Board of Ed. of Independent School Dist. of Stanton, Montgomery County v. County Bd. of Ed. In and For Montgomery County, 50929

• Decision Date: 09 April 1963
• Docket Number: No. 50929,50929
• Citation: 254 Iowa 1285,121 N.W.2d 137
• Parties: BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT OF STANTON, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, Iowa, et al., Appellants, v. COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION IN AND FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, Iowa, Appellee.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

Page 137

121 N.W.2d 137

254 Iowa 1285

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT OF STANTON, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, Iowa, et al., Appellants, v.COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION IN AND FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, Iowa, Appellee.

No. 50929.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

April 9, 1963.

Herman W. Walter, Council Bluffs, for appellants.

John F. Boeye, Montgomery County Atty., Red Oak, for appellee.

MOORE, Justice.

On March 30, 1961, there was filed in the office of Montgomery County Superintendent of Schools, pursuant to section 275.12, Code of 1958, I.C.A., a petition for the reorganization of certain districts in Montgomery and Page Counties into the Stanton Community School District.The proposal was signed by more than the number required by statute.The proposed district contained the Independent School District of Stanton and all or parts of four other school districts in Montgomery County.It also included seven or eight sections of the Douglas Township School District of Page County.The areas included approximately 78 square miles in which 334 pupils were enrolled during the school year of 1960-61.

On April 28, 1961, after proper notice, a hearing was held before the joint boards of Montgomery and Page Counties acting as a single board.Each board was represented by five of its members.After presentation of evidence including many written and oral objections, the joint board by a vote of seven to three approved the proposal as modified by certain boundary changes.All five Page County members and two Montgomery County members voted in the affirmative.Three Montgomery County members (a majority) voted against the proposal.Appeal to the State Department of Public Instruction was taken by the Montgomery County Board.Following a hearing before the State Superintendent of Public Instruction and two assistants, the State Department reversed the joint board's decision and dismissed the proposal.From this decision and order the proponents appealed to the district court of Montgomery County.

The evidence submitted to the trial court consisted entirely of written records and documents admitted by stipulations.From judgment sustaining the State Board's rulingplaintiffs here appealed.

I.Appellants' first three assignments of error are difficult to understand and indicate a misunderstanding of this court's function in considering this appeal.They are entirely ignored in appellee's brief and argument.Appellants assert (1)Montgomery County Board in its notice of appeal to the State Board erroneously claimed a change of the established county plan should have been incorporated in the proposal, (2) the allegation in said notice other school districts were available was a conclusion and not based on the facts and (3) the Montgomery County Board failed to comply with the statute for changing the established county plan.Apparently appellants are attempting to raise new issues for the first time.The trial court in his findings and conclusions stated: 'The only question left for review is whether the order of the State Board of Education was arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable, and therefore an abuse of discretion.'

Section 275.16 provides that when a controversy from a meeting of county boards is brought to thr state department they'shall have the authority to affirm the action of the joint boards, to vacate, to dismiss all proceedings or to make such modification of the action of the joint boards as in their judgment would serve the best interest of all the counties.'The proceeding before the state department involves legislative functions.In re Community School District of Malvern, 250 Iowa 1240, 98 N.W.2d 737.Our attention is not called to any statute which requires written pleadings before the state department.It is not an appeal in the accepted sense.Strict rules of pleading and proof are not required or expected in hearings before that department.In re Durant Community School...