*1 al., LAFOON SCHOOL et v. Appellants DISTRICT FAULK BOARD al., COUNTY OF EDUCATION et Respondents
(108 467) N.W.2d (File Opinion April 5, 1961) No. 9828. filed *2 Appellants. Redfield, Kayl, E.
Lawrence Atty., Respondents. Faulkton, for States Melby, L. A. growing RENTTO, another in our series J. This involving reorganization. of cases school district County of Fau-lk Educa- On June 1957 the Board plan reorganization adopted for the of a master tion county. proposed It to divide the schools that of designated involved five districts. The one here was into April Independent School District No. 34. On Faulkton of of the school on the electors all old 1958it was voted parts districts, thereof, which the master included proposed A new district. number districts including proposed reorganization, involved favored the Myron part District No. 22 and Tamworth School being it, included District No. 15 which was School southerly part approving proposal thereof. The areas declared be the district. were new disapproved by proposed some was The Lafoon One of these was District No. of the districts. adjoins on the District Lafoon District The Tamworth Myron adjoins it the north. west and the District On May 9, electors a area 1958 all of the small petitioned the southwest corner of the Lafoon District changed from of Education their area be part Lafoon of Tamworth District and “become a part District which has voted to become a School Faulkton District No. 34”. On School May consisting 15, 1958 all of the electors in an area petitioned about the west half of the Lafoon District changed from their area be the Lafoon District and “be- part Myron part District No. 15 come of that * ** part Indepen- which voted become a of Faulkton dent School 34.” District No. petitions approved
In due course both *3 by county changes requested the board and the ordered— May May 14, 17, the first on 1958 and the second on 1958. territory These transfers reduced the assessed valuation they $565,874 $314,210, of the Lafoon District from but to any not did already result in more or than less districts those any they in existence nor did leave district with requirements less than the minimum school of a district. county board, the From actions of those are who appellants appealed herein, to the court. circuit
These matters were and the consolidated submitted to stipulation court on a of facts which included as an exhibit proposed the master for the of the County. school districts of Faulk The circuit court was county of the view that the actions of the were auth- board -by 1955, 20, 41, orized Sec. Ch. 8 of Ch. Laws of as amended by Accordingly, 3, Sec. Ch. of the Laws of 1957.
July judgment affirming 20, was entered the actions county appeals judgment. board. These are from petitioners
The statute under which the acted and on which the court based its decision as follows: reads county
“Change of district boundaries. The power upon board shall have the at its discretion proper petition provided change herinafter to as any any boundary school district within any providing county without vote of electors any more create change does not boundary in already those any school districts than less providing change meets and such existence reorganization. limitations requirements change in school dis- for a applications “All county made to must be trict boundaries signed of a the form petition education in board of residing electors fifty by percent over boundary to be transferred such the area under this boundary change made change. Any any school dis- not leave section of the law shall requirements minimum trict less than with chapter.” provided district as of a school opposition contention in Appellants’ principal court is that and the trial board the actions only boundary changes authorized such quoted statute only reorganized that had been then between districts minor Their in effect they argument if nature. not a method of school provide 20 did contends Sec. contrary These contentions are reorganization. district of that statute interpretation our Education, v. School District Walworth holding. The 78 S.D. 98 N.W.2d adhere to We *4 specifically points out that Ch. 8 opinion 41 of the Laws 1955 1 of Sec. now Ch. in subsection 15.2001, reorganiza subsection of SDC 1960 defines Supp. 1 formation, consolidation, tion to' “mean include or the any subdivision of school districts or alteration whatsoever of school boundaries.” district
Their next claim is the that petitions presented the county to were ineffectual board because the areas petitioners which the were to seeking become part a lost legal had their existence by having previously thereto voted to be included the reorganized Indepen Paulkton This,, view, dent School District our is without merit. Ch. of8 Ch. 41 of the Laws of 1955 in subsection 7 5 Sec. states:
107 July “All shall take effect the by approved after has first the action been the county provided law;”. board, electors or the as voting petitioning that Until -date all of the areas to be part reorganized they of the a district retained the status prior approval petitions. had or the election of their petitioners they
While these stated desired part Myron a to become of the Tamworth and Districts respectively, petitions reality it clear from their that in they asking part reorganized were to be made a of the just recently approved district which had been in the elec plan tion on master Faulkton —the requests anticipa District No. 34. The fact these were tory petitions in nature does not make the invalid. The excluding any -disapproving on, districts, voted district or upon county into went effect the decision of the board that Supp. During -still it was feasible. SDC 15.2015. period, approval reorganiza
transition
after the
of the
operative district,
tion and before it becomes an
the School
Organization
District
sanctioned
law
numerous actions in
anticipation
coming
being.
of the new district
into
See
1955;
subsection 7
Sec. 5 of
8Ch.
of Ch.
Laws of
Supp.
15.2019 and
SDC
15.2021.
Appellants
suggest
also
th-e
board
legislative
approving
peti
abused
discretion
thereby
tions. This is
bottomed on
reduction made
Manifestly
the assessed
valuation -of
Lafoon District.
$565,874
the reduction in
valuation is
drastic—from
only
pertinent
$314,210:
this fact is the
one
to this
—but
part
stipulation
a
issue made
of the
which
case was
plan,
evidence,
submitted. While the master
is dn
whi-ch
picture
contains
statistical
it
Lafoon District as
boundary changes
ordered,
was before these
reviewing
is sil-ent
record
as to what it was after that. In
*5
bear in
decisions of the
board we must
mind
presumed
until
that its actions
to be
the con
are
lawful
traiy
clearly
County,
Adamson v. Minnehaha
shown.
423,
not
This
r-evealfacts
67 S.D.
108 Accordingly, presumption. we overcome
sufficient the dis- compelled not abuse the board did to hold are it. committed cretion
Affirmed. J., concur. P.J., BIEGELMEIER,
SMITH, ROBERTS, J., affirmance. concurs in HANSON,J., dissents. (concurring). Judge
ROBERTS, agree case is ruled I Education, District v. Walworth 348, in accord with 63, I not but was 98 N.W.2d 78 S.D. interpretation provisions Section case of in that change providing Chap. Chap. 41,. Laws appeal, present submission boundaries. Since legislature seemingly giving effect section has amended Chap. meaning. originally intended had been to what holding majority in the Glenham 1961. The Laws of this state case, however, controlling the declared law was proceeding. I concur in instant in the solely ground. on that affirmance Appellant Respondent DUSEN, LANGAN, v. VAN 470) (108 N.W.2d 13, 1961) April (File Opinion filed