Board of Ed. of Oklahoma City v. State Bd. of Ed.

• Decision Date: 16 May 1946
• Docket Number: 32567.
• Citation: 169 P.2d 295,197 Okla. 141,1946 OK 159
• Parties: BOARD OF EDUCATION OF OKLAHOMA CITY v. STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION et al.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

169 P.2d 295

197 Okla. 141, 1946 OK 159

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF OKLAHOMA CITY v. STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION et al.

No. 32567.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

May 16, 1946

Original action in mandamus by the Board of Education of the City of Oklahoma City against the State Board of Education of the State of Oklahoma, and A. L. Crable and others, members of and acting as the State Board of Education of the State of Oklahoma, and another, to compel payment of a portion of additional state aid.

Writ granted.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. It is a cardinal rule in the construction of statutes that the intention of the Legislature, when ascertained, must govern and that to ascertain the intent all the various provisions of legislative enactments upon the particular subject should be construed together and given effect as a whole.

2. An independent school district which has made an ad valorem tax levy of not less than 15 mills on its assessed valuation for general fund purposes is entitled to the additional amount of State Aid provided in Title 70, Ch. 21, S.L.1945, Sec. 2 subdivision 8, 70 O.S.Supp. § 651.5, subd. 8, calculated by using as a factor the annual school average daily attendance including such average attendance in the separate schools in the district, when otherwise qualified.

3. There are no separate school districts within this state although Title 70 O.S.1941, Ch. 15 , provides for maintaining separate schools within a district.

4. Title 70, S.L.1943, Ch. 21, Section 8, 70 O.S.Supp. § 651.8, though authorizing the treatment of separate schools as separate school districts in calculating the 'minimum program' provided for schools by said act and Title 70, S.L.1945, Ch. 21, 70 O.S.Supp. § 651.4 et seq., amendatory thereof, such section does not create separate school districts and does not authorize or contemplate such treatment of separate schools as relates to matters concerning the 'minimum program income' provided for in such acts.

W. A. Lybrand, of Oklahoma City, for relator.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., and James W. Bounds, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendants.

WELCH Justice.

This controversy is occasioned by divergent views of the meaning of Title 70, ch. 21, S.L.1945, subsection 8 of section 2, 70 O.S.Supp. § 651.5, subd. 8. Relator asserts that it is entitled to the additional state aid provided thereby for the benefit of its separate schools and calculated by using as a factor the average daily attendance in the separate schools within relator district.

The defendants refused to allocate such additional state aid in view of lack of absolute clarity of the statute, particularly with reference to the restriction of such allowance to districts which levy and use income from 15 mills. Defendants' caution in that respect is not wholly unjustified, for great care in the expenditure and disbursement of public funds is to be desired.

We have taken original jurisdiction because of the public interest.

We quote subsection 8 of the cited statute as follows: 'There shall be apportioned to all school districts of the several counties having an assessed valuation of fifty per cent (50%) of the fair cash value of taxable property as computed by the Oklahoma Tax Commission, as provided in subsection 7(a) above, an additional amount of money equal to Seven Dollars and Fifty Cents ($7.50) multiplied by the total annual school Average Daily Attendance record from the latest report of the several county superintendents of the counties of the State, provided the District levies and uses income from fifteen (15) mills. Provided, however, that if the total rate of levy herein required is reduced by Journal entry filed before the Court of Tax Review, such reduction shall not prevent the apportionment of aid hereunder and the apportionment of moneys under this sub-section shall be made in the same manner and in the same proportion as provided for in sub-section 7(a) above.' (Emphasis ours.)

It is the law, as all parties agree, that the income from ad valorem tax levies for the support of separate schools is derived from a county-wide levy for all separate schools within the county. There can be no district levy for separate schools. The maximum levy for such purposes cannot exceed two mills. It is therefore seen that if the separate schools are to be deemed districts within the meaning of the quoted provisions of the statute, then they are excepted from its operation.

The error on the part of the defendants lies in the fact that there is no such thing in our law as a separate school district. Under our system we have only school districts. Within those districts separate schools are maintained when circumstances warrant. Title 70 O.S.1941, ch. 15. A consideration of the whole legislation on the subject shows the legislative intent to provide this additional aid as contended by relator. Such intent must prevail....