*1 DIECKHOFF, J. Dale EX REL. Christine STATE Dieckhoff, H. Gough, Elvina Wayne R. Jr., Thurow, Thurow, Dieckhoff, Betty Fred H. Leaver, Leaver, Jr., Ralph Marion Clarence al., Rose et Nafzger, Binger, Sharon Nafzger, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v. Clerk, SEVERSON, Green County E. Robert Defendant-Respondent, AHRENS, Kaderly the Juda Linda Sam Board, Intervenors-Respondents.† School Appeals
Court of 2, March on 1988. Decided No. 86-2231. Submitted briefs May 1988. (Also reported 71.) in 426 N.W.2d denied. to review Petition † *4 00CO.
!-* *5 For the plaintiffs-appellants the cause was sub- Owens, mitted on the briefs of Joseph F. Christopher J. Baldwin, Brown and Gordon B. and & Murphy Des- mond, S.C., of Madison.
For the intervenors-respondents the cause was submitted on the brief of Michael B. Van Sicklen and Lardner, & of Foley Madison. Gartzke, P.J.,
Before Dykman and Sundby JJ. DYKMAN, J. Christine J. Dieckhoff and others appeal requiring Severson, from a judgment Robert E. Clerk, County Green to hold a referendum election the Juda and Brodhead school districts on the School 23, District Boundary Appeal Board order of June 117.035(3), pursuant to sec. Stats.1 The case 117.08(l)(a)2 s involves Dieckhoff petition for the 117.035(3), Stats., provides: 1 Section Any order issued the board under 117.03 s. which constitutes, reorgan- or an of affirms modifies school district subject approval ization is at a a referendum if for a subsequently provided referendum has been or is filed as under (1) (2) orders, subs. in the of case school board if directed the board. The referendum shall be (1) (2). provided conducted as under subs. Stats., 117.08(l)(a), provides: 2 Section parcel property of owner an individual of 10% the residing territory proposed electors to be detached from one adjoining may school district and to an attached school district with file written the clerks of the school boards *6 from the Juda school estate of real detachment Dieckhoffs boards denied The joint district. it, persons granted Board the petition, for refer- petitioned the Board’s order a aggrieved by parties respondents, aggrieved by who are endum. order, in the court. The intervened trial the Board’s 117.035(3) (1) sec. authorizes a whether issues are: case; order in this the Board’s to review referendum (2) petition contained a referendum whether the. (3) signatures; wheth- number of authorized sufficient of is the statute limita- barred er the (4) have tions; appellants whether vested not may Board’s order which be rights under altered. 117.035(3), Stats., conclude that autho-
We order, to review Board’s rizes a referendum for referendum contained a sufficient petition signatures, of and that the referendum not number limitations. of our by the statute of Because barred issues, we need not on these decide whether decision rights under the Board’s have vested appellants affirm the trial Therefore we court. order.
FACTS persons In Dieckhoff and other resid- early 117.08(l)(a), a sec. ing in Juda school filed requesting parcel territory school districts that the or affected present its school district and attached to an detached from description adjoining shall include a school district. The territory parcel sufficiently accurate to determine its of the or located, it the school district which as certified location and city, village part within which all or the clerk of each town Upon receipt petition, parcel territory of the is located. copy of to the school board shall send state each superintendent. Stats., petition with the clerks the school boards of the Juda and Brodhead school districts. Dieckhoff sought part to have the Juda school district attached to Brodhead school district. 117.08(l)(b), Stats.,3 Pursuant to sec. the joint public boards held a hearing on Dieckhoff s petition. Because both boards did not approve the petition, the school boards issued an for "order deni- al,” which was with pursuant filed Board 117.01(2)(c).4 to sec. appealed
Dieckhoff the Appeal board. The *7 pursuant 117.03(3)(a), Board met to sec. Stats.,5 re- 117.08(l)(b), Stats., provides: 3 Section days receipt (a), petition par. 45 Within of the under the public joint hearing place school boards shall a hold aat time and designated by the school board of the school district from which parcel territory proposed the or to be detached. Notice of the proposed hearing, description transfer and of the with a of the parcel territory proposed transferred, published or be to shall be days prior hearing by at least 10 to the the clerk of each school notice, class 1 district as a under ch. in the school districts proposed affected the transfer. The school board of the school property proposed which district from to detached shall desígnate hearing provide a chairman for the and a for steno- graphic recording hearing. record an electronic of the 117.01(2)(c), Stats., provides: 4 Section copy any reorganizing A certified district or denying reorganization days such shall be filed within after it secretary Upon receipt order, is made with of the board. of the secretary immediately place of the board shall thereon the upon and, days receipt date it which was received within 5 after thereof, copy shall send mail certified a certified of the order together mailing copy awith certification of the date of to district, town, village, city clerk county of each school and superintendent. affected to the state and 117.03(3)(a), Stats., provides part: 5 Section order, and issued an order boards’ versed pursuant to Dieck- for school district petition. hoffs the Appeal on for a referendum
A filed with the clerk of subsequently was Board’s order 117.035(l)(c), Stats.6 pursuant Green county of the electors the Juda percent More than ten petition. The signed county had school district a general for the date of set the referendum clerk election. court, in circuit complaint filed a seek-
Dieckhoff because the for ing to enjoin a sufficient number of signed by referendum was not injunction prohibit- The trial court issued an electors. 117.035(l)(a) (3), because secs. ing the referendum Stats., permit a referendum on an did not The trial court held that in this case. Board order Board’s order was remedy to review sole 117.03(4),7 under sec. to the circuit court appeal an superintendent place shall set a time and for the The state by majority voté of its members shall meet. board board to proper under the make such order as it deems circumstances (l)(a) affirm, modify appealed the order from under sub. reverse *8 granting denying school district shall make an order sub.(l)(b). reorganization upon appeal under The shall an order 117.01(2)(c). ... be filed under s. 117.035(l)(c), Stats., provides part: in 6 Section county petition or resolution shall be filed with the clerk The having largest equalized county in the the valuation the of reorganized proposed school district. 117.03(4), Stats., provides part: in 7 Section person aggrieved by Any an order of the board which appeal reorganization may to a school district therefrom circuit any county any territory proposed of of which court reorganized school district lies.
188 county pursue relief, because the did not this final. court Appeal Board was The trial also a denied brought motion to intervene Sam and the Kaderly Juda School Board. intervenors, Ahrens, Linda Sam and Kaderly Board,
the Juda relief School moved for from the order or, denying intervention for alternatively, permission for post-decision, intervene relief from the After enjoining referendum. hearing, trial court granted the motion intervenors’ to inter- post-decision rights vene because their were no longer represented. This adequately was because the Green clerk county stipulated that he would not appeal trial court’s decision. earlier hearing
After a on the intervenors’ for motion reconsideration, the trial court rescinded its earlier injunction county and ordered Green clerk to hold on order. Board’s The trial court concluded because the Board’s order reorganization, constituted an order school district a referendum on order was allowed under 117.035(3), We issued granting Stats. an order Dieck- hoffs relief pending appeal. motion for
STANDARD OF REVIEW Questions interpretation ques- are statutory novo. In de Interest of tions of law which we review J.V.R., 192, 199, 266, 127 2dWis. 378 N.W.2d (1985). construing purpose Our statute legislature’s give ascertain the it intent effect. Watts v. 517, 303, Watts, 137 Wis. 2d 405 N.W.2d (1987). construing Our source in a statute primary and, language, that statute’s ambiguity, absent our
189
meaning.
language
ordinary
give
duty
its
is to
171, 176,
McKenzie,
407 N.W.2d
Wis. 2d
139
v.
State
1987).
(Ct. App.
a
The "entire section of
274, 276
in
are
considered”
and related sections
statute
interpreting
construing
the words
a statute. Id.
question
177,
277. The threshold
407 N.W.2d at
at
language
statutory
reviewing
whether the
a statute is
persons
ambiguous,
is, if
could
"reasonable
meaning.”
disagree
v.
its
Standard Theatres
as to
Dept.,
740,
Transportation
730,
118
2d
349
Wis.
(1984).
unclear,
If
we will
661, 667
a statute
N.W.2d
legislature’s intent as dis-
to discover
"endeavor
scope, history,
subject
by
context,
matter
closed
purpose
517,
Watts, 137
2d at
Wis.
statute.”
RIGHT TO right 1978, no to a on As of there was (now Boundary Appeal District State Board School a Board) nothing Appeal "[TJhere is order. authorizing by for a referendum statutes a following the [State electors a decision Appeal Board, No. 2 Board].” Joint Sch. Dist. v. State (1978). 711, 722, 374, 266 379 83 Wis. 2d N.W.2d right [party] [on "[NJeither to a referendum has aggrieved party order], State Board but right has a to review the courts.” Joint School Appeal Bd., 790, 799, 56 Wis. 2d 203 District v. State (1973). 1, N.W.2d right supreme to a court addressed
referendum in
No.
83 Wis. 2d at
Joint Sch. Dist.
petitioners
723-24,
There,
380.
266 N.W.2d at
*10
117.02(4)(a),
argued
(1975),8
that sec.
Stats.
allowed a
referendum after a state
hearing.
board
The supreme
disagreed.
court
Because the state board operated
117.02,
under sec. 117.03 and not sec.
the referendum
117.02(4)(a)
provisions of sec.
did not apply to the
2,
board’s actions. Joint Sch. Dist. No.
(3) Any order by appeal issued a state board constitutes, under s. 117.03 which affirms or modi- fies an order of reorganization, school district subject approval at a if referendum a for (1) provided a referendum is filed as under sub. orders, the case of agency school committee ifor by referendum is directed the motion of the state board, if, appeal days or within 30 after the date of mailing 117.01(2)(c), of the order under s. a referen- adoption dum is by by demanded of a resolution any the common council of city affected order. The referendum shall be conducted as (1). provided under sub. 117.02(4)(a), (1975), provides pertinent part:
8 Section Stats. days mailing If within 30 after the date of of an order of section, school district issued under this requesting signed by a referendum on the order and a sufficient proposed territory number the electors of the included in the reorganized school district is filed ... the order shall not become approved effective until it has been at the referendum .... added.) (Emphasis when the 1984, In this section was modified replaced was school committee agency 1460d, Section of the affected school districts. boards Also, Board was 27. the State 1983 Wis. Act Boundary District Board. renamed the School 1986, 27. In this 1983 Wis. Act section Section 54m, present form. Section further modified to its was *11 225, language allowing removed the 1985 Wis. Act to demand a city of an affected common council reads as follows: The section now referendum. (3) by the under s. Any order issued board constitutes, affirms modifies an 117.03 which subject is district order of school if a for a approval at a referendum subsequently is filed as referendum has been or (2) (1) case provided and in the of under subs. orders, or if a referendum directed school board The referendum shall be conducted board. (1) (2). provided as under subs. Appeal an undisputed
It is that Board issued reorganization. We conclude of school district order if "order for denial” is a the school boards’ of meaning sec. "school board order” within Stats., 117.035(3), then there is a to a referen- right order. Appeal dum of the Board A "SCHOOL BOARD ORDER”? WHAT IS term “school argues board Dieckhoff those school board orders encompasses only orders” reorganization, and does not requiring school district denying reorganization. include an order Dieckhoff board original without an school order contends that requiring reorganization, district Stats., 117.035(3), right no for a
192 Appeal Board subsequent on a Therefore, reorganization. requiring party’s sole aggrieved that an Dieckhoff concludes Board review judicial is to seek recourse 117.03(4). that relief was not Because order under sec. would be case, Board order in this sought final. unrea to reach an statutes will not construe We System, Freight Inc., v. Yellow result. State
sonable
(1981).
834,
142, 153,
839
We
303 N.W.2d
101
2dWis.
pari
materia
statutes
linked
directly
must consider
Depart
v. ILHR
State
possible.
if
harmonize them
ment,
758,
396, 403, 304
762
2d
N.W.2d
101 Wis.
(1981).
related stat
light
construe statutes
We
Miller,
431,
426,
utes. Mazurek v.
2d
100 Wis.
denied,
a. Section Stats., 117.01(2)(c), that a "certi- provides Section district or a school reorganizing order copy any fied filed within shall be reorganization such denying [Appeal of the secretary made after it is with days "order ... that an implies This section Board].” is a "school board reorganization” such denying order.” 117.08(3), Stats.
b. Section in- 117.08(3), Stats., those deals with Section parcel value of the the assessed stances where ratio, is less by its assessment multiplied question, equalized of the valuation of percent five than is to be parcel proposed from district which school an "person aggrieved by that a It detached. by seek review may make an order” or failure to order superin- the state appointed by mediator qualified a the case makes The mediator reviews tendent. to the affected and recommendations findings of fact receipt days of thirty Within school boards. a adopt boards shall report,
mediator’s "affirming, modifying reversing resolution sub.(l)(c). This resolution adopted under resolution reorganiza- an order of school district shall constitute tion ...” contemplates denying
This statute an boards, by be the school reorganization may affirmed become "resolution” such action would constituting reorganiza- order of school district "an requiring An school board order original tion.” subsequently be reversed reorganization may Therefore, a resolution denying the school boards. for an "order of can constitute reorganization.” school district 117.08(2),
c. Section Stats. parcel question, If the of the assessed value ratio, equal multiplied its assessment is equalized percent than five valuation of greater parcel proposed from the school district which detached, reorganiza- "an order of school district sub.(l)(c) s. under under 117.03.” appealable tion order denying Under Dieckhoffs an analysis, *13 not reorganization under this section would have 194 as an order denying reorganization same status under 117.08(3), Stats., which provides for the possibility for denial can that an order be affirmed resolution by boards, the school or that an by original order requiring can be re- resolution, boards’ versed and that such resolutions will constitute of school district "order[s] see reorganization.” We no reason for this difference treatment, and we conclude that legislature did contemplate such an not inconsistent treatment school board orders. 117.03(1),
d. Section Stats.9 . This section that any aggrieved party may appeal actions taken the school An boards. appeal is allowed whether the school boards issued an requiring reorganization, issued an order deny- reorganization, ing or failed to act at all. Dieckhoff s argument the "order for denial” filed in this case was not an order within the meaning of sec. 117.08(l)(c), Stats., but a "failure to make an order” order, which must be treated differently from an unpersuasive. 117.03(1), Stats., reqúires
Section an ag- grieved procedures follow different party for
9 117.03(1), Stats., provides: Section (a) 117.08(2) Any person aggrieved by an order s. under (3)(b) appeal may by filing appeal board a notice of with the superintendent days following mailing state within 30 117.01(2)(c). order under s. (b) Any person aggrieved by the failure to make an order 117.08(2) (3)(b) days filing under s. within after the of a appeal may days or resolution to the board within 30 following expiration days. of said 60 (c) appeal may No to the board withdrawn. *14 for the school boards’ "order” than school boards’ order.” We conclude make an to "failure order,” as used in sec. to make an "failure phrase 117.03(l)(b), meaning same as "failure to act has the within 45 after 117.08(l)(a)] petition days on the [sec. of the affected school the clerks filing its [with 117.08(l)(c). Therefore, when used in sec as boards]” hearing on a public fail to hold sec. boards the school 117.08(l)(a) days filing, its forty-five within a "failure to act” and a "failure both this constitutes place, ag- this takes an order.” When make an 117.03(l)(b). to sec. appeal pursuant party may grieved hearing pursuant hold a the school boards Where 117.08(l)(a) 117.08(l)(b) petition, and the on a sec. sec. or granting denying an order boards issue days is filed within ten and such order reorganization to sec. secretary pursuant Board Appeal with go- 117.01(2)(c), aggrieved appeal party’s then an 117.03(l)(a). in sec. procedure verned 117.03(3)(a), Stats. e. Section 117.03(3)(a), Stats., of sec. further language The argu- s inconsistency of Dieckhoff demonstrates Appeal Board ment. This section "affirm, appealed or an "order” modify” reverse shall sub.(l)(a), Appeal or Board "shall from under school district granting denying an order make sub.(l)(b).” appeal an under Sec- upon 117.03(l)(b) make tion deals with a "failure to an 117.08(2) (3)(b).” case, In this under s. "THEREFORE, IT IS
Board’s order was as follows:
School Board order be reversed
that said
ORDERED
treated Dieckhoff s
..." The
Board therefore
117.03(l)(a).
appeal under
appeal
as an
not as a
the "order
for denial”
treated
Appeal Board
order,”
an "order.”
but as
to make an
"failure
of "order of school
examining
the use
After
orders,” "order,” "deni-
"school board
reorganization,”
*15
order,”
an
"order
"failure to make
petition,”
al of
district,”
...
"order
denying
school
and
reorganizing a
meaning of
that
reorganization,” we conclude
such
There-
is sometimes unclear.
phrases
these words
terms in the
interpret
to
these
required
we are
fore
cohesive
logical,
in the most
which will result
manner
v.
reading
possible.
of ch. 117
See State
consistent
403,
SUFFICIENCY REFERENDUM Stats., pertinent 117.035(l)(a), Section part: on petition requesting a referendum
If ... a signed by a sufficient number order and proposed territory included in the electors ... the order reorganized district is filed ap- until it has effective been shall not become affected school proved at the referendum each of the electors within by majority vote a "sufficient paragraph, In this that school district. 500 of the electors” means at least number of proposed reorganized who reside electors district, the electors who or at least 10% of affected reside in either of the school districts ... the order. full mean- argues give in order
Dieckhoff section, give we must effect to two clauses: ing to this The "territo- territorial clause and a numerical clause. a referendum petition requesting rial clause” is: "... a a sufficient number of the signed by on the order and proposed included in the territory electors of *16 district ....” The "numerical reorganized school electors’ means clause” is: "... a 'sufficient number of in the proposed 500 of the electors who reside at least district, reorganized school or at least 10% in the districts electors who reside either of school by affected the order.” 115.001(6)(a), Stats., "proposed defines
Section in reorganized territory school district” as "only ... territory pro- the school district to which the is attached and the attached posed territory to be ... proposed thereto such order.” Section by 115.001(6)(d) excludes from this definition specifically district from remaining any "the school territory detached_” 115.001(9) which is Section territory district affected” to include the school defines "school district from which is detached. territory since a number of argues
Dieckhoff that sufficient from school "proposed reorganized dis- electors not sign petition, trict” did the referendum met, peti- was and the "territorial” not requirement is invalid. tion Section reject analysis.
We Dieckhoffs 117.035(l)(a), Stats., for requirement has one only signed it petition for referendum to be valid: must phrase The a "sufficient number electors.” is by section, within the two alterna- defined signing ways requirement. tive meet The requirement obtaining signatures met either by least of "at 500 of the electors who reside reorganized district, proposed school or at least 10% of in either of the electors who reside the school districts by affected the order.” petition
It there for undisputed was signed percent referendum at least ten by affected,” of a the Juda electors "school district thus the alternative district. fulfilled valid. conclude that requirement, and is therefore We provide peti- unambiguously these statutes county tion for filed with Green clerk a referendum on the require was sufficient reorganization.10 Board order of school petition for 10 Dieckhoff the issue of whether a referen raises residing parcel signed by in the at of the electors dum least 10% signed sought only: A if to be detached is valid. is valid district, signed reorganized or if proposed in a 500 electors in either of the school districts at least 10% of the electors *17 117.035(l)(a), sought parcel Stats. The be affected. Section reorganized within "proposed school district” detached is neither a Stats., 115.001(6), meaning "school district of nor a the
199 OF LIMITATIONS STATUTE respondent’s the action is Dieckhoff contends 893.74, Stats., and sec. the action of sec. by barred 117.01(7), Stats. 893.74, Stats., provides:
Section attacking legali- appeal or action the No other district, a school either ty of the formation of may be commenced after directly indirectly, or rights privi- has and exercised school period days. leges a school district for a of Stats., 117.01(7), provides: Section attacking legali- appeal or action No other district, of a school either ty of formation may be taken after directly indirectly, This shall period provided s. 893.74. subsection legislative liberally construed to effect legal certain purpose to validate and make state, all districts this existence school reorganized, every created or to bar however question any right the existence thereof remedy to bar notwith- every manner and therefor irregularities, standing any jurisdiction- defects otherwise, expiration period after the of the al or 115.001(9). "pro- meaning only within the of sec. The affected” posed reorganized case school in this is Brodhead’s. Juda district” "proposed reorganized school district.” The "school not a petition in districts affected” are those of Juda and Brodhead. signed by "proposed only this 5 or 6 electors within the case was Therefore, district,” reorganized "at least and not 500.” signed petition fails the first alternative test. The was not district, from the Brodhead school at least 10% electors However, one was of the "school districts affected.” signed percent by at least ten of the electors from the other affected,” district, thereby "school district the Juda valid. *18 except 893.74 where some action
provided s. peri- commenced within that proceeding has been od. there has been a de argues
Dieckhoff facto August that since points Dieckhoff out reorganization. Reorganized School District has Brodhead of a school district rights privileges exercised the reorganization Appeal to a valid Board pursuant order, levied based on the and that taxes have been argues also the interve- reorganization. Dieckhoff Appeal of the never filed for review judicial nors sought never to they enjoin Board order and issuing from aids of Public Instruction Department argues Dieckhoff reorganization. and credits based on that, and a majority even if a referendum is held disapprove district electors vote to the Juda school order, subsequent brought action to Board Appeal any be barred reorganized school district will disband the 893.74, Stats., of limita- statute applicable sec. commenced an action This is because no one has tions. reorganized attacking operation Therefore, passed have ninety days because district. has "exercised reorganized school district since district,” Dieck- of a school rights privileges run has of limitations hoff contends that statute on the intervenors. Ap- The analysis. with Dieckhoffs disagree
We peal "reorganization authority." Board is a Section 23,1986, 115.001(4), Board June Stats. On Stats., order” 117.01(2), "reorganization a sec. issued 117.03(3). order Board pursuant to sec. to pursuant at referendum approval was subject 117.035(3), petition was timely since a filed. 117.035(3), Stats., pertinent
Section ... under s. issued [Appeal part: "Any Board] of school district ... an order 117.03 which constitutes at a referendum approval subject *19 filed. subsequently ... is for referendum petition if a provided as shall be conducted ... The referendum (1) (2).” under subs. Stats., 117.035(l)(a), pertinent provides
Section it until has not "the order shall become part: effective each affected at the referendum approved been electors within vote of the district aby majority added.) (Emphasis that school district.” 117.01(l)(d), Stats., pertinent Section proceeding pending reorganization "While a part: proceeding commenced reorganization ... other any proceeding A reorganization ... is void. order made reorgani- 1. an order of school pending: Until takes proceeding reorganization made in the zation effect.” right was a to decided that there
We have that Appeal the Board order and for a referendum on requisite the petition signed by there was a valid Appeal the of electors. We conclude number it not because has order has not taken effect yet Board Therefore, the approved by been referendum. yet to run. yet begun has not statute of limitations there has argument We Dieckhoffs reject until because been a de facto disapproved, or is Board order takes effect Appeal is void. Section reorganization proceeding” other "any 117.01(l)(d), part actions on Stats. Unilateral Revenue, De- Department appellants, Brodhead and the partment of Public Instruction parties District’s cannot Superintendent School divest right order of their Board aggrieved by on the for and obtain a referendum order.. Board grounds, on these dispose
Because we of the case issues raised we need not reach the other parties.
By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.
SUNDBY, I concur in the result. (concurring). J. However, suggest I separately desirability write 117.035(l)(a), to sec. Stats. of a amendment clarifying provision, I not find this majority, to the do Contrary requirements for a signing which establishes reorgani- on a school district petition for a referendum order, umambiguous. zation to be *20 of the statute is that the requirement The first sufficient number of the signed by be proposed in the territory electors "of the included 117.035(l)(a), district.” Sec. Stats. reorganized school that, acknowledges under The majority 115.001(6)(a), Stats., reorganized school proposed the to proposed the be territory is Brodhead and district from the definition. attached thereto. Juda is excluded statute, Therefore, the to language the literal of under petition, an elector eligible sign to a referendum district within the Brodhead must reside thereto. to be attached territory proposed of "sufficient to the definition majority skips The that that definition number of electors” and concludes within the residency of requirement overrides who district, Juda electors permitting thus proposed sign proposed district do not reside within petition. only that legislative policy 1983 it was Prior reorganized proposed within the residing electors reorgan- on a could for and vote school (1981-82). 117.035(l)(a), At Stats. order. Sec. ization electors” was number of time "a sufficient in who reside "500 of the electors defined as district, or of such reorganized school 10% proposed villages or of reside in cities and 10% electors who Id. who reside in towns.” electors such time, course, "electors” the definition of At that of 117.035(l)(a), Stats., was sentence of sec. in the first that a legislative requirement consistent with in required to reside elector was petitioning reorganized proposed included territory voting reorganization on This method of district. urban up an undesirable tension between orders set reorganized school proposed rural residents of a led to the amendment undoubtedly district which legislature. the 1983 procedure by the referendum to the school dis emphasis In 1983 the shifted The defini order. tricts affected "A amended to read: tion of "electors” was therefore is 500 of the electors petitioners sufficient number of district, proposed reorganized in the who reside of the who reside either electors 10% the order.” 1983 Wis. Act school districts affected however, not, the first legislature 479. did amend 117.035(l)(a), Stats., to eliminate the sentence of sec. includ requirement only territory electors were proposed reorganized in the school district ed *21 eligible for a referendum. The failure of requirement this from sec. legislature to delete 117.035(l)(a) regarded "'legislatively as may v. Revenue dropped Corp. stitch the statute.’” NCR 7, 355, 442, n. 384 363 128 Wis. 2d 457 N.W.2d Dept., 204 Johnson, 32 Wis. v. quoting Scharping (Ct. 1986), App. (1966). 691, I 6, n. 145 N.W.2d 393-94 2d it as such. recognize would