Title: BALLARD v GREGORY
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 12775
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: January 31, 1975

No. 12775 I N T H E SUPREME C O U R T O F THE STATE O F M O N T A N A 1975 GEORGE D. BALLARD, J R . , P l a i n t i f f and Appellant, JOHN G. GREGORY, Superintendent of J e f f e r s o n County Schools, and COUNTY COMMISSIONERS O F JEFFERSON COUNTY, a body p o l i t i c , and VINCENT M. CAPP e t a l . , Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: District Court of t h e F i f t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Gordon R. Bennett, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant : Thomas Olson, County Attorney, Bozeman, Montana Donald E. White argued, Deputy County Attorney, Bozeman, Montana For Respondents: Allen LeMieux, County Attorney, argued, Boulder, Montana Submitted: January 9 , 1975 Decided : AN 3 1 1975 ', "'?a F i l e d : J A ! ? 2 - i~ . i Ilr. J u s t i c e Jehu donway Harrisor~ delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court . This i s an appeal from a judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t oL Jefferson County refusing t o t r a n s f e r t e r r i t o r y of an elemen- cary school d i s t r i c t i n t o a proposed j o i n t high school d i s t r i c t . The s o l e i s s u e on appeal is whether o r not t h e t r i a l cot.irt erred i n finding no abuse of d i s c r e t i o n by t h e Jefferson County school superintendent o r t h e Jefferson County commission- e r s i n denying a p e t i t i o n t o t r a n s f e r t e r r i t o r y between high scnool d i s t r i c t s . This a c t i o n was commenced by c e r t a i n r e s i d e n t s of J e f f e r - son County who send t h e i r children t o a j o i n t elementary school d i s t r i c t , No. 24 of G a l l a t i n County, t o t r a n s f e r t h e t e r r i t o r y of elementary school d i s t r i c t No. 2 4 , lying i n Jefferson County, t o e s t a b l i s h a j o i n t high school d i s t r i c t with t h e Three Forks High School d i s t r i c t . During the hearing t h e court allowed s u b s t i t u t i o n of George D . Ballard, Jr., a l o c a l taxpayer, a s party p l a i n t i f f . However, t h e deputy county attorney of Gallatin County continued t o present t h e o r i g i n a l p l a i n t i f f ' s case. P r i o r t o t h e commencement of t h i s a c t i o n t h e r e s i d e n t s of school d i s t r i c t No. 2 4 petitioned t h e county superintendent and t h e board of county commissioners of Jefferson County f o r such a t r a n s f e r of t e r r i t o r y hut were denied. They then appealed t o t h e s t a t e superintendent of public i n s t r u c t i o n but were ad- vised t h a t t h e i r only remedy was an a c t i o n i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . The record shows t h a t f o r t h e r e s i d e n t s here p e t i t i o n i n g Three Forks i s t h e i r trading center. They l i v e on t h e e a s t e r n border of Jefferson County and several years ago had success- f u l l y formed a j o i n t elementary school d i s t r i c t with t h e Three Forks d i s t r i c t . This and t h e f a c t t h a t t h e high school d i s t r i c t t o which they belong was about t o bond t o build a new high school a t Whitehall, prompted t h e i r p e t i t i o n t o form a j o i n t high school d i s t r i c t . The t r i a l c o u r t noted i n i t s f i n d i n g s of f a c t t h a t both t h e county superintendent i n h i s f i n d i n g s , and t h e board of county commissioners i n its review of t h e f i n d i n g s of t h e superintendent, took i n t o consideration t h e number of s t u d e n t s from J e f f e r s o n County a t t e n d i n g t h e elementary school and t h e high school a t Three Forks; t h e d i s t a n c e s and t h e time necessary f o r t h e s e s t u d e n t s t o t r a v e l by bus t o e i t h e r t h e Three Forks o r Whitehall schools; t h a t t u i t i o n was paid f o r a l l s t u d e n t s l i v i n g i n J e f f e r s o n County and a t t e n d i n g t h e Three Forks high school; t h e t a x problems of both schools, a s well a s t h e t a x s t r u c t u r e of both counties; t h e payments of e q u a l i z a t i o n funds and ANB funds; t h e i n t e r e s t s of t h e r e s i d e n t s , a s w e l l a s t h e i n t e r e s t s of t h e s t u d e n t s involved; and, found no abuse of d i s c r e t i o n on t h e p a r t of t h e county superintendent o r t h e board of county commissioners. F i r s t , w e note here t h a t while it i s not an i s s u e , t h e t r i a l c o u r t allowed f o r t h e s u b s t i t u t i o n of George D . Ballard, Jr. a s p l a i n t i f f . Ballard i s a taxpayer i n J e f f e r s o n County and i s a r e a l p a r t y i n i n t e r e s t and t h e s u b s t i t u t i o n was proper. The c o n t r o l l i n g s t a t u t e here is s e c t i o n 75-6526(5), R.C.M. 1947, p e r t a i n i n g t o organization of j o i n t high school d i s - t r i c t s and provides: " (5) * * * The board of county commissioners s h a l l conduct a hearing f o r t h e appeal, and t h e i r d e c i s i o n s h a l l be f i n a l * * *." Appellant a l l e g e s t h a t i n a t l e a s t t h r e e c a s e s , t h i s Court has recognized t h e r i g h t t o appeal a board of commissioners' d e c i s i o n where t h e r e has been an abuse of d i s c r e t i o n . H e a l l e g e s an abuse of d i s c r e t i o n i n t h e J e f f e r s o n board of county commis- s i o n e r s ' d e n i a l of t h e p e t i t i o n of t h e r e s i d e n t s of J e f f e r s o n County i n school d i s t r i c t No. 2 4 . Grant v. Michaels, 94 Mont. 452, 23 P.2d 266; Read v. Stephens, 1 2 1 Mont. 508, 193 P.2d 626; Barnard v. McInerney, 162 Mont. 309, 511 P.2d 330, 334, 30 S t . Rep. 656. I n o n l y one of t h e t h r e e c a s e s r e l i e d on by a p p e l l a n t d i d the Zourt f i n d an abuse of d i s c r e t i o n by t h e board of commission- s . I n Grant abuse was p a t e n t . I n comparing t h e c a s e s we n o t e : Grant This Case Area involved was 1 / 2 of a Very small p o r t i o n of J e f f e r s o n County. County. 300 q u a l i f i e d e l e c t o r s . 10 q u a l i f i e d e l e c t o r s . 212 s t u d e n t s involved. 3 o r 4 involved. Whitehall High School almost same t i m e away on I n t e r s t a t e f o u r l a n e A n a r e a of obvious l a c k of highway. Willow Creek h i g h school school f a c i l i t i e s . c l o s e r t h a n e i t h e r Three Forks o r Whitehall. T r a n s p o r t a t i o n f u r n i s h e d by elementary d i s t r i c t . Commissioners a c t e d 2 a g a i n s t Commissioners unanimous a g a i n s t . and 1 f o r . I commissioner a board member No such c o n f l i c t of i n t e r e s t here. of opposing d i s t r i c t Commissioners and s u p e r i n t e n d e n t Board found no contradicti-on h e r e considered i n t e r a l i a number t o p e t i t i o n . of s t u d e n t s , d i s t a n c e , t i m e of t r a v e l , t u i t i o n payments, equal- Evidence was c l e a r and undis- i z a t i o n and ANB payments, r e l a t e d puted t h a t people needed t a x impact, i n t e r e s t s of r e s i d e n t s f a c i l i t i e s of a new d i s t r i c t . and s t u d e n t s involved and m a t t e r s contained i n e x h i b i t s . Obvious p r e j u d i c e d i s p l a y e d N o b i a s by county s u p e r i n t e n d e n t o r i n r e c o r d . county commissioners. Having given weight t o such f a c t o r s i n c o n s i d e r i n g whether o r n o t t o make t h e t r a n s f e r w e f i n d a s d i d t h e t r i a l judge, no abuse of d i s c r e t i o n on t h e p a r t of t h e county c o m m i s s i o n e r s n ~ t h e county s u p e r i n t e n d e n t of schools. A p p e l l a n t ' s p e t i t i o n h e r e is s i m i l a r t o t h a t i n Barnard where t h i s Court found no abuse of d i s c r e t i o n by t h e Valley County a u t h o r i t i e s . The judgment is affirmed. , . -. L,-------,,,,,,,'l--LLLLLLL-~-- Chief J u s t i c e ............................... J u s t i c e s