Board of Education v. Erickson
| Decision Date | 11 December 1940 |
| Docket Number | No. 32691.,32691. |
| Citation | 295 N.W. 302,209 Minn. 39 |
| Parties | BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS v. ERICKSON, County Auditor. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Hennepin County; W. W. Bardwell, Judge.
Action by the Board of Education of the City of Minneapolis against Al P. Erickson, County Auditor of Hennepin County, for a declaratory judgment involving the question whether the Board has emergency power to exceed the levy limit of 22 mills for taxes fixed by the Minneapolis city charter. From an order sustaining a demurrer to the complaint, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
R. S. Wiggin, City Atty., and Charles A. Sawyer, Asst. City Atty., both of Minneapolis, for appellant.
Frank J. Williams, Asst. Co. Atty., and Karl W. Windhorst, Sp. Asst. Co. Atty., both of Minneapolis, for respondent.
This appeal seeks a reversal of an order sustaining a demurrer to a complaint in a declaratory judgment proceeding whereby it was decided that appellant, Board of Education of the City of Minneapolis, had no "emergency" power to exceed the levy limit of 22 mills fixed by c. 18, § 6 of the Minneapolis City Charter.
In substance the complaint alleges that because tax values have declined and tax delinquency increased, appellant's authorized income cannot meet the costs of maintaining its physical plant or the salary schedules of the employes, by reason of which the health and safety of the school children and the morale of the teachers is in grave danger, all of which creates an emergency in the Minneapolis school system making impossible the maintenance of a "thorough and efficient system of public schools." Minn. Const. art. 8, § 3. Appellant requests a declaration that such emergency exists; that in meeting this emergency and in providing a thorough and efficient system of schools it has power to exceed the 22 mill limitation to the extent of $607,700; and that respondent, the county auditor, is required by law to spread this levy upon his books.
In our opinion the lower court may be sustained without any extended review of authorities or argument. In essence, the problem is this: Does legal justification exist for the attempted disregard by the board of a clear provision of law which restricts its power to levy property taxes to 22 mills? Appellant, for two reasons, supports the affirmative. First, an emergency exists in the Minneapolis school system, the termination of which requires more revenue; second, any charter provision which operates to cause, through a restriction of its taxing power, the conditions described in the complaint is invalid or inoperative.
Implicily present in both grounds thus advanced to justify disregard of established law is the assumption that the maintenance of a "thorough and efficient system of public schools", by taxation or otherwise, is the obligation of and mandate to the board of education. Also, whenever in its judgment the existing revenues are insufficient to provide the kind of a system which it regards as "thorough and efficient," an emergency exists, or, if not, the restrictions of law do not operate.
We think the statement of these premises refutes the appellant's entire case. By our constitution the mandate of establishing a general and uniform system of public schools was directed to the legislature. Minn. Const. art. 8, § 1. Further, "The legislature shall...
To continue reading
Request your trial