Bartlett v. Board of Trustees of White Pine County School Dist., 8434

• Court: Supreme Court of Nevada
• Citation: 92 Nev. 347,550 P.2d 416
• Docket Number: No. 8434,8434
• Parties: Robert BARTLETT et al., Appellants, v. The BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF the WHITE PINE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Respondent.
• Decision Date: 07 June 1976

Page 416

550 P.2d 416 92 Nev. 347 Robert BARTLETT et al., Appellants,
v.
The BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF the WHITE PINE COUNTY SCHOOL
DISTRICT, Respondent. No. 8434. Supreme Court of Nevada. June 7, 1976.
Rehearing Denied July 2, 1976.

[92 Nev. 348] Hilbrecht, Jones, Schrect & Bybee, Las Vegas, for appellants.

Julian C. Smith, Jr., Carson City, for respondent.

OPINION

THOMPSON, Justice:

This appeal is from a judgment of the district court refusing to enjoin the decision of the White Pine County School Board to close Lund High School with approximately 30 students, and to bus them 40 miles to the White Pine High School in Ely where 700 to 800 students are enrolled. The Board consists of 7 members. The vote for closure was 4 to 3. It was contended [92 Nev. 349] below, and now in this court, that the information before the Board which prompted

Page 417

a majority to favor closure was erroneous and the decision, therefore, arbitrary and capricious.

Lund High School had been in existence for more than 50 years serving the Lund, Preston and White River Valley communities as an educational, cultural and social center. The area is primarily agricultural in character. Although the curriculum at Lund High was less broad than that offered at White Pine High, it was specially structured to meet the needs of an agricultural area in that it offered a vocational-agricultural course (home economics for girls; mechanics, stock raising and farming for boys) not offered at White Pine. Every student at Lund High took that course.

The teacher-pupil ratio at Lund was approximately 1 to 9, and at White Pine, 1 to 17. It costs about twice as much to educate a student at Lund as it does at White Pine.

The matter of Closing Lund High first was presented to the Board at executive session by Arthur Anderson, a new member. One month later, at a regular meeting of the Board, Mr. Anderson moved to close Lund High. His motion was based solely upon his personal study of the financial condition of the White Pine School District. His study projected a $75,000 deficit for the 1975--76 school year which he proposed to eliminate by closing Lund High. His motion was seconded, but action thereon deferred until March 10, 1975, the next regular meeting of the Board. In so far as the record reveals, the Superintendent of the School District had not recommended the closure of Lund High at any time.

The March 10 public meeting was well attended. Approximately 32 citizens and 3 board members spoke in favor of keeping Lund High open. Two board members spoke for closure. When the meeting concluded, the Board voted 4 to 3 for closure.

The White Pine County Grand Jury, the County Commissioners and the three dissenting board members requested reconsideration. Their request was accommodated and another hearing was held on April 10. Notwithstanding the apparent public sentiment to keep Lund High viable, the vote of the members of the School Board did not change. This litigation followed.

The Board of School Trustees is given the power '. . . as may be requisite to attain the end for which the public schools are established and to promote the welfare of school children, including the establishment and operation of schools deemed necessary and desirable.' NRS 386.350. Moreover, the Board [92 Nev....