*1 job providing descriptions, enactment of rules minimum for for standards rank, competitive each and for examinations.The court indicated nature, competitive process solely objective need not be but capable objective results thereof be scoring. must are in general agreement concepts We with the trial court’s criteria for principles,” approve generally “merit and we remedial However, disagree objective measures ordered. we as to need for scoring competitive examinations. view,
In our scoring necessary numerical is not a for prerequisite evaluation, evaluating a promotion process. the fairness of Such an either a applicant reviewing body, possible job descriptions or once Furthermore, and minimum ranking standards for each rank enacted. are jobs on the basis of may inappropriate numerical test results where things experience may such competency and demonstrated be most important guideposts to We that a promotion relative merit. believe procedure qualified to recognized principles conforms merit when all applicants opportunity place qualifications have an before an impartial mandatory board. To reviewing the extent that we feel objective unnecessary, scoring is we court’s reverse trial order. reasons, foregoing part part.
For the we affirm reverse GREEN, LEWIS and concur. JJ.,
THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF COMMUNITY CON JONESBORO COUNTY, SOLIDATED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. UNION Plaintiff- Appellant, v. THE REGIONAL BOARD OF SCHOOL TRUSTEES OF UNION al., Defendants-Appellees.
COUNTY et Fifth District 79-536 No.
Opinion July filed *2 KARNS, J., dissenting.
Robbins, Schwartz, Lifton, Ltd., (Lorence Slutzky Chicago H. & Nicholas Smith, counsel), appellant. M. and David for Finch, Anna, Corydon appellees. R. for pro se. Anna, Lewis, appellees, for A. Patricia A. both of William Lewis and the opinion of delivered the Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE JONES court: 5.73 acres Union detachment of appeal
This concerns the District No. Consolidated Jonesboro Community Consolidated (Jonesboro) and annexation of them to Anna A and annexation (Anna). petition School District No. for detachment County by Union Regional was filed with School Trustees of the Board of Lewis, sole residents the Anna district and William and Patricia (Ill. Code 7—1 the School property section question, pursuant to Upon granted. was 1). The par. Rev. Stat. ch. 7— (Ill. Code 7—7 of the with section administrative review accordance was board regional par. 7), Stat. ch. the decision Rev. 7— affirmed, appeal and this followed. city the reside within dispute. The facts are not Petitioners Anna, elementary Anna school. three-tenths of a mile from the corporate limits of Anna are not coterminous with the school district Anna, however; boundary between petitioners’ the Jonesboro lies within residence bought school district. Petitioners Jonesboro their home that knowing property located the Jonesboro prior Anna, district. city daughter residence was and their Their attended grades through one six a of Anna resident district. Because their is in daughter, grade, who seventh wishes to continue in the Anna schools, petitioners paying have been tuition her attendance there. grade Ninth students from both Anna and districts attend a Jonesboro high consolidated district school located in Anna. Petitioners argue proximity their to Anna school daughter’s social ties there facilitate her academic and extracurricular promote family’s interests and They involvement with the school. do not superior contend Anna’s facilities or programs are to those of out, however, They longtime point they are residents Jonesboro. Anna community. and have social and economic ties to that building, school elementary junior which serves as both an Jonesboro school, high approximately transportation miles from their But home. would be available district to the Lewises’ home. Jonesboro $33,693 property $657 Petitioners’ has an yields assessed value of annually taxes According to counsel Jonesboro court, circuit gross district’s revenue from such taxes is *3 $150,000. approximately In tax addition to the losses that Jonesboro detachment, prevented sustain from the district would be from claiming daily average by State aid based on attendance amount the to gain attributable one additional student. Anna district would The $662 $856 annexation in taxes in approximately and State aid. several, opposes petition the on district grounds. The Jonesboro alleges that detachment would their tax base and result erode revenues; tax' that it would deprive decreased them of attendance-based student, petitioners’ daughter; State aid to the extent of it would one upset stability boundaries; it the their would create a precedent for of the further alterations district boundaries. petitions
The test for detachment and annexation by supreme established our court Consolidated Oakdale (1957), 12 Ill. 2d School v. Trustees District Board School stated, statutory guidelines 736. court on relying essentially unchanged: have remained a pupils
“The as whole welfare of the affected districts few, petitions of a and such must control rather than wishes annexing granted only where the benefit derived resulting to clearly outweighs affected areas the detriment community as a whole.” surrounding losing district and 190, 193-94, 2d because the court denied the depletion would cause a serious that detachment
evidence indicated in the overcrowding detaching districts and tax resources 20%of would have removed proposed detachment annexing district. The and 10%of the other’s. district’s assessed valuation detaching one must be controlled that the decision The School Code also establishes a populace student as whole: affecting the districts and the factors shall evidence as to the county of school trustees hear “The board territory in area within and conditions of the school needs ability of the districts affected adjacent and as to the thereto prescribed by recognition meet the standards Instruction, and shall take into Superintendent of Public of funds and assets which will result consideration the division it is to and shall determine whether from the boundaries the area and the educational the best interests of the schools of granted be pupils that such boundaries welfare of (cid:127)* 122, par. 7-6. Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. detachment and annexation appear requested It that the does not However, it is financial effect on either would have substantial in some loss say every detachment results only stating the obvious to from which the land concerned of tax base valuation to the district Here, is minimal. To be a valid basis for denial being detached. the loss showing a that the resultant tax petition requires a detachment-annexation (Newman County a serious one. v. Board depletion resource would be slight (1974), partly funding in this case would reduction of the district’s Jonesboro expenditures through reduced enrollment. by slight offset a reduction will district Respondents urge that detachment from held, agree, it has and we precedent petitions. a similar But set possibility of a cannot be denied because that detachment 550, 367 setting precedent. a Eble Hamilton N.E.2d 788. will be affected
Since the record shows neither district measure, solely turn on the welfare substantial the determination should (Bowman County subjected detachment. pupils the area to the 1082, 307 N.E.2d *4 may be considered preference of the residents Newman.) personal Mere controlling. (Burnidge but is not alone of Hamilton.) Eble v. Obvious benefit personal preference appears than here. More result from the shorter distance the Lewises’ daughter and future pupil living subject area would travel to school if petition were granted. time, This benefit would effort, be reflected safety, and expense. (Burnidge.) Further appears benefit in that “an identification with a school district a child’s community natural will center inevitably result in participation increased in school activities the child and his parents. participation Such increased improvement cannot but result in an in the picture token, education of the By entire area. the same an unnatural identification would opposite have an result with a corresponding loss participation resulting poorer and educational picture. In recognition of facts legislature provision these made proceedings existing the boundaries of districts.” Burnidge, 503, 509-10, Ill. App. 2d prepetition
The instant analogous situation is pre- to the situation sented in Burnidge. The Lewises live but town Anna within the They are distant a two-mile drive from the Jonesboro boro Jones- just school but a short walk from the Anna school. This is the sort of “unnatural appropriately identification” system up remedied set for change existing reason, district boundaries. For the same granting the instant would result in the Anna gaining district an area it can districts, serve better than the district can. The benefit to both indirect, though is inescapable. granting We find the direct effect the instant on the districts deleterious, involved to minimal and not and the benefit to the annexed, petitioners, residents the area to be and to substantial. view In above, appropriate of the authorities cited we find this an case to defer to judgment regional (Eble board as affirmed trial by the court. Hamilton.) The decision of the circuit court was not contrary to the weight manifest presented. of the evidence Respondents contend that findings conclusions of the body administrative specificity were not made with sufficient to allow meaningful (Reinhardt (1975), 61 Ill. review. v. Board Education discerning the foundations We have had no trouble simple, for the Board’s facts and the evidence brief and action. The were fully parties’ arguments uncontradicted. The contentions and were presented in proceedings below and are included the record. its decision they petition, “having the trustees recited that were heard evidence as to the territory school needs and conditions of the area within adjacent ability thereto and as to the districts affected recognition prescribed by to meet the standards of the Illinois Education; any possi- Office of having taken into consideration ble division of funds and which will result assets boundaries; in the best having into consideration whether it is taken
235 welfare of the the area and the educational interests of the schools of *” findings granted that in pupils change such boundaries sufficiently and conclusions are clear.
Affirmed.
HARRISON, J., concurs. EARNS,
Mr. dissenting: JUSTICE in out I here the test set do not the evidence meets believe County v. Board Community Oakdale Consolidated School District 190, 736, Ill. 145 (1957), School Trustees 12 2d N.E.2d petitions. opinion detachment and annexation As I read the court, outweigh supreme annexing clearly district must the benefit to the district, must detaching and the in boundaries detriment to the serve in the affected districts. The the best interest of the students advantage test is in district-wide to the formulated terms of clearly annexing body, district and which must the entire student outweigh detaching the detriment to the (see, County by majority e.g.,
Certain cases cited Bowman (1974), App. 16 Ill. 3d Board School Trustees (1960), App. 2d Burnidge County Board School Trustees 21) 167 support N.E.2d do not seem to me to this detachment. liberty by supreme We are at not to relax the standard established clear, court which I no requires advantage. Although district-wide have in petitioners’ doubt that in activities participate child could after-school ease, Anna with greater by transportation, enjoy be less burdened contacts, continuing I that these escape social cannot the conclusion It personally benefits inure to her and not to the Anna district as a whole. community single has of a recognized preferences ties family (Eble a sufficient are not basis for detachment. v. Hamilton when, 788.) 3d Detachment has been denied “[ajside personal suggested by considerations the witnesses petitioner, nothing proposed there is us that the indicates to change would in as a improvements effect educational the territories boundaries, contrary, whole. On however small changes themselves, just adverted.” have the harmful effects to which we have (Board 323 v. District No. Education Unit School 196, 202, 153 when he regional superintendent N.E.2d error effect on either “[sjince significant concluded that would be no there programs significant district and there is no difference the education districts, it denial of the approval offered the two would seem the or hinge parents would on the desire of as to which school the Although parental preference one student attends.” may and convenience (Bowman, 1082, 1087, 307 be considered as a factor N.E.2d 419, 421), support much more is needed to the board’s decision to therefore, established changed, boundaries. “School districts are not to be solely by shopping, banking, preferences or residing school of those 190, 194, particular segments (Oakdale, 12 Ill. thereof.” 736, 738.) I do not believe that facts us before meet the district-wide standard legislature established and the court. note, too, I petitioners’ relatively interests are short-term. grades Inasmuch as 9-12 high students attend the school Anna, and inasmuch as petitioners’ daughter presently grade seventh basis, attending school in Anna aon tuition denial of the Furthermore, year. affect her interests for than a little more aside from the *6 imposes petitioners, understandable financial burden that tuition on the nothing suggest there is that this student would be denied the record to year. admission to Anna a tuition basis on next only a petitioners While denial of the would affect time, relatively permanently change short the boun detachment would approved daries of the school districts. In court County decision Trico Unit School District No. 176 v. 494, 131 N.E.2d recognized importance maintaining stable district boundaries. Township High Ottawa School District Board of although must be a granted, recognized detachment was the court that “there * * * they stability measure of the boundaries of school districts and personal preference cannot changed by reasons of mere considerations.” territory regard residents of the without to other material 439, 444, 138, 141. support the conclusion weight The manifest of the evidence does not from the advantages that there are to the schools involved district-wide should have proposed Accordingly, detachment. denied.