State ex rel. Schilling v. Community School Dist. of Jefferson, Greene County

• Decision Date: 15 November 1960
• Docket Number: No. 50018,50018
• Citation: 252 Iowa 491,106 N.W.2d 80
• Parties: STATE of Iowa ex rel. Mary SCHILLING et al., Appellants, v. COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF JEFFERSON, GREENE COUNTY, Iowa, James M. Pauley, Robert A. Telleen, Frank M. Gilmore, Carroll T. Perkins, Harold Baker, Russell T. Holt and their Successors in office, Appellees.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

Page 80

106 N.W.2d 80

252 Iowa 491

STATE of Iowa ex rel. Mary SCHILLING et al., Appellants, v. COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF JEFFERSON, GREENE COUNTY, Iowa, James M. Pauley, Robert A. Telleen, Frank M. Gilmore, Carroll T. Perkins, Harold Baker, Russell T. Holt and their Successors in office, Appellees.

No. 50018.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Nov. 15, 1960.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 13, 1961.

Willard M. Freed, Gowrie, Taylor & Taylor, Robert Taylor, Guthrie Center, Robert Winterset, for appellants.

Charles E. Hird, Jefferson, Richardson & Richardson, R. K. Richardson, Jefferson, for appellees.

GARRETT, Justice.

This is a quo warranto action to test the legality of the organization of Jefferson Community School District in Greene County.

In April, 1959 petitions proposing the formation of the Central Tri-County Community School District embracing territory in Guthrie, Greene and Dallas counties were circulated. At the same time petitions for the organization of Jefferson Community School District, located wholly within Greene county were circulated. The latter petitions were received by the Greene county superintendent at his home at approximately 11:15 o'clock, P.M. on April 27, 1959, marked 'filed' by him as of that time and taken to his office at 7:30 the next morning.

The Central Tri-County petitions were received by the Guthrie county superintendent at her home at approximately 3:20 A.M. on April 28, 1959, then marked 'filed' and brought to her office at 6:00 A.M. on that day. No question is raised as to the sufficiency of the petitions, hereafter referred to in the singular.

Notice of hearing on the Central Tri-County petition was given and hearing held thereon on May 11, 1959. The Greene county board of education appeared and participated in the meeting after announcing it waived no rights by so appearing, and, on motion made and seconded by members of the Greene county board the petition was dismissed.

The Greene county board approved the Jefferson district plan and the county superintendent published notice of the decision which contained a description of the proposed district but no reference to the manner of electing directors or the boundaries of the director districts established by the board. The items omitted from the notice were set out specifically in the petition.

On June 3, 1959 the Independent Consolidated School District of Washington, located in Greene county, filed an appeal from the decision establishing the Jefferson district. Special election on the formation of the Jefferson district was held on June 1, 1959, carried by a sufficient majority and a month later directors of the new district were elected and qualified.

It was stipulated on the trial that the Franklin Township Consolidated School District area was included in the Jefferson and Tri-County petitions. The Independent Consolidated School District of Washington township adjoins the Jefferson district and does not claim to be an 'affected' district within the terms of Section 275.12. Its complaint appears to be that the Greene County board did not consider the interests of territory outside the Jefferson district when it approved the boundaries of that district. Failing to stop the formation of the Jefferson district, plaintiff, on relation of interested parties, brought this action. Upon dismissal of its petition plaintiff has appealed.

I. Appellant asserts the Jefferson district was illegally formed by reason of the failure of the county superintendent to include in the notice of the decision of the county board and in the notice of the special election and ballot a description of the boundaries of the director districts and the method of electing directors, all as required by sections 275.12, 275.15, 275.16 and 275.18, Code of Iowa, 1958, I.C.A.

It is sufficient to say that section 275.12 relates to the petition and method of election and makes no reference to the county superintendent. Section 275.16 applies only when the territory is in more than one county, which is not the case here and section 275.18 requires published notice of special elections but does not say what the notices shall contain. Section 275.15 provides: 'Hearing--decision--publication of order. On the final day fixed for filing objections, interested parties may present evidence and arguments, and the county board of education shall review the matter on its merits and within five days after the conclusion of any hearing, shall rule on the objections and shall enter an order fixing such boundaries for the proposed school corporation as will in its judgment be for the best interests of all parties concerned, having due regard for the welfare of adjoining districts or dismiss the petition. The county superintendent shall at once publish this order in the same newspaper in which the original notice was published and file any amendments to the county plan in the same manner as hereinabove provided for the original or tentative county plan. Within twenty days after the publication thereof the decision rendered by the county board of education may be appealed to a court of record in the county involved by any school district affected.'

When the county board makes its decision and enters its order its work is done. Its decisions are final and no appeal may be taken except by 'affected' districts. The proceedings from there on are purely administrative and are under the control of the county superintendent. The law requires the county superintendent to publish the order of the county board fixing the boundaries of the proposed district. The petition set out the director districts and the manner of electing the directors. The resolution or order of the board as published by the superintendent referred to the five director districts approved by the board, each to be represented by one director to be elected by vote of the entire district, the method of electing directors as proposed in the petition and the approval of the proposed boundaries.

The board did not set in its order the boundaries of the director districts or the land included in each, nor was this necessary since it made no changes but merely approved the boundaries set out in the petition. The notice published described the boundaries of the proposed district and this met the requirements of the statute. The superintendent was not required to set forth in the notice anything other than the order of the county board. Section 275.15. There was no substantial departure from the statutory requirements or showing that any elector was misled in any way.

Where mistakes of administrative officials are relied upon, prejudice must be shown to defeat an election fairly held. Lehigh Sewer Pipe and Tile Co. v. Incorporated Town of Lehigh, 156 Iowa 386, 136 N.W. 934. In Wall v. County Board of Education, 249 Iowa 209, 86 N.W.2d 231, 239, we said: 'In State ex rel. Ondler v. Rowe, 187 Iowa 1116, 1128, 175 N.W. 32, 36, we said: 'The rule that where jurisdiction to call an election has once attached, subsequent mistakes and irregularities in the manner and method of the call made and election held does not oust the jurisdiction * * *.' We again considered the question in State ex rel. Odekirk v. Peterson, 199 Iowa 52, 54, 201 N.W. 71, 72, where the petition carried the correct description, but typographical errors appeared in the notices and ballot. We stated: 'It appears from evidence in this case that no elector was misled or prejudiced in any way. Furthermore, the records of the district correctly described its boundaries. This was open to the electors. The petition filed also correctly described the boundaries. The relators were residents within the district, and doubtless had some knowledge as to the boundaries, and they could, by inquiry, have gone to the records. They were simply voting on the question as to the dissolution of their own district. Gallagher v. School Township, 173 Iowa 610, 618, 154 N.W. 437; Calahan v. Handsaker, 133 Iowa 622, 627, 111 N.W. 22; Lehigh Sewer Pipe & Tile Co. v. Incorporated Town of Lehigh, 156 Iowa 386, 392, 396, 136 N.W. 934. We held in Smith v. Blairsburg Ind. Sch. Dist., 179 Iowa 500, 506, 159 N.W. 1027, that it is enough if the petition as a whole indicated the boundaries of the proposed district in any definite manner. In some cases we have held that a petition and notice will be construed as embracing certain territory, though not specifically mentioned, when fairly susceptible of such construction, and where so treated by the school board, county superintendent, and voters.' Also see State ex rel. Warrington v. Community School Dist. of St. Ansgar, 247 Iowa 1167, 78 N.W.2d 86. In this case no elector was misled by the slight typographical error in the description. The petition was correct and the county board of education assumed jurisdiction. Every elector knew what territory was involved in the proposition on which he was voting.' See State ex rel. Greene Community School District v. Rudd, 250 Iowa 1269, 98 N.W.2d 820.

No objections to the boundaries of the director districts were filed. The claim...