Opinion ID: 1988925
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Authority Of Board To Order Referendum.

Text: The petitioners argue that this case must be sent back to the board because the board erred as a matter of law in deciding that it had no authority to order a referendum. Petitioners argue that the board's authority to modify an order of C.E.S.A. includes the authority to order a referendum where C.E.S.A. fails or refuses to do so. We hold that the board was correct in concluding that it did not have the authority to order a referendum. The board's authority to modify a C.E.S.A. order refers to a C.E.S.A. plan of reorganization and not to a C.E.S.A. refusal to grant a referendum. The only provision for a referendum is in sec. 117.02, Stats. and that section applies only to actions taken by C.E.S.A. C.E.S.A. may order such a referendum or a petition by the specified numbers of electors may force the holding of such referendum. C.E.S.A. did not order nor did the required number of electors so petition. Section 117.03, Stats. sets forth the authority of the board and no authority to order a referendum is given. Likewise, there is nothing in the statutes authorizing a petition for a referendum by electors following a decision by the board. In Joint School District v. State Appeal Bd., 56 Wis.2d 790, 203 N.W.2d 1 (1973), petitioners in the Wabeno School District sought to have a portion of that district attached to the White Lake School District. C.E.S.A. issued an order denying the proposed reorganization and the petitioners appealed to the state board. The board reversed C.E.S.A. and ordered reorganization. Mr. Volk and others, who were not among the original petitioners before C.E.S.A. appealed to the circuit court and that court affirmed the board's order. On appeal to this court Volk claimed that he had been denied equal protection because the petitioners before C.E.S.A. could have asked for a referendum and he could not do the same following the board's order. This court rejected Volk's argument as frivolous because any party aggrieved by the C.E.S.A. action was entitled to a referendum. This court then said: Any party `aggrieved' has precisely the same rights. The same situation applies when the reorganization is consummated by an order of the State Appeal Board. The parties are treated alike and neither has a right to a referendum, but the aggrieved party has a right to review by the courts. Joint School District at 56 Wis.2d 799. The petitioners rely on statutory construction to support their argument that a referendum may still be held after a state board hearing. Sec. 117.03 (3), Stats. (1975), supra provides that the board may . . . affirm, reverse or modify the order appealed from . . . and that the board's order shall be filed pursuant to sec. 117.01 (2) (c), Stats. (1975). Sec. 117.01 (2) (c) provides that a certified copy of any school reorganization order, . . . shall be filed within 10 days after it is made with the secretary of the agency school committee in which the proposed reorganized school district lies. Upon receipt of the order, the secretary of the agency school committee immediately shall place thereon the date upon which it was received and, within 5 days after receipt thereof, shall send by certified mail a certified copy of the order together with a certification of the date of mailing of the copy to the clerk of each school district, town, village, city and county affected and to the state superintendent. . . . Under sec. 117.01(2) (d), The appeal and referendum period shall run from the date the certified copies of the order are mailed by the secretary. Finally, sec. 117.02 (4) (a) provides in pertinent part that, If within thirty days after the date of mailing of an order of school district reorganization issued under this section, a petition requesting a referendum on the order and signed by a sufficient number of the electors of the territory included in the proposed reorganized school district is filed . . . (c) the order shall not become effective until it has been approved at the referendum . . . (Emphasis added.) From these statutes the petitioners argue that the state board must file its order of school reorganization with the agency school committee pursuant to sec. 117.01 (2) (c). When the order is mailed to the various school district and municipal clerks this act triggers the beginning of the thirty day period, mentioned in sec. 117.02(4) (a), during which electors in the territory can petition for referendum. [7] The board points out the weakness in this statutory interpretation. Sec. 117.02 (4) (a) refers to a reorganization order issued under this section, the section involved is sec. 117.02 and not sec. 117.03. Because the state board operates under sec. 117.03 and not sec. 117.02 the referendum provisions of sec. 117.02 (4) (a) do not apply to the board's actions. We do not discuss the petitioners' arguments concerning the legislative history of Ch. 117 because the statute is not ambiguous.