Bloom v. Arrowhead Area Ed. Agency, 61548
| Decision Date | 18 October 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 61548,61548 |
| Parties | Myron BLOOM, Karen Bloom, Lester Watts, Louise Watts, et al., Appellees, v. ARROWHEAD AREA EDUCATION AGENCY, Jerome Kiliper, President, Appellants. F. Elmer KLAHS, Robert Rebuhn, Richard Mosbo, Tom Cavanaugh and John Demers, Appellees, v. ARROWHEAD AREA EDUCATION AGENCY, J. W. Kiliper, President, Appellants. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Allan L. Goode, Fort Dodge, for appellants.
Connell & Duffy, P. C., Storm Lake, for appellees.
Considered by UHLENHOPP, P. J., and McCORMICK, ALLBEE, McGIVERIN and LARSON, JJ.
The question here is whether the defendant Arrowhead Area Education Agency failed to adopt and file with the state department of public instruction (DPI) a tentative plan for reorganization of area school districts before approving a specific reorganization proposal for submission to election. The trial court held it did not and set aside the election order. We reverse.
Effective July 1, 1975, area education agencies replaced county school boards. See Code chapter 273; Acts 65 G.A. ch. 1172 § 9. Boundaries of the area agencies are coterminous with those of area vocational schools and community colleges. § 273.2. The agencies are governed by boards of directors.
Among other duties, the area agencies were charged in the statute applicable at the time involved here with planning reorganization of school districts "into such units as are necessary, economical and efficient and which will insure an equal educational opportunity to all children of the state." § 275.1, The Code, 1977. The statutes provided for preliminary reorganization studies and plans. §§ 275.1-275.5, The Code, 1977.
Compliance with the study and planning requirements was a condition precedent to effectuating any reorganization proposal. § 275.9, The Code, 1977. However, under § 275.5, The Code, 1977, only a tentative reorganization plan had to be adopted and filed with the DPI before submission of a specific proposal to election.
These provisions have been changed, but the changes do not affect the present case, nor do they affect § 275.9. See House File 2359, Acts 67 G.A., 1978 Regular Session.
At issue here is whether Arrowhead complied with § 275.5 before approving for submission to the voters of the affected districts a proposal to consolidate the Sioux Rapids Community School District and the Rembrandt Consolidated School District into a single district. At the time involved here § 275.5 provided in material part:
Any proposal for merger, consolidation or boundary change of local school districts shall first be submitted to the area education agency board for approval before being submitted at an election. The area education agency board shall adopt and file a tentative plan with the state department of public instruction no later than sixty days after a proposal for merger or consolidation has been presented to them for their approval under this section.
Plaintiffs, who objected to the reorganization petition in the proceeding before the Arrowhead board, contend the board did not "adopt and file a tentative plan with the state department of public instruction no later than sixty days after (the) proposal for merger (was) presented to them for approval . . ." as required by this provision.
When the board approved the proposal for submission to election, plaintiffs brought separate actions challenging the decision. One was a petition for certiorari and the other a petition for further review under the administrative procedure act. The cases were consolidated for trial. The trial court held for plaintiffs in the certiorari action and ruled the other action was moot. No issue relating to the form of action is presented here. We are asked only to decide whether the trial court erred in holding the board did not comply with § 275.5 before approving the reorganization proposal.
This decision must be made in the light of two principles which are applicable to school reorganization statutes. The statutes are to be liberally construed, and substantial compliance with them is sufficient. Board of Education v. Joint Board of Education, 196 N.W.2d 423, 426 (Iowa 1972).
The case was submitted upon stipulated facts. They include the following:
June 19, 1975, during the period of transition from county to area boards, the Arrowhead board passed a resolution adopting the existing county plans for school reorganization as the tentative reorganization plan for the area under its jurisdiction, pending future reorganization studies.
August 25, 1975, the agency administrator notified David J. Gilliland, intermediate unit resources consultant for the DPI, of Arrowhead's action and asked that the plan be filed.
August 27, 1975, Gilliland acknowledged the filing of the plan with the DPI.
June 7, 1976, a proposal for reorganization of the Sioux Rapids and Rembrandt districts was filed with Arrowhead.
July 26, 1976, a public hearing was held and 82 objectors in the Rembrandt district were given an opportunity to be heard. Mr. Gilliland of the DPI was present and received information relating to the proposal. The information included a map of the proposed district, listing of objectors and data showing curriculum, enrollment totals, location of attendance centers, projected staff reductions, per pupil cost, budget figures and assessed valuations. The Arrowhead board concluded a larger reorganization should be explored and dismissed the proposal.
August 6, 1976, an identical reorganization petition was filed with Arrowhead. Mr. Gilliland was notified.
September 28, 1976, the hearing on the new proposal was held.
September 30, 1976, the Arrowhead board decided to approve the new proposal for submission to the voters in the affected districts. The present litigation ensued.
The trial court based its holding of noncompliance with § 275.5 on three grounds. First, the court held that Arrowhead's adoption of the county plans in June 1975 did not constitute adoption of a tentative plan within the meaning of § 275.5 because the county plans consisted only of maps of school districts as they existed in the county systems. Second, the court held that the filing of these plans as the tentative Arrowhead plan in August 1975 was premature because § 275.5 required the tentative plan to be filed no later than 60 days After the merger proposal had been presented to it. Third, the court held that the information furnished to Mr. Gilliland during the process of considering the first reorganization proposal could not be considered to be a tentative plan filed with the DPI because he was not shown to be a proper person to accept and preserve filings for the DPI or to have acted as such in this instance.
We find it necessary to consider only the first two grounds.
In order to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rudolph v. Iowa Methodist Medical Center
...by which the motion for extension must be filed, it does not purport to prohibit an earlier filing. Cf. Bloom v. Arrowhead Area Education Agency, 270 N.W.2d 594, 597 (Iowa 1978) (reaching a similar conclusion under a statute requiring certain action "no later than sixty days" after a stated......
-
Hedrick Community School Dist. v. Southern Prairie Area Educ. Agency 15, 87-1296
...school district reorganization decisions. Substantial compliance with reorganization statutes is sufficient. Bloom v. Arrowhead Area Educ. Agency, 270 N.W.2d 594, 596 (Iowa 1978); Board of Educ. v. Joint Bd. of Educ., 196 N.W.2d 423, 426 (Iowa 1972). We have defined "substantial compliance"......
-
E. Cent. Cmty. Sch. Dist. v. Miss. Bend Area Educ. Agency
...court emphasized that school reorganization statutes are to be “liberally construed.” Id. Next, we decided Bloom v. Arrowhead Area Education Agency, 270 N.W.2d 594 (Iowa 1978). The question in Bloom was closely related, though not identical, to one of the issues in this case. In Bloom, Arro......