Harney v. Clear Creek Community School Dist., 52690

• Decision Date: 14 November 1967
• Docket Number: No. 52690,52690
• Citation: 261 Iowa 315,154 N.W.2d 88
• Parties: William C. HARNEY, Walter E. Portwood, Alfred Scheetz, Lois Becicka and William R. Spratt, Appellants, v. The CLEAR CREEK COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Ned Langenberg, President, Cletus Scheetz, Raymond Miller, Ivan Struzynski, Paul Scheetz, Members of Board of Directors of the Clear Creek Community School District, Edna Bowman, Secretary, and E. F. Miick, Treasurer of said School District, Appellees.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

Page 88

154 N.W.2d 88

261 Iowa 315

William C. HARNEY, Walter E. Portwood, Alfred Scheetz, Lois Becicka and William R. Spratt, Appellants, v. The CLEAR CREEK COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Ned Langenberg, President, Cletus Scheetz, Raymond Miller, Ivan Struzynski, Paul Scheetz, Members of Board of Directors of the Clear Creek Community School District, Edna Bowman, Secretary, and E. F. Miick, Treasurer of said School District, Appellees.

No. 52690.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Nov. 14, 1967.

Messer & Cahill, Iowa City, for appellants.

Hart, Shulman, Phelan, Tucker & Boyle, Iowa City, for appellees.

BECKER, Justice.

Plaintiffs, taxpayers and voters of Clear Creek Community School District of Johnson and Iowa Counties, asked for a permanent injunction restraining defendants, school district, board of directors and board members individually, from selling bonds, entering into contracts for the purchase of school site and construction of school building, claiming bond election was illegal and void because defendants did not comply with certain statutory provisions.

The question presented is: Were the variances from statutory procedures in this instance material and substantial? The trial court refused to grant the injunction, holding the variances were merely technical and inconsequential. We agree.

On September 1, 1961, pursuant to chapter 275, Code, 1958 parts of Johnson and Iowa counties were united to form the school district. Five elections on school bond issues were held between March 14, 1962 and October i7, 1965. All failed.

The sixth bond election was predicated on a petition submitted to the board on December 13, 1965. It posed the following proposition:

'Shall the Clear Creek Community School District, in the Counties of Johnson and Iowa, State of Iowa, issue bonds in such amount as would be obtainable under the 1965 assessed evaluation of property within the school district which amount can be determined from County Auditor records when the same are completed, for the purpose of building and furnishing a new high school on approximately 25 acres of land located in the E 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of Section 28 Township 80 North, Range 7 West of the 5th P.M.'

On December 23, 1965, the board adopted a resolution authorizing a vote on the proposition. It was similar to the petition except the resolution failed to specify part of the proceeds would be used to purchase a site for a new high school. Subsequent to the board's resolution and prior to the time of publication of notice of special election, the figures on assessed valuation were available from the county auditor's office. The percentage of total indebtedness was computed on this valuation and the amount of the bond issue was determined from these figures to stay within the constitutional five percent limitation. The dollar amount was incorporated into the notice of the election and placed on the official ballot.

Legal notice of the May 3, 1966 bond election was published stating the proposition:

'Shall the Clear Creek Community School District, in the Counties of Johnson and Iowa, State of Iowa, issue bounds in the amount of Five hundred sixty-three thousand four hundred seventy-three Dollars ($563,473) for the purpose of securing the site and building and furnishing a new high school on approximately 25 acres of land * * *' (location proposed same as in the petition, supra.)

The proposition submitted to the voters on the official ballot was identical to that set out in the published notice of election. The election was held on May 38 1966. A total of 1048 ballots were cast. There was a 62.5% Majority vote in favor of the proposition. No ballots were shown to be blank or defectively marked.

I. Before considering ten propositions relied upon by plaintiffs we review the general principles of interpretation governing this type of case. In Honohan v. United Community School District, 258 Iowa 57, 137 N.W.2d 601 we observed, 'As a general rule mere irregularities in the conduct of a school election, or minor defects in the form of a ballot do not affect the result of the election, but defects in matters of substance are fatal. (cases cited)'

The result of a school election is presumptively valid. Irregularities in the procedure must be shown to be material. In Headington v. North Winneshiek Community School District, 254 Iowa 430, 438, 117 N.W.2d 831, 836 these propositions are stated more fully and forcefully including, '(I)t is the duty of the court to sustain an election authorized by law if it has been so conducted as to give a free and fair expression of the popular will * * *.'

Plaintiffs rely strongly upon Honohan v. United Community School District, supra. We note that there the petition, resolution, notice and preliminary plans and all public debate referred to a school for eight grades, five through twelve. When the ballot appeared it referred only to construction of a senior high school, connoting at most a four grade building, nine through twelve. Under such circumstances this court held the voters had in fact been misled and voided the election. We now examine the irregularities appearing here.

II. The petition failed to specify the amount of the bonds in dollars but substituted therefor the request that the amount of bonds be determined in such amount as would be obtainable under the 1965 valuation of property within the district as shown by the auditor's records when the same were completed. The auditor's records for 1965 were not then in shape to allow accurate determination of the amount of bonded indebtedness available to the district.

Subsequently, and before the notice of election was published, the total amount, $563,473, was determined and included both in the published notice and the ballot. Defendants cite State ex rel. Fletcher v. Executive Council, 207 Iowa 923, 223 N.W. 737 where formula type legislation for a highway bond issue was considered and use of a formula, rather than a specific amount was approved. The case was reversed. One of the grounds was that the formula was bad. We need not determine whether use of the formula in the notice of election and subsequent ballots would be sufficient compliance with the statute here. The amount of the bond issue was determined in dollars in sufficient time to inform the people adequately by those two instruments both before the election and at the polls. The voters were not misled.

III. The preamble of the petition contains reference to the fact that improvements contemplated cannot be made within the limit of one and one-quarter percent of the assessed valuation of the taxable school district property. This complies with section 296.2 Code, 1966. No statute requires that such statement be added to the school board resolution. A resolution is not specifically required. While orderly procedure probably dictates such a resolution, it is not a statutory condition precedent.

IV. Plaintiffs next note that the petition for election was filed less than six months after the last previous election. Again there is not statute prohibiting such procedure. Section 75.1 requires that a defeated proposal, or part thereof, 'shall not be Submitted to the electors for a period of six months from the date of such regular or special election.' (emphasis supplied) It is...