The people's voice. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1939-1969, 1948-11-26
WATCH OUT FOR COOKERS" . . Or
Why a Consolidation Bill ANYWAY?

School Boards Association convention in Grea
Falls presented with five proposed of school egis
by Paul Harlow chairman of the Montana Citizen
Committee Education Although resolution endorsing tn
presentation the delegates after considerable
discussion by overwhelming vote sensb decided table
the resolution
The Glands off, attitude of the association delegates
considerable significance in of two resolutions
by that convention CD outright opposition forced CONSOLE
aon of schools (2 opposition to any abandonment of dis
rct without majority by the people living within the
district The delegates all convinced that
contradiction to the above noted
resolutions.
(Ahough the impression pretty generally gained
that these five bills have been approved by the citizens
mittee following favorable leading statements by Mr.
Harlow and other committee members in the daily such
Approval or rejection will be determined by
the entire citizens committee at its next meeting which will
be held in Helena, December 3, A.
have hand the proposed Reorganization
Districts bill In view of existing legislation governing
sodaton of school districts eminent Montana school
authorities of the opinion that only such egs
aton but that also be dangerous to the
autonomy of local districts Tn thev nont +o
Chapter 95 Section 1884 page SD of the School Laws 94
amended by Chapter POI School 1943
ing consolidation and annexation of school districts It their
opinion that provision by the legislature of O adequate fl
nancng from other sources than property tax 90 good
transportation law and 90 county and statewide equalization
of school levies will the ills of school system
These school people, along with attorneys have consulted
are at loss to understand the meaning of some portions
the smoothly written Reorganization Districts proposal
Despite the much heraded permsve voluntary aspects
of the BILL of the language in this extremely lengthy
proposal ambiguous and uncertain that might we'll
take Philadelphia lawyer to interpret it. True in several
spots the permssve phase emphasized but after
siderable study of the of the opinion that either
there conflicts Incorporated else
deliberate Joker has been inserted nuly all permssive
action on the question of district consolidation
In subsantaon call attention to the section labelled
School Districts Defined"
The term school district used in this and in the
laws of the state of Montana declared to the territory
under the jurisdiction single board designated board
of trustees and shall be organized the form and
provided in this act and shall be known School District
No of County provided that nothing herein
contained shall be construed to nvadate in manner
impair the authority legal existence of school district
heretofore created and lawfully existence the time of
and approval of this act prior midnight of the
- day of 10, provided in section -
of this act" Emphasis mne.)
This section apparently safeguards the autonomy of the in
dvdual districts But does it? call your particular atten
ton to the bod-faced clause . prior to midnight of
the - day of -- 10, provided in section
of this act'
Why it necessary for that clause to be the end of
section in question all? Would the autonomy of the
district be just well protected the section had ended just
before prior to -?
Does this clause that districts established prior to
date set by the legislature will be able to retain their
if residents of the district desire?
Ordoes it that after the date established by the
legislature such districts will to exist unless they have
re-organized by County Reorganization Committee
Education State Superintendent of
Public Instruction?
might either but after having threaded my way
through sections covering Powers and Duties of County
Committees and Minimum Requirements for
School Districts both along with the section quoted
LinI iptoo Of tO kQ