Santa Barbara Sch. Dist. v. Superior Court

• Decision Date: 15 January 1975
• Citation: 118 Cal.Rptr. 637,530 P.2d 605,13 Cal.3d 315
• Parties: , 530 P.2d 605 SANTA BARBARA SCHOOL DISTRICT et al., Petitioners, v. The SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, Respondent; C. Raymond MULLIN et al., Real Parties in Interest. C. Raymond MULLIN et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. SANTA BARBARA SCHOOL DISTRICT et al., Defendants and Appellants. L.A. 30054, 30086. In Bank
• Court: California Supreme Court

Page 637

118 Cal.Rptr. 637

13 Cal.3d 315, 530 P.2d 605

SANTA BARBARA SCHOOL DISTRICT et al., Petitioners, v.The SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, Respondent;

C. Raymond MULLIN et al., Real Parties in Interest.

C. Raymond MULLIN et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v.SANTA BARBARA SCHOOL DISTRICT et al., Defendants and Appellants.

L.A. 30054, 30086.

Supreme Court of California,

In Bank.

Jan. 15, 1975.

George P. Kading, County Counsel, Robert D. Curiel, Chief Asst. County Counsel, Marvin Levine and Don H. Vickers, Deputy County Counsel, Santa Barbara, for petitioners and for defendants and appellants.

Michael Lawson, Oakland, A. L. Wirin, Fred Okrand, Los Angeles, Laurence R. Sperber, Beverly Hills, Nathaniel S. Colley, Sacramento, Primo Ruiz, Pittsburg, Fred J. Hiestand, San Francisco, Gene Livingston, Jerome B. Falk, Jr., William F. McCabe, San Francisco, Peter Galiano, Robert A. Stafford, Stafford, Buxbaum & Chakmak, Claremont, Gervaise Davis III, Walker, Schroeder, Davis & Brehmer, Monterey, and Anthony G. Amsterdam, Stanford, as amici curiae for petitioners.

Price, Postel & Parma, Gary R. Ricks and Hollister, Brace & Angle, Santa Barbara, for real parties in interest and for plaintiffs and respondents.

No appearance for respondent.

Bagley, Bianchi & Sheeks, William T. Bagley, San Rafael, Robert L. McWhirk, Sacramento, Levy & Van Bourg, Victor J. Van Bourg and Stewart Weinberg, San Francisco, as amici curiae.

SULLIVAN, Justice.

In this class action brought against two school districts and their common governing board of education, we are called upon to determine the validity of a desegregation plan for elementary schools.Our task also requires us to examine and pass upon the constitutionality of a recent initiative measure enacting certain antibusing legislation and repealing existing statutes dealing with the prevention and elimination of racial and ethnic imbalance in pupil enrollment.Additionally we must examine the validity of the pertinent statute permitting the board of education in question to be the common governing board of the high school district and the elementary school district here involved.In essence, plaintiffs make two independent but cognate attacks--one against the board's plan and the other against the board itself.We take them up in that order, separately stating the facts proper to each.We first turn our attention to the desegregation plan.

I

DefendantSanta Barbara Board of Education(hereafter Board and referred to as defendant in the singular) is the common governing board of defendantsSanta Barbara School District and Santa Barbara High School District.DefendantNorman B. Scharer is the Superintendent of Schools of Santa Barbara (superintendent).

Culminating a period of five years' planning and study aimed at correcting the racial imbalance in elementary schools, the Board on February 3, 1972, resolved 'to move immediately toward the total desegregation of all Santa Barbara elementary schools beginning in September 1972.'The Board adopted the following four-step procedure to effectuate this resolution: (1) the issuance by February 22, 1972, of a statement of policy on desegregation; (2) the creation of a 'Task Force Committee for Desegregation,' consisting of 22 members, to develop criteria for the study of proposed desegregation plans and to present such criteria to the Board no later than March 2, 1972; (3) the establishment of an 'Education and Integration Study Committee,' consisting of more than 100 members, under the chairmanship of the superintendent, to review various plans submitted for carrying out the desegregation-integration policy and to present to the Board, no later than May 4, 1972, two or three alternate plans; and (4) the determination that '(o)n May 18, 1972, this Board of Education will adopt one plan to be implemented as fully as possible in September 1972.'

Both committees met numerous times and completed all work on schedule.On March 2, 1972, the Board adopted 12 criteria for guidance in reviewing the proposed desegregation plans.One of the criteria stated that any desegregation plan should 'provide for optimum use of and be capable of being implemented within existing facilities.'

Nine desegregation plans were received and studied initially by the 'Task Force' and thereafter by the larger Education and Integration Study Committee.The latter committee by a vote of 74 to 4 recommended to the Board a specific desegregation plan known as the Hord-Mailes-Christian-Belden Plan, named after the four sponsoring elementary school principals.The committee also approved two alternate plans and prior to May 4, 1972, presented all three to the Board.These three plans, together with the West-Anderson plan not recommended by the committee, were formally presented to the Board at its meeting held on May 4, 1972.

Due to various objections raised by members of the Board in the ensuing discussion at that meeting, the superintendent decided to develop his own plan.On May 16, 1972, just two days prior to the Board meeting scheduled for final adoption of a desegregation plan, the superintendent announced, in an article appearing in the Santa Barbara New Press, that he proposed recommending a new desegregation plan at that meeting.The next day the same newspaper contained a longer article describing the general outlines of the so-called 'Administration Plan.'That night the plan was discussed at a meeting of the Education and Integration Study Committee.However, there was no time for study or review prior to the Board meeting the following night.

At its meeting on the next night--May 18, 1972--the Board discussed the three plans recommended by the committee, the West-Anderson Plan and the Administration Plan.The last named plan was presented orally because it had not yet been reduced to writing.Despite two petitions signed by 3,000 people requesting a postponement for further study, the Administration Plan was adopted by the Board as orally presented.On June 8, 1972, the plan was summarized in writing and submitted to the State Department of Education for approval.

On June 9, 1972, C. Raymond Mullin and Howard G. Larson, on behalf of themselves and of all other voters, parents and taxpayers similarly situated, commenced the instant action seeking: (1) a writ of mandate to compel a special election of the Board and (2) declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the implementation of the allegedly unlawful and inadequate desegregation plan.The complaint contained three causes of action: The first two which we discuss separately (seePart II, Infra) concerned the validity of the election and composition of the Board; the third cause of action alleged that the adoption of the Administration Plan by the Board was: (1) invalid for failure to give notice as required by the Education Code and (2) an abuse of discretion, in that the Board hurriedly adopted an inadequately studied plan which failed to desegregate all the elementary schools, despite the closing of two elementary schools altogether and the changing of the kindergarten to grade six pattern in two other schools.

Following an eight-day trial, the court filed a memorandum of intended decision.In respect to the third count ¹ which attacked the validity of the Administration Plan, the court declared its intention to enjoin implementation of the plan.It rested this contemplated action on two bases.First, the court concluded that the Board had no jurisdiction to close the schools since it had failed to include notice of the proposed closure of two schools in its published agenda as required by section 966 of the Education Code.The court determined that the closure of the schools was such an integral part of the Administration Plan that the whole plan must fall.Secondly, the court concluded that the Board abused its discretion by adopting the Administration Plan requiring the closure of two schools since such closure was not reasonably necessary to the effective desegregation of the elementary schools.

Before findings of fact and conclusions of law, based on the court's memorandum of intended decision were filed, defendants presented to this court a petition invoking our original jurisdiction and seeking a writ of prohibition restraining the trial court from entering judgment in accord with the memorandum of intended decision.We issued an alternative writ of prohibition.²On August 28, 1972, plaintiffs petitioned this court to modify the alternative writ so as to omit any stay of the trial court's proposed order enjoining implementation of the plan.Since in issuing the alternative writ, we had determined that the petition had made a prima facie showing that the proposed action of the trial court was in excess of its jurisdiction and therefore that its proposed enjoining of the Administration Plan must be prohibited pending our final determination of the issue, we denied the petition for modification.

Subsequently an additional factor was injected into the resolution of the above proceeding with the adoption by the electorate at the general election held on November 7, 1972, of the initiative measure denominated Proposition 21.Section 1 of that proposition added to the Education Code section 1009.6 providing: 'No public school student shall, because of his race, creed, or color, be assigned to or be required to attend a particular school.'Sections 2 and 3 of Proposition 21 repealed sections 5002and5003 ³ respectively of the Education Code, which had declared the state policy of eliminating racial imbalance in California schools and had delineated the various factors to be considered in implementing this policy.Section 4 of Proposition 21, repealed the administrative guidelines toward achieving racial balance in the schools adopted by the State Board of Education.(§§ 14020 & 14021 of tit. 5 of the Cal.Admin.Code.)

Since the Administration Plan was adopted...