Zawerschnik v. Joint County School Committee of Milwaukee and Waukesha Counties

• Decision Date: 06 December 1955
• Citation: 73 N.W.2d 566,271 Wis. 416
• Parties: John J. ZAWERSCHNIK, Appellant, v. JOINT COUNTY SCHOOL COMMITTEE OF MILWAUKEE AND WAUKESHA COUNTIES, Respondent. Liane M. HANSEN, Appellant, v. JOINT COUNTY SCHOOL COMMITTEE OF MILWAUKEE AND WAUKESHA COUNTIES, Respondent.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Page 566

73 N.W.2d 566

271 Wis. 416

John J. ZAWERSCHNIK, Appellant, v. JOINT COUNTY SCHOOL COMMITTEE OF MILWAUKEE AND WAUKESHA

COUNTIES, Respondent.

Liane M. HANSEN, Appellant, v. JOINT COUNTY SCHOOL COMMITTEE OF MILWAUKEE AND WAUKESHA

COUNTIES, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Dec. 6, 1955.

Joseph A. Barly, Milwaukee, for appellants.

O. L. O'Boyle, Corp. Counsel, C. Stanley Perry, First Asst. Corp. Counsel, Milwaukee, for respondent.

STEINLE, Justice.

The first question presented on behalf of these appellants is: Did the Joint Committee abuse or exceed its power with reference to the reorganization of the school districts? It is contended that the Joint Committee did not comply with section 40.303(4)(a), Stats., of 1949, which in part provided that:

'(a) In counties in which a city of the first class is located, on or before July 1, 1953, and in all other counties on or before July 1, 1951, filed with the superintendent of public instruction a plan for the development of the educational system of the county. The plan shall provide a comprehensive program of improved educational opportunity for the school children of the county and shall provide for the establishment of substantial administrative districts covering grades from kindergarten or first through twelfth which may be the pattern for the future development of the educational system of the county. The plan shall be based upon reliable data on census, enrollment, location, financial status, geography and the general needs of each community of the county. If the committee shall fail within such respective times to prepare and file such plan the committee shall automatically be removed from office and it shall be the duty of the county board within 90 days to elect a new committee with different personnel who shall immediately succeed the committee removed from office, which committee shall prepare such a plan within one year from the date of its appointment. * * *'

The provision in question was not in existence when in the instant matter the proceeding for the consideration of reorganization was initiated, or when the Joint Committee rendered its order. Ch. 40 of the Stats., pertaining to school districts was revised in 1953 and under the revision, the development of a plan and the filing thereof as was required in section 40.303(4)(a), Stats., of 1949, is not directed.

Notwithstanding that a plan was not required, the record reveals that a plan was developed by the Milwaukee county school committee for its entire county and that the same was substantially followed since 1950. It appears that in its order herein the Joint Committee substantially complied with that plan in so far as it affected the area in question.

Appellants challenge the reason assigned by the Joint Committee for the reorganization of the territory affected by the order. Included amongst such reasons was the fact that the area in Joint School District No. 8, Town of Greenfield and Village of West Milwaukee, was separated by a southwestern extension of the City of Milwaukee and would likely be annexed to said city; that 11 children in the West Milwaukee area required transportation; and further, to reduce disparity in the financial ability to support education from a range of 12 to 1 to a range of less than 3 to 1. Appellants contend that the reorganization was effectuated for the sole purpose of reducing the school taxes in the city of West Allis, and that a school district may not reorganize for the purposes of reducing school taxes in one district when the educational standards or opportunities are not enhanced. They maintain further that the Joint Committee's order is arbitrary, unreasonable and confiscatory in that it detaches $36,181,320 or 77.53 per cent of the tax valuation of Joint School District No. 8, Town of Greenfield and West Milwaukee and attaches it to the reorganized district which has a tax valuation of $298,524,600, and thereby leaves a remnant district which will be burdened by excessive taxes and whose financial ruin will result when, in the adjustment of taxes and liabilities under section 66.03, Stats., it will be obliged to pay to the reorganized district the amount of $412,072.72. Apellants contend further that the tax base of $8,847,000 remaining to School District No. 8, Town of Greenfield and West Milwaukee, is insufficient to maintain a substantial administrative school district,--a condition which is contrary to statute and the Milwaukee county school committee plan. Appellants also maintain that the Joint Committee's order was made for the purpose of eliminating the voting population of 3,500 in Joint School District No. 8, Town of Greenfield and West Milwaukee, so as to effectuate a majority vote from the unincorporated areas. Lastly, under the claim of abuse of power, appellants submit that since a new district was created, the Joint Committee was in error in failing to designate the number of board members to be elected as provided in section 40.07, 1951 Stats.

The respondent submits that its reasons for the reorganization are valid and sound. It maintains that the record discloses no evidence indicating that the purpose of the reorganization was to reduce school taxes in West Allis. It contends that the arrangement effectuated neither the creation of a new school district nor the re-creation of the West Milwaukee district. It submits that appellants' contention with respect to the change in tax base and payment in adjustment of assets and liabilities is mere speculation and conclusion, and that although if true, could be avoided by the taxpayers involved, especially by deferring the time of payment, and that the matter is political rather than judicial; that the tax base of the remaining portion of Joint School District No. 8, Town of Greenfield and Village of West Milwaukee, is greater than that of a number of other school districts in the county; and that if satisfactory to those concerned, the remaining portion might well be attached to a school district in the Town of Greenfield. Respondent submits further that the interest of the Joint Committee was in the development of a compact district rather than in any concern or contention as to who would be eligible to vote in the referendum. Respondent points out that the program as formulated was not an arrangement under section 40.07, Stats., which treats with consolidation of common school districts, but was actually a program under section 40.801(1) and (2), Stats., which provides for the attachment to a city school district of territory outside the city, and for the right of residents of the annexed territory to vote for members of the school board of the district to which their territory is attached.

In an appeal under section 40.03(5), Stats., the court's sole function is to determine whether there was jurisdiction and whether there was or was not an unlawful abuse of power. Perkins v. Peacock, 1953, 263 Wis. 644, 658, 58 N.W.2d 536, Joint School Dist. No. 5, Village of Bear Creek and Town of Deer Creek v. Waupaca, etc., County School. Comm., Wis., 72 N.W.2d 909.

In its determination of appellants' challenge to the order of the Joint Committee on ground of abuse of power upon bases as outlined above, the trial court properly applied principles of law that have become well-established in the jurisprudence of this state with reference to issues such as presented.

Of paramount importance here are the following considerations: The Legislature may vest power in proper boards or officers to establish school districts and change the boundaries of existing districts. School Dist. No. 4 of Town of La Follette, Burnett County v. Burnett County School Committee, 1952, 262 Wis. 484, 55 N.W.2d 874. A county school committee (or joint committee) possesses the power to order the creation, alteration, consolidation or dissolution of school districts within its jurisdiction. Section 40.03(1), Stats. Where different conclusions as to where the lines of a district should be, may be drawn from the evidence submitted, the conclusions adopted by the legislative body cannot be interfered with. City of LaCrosse v. Elbertson, 1931, 205 Wis. 207, 212, 237 N.W. 99. When it appears that a determination which is challenged as being unreasonable, arbitrary or an unequal exercise of power is actually fairly debatable, the court may not substitute its judgment for that of the legislative body charged with the primary duty and responsibility of determining the question. Zahn v. Board of Public Works 274 U.S. 325, 328, 47 S.Ct. 594, 71 L.Ed. 1074; State ex rel. Normal Hall, Inc., v. Gurda, 1940, 234 Wis. 290, 299, 291 N.W. 350.

The duty of forming and altering school districts is purely municipal and administrative, and has no respect whatever to personal or property rights. State ex rel. Moreland v. Whitford, 1882, 54 Wis. 150, 155, 11 N.W. 424; School Dist. No. 3 of Town of Adams v. Callahan, 1941, 237 Wis. 560, 563, 297 N.W. 407, 135 A.L.R. 1081.

The alteration of school districts in such manner and through such instrumentalities as the legislature prescribes is not the taking of property, nor does it deprive any person of his property, within the meaning of constitutional inhibitions in these respects, and statutes, in authorizing such changes in school districts, do not deny equal protection of laws or due process of law. School Dist. No. 3 of Town of Adams v. Callahan, 1941, 237 Wis. 560, 297 N.W. 407, 135 A.L.R. 1081.

Whether the boundaries of a school district should be changed is not a question of law or fact for judicial determination, but purely a question of policy, to be determined by the legislative department. Such a matter presents a question of political expediency for the legislative department. The courts have nothing to do with the policy, wisdom, justice, fairness of such matters. They present questions for the consideration of those to whom the state has entrusted its...