with the Dallas county superintendent of schools proposing the formation of Dallas Center Community School District, Grant Independent Number Seven School District(both in Dallas county), Grimes Independent School District and Webster Independent School District(both in Polk county), into a single school district to be known as Dallas Community School District.Following a hearing the joint boards of education of Dallas and Polk counties approved the plan by a 9 to 1 vote.Webster district appealed to the state department of public instruction which after a hearing dismissed the petition for reorganization on the ground it did not give proper consideration to the welfare of adjoining districts.Thereafter Grimes district filed an appeal with the district court which was resisted primarily by the Polk county board of education.The trial court held the Polk board was not a proper party to resist the appeal, the state department was without jurisdiction upon Webster's appeal and ordered the state department to approve the petition.The Polk board has appealed.

Polk contends the trial court erred in holding (1) it was not a proper party to resist the appeal in district court and (2)the state department was without jurisdiction to consider the appeal thereto by Webster.In addition to resisting these contentions Grimes argues the decision of the state department was arbitrary, unreasonable and without support in the record.

I.Section 275.16, in part, provides: 'In case a controversy arises from such meeting (joint meeting of the county boards), the county board or boards or any school district aggrieved may bring the controversy to the state department of public instruction, * * *.

'* * * This decision (of the state department) may be appealed to a court of record in one of the counties by any aggrieved party to the controversy as defined in section 275.8, * * *.'

Section 275.8, in part, provides:

'* * * An aggrieved party is hereby defined as the board of directors of a school district whose directors are elected at large, or, if said board is elected from director districts, then that membership of the board of directors whose districts are included in the proposed reorganized area, or a county board of education. * * *'

Clearly Polk county board of education could have appealed the state department's decision to the district court.It did not do so but with others, including the Webster board, was made a defendant in the Grimes board appeal.Thereafter the Polk and Webster boards together filed a motion attacking certain parts of the Grimes petition.The trial court overruled this motion.

In the full of 1963 the school board election in Webster township resulted in the election of two new board members and the defeat of those who had opposed the reorganization plan.This resulted in an entire change of position by the Webster board.It filed a pleading in the district court joining with Grimes in the appeal.

The Polk board filed an answer denying the allegations of the district court petition and requested its dismissal.Thus when tried the state board's decision was being attacked by Grimes and Webster and defended by Polk.

The trial court specifically held the Polk board's work was finished when the joint board approved the petition and used this quote from State ex rel. Schilling v. Community School District of Jefferson, 252 Iowa 491, 495, 106 N.W.2d 80, 83: 'When the county board makes its decision and enters its order its work is done.Its decision is final and no appeal may be taken except by 'affected' districts.The proceedings from there on are purely administrative and are under the control of the county superintendent.'

The trial court erred.The cited case refers to organization of a school district entirely within one county under section 275.15 which provides for a decision by the county board of education and permits an appeal to a court of record in the county involved by any school district affected.No appeal to the state board of public instruction is provided.We are not here concerned with a reorganization within one county only.Section 275.15 has no application in the case before us.

Section 275.16 refers to reorganization of school districts in two or more counties and is applicable here.By its provisions a county board is expressly granted a right to appeal to the state department and also to the district court.By section 275.8 the county board is made an aggrieved party.

In construing statutesthe courts search for the legislative intent as shown by what the legislature said, rather than what it should or might have said.No citation of authority is necessary.SeeRule of Civil Procedure 344(f)13.

In Board of Directors of Linden Consolidated School District v. Board of Education, 251 Iowa 929, 103 N.W.2d 696, we considered the question of proper parties involving a school reorganization in Dallas and Guthrie counties.Redfield Community School District was not included in the plan but attempted to intervene in the district court.We held that district was not an aggrieved party and not entitled to intervene.At page 937, 251 Iowa, page 701, 103 N.W.2d, we say:

'The contention that the petition of intervention filed herein is defensive and that one may engage in appeal litigation once commenced, although he may not commence it, has no merit.His interest must be a legally-recognized interest to participate at all.To intervene in such an appeal, the party intervening must have a standing or interest sufficient to maintain the original appeal.There is no difference under Chapter 275 whether the aggrieved party appeals or responds to an appeal.The limitations in Sections 275.8and275.16 are the same.The purpose of such limitations is to restrict appeals to representative bodies interested in the territory involved in the proposed reorganization, and any other holding would tend to avoid this clearly-announced purpose of the legislature.'(Emphasis added.)

See alsoBoard of Directors of Pleasant Hill Independent School District v. Board of Education of Polk, etc., Counties et al., 252 Iowa 1000, 109 N.W.2d 218;Board of Education in and for Essex Independent School District et al. v. Board of Education, 251 Iowa 1085, 104 N.W.2d 590.

Here the Polk board by statute was an aggrieved party.It had a legally-recognized interest and was entitled to respond to the appeal taken by the Grimes board.

II.The record discloses H. B. Harvey was on July 6, 1960 appointed a director on the Webster board to fill a vacancy.On July 3, 1961James Seibert was so appointed to fill another vacancy.Each continued to serve with the third director, Elmer Baer, until October 1963.During most of this period Harvey served as president of the board.They conducted all of the business of the Webster district including hiring a secretary-treasurer, approving budgets, paying tuition, transportation and other expenses.They were recognized as the official board.No other person claimed to be a member of the board.

At a regularly called meeting of the board on April 1, 1963(four days after the petition for reorganization was filed) the following resolution was passed: 'Whereas it is believed to be in the best interest of the citizens of Webster Twp. School Dist. therefore be it resolved that the Webster Twp. School Board oppose the formation of the Dallas Community School district and procure the service of an attorney to represent it in this action.'Harvey and Seibert voted for the resolution.Baer voted against it.

Leo Ballard was hired thereafter and continued to serve as attorney for the board until the change of membership in October 1963.

The minutes of a board meeting on April 30, 1963 show allowance of certain expenses and this entry: 'Mr. Harvey also presented a bill of $370.50 final settlement to Leo Ballard, Attorney.After a discussion of the excessive amount it was decided these bills were legal and must be pd.'

The minutes of May 27, 1963 are: 'Monday May 27, 1963.A group of 29 citizens of WebsterSub.Dist. No. 3 met at the H. B. Harvey home to ask the board to withdraw their appeal to the state board on the Dallas Community District reorganization.

'After all others left Elmer Baer board member asked to hold a meeting of the board.

'Members present were H. B. Harvey, Elmer Baer, James Seibert and C. F. Baer, sec'y.

'Elmer Baer made motion that the board withdraw its appeal to...