Scott County School Bd. v. Bd. of Sup.

• Decision Date: 23 September 1937
• Citation: 169 Va. 213
• Parties: SCOTT COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD v. SCOTT COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

Page 213

169 Va. 213

SCOTT COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD v. SCOTT COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.

Supreme Court of Virginia, Staunton.

September 23, 1937.

Present, All the Justices.

1. SCHOOLS — County School Budget — Right of Board ofSupervisors to Control Estimates. — The county board of supervisors has the right, in the exercise of a reasonable discretion, to control the estimates in the school budget submitted by the county school board.

2. SCHOOLS — County School Budget — Duty of Board of Supervisors to Determine Whether Estimates Are within County's Financial Ability. — The financial ability of a county is better known to the board of supervisors than to any one else and it is their duty to determine whether or not the estimates submitted for school purposes are in line with the "financial ability" of the county, as that phrase is used in section 611a of the Code of 1936, requiring that counties and cities shall provide from local school taxes such amounts as will secure properly prepared teachers to the degree that financial ability will permit.

3. SCHOOLS — County School Budget — Section 656 of the Code of 1936 — Necessity for Providing for Expenses in Budget Approved by Board of Supervisors. — The provision of section 656 of the Code of 1936, that the county school board must incur only such costs and expenses as are provided for in its budget without the consent of the tax levying body, simply means that whatever costs or expenses are incurred must be shown in a budget which has been approved by the county board of supervisors or by its consent.

4. SCHOOLS — County School Budget — Section 657 of the Code of 1936 — Legislative Intent to Empower Board of Supervisors to Supervise School Expenses. — Section 657 of the Code of 1936, providing that the county school budget must clearly show all necessary details in order that the board of supervisors may be properlyinformed, that the school superintendent shall request the supervisors to fix the levy in accordance with the estimate, and that after the appropriation is made the board of supervisors cannot decrease it during the school term, clearly shows the legislative intent to place in the hands of the board of supervisors the power and duty of supervising school expenses.

5. SCHOOLS — County School Budget — Section 657 of the Code of 1936 — Right of Board of Supervisors to Curtail Budget before School Term. — The provision in section 657 of the Code of 1936 that the county board of supervisors cannot decrease during a school term the amount appropriated by the supervisors for the term, is but another way of saying that the supervisors have the right to curtail the school budget prior to the school term.

6. SCHOOLS — County School Budget — Section 657 of the Code of 1936 — Voters and Not School Board to Set in Motion Machinery for Election to Determine Laying of Levy. — Under section 657 of the Code of 1936, providing that if the board of supervisors refuse to lay the levy recommended by the superintendent of schools for school expenses, then on petition of twenty per cent. of the qualified voters of the county the circuit court may order an election to determine whether such levy shall be fixed, the burden is not upon the county school board to set in motion the machinery for an election — this is for twenty per cent. of the qualified voters.

7. SCHOOLS — County School Budget — Power of Board of Supervisors to Curtail. — From the related constitutional and statutory provisions it is evident that the General Assembly intended for the board of supervisors to curtail the school budget if in the exercise of a reasonable discretion it thought the budget excessive.

8. MANDAMUS — Does Not Lie to Control Discretion. — Mandamus does not lie to control discretion.

9. SCHOOLS — County School Budget — Mandamus to Compel Board of Supervisors to Approve Budget as Submitted. — Case at Bar. — In the instant case petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to compel respondent to approve the county school budget as submitted. Respondent curtailed the estimates submitted by scaling amounts from various items and omitting some items entirely, approved the budget as curtailed and laid a tax levy to take care of it. Petitioner contended that respondent had no right to increase or decrease the budget as submitted but must raise the necessary revenue to take care of it.

Held: That mandamus should be denied.

Original application for a mandamus.

The opinion states the case.

S. H. Bond, Cecil D. Quillen and H. E. Widener, for the petitioners.

E. H. Richmond and Burns & Lively, for the respondents.

PER CURIAM.

This is a continuation of the controversy existing between the board of supervisors and the school board of Scott county. At the September, 1936, term of the court we had a somewhat similar question presented upon similar procedure and between the same parties. The parties appear to be in no mood to co-operate; though by implication, at least, the General Assembly...