Larson v. State Appeal Bd.

• Decision Date: 03 January 1973
• Docket Number: No. 37,37
• Citation: 202 N.W.2d 920,56 Wis.2d 823
• Parties: Mrs. Luther LARSON et al., Appellants, v. STATE APPEAL BOARD, Respondent.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Page 920

202 N.W.2d 920

56 Wis.2d 823

Mrs. Luther LARSON et al., Appellants, v. STATE APPEAL BOARD, Respondent.

No. 37.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Jan. 3, 1973.

Godfrey, Neshek & Worth, S.C., Elkhorn, for appellants.

Robert W. Warren, Atty. Gen., John William Calhoun, Asst. Atty. Gen., Madison, for respondent.

HEFFERNAN, Justice.

When orders affecting school district reorganizations are appealed to the court, the only issue presented is whether the reorganization authority acted within its jurisdiction and whether its order was arbitrary or capricious. School District No. 5, Village of Bear Creek v. Kahl (1969), 42 Wis.2d 264, 166 N.W.2d 160; Olson v. Rothwell (1965), 28 Wis.2d 233, 137 N.W.2d 86; Zawerschnik v. Joint County School Committee of Milwaukee and Waukesha Counties (1955), 271 Wis. 416, 426, 73 N.W.2d 566.

In the rare case, the question of discrimination or denial of equal protection can also be raised. State ex rel. LaCrosse v. Rothwell (1964), 25 Wis.2d 228, 234, 130 N.W.2d 806, 131 N.W.2d 699. However, the court will not undertake a review of the wisdom or the correctness of a reorganization order. School Board v. State Superintendent (1963), 20 Wis.2d 160, 179, 121 N.W.2d 900; Reinders v. Washington County School Committee (1962), 15 Wis.2d 517, 526, 113 N.W.2d 141.

This court has long held that school district reorganization represents the determination of policy questions of a legislative nature. Whether an order for school reorganization from a policy point of view is in accord with what a court may think appropriate under the circumstances is immaterial. We have said:

'The courts court not assume the duties of the superintendent or any other statutory authority even if the legislature delegated to them the power, for such a delegation would violate the doctrine of separation of powers.' School Board v. State Superintendent, supra, 20 Wis.2d p. 180, 121 N.W.2d p. 911.

We have applied a similar rationale where we held unconstitutional a legislative delegation to the courts to determine whether an annexation is in the best interests of a community. In re City of Beloit (1968), 37 Wis.2d 637, 155 N.W.2d 633. See, also, Scharping v. Johnson (1966), 32 Wis.2d 383, 145 N.W.2d 691.

This appeal does not question the jurisdiction of the school reorganization tribunals. Accordingly, the only issue raised is whether the State Appeal Board's order was arbitrary and capricious. Appellant argues that it was, because it failed to follow the constitutional mandate of art. X, sec. 3, of the Wisconsin Constitution. That section provides:

'The legislature shall provide by law for the establishment of district schools which shall be as nearly uniform as practicable. . . .'

It is contended and it appears undisputed that the Watertown District provides services to more than 3,500 students, while the Johnson Creek District serves only 620. The Watertown District is composed of 159 square miles, with an equalized valuation of $135,000,000, while the Johnson Creek District is only 28 square miles in area and has an equalized valuation of slightly more than $14,000,000. The appellants contend that these figures demonstrate a complete disregard for the constitutional mandate. They argue that the new order, which takes territory and students away from Johnson Creek and adds to the Watertown District, aggravates an already unconstitutional situation.

A similar contention was dealt with in State ex rel. Zilisch v. Auer (1928), 197 Wis. 284, 221 N.W. 860. This court pointed out that the Constitution refers to 'district schools' and not 'school districts.' It stated:

'An examination of the debates in the conventions that framed our present Constitution and the Constitution of 1846 (which contained a similar provision) discloses that the members of those conventions, when they were framing the article relating to schools, were concerned, not with the method of forming school districts, but with the character of instruction that should be given in those schools after the districts were formed--with the training that these schools should give to the future citizens of Wisconsin.

'Viewing the terms of this constitutional provision in the light of its express terms as well as of the purpose which actuated those who drafted it, we conclude that the requirement as to uniformity applies to the districts after they are formed--to the character of the instruction given--rather than to the means by which they are established and their boundaries fixed.' (Pp. 289, 290, 221 N.W. p. 862)

The same position was restated in Joint School District No. 10 v. Sosalla (1958), 3 Wis.2d 410, 420, 88 N.W.2d 357, 363: 'It has been decided that this requirement applies to the character of the instruction and not the means by which district boundaries are fixed.'

No question of the character of the instruction in the school districts has been raised, and, accordingly, the constitutional provision has no relevancy to the issues which faced the appeal board or to our review of its action.

It is also argued that the detachment is unreasonable in that it...