McComas v. Board of Educ. of Fayette County

Decision Date17 May 1996
Docket NumberNo. 23291,23291
Citation197 W.Va. 188,475 S.E.2d 280
CourtWest Virginia Supreme Court
PartiesMichael McCOMAS, Winifred Andrews, and Mary Blackwell, Petitioners Below, Appellees, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF FAYETTE COUNTY; Philip J. Tissue, President; W. Jack Flint, Ralph L. Parks, Daniel E. Wright, and Jeanne M. Young, Respondents Below, Board of Education of Fayette County, Appellant.

Barry L. Bruce, Lewisburg, for Appellees.

Erwin L. Conrad, Fayetteville, for Appellants.

CLECKLEY, Justice:

The respondent below and appellant herein, the Board of Education of Fayette County (Board), 1 appeals an order of the Circuit Court of Fayette County granting a writ of mandamus to the petitioners below and appellees herein, Michael McComas, Winifred Andrews, and Mary Blackwell, who are taxpayers and residents of Fayette County.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

At a meeting held on January 3, 1995, the Board, pursuant to W.Va.Code, 18-5-13 (1990), and W.Va.Code, 18-5-13a (1991), scheduled a public hearing on the proposed plan to close Falls View Elementary School and Gauley Bridge High School, and to consolidate Gauley Bridge High School with Valley High School. As required by W.Va.Code, 18-5-13a, notice of the hearing was published in two newspapers of general circulation in Fayette County for four successive weeks prior to the February 16, 1995, public meeting.

On January 12, 1995, copies of the plan for consolidation and closure and supportive materials were placed in the Board's office for inspection by the public. The documents were made available for five successive weeks. 2 According to the Board, no one examined any of the documentation held in the Superintendent's office. Between January 4, 1995, and February 16, 1995, several articles appeared in The Fayette Tribune, The Beckley Register, and The Charleston Gazette discussing the planned closure and noting that other information was available in the Superintendent's office. During this period, the Board claims it visited Gauley Bridge High School to conduct a meeting with the local school improvement council so that members of the public would have the opportunity to discuss the closures and any other issues with the Board.

[197 W.Va. 192] The Board posted notices on the front door and two separate bulletin boards, and made available materials concerning the closures of Gauley Bridge High School and Falls View Elementary School. The principals of Gauley Bridge High School and Falls View Elementary School made presentations to the staff members concerning the effect of the closures. Representatives of the West Virginia Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers also made presentations. Other meetings involving faculty, citizens, and members of a committee against consolidation also occurred during the period prior to the public hearing.

The petitioners presented their opposition to the Board's closure and consolidation plan at the public meeting held on February 16, 1995. Purportedly because of the voluminous materials presented to the Board by the petitioners, Jack Flint, a member of the Board, requested an opportunity to ask the Superintendent questions. The Superintendent and Mr. Flint agreed to meet on February 19, 1995. Mr. Flint advised two other Board members, Ralph L. Parks and Daniel E. Wright, that he was meeting with the Superintendent and that they could come and listen if they wanted. 3 The Board's brief to this Court notes that Mr. Flint, Mr. Parks, and the president of the Board, Phillip J. Tissue, all arrived separately for the discussion with the Superintendent on February 19, 1995. The Superintendent testified 4 that besides himself, the following individuals were present on February 19: Jack Crist, the associate superintendent, Ray Carson, associate superintendent for finance administration, Mr. Tissue, Mr. Flint, Mr. Wright, and Mr. Parks.

The Board claims none of the people present (except Flint and the Superintendent) specifically planned with anyone else to show up on February 19, 1995; nothing was convened; no formalities were followed; and no votes were taken or resolutions adopted. Moreover, the Board asserts none of the members present discussed the questions posed by Mr. Flint, and no one voiced an opinion concerning the proposed plans. Ultimately, at the public meeting on February 20, 1995, the final vote of the Board was 4 to 1 in favor of closing Falls View Elementary School, and 3 to 2 in favor of consolidated Gauley Bridge High School. 5

The petitioners filed a petition seeking a writ of mandamus and for injunctive relief in the circuit court. A hearing was held on March 15, 1995. In the final order dated November 9, 1995, which incorporated two prior orders entered on May 15, 1995, and October 5, 1995, the circuit court granted the petition for a writ of mandamus. The circuit court stated that the two reasons for granting the writ were that the Board's vote for the closure and consolidation of the schools was void ab initio due to violations of the notice and posting requirements of W.Va.Code, 18-5-13, and W.Va.Code, 18-5-13a, and because the Board conducted a meeting in violation of the Open Governmental Proceedings Act embodied in W.Va.Code, 6-9A-1, et seq. (the Sunshine Law). The Board appeals alleging several errors.

II. DISCUSSION

W.Va.Code, 53-1-2 (1933), and Section 6 of Article VIII of the West Virginia Constitution vest the circuit courts of this state the power to issue writs of mandamus. Because mandamus is a drastic remedy to be invoked only in extraordinary situations, a party seeking such a writ must satisfy three conditions: (1) there are no other adequate means for the party to obtain the desired relief; (2) the party has a clear and indisputable right to the issuance of the writ; and (3) there is a legal duty on the part of the

[197 W.Va. 193] respondent to do that which the petitioner seeks to compel. See Syl. Pt. 1, State ex rel. Billings v. Point Pleasant, 194 W.Va. 301, 460 S.E.2d 436 (1995). The issuance of a writ of mandamus is normally inappropriate unless the right or duty to be enforced is nondiscretionary. The importance of the term "nondiscretionary" cannot be overstated--the judiciary cannot infringe on the decision-making left to the executive branch's prerogative

It is axiomatic that a school board has authority to close and/or consolidate schools. See Haynes v. Board of Educ., 181 W.Va. 435, 383 S.E.2d 67 (1989); W.Va.Code, 18-5-13. Thus, courts may not interfere with the decisions of a school board without strong evidence justifying such interference. A school board's powers are not unlimited, however; and, a writ of mandamus is appropriate when a board oversteps, or fails to meet, its clear legal duties. See generally Board of Educ. v. West Virginia Bd. of Educ., 184 W.Va. 1, 399 S.E.2d 31 (1990). As we stated in Syllabus Point 1 of Pell v. Board of Education of Monroe County, 188 W.Va. 718, 426 S.E.2d 510 (1992):

" 'Mandamus will lie to control a board of education in the exercise of its discretion upon a showing of caprice, passion, partiality, fraud, arbitrary conduct, some ulterior motive, or misapprehension of the law.' Syl. pt. 4, Dillon v. Board of Education, 177 W.Va. 145, 351 S.E.2d 58 (1986)."

See also Syl. Pt. 1, Haynes v. Board of Educ., supra. Thus, the use of mandamus is appropriate to confine an administrative agency to a lawful exercise of its authority when compelled to do so by statute.

The parties to this appeal raise several issues regarding the procedure followed by the Board in its attempt to consolidate the two schools. Despite the numerous issues, we limit our disposition of this appeal to the question of whether the circuit court erred when it ruled the Board violated the Sunshine law and the notice-posting requirements of W.Va.Code, 18-5-13a. Because we hold the Board violated both laws and mandamus was proper in this case, we affirm the ruling below. We do not reach the remaining issues, which concern alleged shortcomings in the Board's procedures, as the Board can easily avoid those pitfalls if it decides to repeat the process.

A.

The Sunshine Law

1. The Standard of Review

This appeal concerns the circuit court's decisions to grant a writ of mandamus based upon its finding that a violation of the Open Governmental Proceedings Act, also called the sunshine law, contained in W.Va.Code, 6-9A-1, et seq, and to void the Board's school consolidation vote. Our standard of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
33 cases
  • Meadows v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • June 9, 1999
    ... ... underlying action in the Circuit Court of Nicholas County alleging that Wal-Mart failed to pay her accumulated sick ... of this policy is posted on the Company bulletin board ...         An accompanying policy in effect ... and proper use." Syllabus Point 4, id.; see also, McComas v. Bd. Of Educ. of Fayette County, 197 W.Va. 188, 205, 475 ... ...
  • Phillip Leon M. v. Greenbrier County Bd. of Educ.
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • December 13, 1996
    ... ... Petitioners Below, Appellees, ... GREENBRIER COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Stephen Baldwin, ... Superintendent; and Bruce Bowling, Jim Anderson, Sue King, ... Cooper v. Caperton, supra; Syl. pt. 2, McComas v. Bd. of Educ. of Fayette County, 197 W.Va. 188, 475 S.E.2d 280 (1996) ...         In ... ...
  • W. Va. Bd. of Educ. v. Marple, 14–1264.
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • November 10, 2015
    ... 236 W.Va. 654 783 S.E.2d 75 WEST VIRGINIA BOARD OF EDUCATION, and L. Wade Linger, Jr., Petitioners v. Jorea M. MARPLE, ... , appeal a November 3, 2014, order of the Circuit Court of Kanawha County. In its order, the circuit court denied the Board's and Mr. Linger's ... See, e.g., McComas v. Bd. of Educ. of Fayette Cnty., 197 W.Va. 188, 201, 475 S.E.2d 280, 293 ... ...
  • State ex rel. Sowards v. County Com'n of Lincoln County
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • July 17, 1996
    ... ... has such interest as entitles him to maintain mandamus to compel a board of ballot commissioners to discharge their duties lawfully in respect to ... As we recently stated in McComas v. Board of Education of Fayette County, 197 W.Va. 188, 192, 475 S.E.2d ... at 109, 290 S.E.2d at 246, citing Pickering v. Board of Educ., 391 U.S. 563, 88 S.Ct. 1731, 20 L.Ed.2d 811 (1968). The possibility of ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT