Citizens for Eq. Educ. v. Lyons-Decatur Sc.
| Decision Date | 05 October 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. S-06-159.,S-06-159. |
| Citation | 739 N.W.2d 742,274 Neb. 278 |
| Parties | CITIZENS OF DECATUR FOR EQUAL EDUCATION et al., Appellants v. LYONS-DECATUR SCHOOL DISTRICT et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
David V. Drew and Gregory P. Drew, of Drew Law Firm, Blair, for appellants.
Karen A. Haase and John Seizer, of Harding, Shultz & Downs, Lincoln, for appellees.
In 1984, the former Decatur and Lyons, Nebraska, school boards petitioned to dissolve the Decatur School District and add its territory to the Lyons School District.1 In 2005, the appellants, a coalition of parents and taxpayers in Decatur (Coalition), sued the reorganized Lyons-Decatur School District and the school board members (collectively the school district). The Coalition sought to enjoin the school district from moving grades four through six from Decatur to Lyons. The Coalition alleged that the reduction in classes at the Decatur school breached the previously adopted merger petition because the school district failed to follow the required voting protocol set out in the merger petition. It also alleged that the school district violated the Coalition members' substantive due process and equal protection rights because the school district was operating the Decatur school without equal grades, teachers, facilities, and educational opportunities. The district court granted the school district's summary judgment motion on all the Coalition's claims and dismissed the Coalition's complaint with prejudice.
We will set out our reasoning with specificity in the following pages, but, briefly stated, we hold that (1) the voting requirements in the merger petition that the Coalition relies on are unenforceable and (2) the free instruction clause of the Nebraska Constitution does not confer a fundamental right to equal and adequate funding of schools. Applying the rational basis analysis, we conclude the school district's action advanced a legitimate educational goal. Accordingly, we affirm.
In 1984, the school boards of the Lyons School District, a Class III district, and the Decatur School District, a Class II district,2 filed a reorganization petition.3 The petition sought to enlarge the boundaries of the Lyons School District to include the territory of the Decatur School District. Paragraph IV(A) of the reorganization petition provided:
An attendance center for elementary students (kindergarten through sixth grade) shall be maintained in the existing Decatur School District facility until such time as the legal voters and electors of the former Decatur School District . . . and the Board of education vote by majority vote to discontinue the attendance center or until such time as all of the members of the board of education of the enlarged Lyons School District vote unanimously to discontinue the attendance center.
In April 2004, the school district's superintendent, F.J. Forsberg, mailed an informational letter to patrons explaining the district's financial problems. Forsberg stated that the school district had lost significant state aid over the previous 4 years. He projected more losses for the upcoming school year because of changes in the school aid formula, declining enrollment, and an economic downturn. He further projected that the school district would continue to lose state aid through 2007 because of declining enrollment. He explained that the district had attempted to meet the deficits by several cost-saving measures: (1) reducing building maintenance, (2) not hiring for certain teaching positions, (3) combining grades at the Decatur school where student enrollment had dropped, (4) cutting building and instructional supplies, and (5) reducing the budget reserve. The district proposed similar cuts for the 2004-05 school year. He included a list of cost-saving measures the school board was considering, including moving part, or all, of the Decatur school to Lyons.
In January 2005, the school board rejected a motion to close the Decatur school. It voted 6 to 3, however, to operate it only for kindergarten through grade three and to move grades four through six to Lyons. In April, the Coalition filed this action.
The Coalition sought a temporary and permanent injunction to stop the school district from moving grades four through six to Lyons without obtaining the required votes. It also sought a declaration that the school district's action (1) was void because it violated the merger petition, (2) denied its members procedural due process, and (3) violated its members' substantive due process and equal protection rights by operating the Decatur school without "individual teachers for each grade, equal facilities, and equal educational opportunities."
At the temporary injunction hearing, Forsberg testified that the school district had lost about $580,000 in state aid since 1999. He also stated that the Decatur school had experienced a larger drop in enrollment than the Lyons school. He stated that 3 or 4 years before, the board began eliminating some positions and hours at Lyons. It also began combining some grades at Decatur. Having few cost-saving options left, the board decided to move Decatur's grades four through six to Lyons. He stated that the Coalition's members were present at school board meetings when the board discussed cutting costs and that the Coalition's attorney addressed the board on these topics.
At the hearing, Forsberg presented a summary from school census reports which showed the Decatur school had considerably fewer students than Lyons. In Decatur, 36 students were then enrolled in grades kindergarten through six, and he projected Decatur would have 17 students in grades kindergarten through three the next year. In contrast, Lyons had 111 students enrolled in grades kindergarten through six, and he projected Lyons would have 52 students in grades kindergarten through three the next year. Forsberg testified that moving grades four through six from Decatur to Lyons would save the school district more than $200,000.
Forsberg stated that beginning with the 2004-05 school year, the school district bussed all students under grade seven in special education from Decatur to Lyons. Lyons and Decatur are 15 miles apart, and the commute time for students by bus is 25 to 30 minutes. After the hearing, the district court determined that the Coalition had failed to establish a clear right to relief and denied its request for a temporary injunction.
The Coalition moved for summary judgment on its first and second causes of action: breach of the merger petition and violation of its members' procedural due process rights. In July 2005, the court heard the summary judgment motion. The school district argued that the merger petition conflicted with what is now Neb. Rev.Stat. § 79-419(2) (Reissue 2003 & Cum.Supp.2006). It argued that paragraph IV(A) exceeded the former Lyons and Decatur school boards' authority in two ways.
First, the school district argued that the merger statute allowed the merging school boards to require a vote by electors in the reorganized district who are served by a school. But it did not authorize a vote by electors in a former school district, as required by paragraph IV(A). Second, it argued that the merger statute allowed the former school boards to require a majority vote by electors before closing a school, but it did not authorize a majority vote before discontinuing any grades at a school.
The school district also argued it had provided due process. It argued that due process required only notice and an opportunity to be heard at the meeting when the school district discussed cost-saving measures.
The court denied the Coalition's partial summary judgment motion regarding its first and second causes of action. In addition, relying on In re Freeholders Petition,4 the court granted summary judgment to the school district on those causes of action. The Coalition appealed, but the Nebraska Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.5
On remand, the Coalition moved for a final judgment order under Neb.Rev.Stat § 25-1315(1) (Cum.Supp.2006), and the school district moved for summary judgment on the Coalition's third and fourth causes of action: violation of its members' equal protection and substantive due process rights. At the hearing, the Coalition submitted affidavits stating that (1) the school district had made financial cuts to the Decatur school, while providing improvements and benefits for the Lyons school, and (2) this funding deprivation had caused a decline in enrollment at Decatur as the facilities became inferior to those in Lyons. A former teacher stated in an affidavit that parents of children in the Decatur school had been opting to send their children to Lyons. She stated that the parents did not believe the children were receiving an equal education.
The Coalition argued that the school district's unequal funding of the Lyons and Decatur schools violated its members' equal protection and substantive due process rights. To support those constitutional claims, the Coalition argued that Nebraska's free instruction clause6 provided a fundamental right to an education equally or proportionally funded compared with other schools in the same district. It further argued that the school district's underfunding of the Decatur school had deprived those students of their substantive due process rights.
The school district countered that the free instruction clause did not provide a fundamental right to have schools in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. State
...25, 112 S.Ct. 358, quoting Graham , supra note 95.103 U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.104 See, e.g., Citizens for Eq. Ed. v. Lyons-Decatur Sch. Dist., 274 Neb. 278, 293, 739 N.W.2d 742, 756 (2007), citing Harrah Independent School Dist. v. Martin, 440 U.S. 194, 99 S.Ct. 1062, 59 L.Ed.2d 248 (19......
-
John Doe v. Bd. Of Regents Of The Univ. Of Neb. .
...Tennessee State University, supra note 104, 63 Fed.Appx. 874 (6th Cir.2003). 106See, generally, Citizens for Eq. Ed. v. Lyons-Decatur Sch. Dist., 274 Neb. 278, 739 N.W.2d 742 (2007). See, also, San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 93 S.Ct. 1278, 36 L.Ed.2d 16 (1973); Catlin......
-
In re A.M.
...Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language 813 (1994). 15. § 71–915. 16. See Citizens for Eq. Ed. v. Lyons–Decatur Sch. Dist., 274 Neb. 278, 739 N.W.2d 742 (2007). 17. See Neb.Rev.Stat. § 29–4001 et seq. (Reissue 2008 & Cum.Supp.2010). 18. Sperry & Hutchinson Co. v. Rhodes, ......
-
State v. McCave
...Verdier v. Verdier, 152 Cal.App.2d 348, 313 P.2d 123 (1957). 98. See Kapler, supra note 96. FN99. Citizens for Eq. Ed. v. Lyons–Decatur Sch. Dist., 274 Neb. 278, 739 N.W.2d 742 (2007). 100. See Nero, supra note 64. 101. See ...
-
Neb. Const. art. I § I-3 Due Process of Law; Equal Protection
...is not elevated to a fundamental right solely because it mandates legislative action. Citizens for Eq. Ed. v. Lyons-Decatur Sch. Dist., 274 Neb. 278, 739 N.W.2d 742 Besides guaranteeing fair process, the Nebraska due process clause provides heightened protection against government interfere......
-
Neb. Const. art. VII § VII-1 Legislature; Free Instruction In Common Schools; Provide
...is whether the state action is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose. Citizens for Eq. Ed. v. Lyons-Decatur Sch. Dist., 274 Neb. 278, 739 N.W.2d 742 This provision of the constitution does not confer a fundamental right to equal and adequate funding of schools. Citizens for ......