School Dist. of City of Lansing v. State Bd. of Ed.

• Decision Date: 10 September 1962
• Docket Number: A,No. 45,45
• Citation: 367 Mich. 591,116 N.W.2d 866
• Parties: SCHOOL DISTRICT OF the CITY OF LANSING, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendant and Appellee. pril Term.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 866

116 N.W.2d 866

367 Mich. 591

SCHOOL DISTRICT OF the CITY OF LANSING, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendant and Appellee.

No. 45, April Term.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Sept. 10, 1962.

Joseph W. Planck, Lansing, for plaintiff and appellant.

Paul L. Adams, Atty. Gen., Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Eugene Krasicky, Sol. Gen., Gerald J. O'Reilly, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lansing, for defendant and appellee.

Cummins, Butler & Hovey, James R. B. Hovey, Lansing, for Community School, Ingham and Clinton Counties, amicus curiae.

Alton J. Stroud, by Leo A. Farhat, Pros. Atty., for Ingham County, John R. Dethmers, Civil Asst., Lansing, for Alton J. Stroud, Ingham County Supt. of Schools, amicus curiae.

Before the Entire Bench, except DETHMERS and ADAMS, JJ.

KAVANAGH, Justice.

The school district of the city of Lansing appeals on leave granted from the approval by the State board of education of a transfer of property from a Community school district located partially in DeWitt township, Clinton county, and partially in Lansing township, Ingham county. The area involved is located just north and east of the city of Lansing.

The Community school district of that area petitioned the joint county boards of education under the school code of 1955 for a transfer to the school district of the city of Lansing of that portion of Community school district located west of Coolidge road as it runs north and south through its school district.

The joint county boards of education of Ingham, Eaton and Clinton counties heard the petition and on May 2, 1961, granted the transfer, requiring and exacting a payment from the school district of the city of Lansing of the sum of $29,471 as payment for properties it would receive by the transfer.

The school tax electors of the Community district approved the transfer, as required by the school code.

Appeal was taken to the State board of education by the school district of the city of Lansing. A hearing was held and at the conclusion of the taking of testimony and arguments the State board of education approved the transfer, made specific findings of fact, and approved the payment of the sum of money for the property.

Plaintiff school district raises the following questions:

1) Are the sections of the school code dealing with transfer of property between districts unconstitutional in that they provide no standards which the county board or the joint boards and the State board of education shall follow in the transfer of school property to another school district?

2) Are the same sections of the school code unconstitutional for failing to provide a standard to determine an equitable payment by the school district where a transfer of property is made?

3) Is section 461 of the school code unconstitutional as denying to plaintiff the equal protection of the laws, in that it grants a vote on the question of transfer of territory to the district from which detachment is made, while denying a vote to the district to which the territory is transferred?

4) Did the State board of education actually consider the appeal?

Unlike the delegation of other powers by the legislature to local governments, education is not inherently a part of the local self-government of a municipality except insofar as the legislature may choose to make it such. Control of our public school system is a State matter delegated and lodged in the State legislature by the Constitution. The policy of the State has been to retain control of its school system, to be administered throughout the State under State laws by local State agencies organized with plenary powers to carry out the delegated functions given it by the legislature.

We are concerned here with sections 461 through 465 of the school code of 1955* dealing with transfer of territory between school districts.

Plaintiff school district does not challenge the authority of the legislature, subject always to constitutional restrictions, to organize and control school districts in the State, including its power to provide for the alteration of boundaries of school districts. It agrees that the legislative power to alter school district boundaries may be delegated to subordinate authorities. Plaintiff merely says that no standard or yardstick has been provided for the guidance of the subordinate authority. Plaintiff school district then proceeds to review cases from other States construing their respective statutes. We find no merit in the contentions of plaintiff school district.

The legislature provided the county board of education may, in its discretion, when requested to do so by resolution of the board of any district whose boundaries would be changed by such action, or when petitioned by not less than 2/3 of the resident owners of land to be transferred, detach territory from one district and attach it to another.

The legislature further povided that only territory contiguous to a district may be transferred.

The legislature provided that when the latest available taxable valuation of an area to be detached is more than 10% of the latest available taxable valuation of the entire school district from which it is to be detached, the action shall not be valid until approved at an annual or special election for that purpose in the district from which the detachment is to be made.

The legislature also provided that the county superintendent of schools shall give at least 10 days' notice of the time and place of the meeting of the county board of education and of the proposed alteration of school district boundaries to be considered at said meeting.

The legislature further provided that whenever the territory of districts the boundaries of which would be affected by the proposed alteration extends into 2 or more counties, or whose boundaries as a result of the proposed alteration would extend into 2 or more counties, the county boards of education of all of such counties shall meet jointly and sit as a single board to consider and act upon the request for transfer. The legislature provided how such a petition under those circumstances may be presented.

The legislature provided that when the county board or joint county boards have approved alterations in the boundaries, such board or boards shall cause a map to be prepared showing in detail the new boundaries of the affected districts and cause a copy of such map to be filed with the secretary of each affected district and with each affected township supervisor or city assessor.

The legislature also provided that in the resolution ordering the transfer of property, the county board or joint boards shall determine the effective date of such transfer, which shall not be less than 10 days from the date of the resolution. It provided the county board or joint boards shall determine whether any personal property is to be transferred and, when any real property owned by a school district is transferred to another district, determine an equitable payment for the taking of such property. It provided that the board or joint boards may require an accounting from the affected districts and, for the purpose of making its determination, may adjourn from time to time subject to the call of the president of the board or chairman of the joint boards.

The legislature certainly expected the board or joint boards, in determining 'equitable payment' for...