Harrisburg School District No. 6 v. Neal
381 S.W.3d 811
Ark.2011Background
- Neal was elected to the Harrisburg School District No. 6 board in September 2009 for a term ending September 2014.
- In February 2010, Harrisburg agreed with Weiner to annex the Weiner District administratively; the annexation was framed by an annexation agreement.
- Neal attended the February 25, 2010 Harrisburg board meeting and voted in favor of proposing the annexation to the Weiner District.
- At a March 3, 2010 special meeting, Neal moved to adopt a resolution to annex and to file the petition with the Arkansas State Board of Education (ASBE), which the board unanimously approved.
- ASBE approved the petition in March 2010 and issued an order on April 1, 2010; the annexation agreement provided for a five-member interim board: four Harrisburg members and one Weiner member; Harrisburg elected the interim board by selecting four of its five members, causing Neal to lose his seat.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the interim board selection violated applicable law | Neal argues §6-13-1406(c)(2) required drawing lots prior to annexation when reducing members. | Harrisburg contends the selection complied with the statute and annexation agreement. | Yes; the method violated §6-13-1406(c)(2) and Neal was entitled to summary judgment. |
| Whether Neal is barred by estoppel, laches, ratification, or waiver | Neal did not know the method others would use; his vote did not ratify the improper method. | Neal’s vote to approve annexation bars him from challenging the method. | No; Neal is not barred by estoppel, laches, ratification, or waiver. |
| Whether the annexation agreement was binding and its contract-like effect | The agreement attempted to bind parties to a specific interim-board process. | The agreement stated it was nonbinding and had no force beyond guiding petition filing. | The agreement was not a binding contract governing the interim-board method. |
| Whether the petition/ASBE order collaterally attacked the interim-board formation | Neal sought relief from the method used despite the ASBE order | The ASBE order only approved annexation and referenced the agreement and petition. | Not a collateral attack; the order did not specify the interim-board method. |
| Whether the case was moot due to interim-board actions | Interim board actions rendered the controversy moot | A binding mechanism could still replace the interim board and restore proper procedure. | Not moot; controversy persisted and could affect proper formation of a compliant interim board. |
Key Cases Cited
- Couch v. Farmers Ins. Co., Inc., 375 Ark. 255 (Ark. 2008) (summary judgment standard; evidentiary burden on movant and nonmovant must present material facts)
- Evans v. Hamby, 2011 Ark. 69 (Ark. 2011) (statutory construction reviewed de novo)
- Kinchen v. Wilkins, 367 Ark. 71 (Ark. 2006) (mootness and standing principles; when judgment has practical effect)