Case Title: Citizens of Otto v. Wyoming State Committee for School Dist. Organization

Citation: 

Docket Number: 84-316

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1985-08-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
Citizens of Otto v. Wyoming State Committee for School Dist. Organization1985 WY 122705 P.2d 831Case Number: 84-316Decided: 08/26/1985IN THE MATTER OF THE WYOMING STATE COMMITTEE FOR SCHOOL DISTRICT ORGANIZATION REJECTION OF A PROPOSAL FOR THE FORMATION OF BIG HORN COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 5. 

CITIZENS OF OTTO AND BURLINGTON, APPELLANTS (PETITIONERS), 

v. 

WYOMING STATE COMMITTEE FOR SCHOOL DISTRICT ORGANIZATION, APPELLEE (RESPONDENT).
Supreme Court of Wyoming
IN THE MATTER OF THE 
WYOMING STATE COMMITTEE FOR SCHOOL DISTRICT 
ORGANIZATION REJECTION OF A PROPOSAL FOR THE FORMATION OF BIG HORNCOUNTYSCHOOL 
DISTRICT NO. 5. 

CITIZENS OF OTTO AND 
BURLINGTON, 
APPELLANTS (PETITIONERS), 

v. 

WYOMING STATE COMMITTEE FOR 
SCHOOL DISTRICT ORGANIZATION, APPELLEE 
(RESPONDENT).

 
 
Petition for review from 
the District Court, BigHornCounty, John T. Dixon, 
J.

 
 
Henry F. Bailey, 
Jr., of Loomis, Lazear, Wilson & Pickett, Cheyenne, for appellants.

A.G. McClintock, 
Atty. Gen., and Rowena Heckert, Asst. Atty. Gen., Cheyenne, for appellee.

Before THOMAS, C.J., and 
ROSE, ROONEY, BROWN and CARDINE, JJ.

BROWN, 
Justice.

[¶1.]     This appeal seeks 
review of an administrative decision made by appellee Wyoming State Committee 
for School District Organization (hereinafter State Committee) denying a request 
made by appellants to create their own separate school district. Appellants are 
citizens of the towns of Otto and Burlington, Wyoming. They sought creation of a new school 
district separate from the present Big Horn County School District No. One, to 
which they belong. After public hearings, the proposal was initially approved by 
the District Boundary Board in Basin, Wyoming. The State Committee denied the 
request when it reviewed appellants' proposal. Appellants filed a petition for 
review in the district court. Both parties agreed to certify the case to this 
court for review.

[¶2.]     Appellants raise the 
following issues:

"1. Whether the proposal 
for the creation of a new unified school district at Otto-Burlington, Wyoming, 
met the criteria established by the Wyoming School District Organization law and 
specifically whether the formation of such a district would be in the best 
interests of the students and citizens of Otto and Burlington, Wyoming. As a corollary question, whether the 
state committee abused its administrative discretion in rejecting petitioners' 
proposal for the formation of BigHornCountySchool 
District # 5 in the face of approval of the petition by the 
District Boundary Board for Big Horn 
County, Wyoming.

"2. Whether Wyoming 
Statute 21-5-133 (1977 Annot) setting a 500 pupil limit on the number of 
students required for the formation of a unified district from within the 
boundaries of an existing high school district was properly interpreted and 
applied in this case by the state committee."

 

[¶3.]     When reviewing an 
administrative agency's decision on appeal, § 16-3-114, W.S. 1977 (October 1982 
Replacement) mandates that we review the entire record, or those portions cited 
to us, to determine if the agency's actions are supported by substantial 
evidence. Mountain Fuel Supply Company v. 
Public Service Commission of Wyoming, 
Wyo., 662 P.2d 878 (1983). If it is determined that the agency's action is supported by 
substantial evidence, we are not at liberty to substitute our judgment for that 
of the agency. Burlington Northern Railroad Company v. Public Service 
Commission of Wyoming, Wyo., 698 P.2d 1135 (1985); and McCulloch Gas Transmission Company v. Public 
Service Commission of Wyoming, Wyo., 627 P.2d 173 
(1981). Substantial evidence has been defined "as such relevant evidence as a 
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Board of Trustees, LaramieCountySchool 
District No. 1 v. Spiegel, Wyo., 549 P.2d 1161, 1178 (1976), quoting Consolo v. Federal Maritime Commission, 
383 U.S. 607, 86 S. Ct. 1018, 16 L. Ed. 2d 131 (1966). The burden of proving a lack of substantial evidence rests upon the 
party attacking the agency's decision. Laramie River Conservation Council v. 
Industrial Siting Council, Wyo., 588 P.2d 1241 (1978); and Wyoming Bancorporation v. Bonham, Wyo., 527 P.2d 432 
(1974).

[¶4.]     We will consider both 
of appellants' issues together. In their first issue appellants ask whether 
their proposal to create a new school district met the criteria established by 
law. As a corollary, they ask whether the State Committee abused its discretion 
in rejecting the proposal. Appellants' second issue is closely related to the 
first and asks whether the 500-pupil limit required by § 21-5-133, W.S. 1977, 
was properly applied by the State Committee in this case.

[¶5.]     The formation of school 
districts is governed by the Wyoming School District Organization Law of 1969, 
§§ 21-5-101 through 21-5-137, W.S. 1977.1 The purpose of such act, among 
other things, is to create a more efficient use of public funds for education by 
improving and equalizing educational opportunity through proper planning, and 
generally enlarging and unifying school districts. One of the stated purposes of 
the act was to generally consolidate and enlarge many of the small, inefficient 
school districts in existence when the act was passed.

"The legislature of the 
state of Wyoming hereby declares that this chapter [§§ 21-5-101 to 21-5-137] is 
passed to provide machinery for the organization of the school districts in this 
state whereby school districts can be organized to: provide an improved and more 
equalized educational opportunity for all of the pupils in the state; provide a 
wiser and more efficient use of public funds for education by making it possible 
to reduce the disparity in per pupil valuation among school districts; to allow 
the initial planning for the organization of school districts under this chapter 
to be conducted on the local level; generally enlarge the school districts of 
the state; and eliminate the different types and kinds of school districts that 
presently exist and replace them with unified school districts defined in this 
chapter." Section 21-5-102, W.S. 1977.

[¶6.]     Appellants argue that 
their proposal adequately met the criteria to establish a new school district as 
provided by § 21-5-105, W.S. 1977: 

"(a) All districts 
organized after the effective date of this act [§§ 21-5-101 to 21-14-106] shall 
conform to the following criteria:

"(i) Unified school 
districts shall be organized as efficient administrative units considering 
primarily the education, convenience, and welfare of the 
children;

"(ii) The entire state 
shall be divided into unified school districts. Any county which has been 
delayed by previous statutory exceptions may have until April 15, 1977, to 
complete its organization;

"(iii) All territory of 
each unified school district shall be contiguous;

"(iv) All territory 
within a unified school district shall be divided into trustee residence areas. 
Each trustee residence area shall be contiguous. In establishing trustee 
residence areas, consideration shall be given to school population, general 
population, and ecology;

"(v) In developing plans 
of organization, the county committees shall consider a ratio of average daily 
membership to assessed valuation as nearly equalized as practicable among the 
unified districts in the various counties;

"(vi) Each plan of 
organization shall include provisions for educational opportunity and services 
as nearly equal as possible in all areas of each unified 
district."

[¶7.]     However, when all the 
statutes are considered in pari materia, as they must be, it appears that the 
appellants' proposal did not meet all the applicable statutory requirements. 
Section 21-5-105 must also be construed in light of § 21-5-133, which further 
requires:

"Whenever at least one 
hundred (100) qualified electors of any area within an existing school district, 
which area includes both a high school and one (1) or more elementary schools 
with a total K-12 enrollment of more than five hundred (500) pupils, petition 
the district boundary board for creation of such area into a new unified school 
district, the district boundary board may, after holding a hearing thereon, form 
such area into a new unified school district."

[¶8.]     The State Committee 
found that the criteria set forth in § 21-5-105, as well as the 500-pupil 
requirement in § 21-5-133, would not be met by appellants' 
proposal:

"1. The State Committee 
finds that the average daily membership of Big Horn County School District No. 1 
for the 1983-1984 school year was 742.806 and that the projected enrollment of 
proposed Big Horn County School District No. 5 is 28.5% of the District 1 
enrollment. Therefore the State Committee finds the projected enrollment of 
proposed District 5 to be approximately 212 pupils.

"2. The State Committee 
recognizes the legislative presumption implicit in the statutes relating to 
school district organization: that generally larger school districts will 
provide an improved and more equalized educational opportunity for all the 
pupils of the state and provide a wiser and more efficient use of the public 
funds spent on education. The explicit minimum size is over 500 
pupils.

"3. The State Committee 
finds that formation of this school district with only 42% of the statutorily 
required minimum enrollment would create serious budgetary and staffing problems 
for the proposed district. To merely maintain the present services for the 
district, additional staff would be required beginning with a superintendent. To 
expand the program as proposed, a vocational agriculture teacher, special 
education teacher, teacher for the gifted and talented program, counselor, 
librarian and support staff would be required. The economy realized by sharing 
such staff among several schools in the district would not be available, and the 
educational programs of District 5 would probably suffer 
significantly."

[¶9.]     The State Committee 
rejected appellants' proposal because it found the new district would not 
comport with the stated purposes of the Wyoming School District Organization Law 
in providing more efficient school districts. Specifically, the State Committee 
found that more staff would have to be hired to meet the special needs of 
students in the proposed new district. Furthermore, the State Committee found 
the proposed new district would not meet the 500-pupil requirement under § 
21-5-133.

[¶10.]  Appellants argue that § 21-5-133 is 
inapplicable to the present case since the title of the statute, "Creation of 
new unified school districts from within boundaries of existing high school 
districts," means creation of a school district from within the boundaries of an 
existing high school district. When the statute was first created, the phrase 
"existing high school district" appeared in the first sentence. (1977 House 
Digest, p. 488.) However, the word "high" was subsequently removed from the 
enacted version of the statute indicating a legislative intent to broaden the 
application of the law. (1977 House Digest, p. 492; Ch. 181, § 1, S.L. of Wyoming, 1977.) 
Therefore, when the statute is construed with the other statutes of the same 
act, appellants' argument that such statute is inapplicable to the present case 
is unpersuasive.

[¶11.]  Appellants further urge that their 
proposal set forth a proper assessed valuation for the new district. However, 
the State Committee found such valuation to be inadequate to support the 
necessary facilities of a new school:

"4. The State Committee 
finds that by gerrymandering the proposed district lines to include valuable oil 
producing properties very close to the town of Byron, the assessed valuation per pupil in the 
proposed district is $96,625 and for the remainder of District 1 is $98,538. It 
also finds that the total assessed valuation of the proposed district is 
$19,421,730, making the legal bonded indebtedness of $1,942,173 less any 
outstanding debts. This would be inadequate to provide the new K-12 facilities 
needed.

"5. The State Committee 
finds all territory of the proposed district is contiguous, as is the territory 
within the proposed trustee residence area. It is not certain whether 
consideration was given to school population, general population and ecology in 
establishing the trustee residence areas. It is also uncertain how formation of 
the proposed district would affect the educational opportunity and services of 
those students remaining in District 1 after loss of 28.5% of its enrollment and 
tax base."

[¶12.]  After considering all evidence presented 
and holding a public hearing, the State Committee found the proposed school 
district should be rejected for the following reasons:

"1. It is a condition 
precedent for formation of a new unified school district by a district boundary 
board from within an existing school district that the proposed district have a 
total K-12 enrollment of more than 500 pupils. W.S. 21-5-133. Formation of a 
district with an enrollment of only approximately 212 pupils is outside the 
statutory authority of the District Boundary Board of Big Horn County. As a 
matter of law, the State Committee concludes it cannot approve such a 
proposal.

"2. Pursuant to W.S. 
21-6-107, the State Committee concludes formation of Big Horn County School 
District No. 5 would seriously hamper efforts toward school district 
organization under the law. Creation of District 5 would undo part of what has 
been so arduously accomplished in BigHornCounty and is directly 
contrary to the obvious intent of the legislature.

"3. The State Committee 
concludes formation of District 5 would not further the purposes of the School 
District Organization Law of 1969. Specifically it would not provide improved or 
more equalized educational opportunity for the affected pupils; it would not 
provide for a wiser or more efficient use of public funds for education, nor 
would it generally enlarge the school districts. It would instead have a serious 
adverse effect upon each of these objectives. W.S. 
21-5-102.

"4. The State Committee 
concludes formation of District 5 would create two districts, each less 
efficient than the existing District 1 in terms of providing for the education, 
convenience and welfare of the students. W.S. 21-5-105

"5. The State Committee 
further concludes the territory of District 5 is contiguous, as are the 
proposed trustee residence areas, and that the resulting districts would have 
substantially equal assessed valuations per pupil. Lastly the State Committee is 
without sufficient information from which to conclude that the educational 
opportunity and services would or would not be as nearly equal as possible in 
all areas of each unified district. It does conclude that the educational 
opportunity and services of district 5 would suffer significantly upon division 
of District 1 and recognizes the same could be true for the remainder of 
District 1 but to a lesser degree.

"Therefore, the State 
Committee for School District Organization rejects the proposal of the Big Horn 
County District Boundary Board for formation of Big Horn County School District 
No. 5."

[¶13.]  We find the decision of the State 
Committee supported by substantial evidence and we are obliged to uphold it. Powell v. Board of Trustees of Crook County 
School District No. 1, Crook 
County, Wyo., 550 P.2d 1112 (1976). The evidence supports the 
State Committee's conclusion that dividing the present district to create two 
separate districts would be a less efficient means of providing quality 
education in the area in question. This violates the criteria set forth in § 
21-5-105. Furthermore, the proposed district does not meet the 500-pupil 
requirement in § 21-5-133. The State Committee further found the present school 
district would be adversely affected by the loss of some 200 students if 
appellants' proposal for a new school district were granted. We have held that 
statutory requirements must be met before a new school district is organized. 
Johnson v. Schrader, 
Wyo., 502 P.2d 371 
(1972).

[¶14.]  Finding, as we do, the State Committee's 
decision supported by substantial evidence and no showing of an abuse of 
discretion, the decision is affirmed.

[¶15.]  Affirmed.

1 Although appellants 
claim they proposed their reorganization plan pursuant to § 21-6-105, W.S. 1977, 
entitled, "Proposal to change boundaries, reorganize or combine districts," 
appellees point out that the procedure appellants followed was that found in § 
21-5-133, W.S. 1977, of the Wyoming School District Organization Law of 1969. 
The criteria under both acts is somewhat similar, with the ultimate decision 
resting with the State Committee in either event. We note that the State 
Committee did base their decision in part on § 21-6-107, W.S. 1977, which 
requires the State Committee to consider the effect of a proposal to change 
boundaries, etc., upon the purposes of the Wyoming School District Organization 
Law of 1969. We cannot see how the result would have differed under either 
law.