Board of Satanta Joint Rural High School Dist. No. 2 v. Grant County Planning Bd.

• Decision Date: 11 December 1965
• Docket Number: No. 44232,44232
• Citation: 195 Kan. 640,408 P.2d 655
• Parties: BOARD OF SATANTA JOINT RURAL HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 2, William H. Helton and Wayne Lahey, Appellants, v. The GRANT COUNTY PLANNING BOARD and Adel Throckmorton, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Appellees.
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Page 655

408 P.2d 655

195 Kan. 640

BOARD OF SATANTA JOINT RURAL HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 2, William H. Helton and Wayne Lahey, Appellants, v. The GRANT COUNTY PLANNING BOARD and Adel Throckmorton, State

Superintendent of Public Instruction, Appellees.

No. 44232.

Supreme Court of Kansas.

Dec. 11, 1965.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 6, 1966.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Under the provisions of K.S.A. 72-6743, following a vote by a majority of the electors approving the transfer of territory from one county planning unit to another,

the transfer is subject to the approval of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction.

2. The rules governing the power of the legislature to delegate its authority to create school districts and change school district boundaries considered.

3. K.S.A. 72-6743 is not invalid on the ground that it confers legislative power upon the State Superintendent of Public Instruction in violation of sections 1 and 21 of article 2 of our constitution.

4. A summary judgment may be rendered under the provisions of K.S.A. 60-256(c) if the facts alleged in the petition and stipulated into the record at the hearing leave no genuine issue of any material fact in controversy.

5. The state superintendent, following the mandates of a constitutional statute, cannot be charged with unlawful and arbitrary conduct.

Dale M. Stucky, Wichita, argued the cause, and Wayne Coulson, Paul R. Kitch, Donald R. Newkirk, Gerrit H. Wormhoudt, Philip Kassebaum, John E. Rees, Robert T. Cornwell, Willard B. Thompson and David W. Buxton, Wichita, Eugene L. Smith and Harold K. Greenleaf, Jr., Liberal, and Homer V. Gooing and Hugo T. Wedell, Wichita, of counsel, with him on briefs for appellants.

E. F. Russell, Ulysses, argued the cause, and Robert C. Londerholm, Atty. Gen., and J. Richard Foth, Asst. Atty. Gen., Topeka, with him on briefs for appellees.

HATCHER, Commissioner.

This is an appeal from a judgment in a mandamus action refusing to compel the State Superintendent of Public Instruction to issue an order transferring territory under the provisions of the Unified School District Act, K.S.A. 72-6743.

The Act provides, insofar as material here, one planning unit for each county (K.S.A. 72-6736) and, recognizing that there were existing school districts extending over county lines, makes provision for the inclusion of such area in a planning unit by K.S.A. 72-6743. The area is designated as 'gray-area' and described as follows:

'* * * any part of a joint rural high-school district which is not * * * located in the same planning unit as the main school building of such joint rural high-school is located.'

The section then provides the method of determining in which planning unit the gray-area is to be placed. Highly summarized, (1) a meeting of the electors of the gray-area is to be called by the county superintendent of the county in which the main school building is located, (2) each elector present is to mark a ballot for or against the transfer of the territory, (3) if a majority favor the transfer the county superintendent shall so certify to the chairman of the planning units interested, and (4) the two planning boards involved shall then consider the advisibility of such transfer.

The section concludes:

'* * * If either one or both of such planning boards are in favor of such transfer, the same shall be transferred, subject only to the approval thereof by the state superintendent as hereinafter provided. The chairman of each of such planning boards shall promptly, and prior to October 5, 1963, report to the state superintendent the result of the vote taken in each gray-area and the desire of his planning board with respect to such transfer. Upon the receipt of any such report the state superintendent shall determine whether such gray-area shall be transferred from one planning unit to the other, and shall promptly issue an order transferring the same or refusing to transfer the same. Such determination by the state superintendent shall be conclusive, and upon issuance of his order for any transfer under the provisions of this section, such gray- area shall be included in and be a part of the planning unit to which it is transferred by such order.' (K.S.A. 72-6743. Emphasis supplied.)

Such a gray-area existed at the eastern edge of Grant County, comprising some fifteen sections of land. This gray-area formed a part of the territory of Joint Rural High School District No. 2, which had its school building at Satanta, Haskell County, Kansas. The gray-area also formed a part of the Red Rock Common School District and all of its territory was located in Grant County. The statutory procedure for determining to which planning unit the area would be attached was duly commenced. Eighty-five percent of the electors in the gray-area cast ballots resulting in 52 votes being cast in favor of the transfer of the territory to the Haskell County Planning Unit and 44 opposed.

Following the completion of the statutory procedure the Haskell County Planning Board reported to the state superintendent its approval of the transfer of the gray-area to the Haskell County Planning Unit and the Grant County Planning Board reported its opposition.

On November 27, 1963, the state superintendent issued an order denying the transfer of the territory in the gray-area in which he concluded:

'Wherefore, it is hereby determined that the above described gray-area should not be transferred from the Grant County planning unit to the Haskell County planning unit and such transfer is hereby refused and such gray-area territory shall remain in the Grant County planning unit.'

The order stated the source of the information on which it was based:

'Now, therefore, After considering all of the information, facts, arguments, letters, forms, maps, and evidence of every kind concerning the below described gray-area from the staff of the state superintendent and from the county superintendents, school officials, residents, and interested persons in and of Haskell County and in and of Grant County, the state superintendent finds the following to be true:'

The order set out the assessed valuation of the disputed area and the school districts affected; gave the distance to the various school buildings from the gray-area, and stated specific and controlling reasons for the order refusing the transfer as follows:

'The Red Rock School is located on the main highway between Ulysses and Satanta as is the described residential area; the Red Rock School is an 11 teacher elementary school with a school plant which has been built within the past 15 years and which cost in excess of $200,000; it has complete facilities including music, physical training, hot lunches, bus transportation, and kindergarten; the Red Rock School will accommodate more than 180 students; the elementary students living in the gray-area constitute 39% of the present enrollment of the Red Rock School; there are no other convenient areas outside of its district from which this school might draw replacement students; the Red Rock Elementary School is a good elementary school which offers its students and the community one of the better educational institutions of its type in the state of Kansas. A sudden decrease of 39% in enrollment would materially impair the efficiency, quality and standing of the Red Rock School; transportation of the 55 elementary school children in this gray-area a distance of about 25 miles every day would be expensive, inconvenient and educationally unsound when good school facilities are available at a distance of 2 miles.'

The above order was issued without notice and without a formal hearing giving the interested parties an opportunity to be heard.

Certain interested parties petitioned the state superintendent for a hearing. On December 27, 1963, the state superintendent issued an order for a hearing to be held on January 7, 1964, in the House of Representatives at the State House. The order laid down rather restrictive 'ground rules.' Each side was given one hour to present its case and one-half hour for rebuttal. No cross-examination was permitted but each side could ask the other questions during the rebuttal period. The chairman of the planning board of each county was to control each delegation and determine who was to speak and when.

On June 16, 1964, following the hearing as above provided, the state superintendent issued a second order ratifying and confirming his previous order of November 27, 1963. It does not appear that this last order was before the district court at the time of the hearing.

On May 28, 1964, Joint Rural High School District No. 2 and two taxpayers interested in the gray-area brought this action to enjoin the Grant County Planning Board from forming a unified school district with the gray-area included, and to compel the state superintendent to transfer the gray-area to the Haskell County Planning Unit.

The petition alleged facts substantially as presented here but embellished with such phrases as 'purported findings of fact,' 'star chamber proceedings,' 'denial of due process' and 'unlawful usurpation of power.' A motion for a temporary restraining order was denied and defendants filed a motion to dismiss, stating among other grounds failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

The motion to dismiss was heard July 1, 1964, at which time the parties by stipulation introduced evidence of a copy of the orders of the state superintendent dated November 27, 1963, a copy of the hearing order dated December 27, 1963, a plat showing the territory involved, and agreed that the first eight paragraphs of plaintiffs' petition were a correct statement of the facts.

The trial court overruled the motion to dismiss stating:

'* * * Consequently, since the stipulation by the parties as to the facts, together with the introduction of the stipulated exhibits, require a determination, this Court considers the same as a ...