Board of Ed. of Audubon County v. Joint Bd. of Ed. of Audubon, Cass, and Shelby Counties
| Decision Date | 13 April 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 54928,54928 |
| Citation | 196 N.W.2d 423 |
| Parties | BOARD OF EDUCATION OF AUDUBON COUNTY, Iowa, Appellant, v. JOINT BOARD OF EDUCATION OF AUDUBON, CASS, AND SHELBY COUNTIES, Iowa, and Board of Directors of Kimballton Independent School District of Kimballton, Iowa, Appellees. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Dale D. Levis, Audubon, and Louis & Moore, Harlan, for appellant.
Larson & Larson, Harlan, for appellees.
The question in this case is whether a joint board of education substantially complied with the Iowa statute on reorganization of school districts in a reorganization proceeding.
This must be one of the more protracted school reorganizations in Iowa history. Previously, the non-high school Kimballton Independent School District lay between two high school districts--Elk Horn and Audubon. Elk Horn reorganized, taking in part of Kimballton to form Elk Horn-Kimballton district. The remainder of Kimballton district (which we will call Kimballton district) was surrounded by Elk Horn-Kimballton district except for a narrow corridor of land from Audubon district which touched Kimballton district on one side. See map in Burd v. Board of Education of Audubon County, 167 N.W.2d 174 at 176 (Iowa). The Board of Education of Audubon County continually favored joining Kimballton district with Audubon district. Off and on since at least 1959, the three districts have been involved in litigation as to whether Kimballton district should become part of Elk Horn-Kimballton district or of Audubon district. Audubon District Court, Civil No. 14688, Elk Horn-Kimballton Community School Dist. v. Board of Education of Audubon County; Board of Education of Kimballton Independent School Dist. v. Board of Education of Audubon County, 260 Iowa 840, 151 N.W.2d 465; Burd v. Board of Education of Audubon County, 260 Iowa 846, 151 N.W.2d 457; Burd v. Board of Education of Audubon County, 167 N.W.2d 174 (Iowa). The present litigation is the latest in the series and, it is to be hoped, the last.
In the spring of 1965, the legislature enacted a statute providing that all school districts which on April 1, 1966, were not in a high school district or not included in a reorganization petition should be attached by the county board of education to a district having a high school. 61 G.A. ch. 240 (see Code, 1971, § 275.1). This meant that Kimballton district had to join either Elk Horn-Kimballton district or Audubon district. A written proposal to merge Kimballton and Audubon districts was signed by 64 of the 290 voters in Kimballton district, approved by Audubon district board of directors, and on September 27, 1965, filed with the Board of Education of Audubon County. See Code, 1962, § 275.40. But the latter board did not go forward with the proceeding and the proposed merger was eventually held by this court to have been abandoned. Burd v. Board of Education of Audubon County, 167 N.W.2d 174 (Iowa).
Meantime, on February 3, 1966, voters in Elk Horn-Kimballton and Kimballton districts filed the present petition for an election on whether Elk Horn-Kimballton and Kimballton districts should reorganize into one district. Proceedings on this petition were enjoined pending the outcome of the proposal to merge Audubon and Kimballton districts. When this court ultimately held the merger to have been abandoned, proceedings went forward on the present petition.
Parts of Elk Horn-Kimballton district lie in three counties. Hence the present petition came before the joint board of those counties. See Code, 1971, § 275.16. The petition described the boundaries of the new enlarged Elk Horn-Kimballton district as all of Elk Horn-Kimballton and Kimballton districts. The petition also described the proposed new director districts.
The petition was set for hearing and notice was given. A number of individuals filed objections of two main kinds: one kind objecting to the proposed reorganization itself and the other kind objecting to inclusion in the reorganized district of specific land lying in Elk Horn-Kimballton district.
The joint board held the hearing and heard discussion pro and con. The board then held an executive session and discussed the subject including the objections, which were separately read. The board had before it the question of whether it should approve the reorganization petition and submit the proposal to the voters, or amend or dismiss the pettion. All members of the joint board except one were present. The Audubon County Attorney also attended.
The actual minutes of the meeting, which were brief, stated in pertinent part:
Following the public hearing, F. Brouhard read each individual affidavit of the seventy-one objectors from the Kimballton Independent School District and the six objectors from the Elk Horn-Kimballton Community School District.
T. Payne moved that we as a joint board dismiss the reorganization. Seconded by G. Davis. Motion defeated.
A. Muenchrath moved that we overrule the seventy-one objectors. Seconded by Hodne. Motion carried.
G. Davis made a motion that we honor the objectors on the land petition. The objectors being as follows: Leroy Sand, Carl M. Madsen, Burdette Christensen, Eugene C. Cox, Leland L. Kaltoft, and Morten Nelsen. Seconded by W. Campbell. Motion defeated.
D. Luxford moved we overrule the objectors on the land petition from the Elk Horn-Kimballton Community School District. Seconded by S. Hodne. Motion carried.
The evidence shows that after these motions were thus defeated or adopted, the chairman asked the joint board if anything remained to be done. When nothing was suggested, a motion to adjourn was made and adopted.
Two days later the county superintendent published notice of the proceedings of the joint meeting, notifying the public in part:
That the said petition for the reorganization of the Elk Horn-Kimballton Community School District be affirmed with the boundaries as existed on January 1, 1966.
Thereafter an election was held in Elk Horn-Kimballton and Kimballton districts; the proposed reorganization was approved in both districts. The boards of the two districts subsequently divided the assets and liabilities. See §§ 275.18--275.23, 275.29, Code, 1971.
In the interim the Audubon County board filed an appeal from the joint board's action to the State Department of Public Instruction. The Department dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction on the ground that the joint board never made a final decision approving the reorganization petition and fixing the boundaries of the proposed district. Apparently no appeal was taken, or writ of certiorari was obtained, as to the Department's dismissal of the appeal to it.
In the present certiorari proceedings against the joint board (with the Kimballton district directors intervening and joining the joint board), the Audubon County board claims the joint board's proceedings were illegal. The gist of the claim is that the joint board did not at its meeting make a decision approving the reorganization petition, changing the Audubon county plan, setting the boundaries of the proposed district, or prescribing director districts or the method of electing directors. Evidently the Audubon County board believes that if the joint board's proceedings are annulled, the joint board will be unable to rectify the shortcomings in its proceedings because of lapse of the time limited by §§ 275.15 and 275.16, Code, 1971. The Audubon County board will thus have authority to annex Kimballton district to Audubon district under § 275.1, Code, 1971.
The trial court held that the school reorganization statutes were substantially complied with. The Audubon County board appealed to this court.
Two questions appear. What are the relevant statutory requirements for reorganization? Did the joint board substantially comply with those requirements?
I. Statutory Requirements. The duties of a joint board cannot be understood without considering the statutory provisions relating to a petition for a reorganization election and relating to the duties of a single county board in reorganization proceedings. The requirements relating to a petition are enumerated in § 275.12, Code 1971. First, the petition must set out the proposed boundaries of the new district and request a corresponding change in the county plan, if necessary. Second, it must state the method of electing the new board of directors (election by districts, at large, or by a combination). Third, it must describe any director districts. Section 275.12 then provides:
4. The county board or boards of education in reviewing such petition as provided in sections 275.15 and 275.16 (infra) shall review the proposed method of election of school directors and Shall have the duty and authority to change or amend such plan in any manner, including the changing of boundaries of director districts if proposed, or to specify a different method of electing school directors in the basis of area, school population, or assessed valuation as may be required by law, justice, equity, and the interest of the people. In such action the county board or boards shall follow the same procedure as is required by sections 275.15 and 275.16, for other action on the petition by the county board or boards. (Italics added.)
No party in this case claims that the present petition did not comply with § 275.12. We have examined the petition and find that it does meet statutory requirements.
The requirements as to board action when a petition involves territory in only one county are set out in § 275.15, which provides in relevant part:
On the final day fixed for filing objections, interested parties may present evidence and arguments, and the county board of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hedrick Community School Dist. v. Southern Prairie Area Educ. Agency 15, 87-1296
...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" as "compliance in respect to essential matters necessary to assure th......
-
E. Cent. Cmty. Sch. Dist. v. Miss. Bend Area Educ. Agency
...Life has been breathed into these principles in a series of school reorganization cases. In Board of Education of Audubon County v. Joint Board of Education, 196 N.W.2d 423 (Iowa 1972), we considered a challenge to a school consolidation. In Audubon County, the joint board did not expressly......
-
Bloom v. Arrowhead Area Ed. Agency, 61548
...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 June 19, 1975, during the period of transition from......