Board of Directors of Menlo Consol. School Dist. of Menlo v. Blakesley

• Citation: 36 N.W.2d 751,240 Iowa 910
• Decision Date: 05 April 1949
• Docket Number: 47407.
• Parties: BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF MENLO CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DIST. OF MENLO et al. v. BLAKESLEY (CLINE et al., Intervenors).
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

36 N.W.2d 751

240 Iowa 910

BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF MENLO CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DIST. OF MENLO et al. v. BLAKESLEY (CLINE et al., Intervenors).

No. 47407.

Supreme Court of Iowa

April 5, 1949

Rehearing Denied June 17, 1949.

Batschelet & Thompson, of Guthrie Center, and Emmert, James, Needham & Lindgren, of Des Moines, for appellants.

W H. Van Duzer, of Casey, and A. H. Christensen, of Guthrie Center, for appellees.

WENNERSTRUM Justice.

An equity action was commenced by the claimed Board of Directors of the Menlo Consolidated School District of Menlo, Iowa, as a body and as individual members, to enjoin the secretary of the school district from continuing with the holding of a special election for the purpose of electing five new directors. The defendant secretary defaulted through the failure to file any pleadings. The intervenors filed a petition of intervention wherein they sought to have the court declare vacant the offices of the school directors who claimed to be the holders of that office. The intervenors also sought to have an order entered compelling and directing the secretary to call a special election. The plaintiffs answered the petition of intervention and on numerous grounds questioned the right of the intervenors to maintain their petition. Upon trial the trial court held adversely to the contentions of the plaintiffs and they have appealed.

Certain of the appellants hereinafter referred to had been elected as members of the Board of Directors of the Menlo Consolidated School District. The appellee, Edith Blakesley, is secretary. The intervenors are interested taxpayers, residents and patrons of the school district. As is frequently the case in school district litigation the present difficulties developed because the school board refused to re-employ the then superintendent for another year and contracted with another individual to fill that position.

The members of the board of directors of the district on April 7, 1948 were Gerald Cline, Donald Stemm, Bernard Colbert, and Reuben Bloomquist. The fifth member, Edmond Groomes had apparently resigned on or about April 5, 1948 because of his election to the County Board of Education. During the forenoon of April 7 1948 the school board met at the store of Edith Blakesley, secretary. At this meeting necessary affairs of the school district were considered and apparently a discussion had as to the controversy that had developed within the district by reason of the failure to reelect the former superintendent and the election of a new superintendent. Following the adjournment of this meeting the then four members of the school board wrote out resignations which were in substance as follows: 'I tender my resignation from the Board of the Menlo Consolidated School'; 'I wish to resign from the board'; I hereby hand in my resignation as a member of the School Board of the Menlo Consolidated School, effective April 7, 1948.'

These purported resignations were left with the secretary of the school board. They were not in evidence before the trial court for the reasons hereinafter stated. Upon the presentation of these resignations to the secretary she communicated with the County Superintendent of Schools. On his advice she posted on April 8, 1948 a call for a special election to elect five new directors for the school district, which said election was to be held April 22, 1948. On April 9, 1948 Reuben Bloomquist, Bernard Colbert and Donald Stemm individually or through members of their respective families called for and received from the secretary of the school board the written resignations left with her. Gerald Cline did not withdraw his resignation. On April 10, 1948 Edith Blakesley took down the notices she had posted and by which the special election was called. At a meeting of the school board members then acting, namely, Donald Stemm, Bernard Colbert and Reuben Bloomquist on April 13th the resignation of Edmond Groomes was accepted. At a subsequent meeting on April 14th of these three individuals acting as the board of the district the resignation of Gerald Cline was accepted. By reason of these resignations and their acceptance Layton Menefee and Ralph Hunt were elected as new members of the board. On account of the incidents which have been heretofore related the then acting members of the school board, with the county attorney, went to Des Moines and conferred with officials in the office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction and with one of the Assistant Attorneys General relative to the existing situation. They were advised that in the light of the withdrawal of the resignations and the fact that notices of the special election had been removed by the secretary of the board that an injunction action should be brought to restrain the holding of the election. It was apparently suggested that by bringing such an action possible legal proceeding against Edith Blakesley, the secretary, for removing the election notices, might be avoided. On April 19, 1948 the appellants acting as members of the school board filed a petition for a temporary injunction therein seeking to restrain the secretary from holding the special election. On April 20, 1948 the court entered a temporary injunction as prayed for by the appellants. On May 3, 1948 the intervenors filed their petition of intervention in the injunction proceeding. Thereafter subsequent pleadings were filed by the interested parties which resulted in bringing the matters to issue and the final submission to the trial court.

The questions presented by appellants in their appeal are: (1) Does the leaving of a signed statement of resignation with the secretary of the school board by member of that board effect an immediate vacancy in his office which would not permit a subsequent withdrawal of the resignation? (2) Can individual citizens by means of a petition of intervention in the injunction action brought by appellants challenge the title to a public office rather than by a proceeding in quo warranto? (3) Can individual citizens obtain relief in an injunction action to compel a public officer, in this case the secretary of the school board, to perform an official act rather than by an action in mandamus. It is appellants' contention that the trial court was in error in holding that vacancies existed on the board, that the question of the right to hold the office of school director should have been raised by an action in quo warranto, and that an action in mandamus should have been brought to compel the calling of an election.

The intervenors-appellees maintain that they properly and of necessity intervened in the appellants' injunction proceeding inasmuch as they contended that they were 'the duly elected or appointed, qualified and acting Board of Directors' which it is maintained they were not. It is also claimed that the temporary injunction had been wrongfully secured and that the enjoined election should be held.

I. A determination of the question whether vacancies occurred immediately upon the filing of the written resignations of the members of the school board necessitates our initial consideration of the statutory provisions relative to vacancies in school offices. Section 277.29, 1946 Code, I.C.A., in part, states: '* * * the resignation * * * of incumbent * * * shall constitute a vacancy.'

Section 277.24, 1946 Code, I.C.A., in part, states: 'Members of the board in all independent districts * * * shall be chosen * * * for a term of three years * * * and shall hold office for the term for which elected and until their successors are elected or appointed and qualified, * * *.'

Section 279.7, 1946 Code, I.C.A., which pertains to vacancies filled by special election, in part, provides:

'* * * or when the board is reduced below a quorum for any cause, the secretary of the board, or if there be no secretary, the county superintendent of schools shall call a special election in the district, * * * to fill such vacancy or vacancies, giving the notices required by law for such special elections, which election shall be held not sooner than ten days nor later than fourteen days thereafter. In any case where the secretary fails for more than three days to call such election, the county superintendent shall call it by giving the notices required by law for special elections.

'Any appointment by the board to fill any vacancy in an elective office on or after the day notice has been given for a special election to fill such vacancy as provided herein shall be null and void. * * *' (...