Wallis v. Blue
| Decision Date | 08 February 1967 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 10598. |
| Citation | 263 F. Supp. 965 |
| Parties | James W. WALLIS, Chairman, Mt. Zion High School Trustees, Olin C. Johnson, Sr., W. F. Lambert, Quinton Nagg, Ollie Smith, M. G. Gresham, C. E. Boatright v. E. M. BLUE, County School Superintendent, Carroll County, Georgia, J. C. Brown, Chairman, Carroll County Board of Education, Percy Johnson, Member Carroll County Board of Education, Larry Staples, Member Carroll County Board of Education, Dr. James A. Bivins, Member Carroll County Board of Education, C. H. King, Member Carroll County Board of Education, John Sims, Director, State School Building Authority, Ben Fortson, Secretary of State, State of Georgia. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia |
C. C. Perkins, Carrollton, Ga., for plaintiffs.
Tisinger & Tisinger, Carrollton, Ga., for defendants.
Before BELL, Circuit Judge, and HOOPER and SMITH, District Judges.
This is a suit in which the plaintiffs as residents of the Carroll County, Georgia, school district, seek to enjoin the defendant members of the Carroll County Board of Education and its Superintendent from carrying out a plan of consolidation which would result in the closing of the Mt. Zion High School and other schools located in the community in which all plaintiffs reside. Defendants Sims and Fortson are state officials who have functions in connection with the issuance of commissions to the School Board and with the State School Building Authority which would be involved in the construction of a new consolidated high school, if the plan of consolidation is not enjoined.1
According to all counsel, this is a local school controversy which has raged for almost 15 years within Carroll County. As a result, it has been the subject of innumerable school board meetings, newspaper editorializing, and considerable bitterness between the opposing factions. The closeness of the matter is indicated by the current 3-2 vote within the county board to effectuate the consolidation plan. It has already been the subject of one suit in the state courts appealed to the State Supreme Court. Boatright v. Brown, member of Carroll County Board of Education, et al, 222 Ga. 497, 150 S.E.2d 680 (1966). (No. 4511, Carroll Superior Court). It is presently the subject of another pending state suit (No. 4842, Carroll Superior Court). Between the two state suits, all constitutional issues raised here are before the state courts. Notwithstanding these proceedings and the applicability of the federal constitution to the state tribunals, the plaintiffs have started anew in the United States District Court on the same grounds. This is in accordance with the current vogue of "forum shopping" occasioned by an expanding federal jurisdiction. Such practice in other areas has been recently criticized in view of the right of ultimate review of a federal question by appeal to the Supreme Court from a final state decision. See City of Greenwood v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808 at 834, 86 S.Ct. 1800, 16 L.Ed.2d 944 (1966).
In order to involve federal jurisdiction, it is necessary to allege a federal constitutional question. In this posture, the present suit seeks to have declared invalid a provision of the Georgia Constitution (Article VIII, Section 5, Par. 1, Code Section 2-6801) and a general statute of the state (Code Section 32-954), dealing with the selection and powers of a local school board. Each of these provisions is said to offend the equal protection and due process clauses of the United States Constitution.
As undisputed background adduced at the hearing, the administration of public education in Carroll County is divided into two systems, the county system, present in all of Georgia's 159 counties, and the Carrollton system, a so-called independent system, of which there are some 36 remaining in Georgia. This dual system arose because certain municipalities in Georgia had strong local systems which antedated the state system. They were incorporated into the state system, but allowed to maintain certain autonomy. Generally, their boundaries coincide with the municipal limits and local financial support is obtained through the levy of a municipal property tax. Historically, they are being phased out and combined with the regular county systems and their subsequent creation was prohibited by the State Constitution of 1945.2
In Carroll County and the other counties where the dual system exists, the county district embraces all territory outside the municipal independent system. Local financial support is obtained through levy of a school tax on property within its boundaries. With certain minor exceptions, occasioned by changes in city-limits, prior bond issues, and the like, no tax for support of the county system is levied on property within the independent district, and vice-versa. However, citizens of both districts pay taxes to the state, which furnishes the primary support to all systems, varying from 60% to 95% under a complicated state formula not at issue here. The Carroll County Board receives 87% of its operating revenues from the state.
The administration of county systems is vested in the County Board of Education by the state constitution.3 The chief executive officer is the County School Superintendent.4 In the absence of special legislation or general constitutional provisions with local effect, the superintendent is elected,5 and the members of the Board are chosen by the county Grand Jury.6 Selection by the Grand Jury is the traditional manner of obtaining School Board members.7 Rejection of the system in favor of popular election was considered, but Grand Jury selection was retained in the Constitution of 1945, ratified by the people.8
(1) The present constitutional provision provides:
By general statute, the qualifications have been further particularized.
Georgia Code 32-903.
As can be seen, the law prohibits the selection of a resident of a local independent district on the County Board. On the other hand, such residents can and do serve as members of the county Grand Jury and, as such, participate in the choice of members of the County School Board. Such is the case in Carroll County and on this factual basis the Grand Jury selection is attacked as unconstitutional by the petitioners here.
(2) Once in office, the County Board has broad powers in the administration of its schools, subject to state and federal requirements. Vast population shifts, improved transportation economy in operation, and the proved high-quality of larger schools has necessitated the rearrangement and consolidation of individual schools within each county. Such changes have caused conflict and disagreement in many communities and the problem presented here exists, to a greater or less degree, in practically every Georgia county. In connection with such matters, the legislature has vested broad discretion in the County Boards, subject only to an appeal to the State Board.9 By express statute, it is declared:
"The board of education of any county or independent school system is hereby authorized and empowered, if, in their opinion, the welfare of the schools of the county or independent school system and the best interests of the pupils require, to reorganize the pupils require, to reorganize the schools within their jurisdiction and to determine and fix the number of grades to be taught at each school in their respective systems." Georgia Code Section 32-954.10
Plaintiffs contend that such provision is unconstitutional in that it makes no provision for notice or hearing to the residents involved.
In their answer and motion to dismiss, the Carroll County Board and Superintendent assert that such provisions are not unconstitutional, that a hearing was held, though not required (Defenses No. 1, 2, 3, 4); that the claims are res judicata because of the state proceedings (Defense No. 5); that plaintiffs have not exhausted their administrative remedies by appeal to the state board (Defense ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Welch v. BOARD OF ED. OF BALTIMORE CTY.
...(Copies of the said complaint and of Judge Harvey's Order have been placed in the court file in this case). See Wallis v. Blue, 263 F.Supp. 965 (N.D.Ga. 1967) (three-judge court), in which the Court held that there is no property right to have children attend a particular school and stated ......
-
E & E Hauling, Inc. v. Pollution Control Bd.
...on individuals. See Landfill, Inc. v. Pollution Control Board, 74 Ill.2d 541, 559, 25 Ill.Dec. 602, 387 N.E.2d 258; Wallis v. Blue, 263 F.Supp. 965 (N.D.Ga.1967). We thus conclude that neither the Village nor any of its citizens have any constitutionally protected interest in the continued ......
-
Kaelin v. Warden
...U.S. 663, 665, 86 S.Ct. 1079, 16 L.Ed.2d 169 (1966); Soliah v. Heskin, 222 U.S. 522, 32 S.Ct. 103, 56 L.Ed. 294 (1912); Wallis v. Blue, 263 F.Supp. 965 (N.D.Ga.1967). Nor are we compelled to decide that question In this case we are presented with the question of whether one member of a thre......
-
Griggs v. Cook
...normally vested by law in the various school boards and this district has extensively dealt with the problem in Wallis v. Blue, 263 F.Supp. 965 (N.D.Ga.1967) (3-judge). It is only when some transcendent personal constitutional right is involved that the federal courts take jurisdiction of s......