West v. Unified School Dist. No. 346, Linn County
| Decision Date | 23 October 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 45666,45666 |
| Parties | Rolland WEST et al., Appellants, v. UNIFED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 346, COUNTY OF LINN, State of Kansas, a Municipal Corporation, and Allen Broyles, Maurice Cox, John Herman, Eugene Miller, Albert Irwin, and Ellwood Stambaugh, as Board Members of said Unified School District, and Eltheda Kennedy, as Clerk of said Board, Appellees. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. In a special bond election called by the board of education of a unified school district pursuant to K.S.A. 72-6761 to provide funds for purchasing a site and constructing and equipping a new school building, the notice of election and ballots must clearly state the substance of the question to be voted upon by the electors.
2. A departure from directory provisions of a statute pertaining to notice of a special bond election does not necessarily compel annulment of the election where the irregularities did not frustrate or tend to prevent the free expression of the electors' intentions, nor otherwise to mislead them.
3. Where a special meeting of a board of education of a unified school district is held at which all members of the board are present and participate without objection in matters considered by the board, the requirement of K.S.A1968 Supp. 72-8205 relating to written notice of the meeting is deemed to have been waived, and the validity of the proceedings had at such meeting is not thereby affected.
4. The record is examined in an action by a group of taxpayers challenging the validity of a special bond election in a unified school district, and for reasons stated in the opinion, it is held, the district court did not err in finding the proceedings valid and refusing to enjoin the sale and issuance of bonds authorized by the election.
Orville J. Cole, Garnett, for appellants.
Leighton Fossey, Mound City, for appellees.
This action was instituted by a group of taxpayers (appellants) against Unified School District No. 346 and its board members (appellees) to challenge the validity of a special bond election held June 14, 1968. The taxpayers have appealed from the judgment of the district court finding the proceedings valid and refusing to enjoin the sale and issuance of bonds authorized by the election.
Appellants question the validity of the election proceedings on the grounds: (1) The published notice of the bond election did not comply in certain particulars with the provisions of K.S.A.1967 Supp. 72-67, 114(f) (Repealed, L.1968, ch. 59, § 45); (2) there was a conflict between the wording of the board's resolution calling the election and the published notice and ballot; (3) the board adopted the resolution calling the election at a special meeting for which no written notice was given, nor were there waivers of such notice; and (4) the election was conducted by the county clerk instead of the board of education of the school district.
The facts are not in dispute. The territory of the district includes parts of both Linn and Bourbon counties. A special meeting of the district board was held May 20, 1968. All members of the board were present in person and participated in 'Section 1. That an election shall be called and held in said Unified School District on the question of issuing General Obligation Bonds in the amount of not exceeding $900,000.00 for the purpose of purchasing necessary site, constructing and equipping of necessary new school buildings in said district, this being the estimated cost of said improvements, all as provided by law, specifically Sections 72-6761 and 75-2315 to 75-2318, Kansas Statutes Annotated, and any amendments thereto, polling places for such election to be at the City Halls in Prescott, Blue Mound, and Mound City, Kansas. * * *
the proceedings. The minutes recite the purpose of the meeting was to determine a date for a bond election and to pass a resolution to call the election. The resolution provided in part:
The minutes of the special meeting indicate in two separate places the resolution was unanimously adopted, while in the third instance the minutes reflect one member of the board abatained from voting. Plans and suggestions for presenting the information to the public through news releases and by the mailing of brochures were also discussed at the special meeting.
Notice of the election was first published in the Mound City Republic, May 23, 1968. Pertinent portions of the notice are as follows:
'* * * it is hereby ordered by the Board * * * and said order approved by the County Clerk of Linn County, Kansas, the 'County Election Officer,' that
be held in said Unified School District No. 346, Linn County, Kansas (In Linn and Bourbon Counties, Kansas), on the 14th day of June, 1968, upon the question of issuing General Obligation Bonds in an amount not exceeding $900,000.00 for the purpose of purchasing necessary site, constructing and equipping of necessary new school building in said District.
'* * * the polling places shall be as follows:
City Hall in the City of Prescott, Kansas.
City Hall in the City of Mound City, Kansas.
City Hall in the City of Blue Mound, Kansas.
The vote shall be by ballot.
'Dated this 20th day of May, 1968.
Kansas, 'County Election Officer.'
(Seal)'
Prior to the election printed brochures containing information about he contemplated building, its location, cost, floor plan, capacity, and the fact it was to be for high school grades 9 through 12, were prepared and mailed by the superintendent of the school district to 1,947 residents and electors of the district. News articles explaining the election and describing the proposed building appeared in two local newspapers-the Mound City Republic and the Fort Scott Tribune.
Election boards were appointed by the county clerk, and the election was held June 14, 1968. The ballot proposition presented to the voters read in part as follows:
'SHALL THE FOLLOWING BE ADOPTED?
Returns from each election board were taken to the county clerk and tabulated by him. On June 17, 1968, after a canvass of the results by the board of county commissioners of Linn county, the commissioners certified the vote as follows:
At the next regular meeting of the district board the county commissioners' canvass was 'joined in and approved' by the board.
The case was decided by the district court on a stipulated record. In the course of his memorandum opinion, the trial judge observed there was nothing in the record to indicate that any illegal votes were cast, that any persons who were not electors of the district voted, that any qualified electors were prevented from voting, nor that there was any misunderstanding among the electors or that they were misled in any respect. This same observation is borne out on appeal, for, as in the lower court, the substance of appellants' argument is that numerous irregularities and defects, particularly in the published notice, were of such substantial nature as to vitiate the election.
Turning to the alleged defects in the notice, we find the provisions of K.S.A.1967 Supp. 72-67, 114(f), which was in effect and controlling at the time of these proceedings (see, Masheter v. Vining, 198 Kan. 691, 426 P.2d 149), required the published notice of a special bond election to state:
'* * * (1) the name of the unified district, (2) the date of the bond election, (3) the purpose for which the bonds are to be issued, (4) the amount of bonds to be issued, (5) the proposition to be voted upon, (6) the hours of opening and closing of the polls, (7) the voting place or places and the territory each voting place is to serve, (8) the amount and purpose of the bonds proposed to be issued, and (9) the address of the election headquarters of the officer or board conducting the election.'
Appellants urge that the purpose for which the bonds were to be issued, as stated in the notice-'purchasing necessary site, constructing and equipping of necessary new school building in said District'-was so vague and indefinite that an elector had no way of knowing whether the proposal was to build a grade school, junior high school or high school. The purpose stated in the ballot proposition submitted to the electors (K.S.A.1968 Supp. 25-605) corresponded verbatim with that in the notice.
The election in question was authorized under the provisions of K.S.A. 72-6761, which provides in part:
'* * * When a board determines that it is necessary to purchase * * * a school site * * * or to construct, equip * * * any building * * * used for school purposes, * * * such board may submit to the electors of the unified district...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Raschke
...381, 383, 461 P.2d 744 (1969) ("statutory provisions for notice of a special election are mandatory"); cf. West v. Unified School District, 204 Kan. 29, 35, 460 P.2d 103 (1969) (notice of the time and place of an election are mandatory but "departures from directory provisions of the statut......
-
City of Kansas City v. Board of County Com'rs of Wyandotte County, 47110
...mislead them, it is generally held that substantial compliance with this type of notice statute is sufficient. See West v. Unified School District, 204 Kan. 29, 460 P.2d 103, and similar cases cited However, in the incorporation of third class cities the following additional notice statute ......
-
Kimsey v. Board of Ed., Unified School Dist. No. 273 of Mitchell, Et Al., Counties
...45 P.2d 877, Syl. 2. See also, Wycoff v. Board of County Commissioners, 189 Kan. 557, 560, 370 P.2d 138; and West v. Unified School District, 204 Kan. 29, 33-34, 460 P.2d 103. There can be no quarrel with this general proposition-the elector is entitled to know what his money is going to be......
-
Baker v. Unified School Dist. No. 346, Linn County, 46221
...authorized by a special bond election in the district. The validity of that election was upheld by this court in West v. Unified School District, 204 Kan. 29, 460 P.2d 103. The school district and its officers (appellees) filed a motion to dismiss the petition to enjoin issuance of the bond......