Sweetwater County Planning Committee for Organization of School Districts v. Hinkle

• Decision Date: 15 February 1972
• Docket Number: No. 3998,3998
• Citation: Sweetwater County Planning Committee for Organization of School Districts v. Hinkle, 493 P.2d 1050 (Wyo. 1972)
• Parties: SWEETWATER COUNTY PLANNING COMMITTEE FOR the ORGANIZATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS, Appellant (Intervenor below), v. Leonard HINKLE et al., Appellees (Appellants below).
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Page 1050

493 P.2d 1050

SWEETWATER COUNTY PLANNING COMMITTEE FOR the ORGANIZATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS, Appellant (Intervenor below), v.Leonard HINKLE et al., Appellees (Appellants below).

No. 3998.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

Feb. 15, 1972.

Robert H. Johnson, Rock Springs, for appellant.

John A. MacPherson and T. Michael Golden, Rawlins, for appellees.

Before McINTYRE, C. J., and PARKER, McEWAN, and GUTHRIE, JJ.

McINTYRE, Chief Justice.

FINAL OPINION

We have retained jurisdiction in this case since the rendering of our original opinion, which is reported in 491 P.2d 1234.Subsequent to such original opinion, some of the interested parties have petitioned our court to authorize or approve organization plans for school districts in Sweetwater County.

All interested parties appear to be in general agreement that School DistrictNo. 2(Green River) and School DistrictNo. 6(Granger) may be organized in a unified school district; but certain reservations have been expressed with respect to such reorganization.

The varying petitions and requests presented to the court since our original opinion make it clear the court is being called upon to perform a function which does not properly belong to our court, i.e., that of completing the reorganization of school districts in Sweetwater County.Such petitions and requests have also made it clear that our retaining of jurisdiction is hampering and interfering with the proper performance of duties by duly constituted school administrators and officials.

As we said in our original opinion, we can no longer ignore inequalities throughout our state in the matter of taxation for school purposes.However, nothing can be done about this until the legislature convenes.We therefore see no need for continuing our jurisdiction in this particular case.Indeed, it is apparent those charged with responsibility for the reorganization of school districts should be left free to perform their duties and statutory responsibilities as best they can until the legislature has taken proper steps to equalize ad valorem taxes for school purposes on a statewide basis.

Any adversely-affected taxpayer will be able to maintain an action upon the question of invidious discrimination if such exists after the legislature has convened and adjourned.In the meantime, we must assume the state committed for school district organization and other school officials will perform their duties in a reasonable and lawful manner.Adequate procedures for the review of administrative action in any case, where it is claimed such action is improper or arbitrary, are available to aggrieved parties.

The parties who are directly affected in the problem pertaining to Bairoil have indicated an interest in arriving at a mutually satisfactory solution, and apparently negotiations in this regard are under way.It is not intended by this final opinion to in any was interfere with or terminate such negotiations.Indeed, the state committee and all concerned school officials are necessarily as interested as the court in having an agreement among the interested parties with respect to the Bairoil problem.

The district court specifically issued a restraining order prohibiting the state committee and the county committee from taking any action to place in effect the county plan of school district reorganization with respect to Bairoil School...