San Rafael Elementary Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Education

• Decision Date: 28 July 1999
• Docket Number: No. C030478,C030478
• Citation: 73 Cal.App.4th 1018,87 Cal.Rptr.2d 67
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: , 135 Ed. Law Rep. 1015, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6053, 1999 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7685 SAN RAFAEL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendant and Appellant; Lorene Russell et al., Real Parties in Interest and Appellants.

Page 67

87 Cal.Rptr.2d 67

73 Cal.App.4th 1018, 135 Ed. Law Rep. 1015,

99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6053,

1999 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7685

SAN RAFAEL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendant and Appellant Lorene Russell et al., Real Parties in Interest and Appellants.

No. C030478.

Court of Appeal, Third District, California.

July 28, 1999.

Michael E. Hersher, General Counsel, Edmundo R. Aguilar, Deputy General Counsel, for Defendant and Appellant State Board of Education.

Nielsen, Merksamer, Parrinello, Mueller & Naylor, Marguerite Mary Leoni, James R. Parrinello, Mill Valley, and Rupert P. Hansen, San Francisco, for Real Parties in Interest and Appellants. McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen, William Bates, III, Joshua A. Bloom, Mark K. deLangis, Natasha Sen, San Francisco, Bergman & Wedner, Inc., and Richard V. Godino, Los Angeles, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo, Paul M. Loya, and Janice J. Hein, Pleasanton, as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Respondent.

Lozano, Smith, Smith, Woliver & Behrens, Harold M. Freiman, Monterey, as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Respondent.

BLEASE, Acting P. J.

This case concerns the scope of authority of the State Board of Education (the Board) to review a decision of a local county committee, the Marin County Committee on District Organization (the Committee), regarding the transfer of territory from one school district to another under Education Code sections 35710.5 and 35711. ¹

The Committee disapproved a transfer of territory in Marin County from the San Rafael Elementary School District (San Rafael Elementary) to the Dixie School District (Dixie). The Board rejected the Committee findings, made its own findings supporting a transfer, reversed the Committee decision and directed that the transfer go forward.

San Rafael Elementary filed this action. The trial court granted San Rafael Elementary's petition for a writ of mandate overturning the Board's decision. The trial court concluded the Board had no authority under section 35710.5 to consider de novo the findings made by the Committee as the basis for its decision. This appeal followed.

The Board and the proponents of the transfer, the real parties in interest, contend the trial court erred in construing section 35710.5 to limit the Board's authority to review the Committee decision. The contention of error has merit and we will reverse the judgment.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On July 10, 1997, a petition to transfer 300 homes from San Rafael Elementary to Dixie was filed with the Marin County Office of Education. The petition requests the transfer on grounds that placement of the territory in Dixie is more appropriate due to considerations of geography and social connection. In particular, it is claimed the transfer would permit children to ride their bicycles to the nearest Dixie Both San Rafael Elementary and Dixie opposed the proposed transfer of territory.

Elementary school more safely than to the nearest San Rafael Elementary school and would foster long term social relationships with their neighbors who attend elementary school in Dixie. The petition designates the real parties in interest as the chief petitioners, persons entitled to receive notice of public hearings on the petition (§ 35702) and to appeal an adverse county committee determination to the Board (§ 35710.5).

On November 5, 1997, the petition was considered by the Committee. It disapproved the petition on grounds the proposed transfer failed to meet three criteria of Education Code section 35753, subdivision (a) as follows: subdivision (a)(4), "The reorganization of the district will not promote racial or ethnic discrimination or segregation"; subdivision (a)(6), "The proposed reorganization will not significantly disrupt the educational programs in the proposed districts and districts affected by the proposed reorganization will continue to promote sound education performance in those districts"; and subdivision (a)(9), "The proposed reorganization will not negatively affect the fiscal management or fiscal status of the proposed district or any existing district affected by the proposed reorganization."

The chief petitioners ² appealed the Committee decision to the Board. At a hearing on May 7, 1998, the Board decided the proposed transfer met all three criteria of Education Code section 35753 which the Committee found unmet. ³ The Board reversed the Committee decision and determined the election concerning the transfer of territory would be held within the territory to be transferred.

On June 8, 1998, San Rafael Elementary filed a petition for writ of mandate to command the Board to set aside its decision. The petition contended, inter alia, that under Education Code section 35710.5, the Board has no authority to reconsider and overturn the findings of the Committee that the transfer proposal fails to satisfy the criteria of Education Code Section 35753, subdivision (a). ⁴

The trial court granted the writ, reasoning as follows:

"Education Code Section 35710.5 provides that a Chief Petitioner may appeal a decision of a County Committee to the State Board, but that such an appeal 'shall be limited to issues of noncompliance with Education Code sections 35705, 35706, 35709, and 35710.' The Court finds that the State Board's review authority is limited to the procedural issues contained in [these Education Code sections]. Nothing in the Education Code indicates that the State Board's review authority also includes a substantive review of the factors set forth in Education Code section 35753. Otherwise, the legislature's insertion of the word 'limited' in Education Code Section 35710.5 would be meaningless, and the statute would include language to the effect that a transfer appeal may be based upon the merits of the underlying petition."

The Board and the chief petitioners appeal from the judgment.

DISCUSSION

The Board ⁵ contends the trial court erred in construing section 35710.5 to prohibit its determination de novo that the proposed transfer complies with the criteria listed in section 35753. We agree.

A. The Statutory Text and Context

" 'One of the common techniques of statutory construction, besides being always a starting point, is to read and examine the text of the act and draw inferences concerning meaning from its composition and structure.' (2A Sutherland, Statutory Construction (4th ed.1973) § 47.01, p. 70; italics added.)" (Nunez v. Superior Court (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 476, 480, 191 Cal.Rptr. 893.) We start with the text of section 35710.5, which provides in pertinent part:

"(a) An action by the county committee approving or disapproving a petition pursuant to Section 35709 or 35710 may be appealed to the State Board of Education by the chief petitioners or one or more affected school districts. The appeal shall be limited to issues of noncompliance with the provisions of Section 35705, 35706, 35709, or 35710. If an appeal is made as to the issue of whether the proposed transfer will adversely affect the racial or ethnic integration of the schools of the districts affected, it shall be made pursuant to Section 35711.

"(b) ... Within 15 days after the filing of the notice of appeal, the appellant shall file with the county committee a statement of reasons and factual evidence. The county committee shall then, within 15 days of receipt of the statement, send to the State Board of Education the statement and the complete administrative record of the county committee proceedings, including minutes of the oral proceedings.

"(c) Upon receipt of the appeal, the State Board of Education may elect either to review the appeal, or to ratify the county committee's decision by summarily denying review of the appeal. The board may review the appeal either solely on the administrative record or in conjunction with a public hearing. Following the review, the board shall affirm or reverse the action of the county committee, and if the petition will be sent to election, shall determine the territory in which the election is to be held. The board may reverse or modify the action of the county committee in any manner consistent with law.

"....................

At issue is the meaning of the second sentence of section 35710.5, subdivision (a), which provides that Board review of a county committee transfer decision is "limited to issues of noncompliance with the provisions of Section ... 35710."

Section 35710 provides that, in a case like this one:

"if the county committee finds that the conditions enumerated in paragraph (1) to (10), inclusive, of subdivision (a) of Section 35753 are substantially met, the county committee may approve the petition and, if approved, shall so notify the county superintendent of schools who shall call an election in the territory of the districts as determined by the county committee...."

The parties disagree whether review of an "issue[ ] of noncompliance" with section 35710 includes de novo review of a committee finding that a condition of section 35753 has not been "substantially met."

San Rafael Elementary claims, and the trial court concluded, that a section 35710.5 appeal is limited to procedural matters, that "noncompliance with the provisions of Section ... 35710" extends only to the question whether the county committee made a required finding, not whether the finding meets the criteria of section 35373 On the surface, both candidate readings of "noncompliance" are semantically tenable; hence the problem is to resolve an ambiguity. (E.g., California State Auto. Assn. Inter-Ins. Bureau v. Superior Court (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 855, 859, fn. 1, 223 Cal.Rptr. 246 ["An ambiguity arises when language is reasonably susceptible of more than one application to material facts"].)

that are referenced in section 35710, contained in section 35710.5, subdivision (a).

Before plunging into...