E. Cent. Cmty. Sch. Dist. v. Miss. Bend Area Educ. Agency

• Decision Date: 11 May 2012
• Docket Number: No. 11–1498.,11–1498.
• Parties: EAST CENTRAL COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellant, v. MISSISSIPPI BEND AREA EDUCATION AGENCY, Appellee.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

813 N.W.2d 741

279 Ed. Law Rep. 1217

EAST CENTRAL COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellant,

v.MISSISSIPPI BEND AREA EDUCATION AGENCY, Appellee.

No. 11–1498.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

May 11, 2012.

Andrew J. Bracken and Amanda G. Wachuta of Ahlers & Cooney, P.C., Des Moines, for appellant.

Mikkie R. Schiltz and Wendy S. Meyer of Lane & Waterman LLP, Davenport, for appellee.

APPEL, Justice.

In this case, we consider whether an area education agency (AEA) acted lawfully when it approved for submission to the voters a petition that proposed a consolidation of the Preston and East Central Community School Districts. East Central seeks to block the measure from being placed before the voters. In support of its position, East Central asserts that the AEA approval of the petition for submission to the voters is legally flawed because the AEA failed to comply with a statutory requirement that it develop a plan for the AEA district. Further, East Central maintains that the AEA failed to make a required statutory finding that the consolidation proposed in the petition was in conformity with the plan. The district court rejected the claims.

On appeal, we conclude that the AEA acted lawfully in approving submission of the petition to the voters.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

This case involves two small school districts, Preston and East Central Community School Districts. The certified enrollment in Preston in October 2010 was 335.9 students and 370.1 students for East Central. Of these students, thirty-two and fifty, respectively, enrolled outside of the districts.

In 1986, the Mississippi Bend AEA (MBAEA) developed what was entitled “Reorganization Plan” (Plan). The Plan contains page after page of data about the school districts within the MBAEA. The Plan also includes seven alternate reorganization plans for schools within the MBAEA that had less than three hundred students enrolled in the districts. Public hearings were held in connection with the Plan, after which the Plan was reviewed and adopted by the MBAEA Board (Board).

In December 2000, the MBAEA consulted with the Iowa Department of Education (department) in updating the Plan. Preston requested the department to prepare a feasibility report addressing the possible merger of Preston and East Central. The report praised East Central and Preston for how well they had worked together and suggested a merger as an alternative. The Plan was revised, a public hearing was held, and the Board again adopted it in August. The 2000 survey conducted of the East Central and Preston Community School Districts was included in the Plan as an appendix.

In 2005, Preston and East Central again requested the department to address the possibility of a merger. The 2005 study addressed reorganization and noted that the two schools operating as independents was “not the most efficient use of time and resources, and [did] not allow for ‘best practice’ in the educational program.”

In 2008, a petition was circulated to determine if there was support for a merger of the two school districts. Over seven hundred citizens in the two districts signed the petitions requesting the school boards and administrators to work together and consider the option of reorganization. No petition, however, was filed with the MBAEA requesting that school reorganization be submitted to the voters.

In January 2010, Preston and East Central representatives along with representatives of a third school district, the Northeast Community School District (Northeast), held discussions regarding the possibility of expanding collaboration to increase the quality of education for students. The meetings included discussion of potential reorganization options.

On May 3, a petition for reorganization of East Central and Preston was filed with the MBAEA. Approximately thirty-three percent of the registered voters in the East Central district and fifty-four percent of all registered voters in the Preston district signed the petition.

As a result of the filing of the petition, Dr. Glenn Pelecky, Chief Administrator of the MBAEA, sent a letter dated May 10, 2010, to Board members providing the Board with information regarding the reorganization process and a history of the cooperative efforts involving Preston and East Central. The matter was discussed further on May 12 at a regular board meeting and board retreat.

The MBAEA and East Central at this point requested the department to conduct a study regarding the proposed merger. The department prepared a feasibility report dated May 21, 2010, regarding the future options for Preston, East Central, and Northeast. The department concluded that a merger between Preston and East Central was not an appropriate “intermediate step” if the goal was to join Preston, East Central, and Northeast. The department noted, however, that the discussions regarding reorganization of Preston, East Central, and Northeast had been ongoing for ten years without any result.

On June 4, Pelecky sent to members of the Board a packet of materials. The June packet included the most recent report from the department, the 1986 Reorganization Plan (as amended), and letters from community members.

On June 7, Pelecky sent to Board members additional materials, including an objection requesting that the petition be dismissed; copies of objections requesting boundary changes; and a basket of documents from the superintendent of East Central, Jim House, which included a PowerPoint presentation, financial materials, data related to enrollments, information related to high school classes, and sharing agreements between East Central and Northeast.

The Board held a hearing on the petition on June 16. After hearing almost four hours of testimony, the Board voted to “grant the approval for moving ahead with the community vote” on the question of the reorganization of Preston and East Central. A subsequent hearing on June 30 established the boundaries of the proposed merged district.

East Central filed an action in district court seeking to invalidate the action of the Board approving the petition. East Central argued, among other things, that the 1986 Reorganization Plan, along with its amendments, was flawed because it did not contain a specific plan for the merger of the Preston and East Central Community School Districts. East Central further claimed that the Board failed to make a necessary factual finding, namely, that the merger proposed in the petition was in conformity with the MBAEA's Plan. The MBAEA filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming that as a matter of law there was no requirement that the MBAEA Plan specifically describe a merger between Preston and East Central and that the action of the Board approving the petition was in accordance with law. The district court granted summary judgment, and this appeal followed.

II. Scope of Review.

We consider the school reorganization process as a local legislative matter. Templeton Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Carroll Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 228 N.W.2d 1, 3 (Iowa 1975). In engaging in judicial review, we are careful to consider only legal questions and do not substitute our judgment for the wisdom or practicality of a proposed reorganization. In re Lone Tree Cmty. Sch. Dist., 159 N.W.2d 522, 525 (Iowa 1968). Our review is limited to determining whether the agency has exceeded its jurisdiction or has taken an action that is arbitrary, unreasonable, and unsupported by substantial evidence in the record. Templeton, 228 N.W.2d at 3. We have defined arbitrary or unreasonable action in the school reorganization context as action “without rational basis; unconsidered, willful and irrational choice of conduct.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). In reviewing school consolidation matters, we “will not draw fine, technical lines or indulge inferences that would invalidate a reorganization plan.” Hedrick Cmty. Sch. Dist. v. S. Prairie Area Educ. Agency 15, 433 N.W.2d 746, 751 (Iowa 1988). We make all inferences in favor of the legality of official steps. Id.

III. Discussion.A. Positions of the Parties.

1. Lack of specific plan for merger of Preston and East Central. East Central maintains that under Iowa Code chapter 275 (2011), the MBAEA must develop a “plan” that specifically discusses a proposed merger between East Central and Preston before a petition for merger may be approved by the MBAEA and placed on the ballot. East Central cites provisions of Iowa Code sections 275.2, 275.4, and 275.5 which use the terms “plans” and “definite plans” in describing the responsibilities of the Board.

The MBAEA counters that there is no requirement that its Plan include a specific proposal for merger of school districts in which more than three hundred students are enrolled. Because enrollment in both Preston and East Central was above the three hundred student threshold, the MBAEA maintains that it had no obligation under Iowa Code chapter 275 to develop such a plan.

2. Failure to determine compliance with plan. East Central maintains that under Iowa Code section 275.5, an AEA board considering whether to pass a proposed merger of school districts onto the voters must first “determine whether the petition complies with the plans which had been adopted by the board.” Iowa Code § 275.5. East Central notes that the provision requiring a determination of compliance with plans is declared to be mandatory by Iowa Code section 275.9.

East Central then canvasses the record in this case and concludes that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the Board actually made the determination that the proposed merger complied with its plans. East Central notes that the official Board minutes do not indicate that the Board voted on this precise issue. East Central recognizes that there is evidence to the contrary in the record, but maintains that summary judgment should not have been granted to the Board on this issue.

The MBAEA responds that the action...