State ex rel. Herbert v. Downey, 60714

• Citation: 572 S.W.2d 473
• Decision Date: 06 November 1978
• Docket Number: No. 60714,60714
• Parties: STATE ex rel. Elizabeth B. HERBERT et al., Relators-Appellants, v. Mrs. James H. DOWNEY et al., Respondents-Appellees.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

Page 473

572 S.W.2d 473

STATE ex rel. Elizabeth B. HERBERT et al., Relators-Appellants, v. Mrs. James H. DOWNEY et al., Respondents-Appellees.

No. 60714.

Supreme Court of Missouri, En Banc.

Nov. 6, 1978.

Thomas D. Carver, Joplin, Jerome J. Duff, James E. Heckel, Michael J. Gorla, St. Louis, for appellants.

Albert H. Hamel, Clayton, for respondents.

FINCH, Judge.

Relators, teachers in the Parkway School District of St. Louis County, brought this action in mandamus against members of the board of education of said district (hereinafter called respondents) to compel the board to pay to teachers compensation over and above that called for in their contracts because of alleged failure of the board to expend the proper amount of minimum guarantee funds allocated by the State Department of Education for the 1974-75 year. ¹ The petition alleged failure to comply with the provisions of § 163.031(9). ² After a hearing the trial court denied additional recovery to relators, quashing its previously issued alternative writ of mandamus. The case was transferred to this court by the Missouri Court of Appeals, St. Louis District, for the reason that construction of the revenue laws of the state is involved. We have jurisdiction. Mo.Const., art. V, § 3. We affirm.

This case involves the issue of what constitutes compliance with the requirement in § 163.031(9) that at least eighty percent of minimum guarantee funds received pursuant to that section be spent for teachers' salaries that year. This is the same issue presented and resolved in State ex rel. Niess v. Junkins, 572 S.W.2d 468 (Mo. banc 1978), decided concurrently. Parkway School District received $6,794,461 in minimum guarantee state aid in 1974-75 of which eighty percent or $5,435,569 was deposited in the district's teachers' fund. The district was required to spend the latter amount, plus at least $8,133,114 from local tax revenues (this being the sum so expended from that source for teachers' salaries during 1973-74), or a total of $13,568,683. In fact, the district spent $15,804,208 on teachers' salaries in 1974-75, of which $9,563,213 was from local tax revenues. Even so, relators contend that Parkway did not disburse the May installment of $1,481,591 for teachers' salaries during 1974-75 and should be required to do so.

Mr. Clarence O. McDonald, director of school finances of the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, testified that based on the State Board of Education's procedure for assessing compliance with § 163.031(9), Parkway complied with the requirements of that section. Respondents' Exhibit C, identified by Mr. McDonald, explains the procedure for determining compliance thus:

"Annually, the School Finance and Statistics Section of the Department examines the financial reports of each school district to determine if the requirements of Paragraph 9, Section 163.031, have been met. If the reports reveal that at least 80% Of the amount received under the Minimum Guarantee portion of the State Foundation Program is deposited in the Teachers Fund and the total disbursements for teachers' salaries exceed this amount, a district is considered to be in compliance with that portion of the statute. Money cannot be transferred from the Teachers Fund and must be used for teachers' salaries." ³

Mr. McDonald further testified that in testing compliance with § 163.031(9), his office personnel first determine whether eighty percent of state minimum guarantee funds have been placed in the teachers' fund. When that has been established, they calculate gross disbursements for salaries from the teachers' fund. If gross disbursements exceed the eighty percent of state moneys placed in the account, the district is deemed to have complied with the eighty percent requirement of § 163.031(9). The second step...