IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA

No. 11–1498 

Filed May 11, 2012

EAST CENTRAL COMMUNITY

SCHOOL DISTRICT,

Appellant,

vs.

MISSISSIPPI BEND AREA

EDUCATION AGENCY,

Appellee.

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jackson County, Mary E. 

Howes, Judge.

Appellant asserts the appellee acted unlawfully in approving for 

submission to the voters a petition proposing a consolidation of two 

school districts. AFFIRMED. 

Andrew J. Bracken and Amanda G. Wachuta of Ahlers & Cooney, 

P.C., Des Moines, for appellant.

Mikkie R. Schiltz and Wendy S. Meyer of Lane & Waterman LLP, 

Davenport, for appellee.
2

APPEL, Justice.

In this case, we consider whether an area education agency (AEA)

acted lawfully when it approved for submission to the voters a petition 

that proposed a consolidation of the Preston and East Central 

Community School Districts. East Central seeks to block the measure 

from being placed before the voters. In support of its position, East 

Central asserts that the AEA approval of the petition for submission to 

the voters is legally flawed because the AEA failed to comply with a 

statutory requirement that it develop a plan for the AEA district. 

Further, East Central maintains that the AEA failed to make a required 

statutory finding that the consolidation proposed in the petition was in 

conformity with the plan. The district court rejected the claims.

On appeal, we conclude that the AEA acted lawfully in approving 

submission of the petition to the voters.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

This case involves two small school districts, Preston and East 

Central Community School Districts. The certified enrollment in Preston 

in October 2010 was 335.9 students and 370.1 students for East 

Central. Of these students, thirty-two and fifty, respectively, enrolled 

outside of the districts.

In 1986, the Mississippi Bend AEA (MBAEA) developed what was 

entitled “Reorganization Plan” (Plan). The Plan contains page after page 

of data about the school districts within the MBAEA. The Plan also 

includes seven alternate reorganization plans for schools within the 

MBAEA that had less than three hundred students enrolled in the 

districts. Public hearings were held in connection with the Plan, after 

which the Plan was reviewed and adopted by the MBAEA Board (Board).
3

In December 2000, the MBAEA consulted with the Iowa 

Department of Education (department) in updating the Plan. Preston 

requested the department to prepare a feasibility report addressing the 

possible merger of Preston and East Central. The report praised East 

Central and Preston for how well they had worked together and 

suggested a merger as an alternative. The Plan was revised, a public 

hearing was held, and the Board again adopted it in August. The 2000 

survey conducted of the East Central and Preston Community School

Districts was included in the Plan as an appendix.

In 2005, Preston and East Central again requested the department 

to address the possibility of a merger. The 2005 study addressed 

reorganization and noted that the two schools operating as independents 

was “not the most efficient use of time and resources, and [did] not allow 

for ‘best practice’ in the educational program.”

In 2008, a petition was circulated to determine if there was 

support for a merger of the two school districts. Over seven hundred

citizens in the two districts signed the petitions requesting the school 

boards and administrators to work together and consider the option of

reorganization. No petition, however, was filed with the MBAEA 

requesting that school reorganization be submitted to the voters.

In January 2010, Preston and East Central representatives along 

with representatives of a third school district, the Northeast Community 

School District (Northeast), held discussions regarding the possibility of 

expanding collaboration to increase the quality of education for students. 

The meetings included discussion of potential reorganization options.

On May 3, a petition for reorganization of East Central and Preston 

was filed with the MBAEA. Approximately thirty-three percent of the
4

registered voters in the East Central district and fifty-four percent of all 

registered voters in the Preston district signed the petition.

As a result of the filing of the petition, Dr. Glenn Pelecky, Chief 

Administrator of the MBAEA, sent a letter dated May 10, 2010, to Board 

members providing the Board with information regarding the 

reorganization process and a history of the cooperative efforts involving 

Preston and East Central. The matter was discussed further on May 12

at a regular board meeting and board retreat.

The MBAEA and East Central at this point requested the 

department to conduct a study regarding the proposed merger. The 

department prepared a feasibility report dated May 21, 2010, regarding 

the future options for Preston, East Central, and Northeast. The 

department concluded that a merger between Preston and East Central 

was not an appropriate “intermediate step” if the goal was to join 

Preston, East Central, and Northeast. The department noted, however, 

that the discussions regarding reorganization of Preston, East Central, 

and Northeast had been ongoing for ten years without any result.

On June 4, Pelecky sent to members of the Board a packet of 

materials. The June packet included the most recent report from the 

department, the 1986 Reorganization Plan (as amended), and letters from 

community members.

On June 7, Pelecky sent to Board members additional materials, 

including an objection requesting that the petition be dismissed; copies 

of objections requesting boundary changes; and a basket of documents 

from the superintendent of East Central, Jim House, which included a 

PowerPoint presentation, financial materials, data related to enrollments, 

information related to high school classes, and sharing agreements 

between East Central and Northeast.
5

The Board held a hearing on the petition on June 16. After 

hearing almost four hours of testimony, the Board voted to “grant the 

approval for moving ahead with the community vote” on the question of 

the reorganization of Preston and East Central. A subsequent hearing on 

June 30 established the boundaries of the proposed merged district.

East Central filed an action in district court seeking to invalidate 

the action of the Board approving the petition. East Central argued, 

among other things, that the 1986 Reorganization Plan, along with its 

amendments, was flawed because it did not contain a specific plan for 

the merger of the Preston and East Central Community School Districts. 

East Central further claimed that the Board failed to make a necessary 

factual finding, namely, that the merger proposed in the petition was in 

conformity with the MBAEA’s Plan. The MBAEA filed a motion for 

summary judgment, claiming that as a matter of law there was no 

requirement that the MBAEA Plan specifically describe a merger between 

Preston and East Central and that the action of the Board approving the

petition was in accordance with law. The district court granted summary 

judgment, and this appeal followed.

II. Scope of Review.

We consider the school reorganization process as a local legislative 

matter. Templeton Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Carroll Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 228

N.W.2d 1, 3 (Iowa 1975). In engaging in judicial review, we are careful to 

consider only legal questions and do not substitute our judgment for the 

wisdom or practicality of a proposed reorganization. In re Lone Tree 

Cmty. Sch. Dist., 159 N.W.2d 522, 525 (Iowa 1968). Our review is limited 

to determining whether the agency has exceeded its jurisdiction or has 

taken an action that is arbitrary, unreasonable, and unsupported by 

substantial evidence in the record. Templeton, 228 N.W.2d at 3. We 
6

have defined arbitrary or unreasonable action in the school 

reorganization context as action “without rational basis; unconsidered, 

willful and irrational choice of conduct.” Id. (citation and internal 

quotation marks omitted). In reviewing school consolidation matters, we 

“will not draw fine, technical lines or indulge inferences that would 

invalidate a reorganization plan.” Hedrick Cmty. Sch. Dist. v. S. Prairie 

Area Educ. Agency 15, 433 N.W.2d 746, 751 (Iowa 1988). We make all

inferences in favor of the legality of official steps. Id.

III. Discussion.

A. Positions of the Parties.

1. Lack of specific plan for merger of Preston and East Central. 

East Central maintains that under Iowa Code chapter 275 (2011), the 

MBAEA must develop a “plan” that specifically discusses a proposed 

merger between East Central and Preston before a petition for merger 

may be approved by the MBAEA and placed on the ballot. East Central 

cites provisions of Iowa Code sections 275.2, 275.4, and 275.5 which use 

the terms “plans” and “definite plans” in describing the responsibilities of 

the Board.

The MBAEA counters that there is no requirement that its Plan 

include a specific proposal for merger of school districts in which more

than three hundred students are enrolled. Because enrollment in both 

Preston and East Central was above the three hundred student

threshold, the MBAEA maintains that it had no obligation under Iowa 

Code chapter 275 to develop such a plan.

2. Failure to determine compliance with plan. East Central 

maintains that under Iowa Code section 275.5, an AEA board 

considering whether to pass a proposed merger of school districts onto 

the voters must first “determine whether the petition complies with the 
7

plans which had been adopted by the board.” Iowa Code § 275.5. East 

Central notes that the provision requiring a determination of compliance 

with plans is declared to be mandatory by Iowa Code section 275.9.

East Central then canvasses the record in this case and concludes 

that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the Board 

actually made the determination that the proposed merger complied with 

its plans. East Central notes that the official Board minutes do not 

indicate that the Board voted on this precise issue. East Central 

recognizes that there is evidence to the contrary in the record, but 

maintains that summary judgment should not have been granted to the 

Board on this issue.

The MBAEA responds that the action of the Board is legislative, not 

judicial, and points out that judicial review is limited to determining 

whether the Board exceeded its jurisdiction or acted in an arbitrary, 

unreasonable, or unsupported manner. The MBAEA contends that the 

standard to be applied is one of substantial compliance. The MBAEA 

argues that implicit in the Board’s vote granting the petition is a finding

that the proposed merger complied with the plans that had been adopted 

by the Board.

B. Statutory Framework. In order to facilitate consolidation of 

smaller local school districts, the legislature enacted Iowa Code chapter 

275. Iowa Code chapter 275 establishes a framework for school 

reorganization in Iowa. Originally, the county school boards had 

responsibilities for planning the reorganization of school districts, but 

beginning in July 1975, the AEAs replaced the county boards as the 

facilitator of school reorganization. See Hedrick, 433 N.W.2d at 747

(citing 1974 Iowa Acts ch. 1172, § 9).
8

The declared policy of Iowa Code chapter 275 is to “encourage 

economical and efficient school districts which will ensure an equal 

educational opportunity to all children of the state.” Iowa Code 

§ 275.1(2). In order to meet these objectives, the AEAs are required to 

develop “detailed studies and surveys of the school districts within the 

area education agency and all adjacent territory.” Id. § 275.1(3). The 

studies and surveys were to include information about

the adequacy of the educational program, pupil enrollment, 

property valuations, existing buildings and equipment, 

natural community areas, road conditions, transportation, 

economic factors, individual attention given to the needs of 

students, the opportunity of students to participate in a wide 

variety of activities related to the total development of the 

student, and other matters that may bear on educational 

programs meeting minimum standards required by law.

Id. § 275.2.

This information is designed to “provid[e] for reorganization of 

school districts in order to effect more economical operation and the 

attainment of higher standards of education in the schools.” Id.

§ 275.1(3).

In 1984, the legislature amended Iowa Code chapter 275 to require 

that “the plans shall also include suggested alternate plans that 

incorporate the school districts in the area education agency into 

reorganized districts that meet the enrollment standards specified in 

section 275.3 [of enrollment of at least three hundred students].” Id.

§ 275.2. Iowa Code section 275.9 reinforces the importance of the 

substantive provisions in Iowa Code sections 275.1 through 275.5 by 

noting that compliance with these sections is mandatory. Id. § 275.9.

The process for merger or consolidation begins with a citizen 

petition that is submitted to the AEA. Id. § 275.12. Following receipt of

a petition, the AEA is directed to “review its plans and determine whether 
9

the petition complies with the plans which had been adopted by the 

board.” Id. § 275.5. If the petition “does not comply” with the plans 

adopted by the board, the board “shall conduct further surveys pursuant 

to section 275.4 prior to the date set for the hearing upon the petition”

and present the results of such surveys at the public hearing. Id. If the 

petition does comply with the plan, the board may set a hearing on the 

petition without further surveys. Id.

Within ten days after the petition is filed, the AEA administrator 

sets a date for the filing of objections and for the public hearing. Id.

§ 275.14. If the petition is not dismissed and the board determines that 

additional information is needed to fix boundaries, the hearing may be 

continued for thirty days. Id. § 275.15(3). After the hearing on the 

petition, the AEA may approve a reorganization plan for submission to 

the voters. Id. § 275.18(1).

C. Applicable Caselaw. Our school reorganization cases have 

long recognized two twin concepts. First, our cases have emphasized 

that a reviewing court should “liberally construe” the law relating to 

matters of reorganization of school districts. Allerton-Clio-Lineville Cmty.

Sch. Dist. v. Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 258 Iowa 846, 849, 140 N.W.2d 722, 724 

(1966). Second, our cases have recognized that precise and exact 

compliance with school reorganization statutes is not essential;

substantial compliance will suffice. Turnis v. Bd. of Educ., 252 Iowa 922, 

933, 109 N.W.2d 198, 205 (1961). Life has been breathed into these 

principles in a series of school reorganization cases.

In Board of Education of Audubon County v. Joint Board of 

Education, 196 N.W.2d 423 (Iowa 1972), we considered a challenge to a 

school consolidation. In Audubon County, the joint board did not 

expressly fix the method of electing directors of the new school district. 
10

Audubon Cnty., 196 N.W.2d at 426–27. Iowa Code section 275.12(4) 

(1971) authorized the board to review and to change the method 

proposed in the petition. Id. at 427. We held that by approval of the 

petition, the method of electing directors proposed was necessarily 

approved. Id. We further held that by approving the petition, the board 

necessarily approved boundary changes that did not conform to the 

county plan. Id. In reaching these results, the Audubon County court 

emphasized that school reorganization statutes are to be “liberally 

construed.” Id.

Next, we decided Bloom v. Arrowhead Area Education Agency, 270 

N.W.2d 594 (Iowa 1978). The question in Bloom was closely related, 

though not identical, to one of the issues in this case. In Bloom, 

Arrowhead AEA decided to adopt plans of county boards in its area as its 

tentative plan rather than develop a new tentative plan on its own. 

Bloom, 270 N.W.2d at 597. The county plans, however, did not provide 

for reorganization of the school districts. Id. The question in Bloom was 

whether the tentative plan, as adopted by the AEA, met the statutory 

requirement that a tentative plan be developed within sixty days of the 

submission of a petition. See id. (citing Iowa Code § 275.5 (1977)). We

held that the tentative plan was sufficient to comply with the statute, 

even though it did not specifically call for the reorganization of the school 

districts as proposed in the petition. Bloom, 270 N.W.2d at 597. We 

further emphasized that while reorganization was encouraged by Iowa 

Code chapter 275, it was not required or compelled. Id.

In Hedrick, the Hedrick Community School District challenged the 

action of an AEA in approving a petition calling for a vote on the merger 

of Hedrick and the Pekin School Districts. Hedrick, 433 N.W.2d at 750. 

Among other things, the plaintiff claimed that the AEA failed to include 
11

alternate plans in its reorganization plan and failed to review the matter 

on its merits after a hearing. Id.

Before considering the merits in Hedrick, we reviewed the proper 

framework for evaluating school district reorganization decisions. We 

noted that because reorganization is a legislative rather than a judicial 

function, our review was limited to review for substantial compliance that 

did not include reevaluation of the wisdom of the judgment of the AEA. 

Id. at 750–51. We further observed that judicial interference in local 

legislative matters would occur only when the agency had exceeded its 

jurisdiction or taken an action that is arbitrary, unreasonable, or 

unsupported by substantial evidence in the record. Id. The Hedrick

court emphasized that all inferences in favor of the legality of the official 

steps would be observed. Id.

With respect to the plaintiff’s challenge to the adequacy of the AEA 

plan that did not specifically propose or contemplate reorganization of 

school districts with enrollments over three hundred students, we held in 

Hedrick that the statute imposed no such requirement. We emphasized 

that the legislature did not mandate reorganizations, but only 

encouraged them. Id. at 751. We held that an AEA plan that contained 

no specific plans to propose mergers for school districts with enrollments 

greater than three hundred students, but did consider reorganization of 

school districts with less than three hundred students, was legally 

sufficient under Iowa Code chapter 275. Id. at 752–53. 

The plaintiff in Hedrick also claimed that the AEA board did not 

consider the matter on the merits as required by Iowa Code section 

275.15 (1985). Id. Apparently, the board took only six minutes to 

approve the reorganization petition. Id. at 753. We rejected the claim. 

Id. We noted that the AEA board had been considering reorganization 
12

possibilities for several months prior to the day that the petitions were 

actually approved. Id. Further, we noted that the AEA board had given 

tentative approval to the alternate plan that recommended the merger of 

Hedrick and Pekin. Id. As a result, we found substantial compliance 

with the statutory requirements. Id.

Finally, in Armstrong-Ringsted Community School District v. 

Lakeland Area Education Agency, 597 N.W.2d 776 (Iowa 1999), we 

considered a case in a much different posture. In Armstrong-Ringsted, 

residents of a school district challenged the dismissal of a petition 

seeking to combine school districts. Armstrong-Ringsted, 597 N.W.2d at 

776–77. During the pendency of the proposed merger of Lincoln Central 

and Armstrong-Ringsted, another petition was filed, this one proposing a 

merger of Lincoln Central and the Estherville School Districts. Id. at 

777. The Lakeland AEA declined to approve the first petition and sent 

the second petition to the voters, which was approved. Id. Citing 

Hedrick, we emphasized that reorganization is a legislative, not a judicial 

process, and that our review was limited to determining whether the AEA 

“exceeded its jurisdiction or has taken an action that is arbitrary, 

unreasonable or unsupported by substantial evidence in the record.” Id.

at 777–78 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

D. Application of Law to Facts.

1. Requirement of plan that specifically includes merger between 

Preston and East Central. We begin by considering East Central’s first 

contention, namely, that the MBAEA failed to meet its statutory mandate 

because its Plan did not specifically describe a merger between Preston

and East Central.

We begin our analysis by noting that there is no provision in Iowa 

Code chapter 275 that requires an AEA to develop a specific plan of 
13

mergers for all school districts within its geographic area. Indeed, such a 

task would be virtually impossible in an area with twenty-two school 

districts and literally hundreds of potential combinations. Instead, Iowa 

Code section 275.1 simply requires the AEA board to 

develop detailed studies and surveys of the school districts 

within the area education agency . . . for the purpose of

providing for reorganization of school districts in order to 

effect more economical operation and the attainment of 

higher standards of education in the schools.

Iowa Code § 275.1(3) (2011). Iowa Code section 275.2 states that an AEA 

board plan shall “include suggested alternate plans that incorporate the 

school districts in the area education agency into reorganized districts” 

only with respect to school districts that meet the less than threehundred pupil enrollment standard contained in Iowa Code section

275.3. Id. § 275.2. By requiring that the AEA prepare plans for merger 

of school districts with less than three hundred pupils, the implication is 

that plans need not be developed for school districts that do not meet 

that threshold. Meinders v. Dunkerton Cmty. Sch. Dist., 645 N.W.2d 632, 

637 (Iowa 2002) (express inclusion of specific requirement implies 

exclusion of others not mentioned).

In evaluating the claim raised in this case, it is important to 

recognize that the AEA board has no power to take the initiative and 

direct school districts to reorganize. It cannot, acting on its own, submit 

reorganization to the voters. Instead, the AEA board acts as a resource 

for school officials and citizens who are interested in potential 

reorganization. When local citizens propose such school reorganization, 

the AEA board then serves as a gatekeeper to ensure that the proposed 

merger meets applicable legal requirements and establishes the 

appropriate boundaries for the school districts subject to the potential 

merger.
14

In this case, the Plan and the testimony of Dr. Pelecky revealed 

that the criteria applied by the Board for evaluating compliance with the 

Plan were twofold. First, there needed to be sufficient public support for 

the reorganization as reflected in the filing of a valid petition to 

reorganize the school districts. Second, the resulting district must have 

at least three hundred enrolled students.

The implication of the Plan was that the MBAEA would not lead the 

way by proposing specific school reorganizations with respect to school

districts with enrollment over three hundred students, but would instead 

defer to citizens to initiate such a school reorganization through the 

petition process. The MBAEA would review a petition, but not shape 

public dialogue in advance through its planning process for school 

districts over three hundred enrolled students other than by providing 

studies and surveys.

We do not consider the wisdom of the MBAEA’s approach, but only 

its legal sufficiency. In Bloom, we approved a plan that did not have 

specific proposals for reorganization. Bloom, 270 N.W.2d at 597. While 

the statute now requires alternative reorganization plans for school 

districts that fall below the threshold of three hundred enrolled students, 

there is no similar requirement with respect to school districts with over

three hundred enrolled students. See Hedrick, 433 N.W.2d at 752 (“[T]he 

1984 change in the law . . . mandates the development of alternate plans 

for the reorganization of school districts with less than 300 students.”). 

Consistent with Bloom and the language of Hedrick, we hold that there is 

no legal requirement that the MBAEA Board’s plan contain a specific 

proposal for the merger of school districts with more than three hundred

enrolled students prior to approval of a petition submitted by the voters. 

2. Alleged failure to make specific determination of compliance with 

plan. We next consider the assertion of East Central that the MBAEA
15

acted improperly by approving the submission of the merger proposed in 

the citizen petition because the MBAEA did not make a specific finding 

that the petition was in accordance with the MBAEA Plan as required by 

Iowa Code section 275.5.

We again agree with the MBAEA. When an AEA considers whether 

to place a proposed merger on the ballot for voters to consider, it is 

acting in a legislative capacity, not a judicial capacity. See Hedrick, 433 

N.W.2d at 750. Substantial compliance is the standard used to measure 

the conformance of actions taken by the AEA to approve a merger with 

applicable legal requirements. Id. at 750. When an AEA board acting in 

its legislative capacity determined to “grant the approval for moving

ahead with the community vote,” inherent in that action is a finding that 

all statutory prerequisites have been met. See Hedrick, 433 N.W.2d at 

752; Audubon Cnty., 196 N.W.2d at 428. While it might have been more 

transparent if the MBAEA Board held public discussion and voted on the 

predicate issues necessary to approve submission of a proposed merger 

to the voters, we do not believe the failure to do so requires invalidation

of the action of the Board.

IV. Conclusion.

For the above reasons, we conclude that the MBAEA was not

required to develop a specific plan of merger between the Preston and 

East Central School Districts prior to approval of submission of a citizen 

petition to the voters of the districts. We further conclude that by 

approving the submission of the issue to the voters, the Board made an 

implied finding that all the statutory requisites were met. As a result, 

the decision of the district court in this matter is affirmed.

AFFIRMED. 

All justices concur except Waterman, J., who takes no part.