Annexation of a Part of Lewis & Clark Public Sch. Dist.
2016 ND 41
N.D.2016Background
- Dwight Johnson and Darin Vangsness sought annexation of property they own from Lewis & Clark Pub. Sch. Dist. #161 to Garrison Pub. Sch. Dist. #51; McLean and Ward county committees approved the petition and it proceeded to the State Board of Public School Education (Board).
- An administrative hearing was held: proponents (including petitioners and Garrison superintendent) and opponents (Lewis & Clark superintendent and board president) presented testimony and documents.
- The Board unanimously voted to deny the annexation and issued detailed written findings, concluding the petitioned property’s taxable valuation per student was disproportionately high and the petition included substantial land where students do not reside.
- Petitioners appealed to the district court, which affirmed the Board; Johnson and Vangsness then appealed to the North Dakota Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court reviewed the agency record, addressed challenges including standing of Lewis & Clark to participate, adequacy of hearing/notice (alleged secret telephonic communications), statutory authority for considering amount of land/taxable valuation, and constitutional vagueness/delegation claims regarding the catch-all factor, and affirmed the Board.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing of Lewis & Clark to participate | Lewis & Clark lacks standing because it isn’t harmed by annexation | Lewis & Clark may participate; districts can be adversely affected by losing land and were listed as appellee | Lewis & Clark had standing to participate at all stages |
| Fair hearing / notice of post-hearing deliberations | Petitioners were denied a fair hearing because the Board and its counsel conferred by telephone and petitioners weren’t given notice or chance to comment on draft order | Board followed procedure: ALJ acted only as procedural officer; Board deliberated, announced decision publicly, and later adopted written findings at public meeting | No fair-hearing violation; no authority requires parties be given notice to comment on a Board-drafted order after decision |
| Reliance on “too much land” / taxable valuation per student | Board improperly relied on an unauthorized, ad hoc policy that penalizes petitioners for including land where no students live | Consideration of amount of land/taxable valuation per student falls within the statute’s catch-all "other relevant factors" and is consistent with precedent | Board permissibly considered taxable valuation per student and amount of land; finding supported the denial |
| Vagueness / unconstitutional delegation of catch-all factor | N.D.C.C. § 15.1-12-05(4)(o) is unconstitutionally vague and unlawfully delegates legislative power to the Board | Catch-all is similar to accepted statutory formulations; courts routinely reject such vagueness claims and procedural safeguards prevent arbitrariness | Claim rejected: catch-all provision is not constitutionally infirm and delegation concerns are mitigated by statutory and judicial safeguards |
Key Cases Cited
- Brandvold v. Lewis & Clark Pub. Sch. Dist. #161, 803 N.W.2d 827 (N.D. 2011) (prior litigation concerning creation of Lewis & Clark district)
- New Town Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. State Bd. of Pub. Sch. Educ., 650 N.W.2d 813 (N.D. 2002) (agency must consider statutory annexation factors and findings reviewed for support by a reasoning mind)
- Sutherland v. N.D. Dep’t of Human Servs., 689 N.W.2d 880 (N.D. 2004) (appellate review focuses on agency record)
- The Evangelical Good Samaritan Soc. v. N.D. Dep’t of Human Servs., 862 N.W.2d 794 (N.D. 2015) (standing requires an interest and is reviewed de novo)
- Washburn Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 4 v. State Bd. of Pub. Sch. Educ., 338 N.W.2d 664 (N.D. 1983) (school districts may participate in annexation hearings but may not be aggrieved parties for appeal in some contexts)
- Aafedt v. N.D. State Bd. of Pub. Sch. Educ., 540 N.W.2d 393 (N.D. 1995) (catch-all statutory factor is broad enough to encompass consideration of amount of land)
- Miller v. Workforce Safety and Ins., 707 N.W.2d 809 (N.D. 2006) (inside counsel may confer ex parte with administrative decision-makers without creating a hearing violation)
- Cass Cty. Elec. Coop., Inc. v. N. States Power Co., 518 N.W.2d 216 (N.D. 1994) (legislative delegation to agencies is constrained by Administrative Agencies Practice Act and judicial oversight)