Fairview Independent School Dist. No. 115-69 of Hand County v. County Bd. of Ed. of Hand County, 10930

• Decision Date: 09 May 1972
• Docket Number: No. 10930,10930
• Parties: FAIRVIEW INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 115--69 OF HAND COUNTY, South Dakota, and Myron Wieseler, Appellants, v. The COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION OF HAND COUNTY, South Dakota, Respondent.
• Court: South Dakota Supreme Court

Page 413

197 N.W.2d 413

86 S.D. 417

FAIRVIEW INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 115--69 OF HAND COUNTY, South Dakota, and Myron Wieseler Appellants, v. The COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION OF HAND COUNTY, South Dakota Respondent.

No. 10930.

Supreme Court of South Dakota.

Argued Jan. 28, 1972.

Decided May 9, 1972.

Charles Lacey and Patrick H. Lacey, Sioux Falls, for appellants.

Ronald D. Campbell, of Heidepriem & Widmayer, Miller, for respondent.

BIEGELMEIER, Judge.

This appeal involves a minor boundary change of a school district. SDCL 13--6--84 authorizes a county board of education at its discretion to make boundary changes under conditions described in §§ 13--6--85 and 13--6--86. SDCL 13--6--85 provides a minor boundary change affecting not more than 5% Of the value of a district from which the area is to be taken may be made by the county board upon a petition signed by over 50% Of the electors residing in the area to be transferred by the change.

Fairview Independent School District had an assessed valuation of $1,869,188 when on a petition the Hand County Board of Education transferred 1120 acres of land valued at $55,242 to the Alden Common School District. This petition was signed by all the electors on the land to be transferred, and, as the figures indicate, involved 2.95% Of the assessed value of Fairview.

The county board of education approved the petition and the boundary change which, in effect, transferred the 1120 acres to Alden. This decision was appealed to the circuit court which, after a trial de novo, ¹ entered findings of fact, conclusions of law and a judgment wherein it concluded the county board had not acted arbitrarily or unreasonably, nor had it manifestly abused its discretion as appellants claim; the circuit court affirmed the board's decision.

The formation of school districts is entirely within the power of the legislature and their enlargement, diminution or dissolution is a legislative function. ² Therefore, in reviewing decisions of a county board, courts must bear in mind that the board's actions are presumed lawful until the contrary is shown. Here, the board's action is further supported by the decision of the circuit court which also is presumptively correct. ³ It follows the burden is on the party alleging error to show it affirmatively by the record. ⁴ In the Dunker opinion (supra, note 1) that burden was referred to in the following manner:

'Only when the legislative agency has acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, or has manifestly abused its discretion in exercising legislative authority may the courts interfere with the action of the county boards in this area.'

It is under these principles that the court must measure whether or not the board abused its discretion.

The testimony adduced at the trial in circuit court was rather sketchy; however, it appears there is a parochial elementary school operating in Polo, a town located in the Fairview District, and that while the Fairview District operates a high school (grades 9 through 12), it does not maintain a school for the first eight grades. The land detached is on the south edge of Fairview and adjacent to the Alden Common School District to which it was attached. Gordon Slunecka, who was a petitioner for the change of boundary, resided on the land detached, and his children not being able to attend an elementary school in Fairview attended the Alden District elementary or common school. The value of land detached was well within the 5% Limit; the petition for change of the boundary was signed by all the electors thereof, so these two statutory requirements were met. Petitioner Slunecka's children were compelled to attend a school in a district where he had no right to vote for its officers or on any issues that arose and had no voice in the operation or conduct of the school. It further appears that shortly before the 1 3/4 sections of land were taken from Fairview (with $562.74 tax revenues out of $52,000 annual receipts) that eight sections had been added to Fairview. From these facts we cannot conclude the county board abused the discretion vested in it. That the new south boundary was not a straight line is of no consequence, as no statute requires it.

...