Board of Trustees of School Dist. No. 3, Natrona County v. District Boundary Bd. of Natrona County

Citation489 P.2d 413
Decision Date07 October 1971
Docket NumberNo. 4038,4038
PartiesThe BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 3, IN the COUNTY OF NATRONA and State of Wyoming, et al., Appellants (Petitioners below), v. The DISTRICT BOUNDARY BOARD OF NATRONA COUNTY, Wyoming and the State CommitteeEstablished by Organization Law of 1969, Appellees (Respondents below).
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Wyoming

Ernest Wilkerson, Casper, for appellants.

John Burk, County Atty., W. T. Schwartz and Robert H. McCrary, Casper, for District Boundary Board of Natrona County, Wyoming, and Donald L. Painter, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., Cheyenne, for State Committee Established, by Organization Law of 1969, for appellees.

Before McINTYRE, C. J., and PARKER, McEWAN and GRAY, JJ.

Chief Justice McINTYRE delivered the opinion of the court.

The District Boundary Board of Natrona County made a decision that all of the school districts in Natrona County should be reorganized into a countywide unified school district. The State Committee for education approved the action of the District Boundary Board and purported to make such action final. Petitioners filed for review by the district court in Laramie County and it upheld actions of the Boundary Board and State Committee. Petitioners have appealed.

We consider first the power of the District Boundary Board to reorganize the county into a unified school district, and whether its decision in that regard is final and irreversible.

We very definitely held in Elementary School Districts 2, 3, and 10 v. District Boundary Board of Campbell County, Wyo., 454 P.2d 237 (May 9, 1969), that a county school boundary board had authority to consolidate all school districts of a county into a new countywide district. However, the decision was predicated on the language of Ch. 111, S.L. of Wyoming, 1961, which was applicable at that time.

This statute provided, the district boundary board 'may at any time consolidate any such districts or portion of districts, when, in the opinion of such board such changes, alterations or consolidations may be justified by existing circumstances and conditions * * *.' In a footnote on page 238, we said it should be noted that subsequent to the appeal under consideration at that time all statutory references relating to the organization and reorganization of school districts had been repealed by the Wyoming Education Code of 1969.

When it comes to creating a countywide unified school district, the duties and powers of a district boundary board are noticeably more restricted and limited under the Wyoming Education Code of 1969 than they were under the 1961 law. Section 21.1-140, W.S.1957, 1971 Cum.Supp., now provides any district boundary board may submit in writing to the state committee a proposal which would:

'(a) Alter and change the boundaries of any school district of any kind; or

'(b) Reorganize any such district or portions of districts; or

'(c) Combine any school district or portion thereof having less than eight (8) pupils with any adjoining school district or districts * * *.'

It is noticeable from the foregoing that the boundary board merely proposes changes in boundaries. It does not actually effect changes. Moreover, there is no language which authorizes the board to make recommendations for a consolidation of all school districts into a single unified district, unless all of the smaller districts which are combined with a larger one have less than eight pupils. Several of the districts which the boundary board in this instance has proposed to combine with District 2 have more than eight pupils.

According to the language of § 21.1-140, the boundary board can propose to alter or change the boundaries of any school district (singular); it may propose to reorganize any such district (singular) or portions of districts; and it may propose to combine any such district (singular) or portion thereof, when such district or portion has less than eight pupils, with an 'adjoining' school district or districts.

Some of the districts here involved do not adjoin District 2. This might raise a question of whether it is sufficient for a district to adjoin some other district involved in the proposed unification. However, we need not answer that question. Actually, we need not be overtechnical about whether a district boundary board can propose a consolidation of all districts in a countywide unified district.

Chapter 6 of the Wyoming Education Code deals with the subject of SCHOOL DISTRICT ORGANIZATION. Chapter 7 deals with the subject of DISTRICT BOUNDARY BOARD. Section 21.1-142, W.S.1957, 1971 Cum.Supp., a part of the District Boundary Board chapter, specifies that the state committee, in approving or rejecting a proposal of the boundary board, shall consider the effect of the proposal upon the purposes of the Wyoming School District Organization Law of 1969. Also, the section states no proposal shall be approved if in the opinion of the state committee it would hamper efforts toward school district organization under the law.

We construe this section to mean efforts of the county committee, which is defined as the county planning committee for the organization of school districts, 1 must have precedence over proposals of the district boundary board on matters of school district organization. In the case we are now concerned with, it seems rather clear that the proposal of the district boundary board and the purported approval thereof by the state committee has hampered efforts of the county committee in its proper field (as distinguished from the proper field of the boundary board), in the efforts of the county planning committee to accomplish school district organization in Natrona County.

Section 21.1-112(g), W.S.1957, 1971 Cum.Supp., a part of the school district organization law, makes it clear that when a plan of the county committee is rejected, the county committee may resubmit a modified plan 'as often as necessary.' The language is clear and unambiguous. It can only mean, no matter if a previous plan (or plans) of the county committee has been rejected, that committee can resubmit a modified plan as often as necessary, as long as the county committee continues in existence.

It is important to observe that § 21.1-112(g) requires the state committee, when it rejects a plan of the county committee, to state reasons for rejection and 'recommendations for making the plan acceptable.' In this instance, the state committee stated as its reason for rejection of the county committee's plan that it failed to adequately consider school population, general population and ecology, as required by Chapter 6. However, we fail to find wherein or how the state committee met its statutory duty of setting forth recommendations for making the plan acceptable.

If the state committee had properly performed this duty, by stating what modifications in the county plan would be necessary to meet the minimum criteria requirements of Chapter 6, it is possible the county committee could have and would have made proper modifications of its plan.

In arguments made to us, it is indicated the state committee objected to the county committee plan because it failed to establish proper trustee residence areas. In that regard, the statutory requirement is in general and vague language. It merely requires that 'consideration shall be given to school population, general population, and ecology.' 2 If the state committee considers it to be the prerogative of that committee to fix guidelines and minimum requirements for the establishment of trustee residence areas, it should have informed the county committee of such guidelines and minimum requirements.

It is important to bear in mind that the state committee can reject a county committee plan only if it fails to comply with the provisions of Chapter 6, the school district organization chapter. 3 Therefore, if and when a county committee plan...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Natrona County School Dist. No. 1 v. Ryan
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • 15 Noviembre 1988
    ...America v. Board of County Com'rs of Laramie County, 712 P.2d 331 (Wyo.1985); Board of Trustees of School Dist. No. 3, Natrona County v. District Boundary Bd. of Natrona County, 489 P.2d 413 (Wyo.1971); Wyoming Dept. of Revenue v. Wilson, 401 P.2d 960 (Wyo.1965). Here on appeal, state educa......
  • First Nat. Bank of Worland v. Financial Institutions Bd., 5258
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • 15 Septiembre 1980
    ...of challenging the right of a board member to hold office is a quo warranto proceeding. Board of Trustees of School District No. 3 v. District Boundary Board of Natrona County, Wyo., 489 P.2d 413 (1971), supplemented by 489 P.2d 1393 (1971); Dickerson v. City Council of City of Buffalo, Wyo......
  • Hyatt v. Big Horn School Dist. No. 4
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • 23 Noviembre 1981
    ...with actions of the board if such are shown to be arbitrary, capricious or fraudulent, Board of Trustees of School District No. 3 v. District Boundary Board, Wyo., 489 P.2d 413, 417 (1971), supplemented 489 P.2d 1393 (1971); Monahan v. Board of Trustees, County of Fremont, Wyo., 486 P.2d 23......
  • Lund v. Schrader, 3995
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • 29 Diciembre 1971
    ...instance such duty was actually performed by the county committee. As we pointed out in Board of Trustees of School District No. 3 (Natrona County) v. District Boundary Board, Wyo., 489 P.2d 413, 416, the state committee can reject a plan of organization submitted by the county committee on......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT