238 Minn. 53 | Minn. | 1952
This appeal arises from an order of the board of county commissioners of Faribault county granting a petition for the formation of a new common school district from certain territory in part included within Bricelyn School District No. 132. District No. 132 and others appealed to the district court from that order. The district court, after hearing the appeal, made findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order for judgment affirming the order of the county board. Appellants thereafter made an alternative motion for amended findings and conclusions or for a new trial, which was denied. They appeal from the order denying their motion.
Bricelyn School District No. 132 was duly established pursuant to the provisions of the school district reorganization act
“A majority of the freeholders, qualified to vote * ' * *, residing in an incorporated village wherein there is no school house, or upon any territory not less than four sections in extent, * * * whether or not such territory he in whole or in part included in any existing common, independent, or special school district, may petition the board of county commissioners of the proper county to make such territory a school district, common or independent.” (Italics supplied.)
Since the controlling question presented for decision is whether, in forming common or independent school districts under §§ 122.05 to 122.08, county boards have the power to include therein lands that are part of the territory of an existing school district previously established under the school reorganization act, the problem before us is strictly one of statutory interpretation or application.
The cardinal principle of all statutory interpretation is to ascertain and give effect to the legislative intent.
When the reorganization act first came before this court in Huffman v. Independent Consol. School Dist. 230 Minn. 289, 295, 41
“It seems to us that the legislature, having in mind the purposes intended to be accomplished by the act providing for a reorganization of school districts, intended to afford the newly organized and enlarged district sufficient money-raising power to enable it to accomplish the purposes for which it toas organized. * * *
“The single-teacher, single-room rural school is rapidly disappearing from the educational scene in Minnesota, and it seems that the very purpose of the reorganization act is to permit the formation of school districts of such size and nature as to be financially and economically able to provide equal educational opportunities to all children in the community. In order to do this, it will be necessary to erect many new or enlarged school buildings, which will require the expenditure of large sums of money.” (Italics supplied.)
In ascertaining legislative intent, we are well advised to consider the preamble to the pertinent statute.
“Whereas, because of population trends and educational demands it becomes necessary to give consideration to the establishment of sound educational units, and
* * * # «
“Whereas, by the process of reorganization high school districts may be shaped into sound economic units, making available to all communities a good high school education, and” (Italics supplied.)
Obviously, the desirability of creating sound economic units to meet new educational needs was uppermost in the minds of the legislators.
In contradistinction to the pressing modern-day needs which prompted the school reorganization act; the power to form new
But we are not limited to an historical approach in answering the question before us. As previously pointed out, the legislature clearly intended to provide a means for establishing larger school districts which would be sound economically, thereby enabling such districts to meet the increased financial demands of a large and complete modern educational system. Respondent, in effect, contends that county boards, on the petition of a group opposed to reorganization, have the power to form new school districts out of lands located in whole or in part within the reorganized district. If respondent’s contention is sustained, county boards are in a position to destroy the sound economic unit which the legislature sought and for which a majority within the reorganized district voted.
The construction of a statute must be practical.
To hold that county boards are not vested with such powers is not to “freeze” all land within a reorganized district, since M. S. A. 1949, § 122.15, as amended by L. 1951, c. 31, provides a means whereby individual freeholders owning lands adjoining any school district may have their lands detached from the reorganized district and annexed to such adjoining district upon petition to the county board and upon the approval of the school hoard for the reorganized district.
Aside from the impractical and absurd result of a construction which would permit county boards to take large areas from reorganized districts, the act, standing alone, forbids such an interpretation.
' The reorganization act provides in detail the procedure for the reorganization of school districts. First, there must be a decision to establish a school survey committee. Once that decision is made, the method of selecting the committee is detailed, as are the duties of the committee when selected. A tentative report is prepared and distribution thereof specified. Notice is provided, so that all residents of the proposed district can be heard. A final report is then prepared by the committee, and the means of appeal therefrom to an appeal board provided. Hearings must again be held and there
To hold §§ 122.05 to 122.08 applicable to districts established under the reorganization act would be to ascribe to the legislature an intention to permit districts painstakingly created to be, comparatively, summarily destroyed.
A survey of the act discloses another factor which, to us, is most persuasive in determining the intention of the legislature. In one situation under M. S. A. 1949, § 122.52(1)
Respondent urges that the legislative powers granted county boards under §§ 122.05 to 122.08 are applicable to districts created
A study of the reorganization act and its amendments indicates that reorganized districts were termed independent districts in § 122.53 without reference to the powers of the county boards under § 122.05.
Chapter 122 of M. S. A. 1945 (§§ 122.01 to 122.32) deals generally with the organization, consolidation and dissolution of school districts. Section 122.01, though ostensibly describing the characteristics of the various types of school districts, actually consti-' tutes a grant of specific powers to each type of school district. Section 122.01, subd. 4, states:
“An independent school district is a district organized as such having a board of six members, which board is vested with the authority to determine the length of school term and the tax levy.”
The reorganization act as originally passed did not expressly grant these essential ‘powers to the new type of school districts; but originally § 122.52
Apparently the legislature enacted the foregoing provision in order to specify the size and duties of a school board under the reorganization act, since it could hardly be assumed that it would neglect to confer upon the reorganized districts these essential powers. This analysis is strengthened by the fact that M. S. A. 1919, § 122.55, subd. 2, simply assumes a school board of six members, though there is no express provision for such a board anywhere in the reorganization act.
Thus, in the light of the factors surrounding the enactment of the school district reorganization act and the impractical and absurd results which would follow from the interpretation urged by respondent, to say nothing of the destruction of legislative intent which would ensue, we conclude that the powers granted county boards under §§ 122.05 to 122.08 are not applicable to reorganized school districts established pursuant to M. S. A. 1919, §§ 122.10 to 122.57, and that the county board of Faribault county was without jurisdiction to form a new school district from lands located within Bricelyn School District No. 132.
It follows that the order of the district court must be reversed.
Reversed and remanded with directions to enter judgment for appellants.
L. 1947, c. 421, as amended by L. 1949, c. 666.
See, Huffman v. Independent Consol. School Dist. 230 Minn. 289, 292, 41 N. W. (2d) 455, 457; Graybar Elec. Co. Inc. v. St. Paul Mercury Ind. Co. 208 Minn. 478, 482, 294 N. W. 654, 656; McSherry v. City of St. Paul, 202 Minn. 102, 105, 277 N. W. 541, 543; M. S. A. 645.16; 6 Dunnell, Dig. & Supp. § 8940.
See, Huffman v. Independent Consol. School Dist. 230 Minn. 289, 293, 41 N. W. (2d) 455, 458.
See, Downing v. Independent School Dist. 207 Minn. 292, 301, 291 N. W. 613, 617.
L. 1862, c. 1, § 5.
L. 1941, c. 169, Art. III, § 5.
See, Annala v. Bergman, 213 Minn. 173, 176, 6 N. W. (2d) 37, 39; Skuey v. Bjerkan, 173 Minn. 354, 356, 217 N. W. 358; Street v. C. M. & St. P. Ry. Co. 124 Minn. 517, 521, 145 N. W. 746, 747; 6 Dunnell, Dig. & Supp. § 8939.
Where any school district maintaining a graded elementary or high school, or both, is located within any proposed district, voting precincts are to be established inside of and outside of the limits of the urban district. To carry, a majority within and outside of the urban district must be in favor of the proposed district.
M. S. A. 1945, § 122.16, dealing with consolidation of school districts within a village or city of the fourth class, also requires a majority in each of the component districts of the proposed new district.
However, § 122.53 provides:
“In case of the reorganization of two or more districts or parts of districts into a larger district, any portions or parts of divided districts which have less than four sections of land shall be attached to one or more adjoining districts by the board of county commissioners upon due notice and hearing as provided in Minnesota Statutes, Section 122.03.”
L. 1947, c. 421, § 13.
L. 1949, c. 666.