Case Title: State Ex Rel. Dix v. STATE BD. OF EDUC.

Citation: 224 Kan. 38, 578 P.2d 692

Docket Number: 48,605

State: kansas

Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Date: 1978-05-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
224 Kan. 38 (1978)
578 P.2d 692
STATE OF KANSAS, ex rel., LEONARD J. DIX, COUNTY ATTORNEY OF ROOKS COUNTY, KANSAS, et al., Appellants,
v.
THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE STATE OF KANSAS, et al., Appellees.
No. 48,605

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed May 6, 1978.
Allen Shelton, of Clark & Shelton, of Hill City, argued the cause and Kenneth Clark, of the same firm, and Leonard J. Dix, county attorney, were with him on the brief for the appellants.
Erle W. Francis, attorney for state board of education and commissioner of education, and Jerry Smetana, of Plainville, attorney for U.S.D. No. 270, argued the cause and were on the briefs for the appellees.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
McFARLAND, J.:
This is an action to set aside an order of the State Board of Education which transferred 56 sections of land from Unified School District No. 269 to Unified School District No. 270. Both school districts are located in Rooks County, Kansas. Initially the trial court granted the injunction and an appeal was taken thereon. On that appeal the primary issue was the constitutionality of the transfer statute, K.S.A. 72-7108. The constitutionality was upheld in State, ex rel., v. State Board of Education, 215 Kan. 551, 527 P.2d 952 (1974), and the case was remanded for further proceedings. On remand the trial court upheld the transfer order and found the State Board of Education did not act arbitrarily, capriciously, unreasonably, or fraudulently. The plaintiffs-appellants have duly perfected this appeal from that determination. The appellants raise a number of points *39 on appeal, but the central issue is whether or not the transfer order was arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, or fraudulent.
K.S.A. 72-7108 provides the procedure for transfer of territory from one unified school district to another. In upholding the constitutionality of K.S.A. 72-7108 in the original appeal, we said:
We specifically found that the guidelines as to pupil enrollment, district size, and valuation for establishment of a district were equally applicable to transfers under K.S.A. 72-7108. At trial the following facts were undisputed:
The following is a comparison of U.S.D. No. 269 and U.S.D. No. 270 before transfer:
The following is a comparison of U.S.D. No. 269 and U.S.D. No. 270 after transfer:
Minimum guidelines of K.S.A. 72-6744 require:
Viewed fractionally or proportionately, this transfer would detach approximately 1/4 of the territory of U.S.D. No. 269 and deprive U.S.D. No. 269 of approximately 1/5 of its total tax base and approximately 1/6 of its total student body.
U.S.D. No. 269 has, prior to transfer, less than the requisite 400 enrollment but is over the area and valuation requirement which allowed the district to be in compliance with the guidelines of K.S.A. 72-6744. Excluding gains from the transfer, U.S.D. No. 270 is substantially over all the minimum requirements of the guidelines. After the transfer U.S.D. No. 269 would be below the *41 guidelines on both pupils and area, while U.S.D. No. 270 would be even farther over the minimum guidelines.
Uncontroverted evidence was introduced that U.S.D. No. 269 could not survive if the transfer were approved and that the transfer would seriously impair the ability of U.S.D. No. 269 to carry on its educational mission. It was admitted by the Commissioner of Education that this transfer would not result in an equalization of the benefits and burdens of education between U.S.D. No. 269 and U.S.D. No. 270. The State Board gave no consideration to the purposes and limitations contained in the School Unification Acts in making the transfer in this case, and was not aware it had a duty to do so. In the order of transfer the State Board of Education recited that the order "is harmonious with the purposes and provisions of the school unification acts, and that such transfer is not violative of the limitations prescribed by such law." We do not agree.
In harmony with the earlier opinion in this case, we hold that the transfer of territory in contravention of the guidelines set forth in K.S.A. 72-6744 and with no showing of any justification for such contravention is, as a matter of law, arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable. The trial court erred in not so finding under the evidence before it. By virtue of this determination, other points on appeal need not be considered.
The judgment of the district court is reversed. The State Board of Education is hereby enjoined from transferring the 56 sections of land from Unified School District No. 269 to Unified School District No. 270 and the case is remanded to the trial court to determine if any monies are due either district. It is unclear whether any monies were actually paid pursuant to the order of transfer and hence the remand to resolve, in accordance with this opinion, any pending financial matters.