State ex rel. DuPont-Fort Lewis School Dist. No. 7, Pierce County v. Bruno

• Decision Date: 15 August 1963
• Docket Number: PONT-FORT,No. 37078,37078
• Citation: 62 Wn.2d 790,384 P.2d 608
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: The STATE of Washington on the relation of DuLEWIS SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 7, PIERCE COUNTY, Appellant, v. Louis BRUNO, as Superintendent of Public Instruction, and the State, Board of Education, Respondents.

Page 790

62 Wn.2d 790

384 P.2d 608

The STATE of Washington on the relation of DuPONT-FORT LEWIS SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 7, PIERCE COUNTY, Appellant, v. Louis BRUNO, as Superintendent of Public Instruction, and the State, Board of Education, Respondents.

No. 37078.

Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.

Aug. 15, 1963.

Skoog, Mullin & Cooper, Thomas R. Garlington, Tacoma, for appellant.

John J. O'Connell, Atty. Gen., Robert J. Doran, Bruce W. Cohoe, Asst. Attys. Gen., Olympia, for respondent.

HAMILTON, Judge.

Appellant, DuPont-Fort Lewis School District No. 7, on December 17, 1962, applied to respondents, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction and the State Board of Education (hereafter referred to as the superintendent and board, respectively), for accreditation of a proposed senior high school to commence in September, 1963, with the then addition of a 12th grade. Pursuant to appellant's request, an early hearing was afforded by the board. ¹

On March 28, 1963, appellant appeared before the board, submitted oral and documentary evidence of compliance with academic, personnel, administrative, and physical facility standards as established by the board, and, through counsel, urged favorable action. The board, upon the recommendation of the superintendent, denied accreditation, and, on April 1, 1963, advised appellant of its findings, which were as follows:

'1. The Wendell B. Laughbon Senior High School presently is not offering secondary education through the twelfth grade;

'2. No dire and imperative need presently exists for high school facilities and program of secondary education in the DuPont-Fort Lewis School District No. 7;

'3. Adequate high school facilities exist in Clover Park School District No. 400, and additional facilities and programs may be more economically and reasonably provided within the boundaries of the Clover Park School District;

'4. The expenditure of federal and state funds for construction and operation of a senior high school in the DuPont-Fort Lewis School District No. 7 is unreasonable and not in the public interest.'

Appellant applied ex parte to the Superior Court of Thurston County for a writ or certiorari, seeking thereby judicial review of the denial of accreditation. In its petition, appellant asserted that the evidence and exhibits presented to the superintendent and the board at the March hearing established that the proposed high school will serve in excess of 36 students and meets and surpasses all standards as to curriculum, personnel, and physical facilities, and that denial of accreditation would cause loss of certain state funds, demoralize students, and force closure. Appellant further alleged that the superintendent and the board acted illegally and/or arbitrarily and capriciously in that, contrary to standard practice, they failed to (a) make available a senior high school report form; (b) make an examination of the school district and the proposed program; (c) make any findings relating to the academic qualifications of the proposed high school; and (d) properly construe appellant's application and board regulations, as such related to the school year for which accreditation was sought.

The superior court issued an alternative writ directed to respondents. In response to such writ, respondents filed an answer and a return, including a transcript of the proceedings before the board. Concurrently, respondents filed a motion to quash and dismiss appellant's action upon the grounds that (1) appellant failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted; (2) the court lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter; and (3) appellant lacked standing to maintain such action.

The superior court, relying upon Okanogan Cy. School Dist. No. 400 v. Andrews, 58 Wash.2d 371, 363 P.2d 129 (1961), granted respondents' motion to dismiss upon the grounds that it lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter. This appeal followed, appellant contending that the later case of State ex rel. Cosmopolis Consol. School Dist. No. 99 v. Bruno, 59 Wash.2d 366, 367 P.2d 995 (1962), is controlling.

The Okanogan case, like the instant case, involved a denial of high school accreditation. We there held that (1) the high school accreditation function of the board was essentially administrative or legislative in character, as distinguished from a judicial or quasi-judicial function; and (2) where the circumstances presented a remote, possibly inadequate high school serving less than 36 pupils, and the administrative definitons, ² relating to accreditation of such high schools, patently permitted the exercise of discretion, in granting or denying accreditation, we would, absent statutory authority to the contrary, adhere to the limitations upon judicial review of nonjudicial functions imposed by RCW 7.16.040. ³ Accordingly, we declined jurisdiction.

The subsequent Cosmopolies case revolved about administrative action by school authorities in determining financial contributions between districts in a building program under RCW 28.56.010 et seq. We distinguished the Okanogan case and held, in substance, that (1) whether or not the administrative function involved be characterized as discretionary and nonjudicial, our courts possessed constitutional ⁴ and inherent power to review illegal or manifestly arbitrary and capricious action violative of fundamental rights; and (2) where the allegations in an application for writ of certiorari, if accepted as true, clearly demonstrate such a violation, courts should look to substance, rather than procedural form, and exercise their inherent power to review. Accordingly, we accepted jurisdiction.

We do not conceive the Okanogan and Cosmopolis cases to be irreconcilable. The Okanogan case represents a recognized judicial approach to reviewability of administrative actions revolving about nonjudicial functions which do not involve an alleged violation of fundamental rights, and which patently involve the exercise of administrative discretion. The Cosmopolis case, on the other hand, represents an accepted judicial approach to reviewability of administrative actions which, though discretionary and functionally nonjudicial, would, if illegally or arbitrarily and capriciously exercised, do violence to fundamental rights.

The essential touchstone, impelling invocation of the inherent or constitutional power of judicial review of nonjudicial administrative action, is the basic nature and extent or magnitude of the right involved coupled with the patency and character of the alleged violation.

Crucial then to a determination of whether appellant has, within the molds cast by the Okanogan and Cosmopolis cases, stated a claim upon which judicial review should be granted is the question of whether compliance with high school academic, personnel, and facility standards, by any school district serving more than 36 high school students, entitles such district to high school accreditation as a matter of fundamental right, regardless of other considerations. Stated another way: Does the board legally possess discretionary power to deny such an application for high school accreditation upon grounds other than failure to meet minimum attendance, academic, personnel, and facility standards?

We believe a brief review of the powers and duties, respectively, of the superintendent, the board, and school districts, and their relationship one to the other, will be of assistance in answering the question presented.

Article 9, § 1, of the state constitution, imposes upon the state the paramount duty of making adequate provision for the education of all children residing within its borders. Article 9, § 2, commands the legislature to provide a general and uniform system of public schools, and Art. 3, § 22, entrusts to the superintendent supervisory authority over all matters pertaining to the public schools.

In keeping with the constitutional provisions, the legislature has, by RCW 28.02.020, provided that administration of the public school system shall be carried out by the superintendent, the board, county superintendents, county boards (RCW 28.20), and school districts.

RCW 43.11.030 legislatively defines the powers and duties of the superintendent, including supervision over all public school matters; biennial reporting to the governor concerning the general condition of the public schools as related to attendance, building, financing, and plans for management and improvement; and acting as ex officio president of the board. In addition, the superintendent is enjoined to annually apportion state funds among the school districts (RCW 28.41.060); biennially certify budgetary estimates to the governor for submission to the legislature (RCW 28.41.040); represent the state in the receipt and administration of federal funds (RCW 28.47.020); cooperate and assist certain school districts in preparation of their budgets (RCW 28.63.100); and assist the state and county boards in performance of their duties relating to organization and reorganization of school districts (RCW 28.57.110).

RCW 43.63.010 et seq., creates the board, provides for its composition (two members from each congressional district elected by the school district directors), and defines its powers and duties, among which are to define 'education' insofar as the state's constitutional obligations be concerned; unify the work of the public school system; outline courses of study for the various departments of the common school system, including high schools; prescribe such rules for the general government of the common schools as will promote regularity of attendance, efficiency, and the true interests of the school system; prescribe rules for the classification of high and nonhigh school districts; and to examine and accredit secondary schools. Other duties embrace planning, rule making, and...