Talbott, Aud. Pub. Accounts v. Ky. State Bd. Educa.
| Decision Date | 30 September 1932 |
| Parties | Talbott, Auditor of Public Accounts, v. Kentucky State Board of Education et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
2. Schools and School Districts. — Legislature may provide for efficient school system by levying tax sufficient when proceeds are distributed pro rata or raising limit of local school tax rates (Constitution, secs. 183, 184, 186, 188; Ky. Stats., secs. 4364, 4399a-8, 4434a-14).
3. Schools and School Districts. — Money appropriated for schools immediately becomes part of school fund, distributable as provided by Constitution, though appropriated after tax is levied or money collected (Constitution, secs. 184, 186; Ky Stats., sec. 4399a-8).
4. Schools and School Districts. — Constitutional provision for pro rata distribution of school fund among counties is inapplicable to supplementary school funds collected by state subdivisions for exclusively local purposes (Constitution, sec. 186).
5. Colleges and Universities. — Constitutional provision for pro rata distribution of school fund among counties held inapplicable to funds appropriated for state university and normal schools (Constitution, secs, 184, 186).
Appeal from Franklin Circuit Court.
R.W. KEENON, GUY BRIGGS, CLIFFORD E. SMITH, and MORRIS & JONES for appellant.
BAILEY P. WOOTTON, Attorney General, and OVERTON S. HOGAN, Assistant Attorney General, for appellees.
Reversing.
The General Assembly of Kentucky at its 1930 session passed an act appropriating annually out of the general fund of the state treasury the sum of $1,250,000 to be expended and administered under the direction and supervision of the state board of education. Chapter 36, Acts 1930. The act provides that the money therein appropriated shall be known and designated as the fund for the equalization of educational opportunities in this commonwealth, and equalizaton of educational opportunities is declared to mean "the raising of the level of expenditures per pupil for educational purposes in school districts where the level of educational opportunities is below the level or standard fixed and prescribed by law and by the State Board of Education as hereinafter provided." Section 2.
Only a board of education that has levied the maximum school tax permitted by law and has had its budget and salary schedule approved by the state board of education has the privilege of applying for aid from the fund appropriated by the act. Section 4 of the act reads:
"If the State Board of Education, upon investigation, finds that any applicant for an apportionment from the fund created by this Act, by using all of the State Per Capita and one-half of its local revenue, cannot employ its teachers for a minimum of seven months and pay them a minimum salary of $75 per month, estimating on the basis of one teacher for every forty children of school age, then the State Board of Education shall distribute and pro rate from the funds created by this Act sufficient revenue to enable such board of education to employ its teachers for a minimum term of seven months and pay salaries based upon a minimum of $75 per month with additional amounts for high school and college training as provided in the salary schedule adopted by the local board of education and approved by the State Board of Education, estimating one teacher for each forty pupils in the census."
It is further provided (sections 5, 8) that the funds appropriated shall be prorated on or before February 1 of each year by the state board of education to each board of education meeting the provisions of the act, and that the money appropriated by the act shall be set apart in the state treasury to the credit of the state board of education, and the state treasurer, as treasurer of the state board of education, shall hold the same inviolate and as a separate fund and shall pay out such money on warrants of the auditor of public accounts, who shall issue such warrants only on requisitions signed by the chairman of the state board of education.
At a meeting of the state board of education held on January 27, 1932, applications of a number of local boards of education throughout the state for aid from the fund provided by the act were approved, and allotments totaling $790,942.94 were made. The chairman of the board was directed to draw a requisition upon the auditor of public accounts for the amounts allotted to the various local boards of education, which was done. The auditor of public accounts declined to issue a warrant or warrants upon the state treasurer for the sum requested, or any part thereof, and the state board of education thereupon brought this action in the Franklin circuit court in which a mandatory injunction was sought to require him to draw a warrant or warrants upon the state treasurer for the sum of $790,942.94.
An answer in four paragraphs was filed; the first paragraph being a denial that the defendant wrongfully or illegally refused to issue a warrant or warrants. In the second paragraph it is alleged that there was a deficit in the general fund of several million dollars at the time the warrants were requested. In the third paragraph it is alleged that chapter 36 of the Acts of 1930 attempts to create a debt in violation of sections 49 and 50 of the Constitution, and is therefore void; and in paragraph 4 it is alleged that the act violates section 186 of the Constitution, in that, if the fund created by the act is distributed to the boards of education of the various counties applying for it, the school fund will not be distributed upon a pro rata basis as contemplated by that section of the Constitution. A demurrer to the second, third, and fourth paragraphs of the answer was sustained, and, the defendant having declined to plead further, a judgment was entered directing him to issue a warrant or warrants for the amount prayed for in the plaintiff's petition.
On this appeal prosecuted by J. Dan Talbott, auditor of public accounts, it is argued that chapter 36 of the Acts of 1930 contravenes sections 3, 49, 50, 59, 171, 180, 181, and 186 of our Constitution and is void. We have concluded that the act violates section 186 of the Constitution, and it therefore becomes unnecessary to discuss or determine the question of its constitutionality in other respects.
Section 186 of the Constitution reads in part:
"Each county in the Commonwealth shall be entitled to its proportion of the school fund on its census of pupil children for each school year; and if the pro rata share of any school district be not called for after the second school year, it shall be covered into the treasury and be placed to the credit of the school fund for general apportionment the following school year."
The school fund which this section provides shall be distributed annually to the counties on a pro rata basis is composed of all sums produced by taxation or otherwise for common school purposes, and the interest and dividends of the fund set apart by section 184 of the Constitution, which reads:
The genesis of section 184 was section 1 of article 11 of the third Constitution adopted in 1850, which provided that the capital of the fund known as the "Common School Fund," consisting of certain specified items together with any sum which might be raised thereafter in the state by taxation or otherwise for purposes of education, should be held inviolate for the purpose of sustaining a system of common schools. Section 1 of article 11 of the Constitution of 1850 then provided:
"The interest and dividends of said funds, together with any sum which may be produced for that purpose, by taxation or otherwise, may be appropriated in aid of common schools, but for no other purpose."
In 1837 the federal government distributed its surplus revenue to the states and the bond executed by the state of Kentucky to the board of education referred to in article 11 of the Constitution of 1850, and in section 184 of the present Constitution was in part for the sum thus received by this state. In 1892 the federal government made a return of direct taxes to the state amounting to $606,641.03. The receipt of this sum was anticipated by the Constitutional Convention of 1891, and section 188 of the Constitution resulted, which reads:
"So much of any moneys as may be received by the Commonwealth from the United States, under the recent act of congress refunding the direct tax, shall become a part of the school fund, and be held as provided in sec. 184; but the general assembly may authorize the use, by the Commonwealth, of the moneys so received, or any part thereof, in which event a bond shall be executed to the board of education for the amount so used, which bond shall be held on the same terms and conditions, and subject to the provisions of sec. 184, concerning the bond therein referred to."
...
To continue reading
Request your trial