Opinion ID: 1267262
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Affected School Under W.Va.Code, 18-5-13a [29]

Text: The Board's next argument is that the circuit court erred in finding Valley High School was an affected school under the closings and consolidation plan and, as such, must also have notices of the Board's proposal posted to satisfy the requirements of W.Va.Code, 18-5-13a. [30] Under W.Va.Code, 18-5-13a, a school board is required to post a copy of the same notice as that published in the newspaper in conspicuous places in affected schools for the benefit of employees. The provision specifically states, in part: A copy of such notice shall be posted at the affected school in conspicuous working places for all professional and service personnel to observe, and such notice shall remain posted for four successive weeks prior to the date of the required public hearing. Moreover, closing and consolidation plans by county boards of education are further subject to any current rules and regulations of the state board of education relating to school closing or consolidation[.] W.Va.Code, 18-5-13a. The Board disagrees with the circuit court's finding [31] under this statute that notice posting at the affected schools will have to be repeated because of its finding that required postings were not made at all of the affected schools in a conspicuous place. However, the language of the statute itself does not suggest what should be considered an affected school in a school consolidation case. Thus, we limit our discussion under this error to the definition of the words affected schools to assist a trier of fact in any future analysis of this language. [32] The Board argues, in part, that we should look to Policy 6200 (1995), promulgated by the West Virginia Department of Education, to give content to the words affected schools. According to the Board's brief, Policy 6200 distinguishes between closing and consolidated schools and receiving schools. Under this argument, a school board is required to post notices for closure or consolidation in only those schools targeted for closure or consolidation as opposed to those who are receiving schools. Section 105 of Policy 6200 covers the rules for the closing and consolidation of schools. Several provisions of Policy 6200 make reference to the obligations of a school board in relation to schools targeted for closure or consolidation and those schools which will receive students affected. In fact, Section 105.07, which contains the provisions for notices and public hearing requirements, mirrors W.Va.Code, 18-5-13, and W.Va.Code, 18-5-13a, in many respects. Section 105.07.C. states: Copies of the notice of public hearing must also be posted in the school targeted for closure or consolidation in conspicuous working places for professional and service personnel to observe and shall remain posted for four successive weeks. (Emphasis added). Policy 6200 is not a legislative rule, instead it is a rule exempted from the ordinary requirements for legislative rulemaking; thus, it is entitled only to the deference it is due. [33] After comparing Section 105.07.C. with W.Va.Code, 18-5-13, and W.Va.Code, 18-5-13a, it is apparent Section 105.07.C. is inconsistent with the statutory provisions. While it is true that we generally give some deference to policy provisions of this nature, we will not defer to interpretations that conflict with the statute they purport to cover. Policy 6200 interprets the word affected in a very narrow and arbitrary fashion. Of course, the word affected must be limited in some fashion. However, as with the open meetings act discussed above, it is clear the Legislature intended a broad interpretation of the statutory provisions. As we stated in State ex rel. Jones v. Board of Education of Ritchie County, 178 W.Va. 378, 381, 359 S.E.2d 606, 609 (1987): The obvious intent of the statute is to insure that the public is aware of and has an opportunity to contribute to the county board's decision regarding consolidating or closing schools. Thus, limiting the term affected schools only to those actually targeted for closure and consolidation eliminates an entire series of schools that might be directly and substantially affected. Because Policy 6200 conflicts with the statute and the statute itself does not define the phrase in question, we must examine the ordinary usage of the word affect for assistance. Black's Law Dictionary at 57 (6th Edition 1990) gives the following definition for the word affect: To act upon; influence; change; enlarge or abridge; often used in the sense of acting injuriously upon persons or things. To lay hold of or attack...; to act or produce an effect or result upon; ... to touch. From the ordinary meaning of these words, we ascertain that affect generally means to have an impact on something. We cannot use this word in its broadest sense because this would lead to ridiculous resultsevery school in an area would then fall within the posting requirement because even a minimal increase in faculty or student population as a result of school consolidations or closings would affect another school. Although when interpreting statutes we give credence to the normal usage of the word, we will not construe strictly language so as to produce ridiculous results. In order to limit the language but yet still embrace the broad legislative goals of this statute, we find that the use of the word affected in the context of the statute suggests a more direct relationship between the proposed action and the targeted school. Any tenuous relationship between the action and a school will not qualify. Finding that there is a direct and substantial relationship between the proposal and the potential impact on a particular school ensures all schools that will be substantially impacted by the drastic changes that a school closing or consolidation will bring were given sufficient information in a timely fashion so that a response can be formulated. We leave the circuit courts the discretion to engage in a case-by-case analysis to determine what school might be an affected school within the meaning of the statute. In order to determine if a particular school qualifies as an affected school, a circuit court should ask whether the school in question will be touched sufficiently by the school board's proposal. Railway Labor Executives' Ass'n v. United States, 216 F.Supp. 101, 102 (E.D.Va.1963). In other words, will a proposal for school closing or consolidation have a real and measurable impact on a specific school, or will the effects be too indirect or attenuated materially to affect the school in question? Smith v. National Transp. Safety Bd., 981 F.2d 1326, 1328, 299 U.S.App.D.C. 124, 126 (1993). Acknowledging the appropriate standard for reviewing whether a school is an affected school does not end our analysis. The next issue that must be analyzed is whether consolidating a school necessarily implies that only those schools actually losing their identity as opposed to those receiving students could be affected by a closing or consolidation proposal. For this we examine the normal definition of the word consolidate. Consolidate has been defined as: In a general sense, to unite or unify into one mass or body, as to consolidate several small school districts into a large district, or to consolidate various funds.... The term means something more than to rearrange or redivide. To make solid or firm; to unite, compress, or pack together and form into a more compact mass, body, or system. To cause to become united and extinguished in a superior right or estate by both becoming vested in the same person. Black's Law Dictionary at 308 (6th Edition 1990). The Board suggests that in a school consolidation case the affected school is only the school that is sending students to another school. We reject this interpretation. We see no evidence within the statute to suggest there should be a distinction made between the giving and receiving school. Including receiving schools in the definition acknowledges the special problems and issues that will naturally arise from blending student populations. To make such a distinction is completely arbitrary and a strained reading of the statute. Moreover, it is evident that some schools would fit under the aforementioned definition of affected. To follow the Board's analysis would require this Court to accept the idea that those schools remaining to which students would be added under a consolidation plan undergo no significant changes. However, the Board's argument is flawed. The very definition of the word consolidate indicates at least two separate entities are transformed into an entirely new entity. Under the proposal, Valley High School and Gauley Bridge High School are to be consolidated. The school building and grounds of Valley High are apparently to remain open while Gauley Bridge's will close. Obviously, if the closing and consolidation plan goes through, there will be significant changes not only to Gauley Bridge High School's but to Valley High School's educational program as well. [34] Notably, Valley High School would have to plan for a massive influx of new students and possibly facultythis could mean rearranging even the most insignificant process to accommodate new students. [35] Although it is not possible to set up hard and fast rules for such a fact-intensive analysis, certainly any school specifically mentioned in a proposal that would be greatly changed if the plans are carried through would qualify as an affected school under W.Va.Code, 18-5-13a. The Board also argues that Valley High School is not an affected school because the mission and identity of Valley High School will continue without being changed except for the fact that it will receive certain of the students from Gauley Bridge High School. Unlike the Board claims, the school's identity cannot remain the same because of such a massive influx of students. A consolidation program by its very nature involves sudden and massive changes to the complexion of the school environment; it is a massive influx (or decrease, as the case may be) that is more than the usual ebb and flow of the student body or curriculum during an average school year. To say that Valley High School is not affected by the consolidation plan simply because it is a receiving school is ludicrous. There are no such linguistic limitations evident in the statute as suggested by the Boardin other words, the phrase affected school means only the school or schools targeted for closure or consolidated into another school. Because of the aforementioned reasons, we affirm the judgment of the Circuit Court of Fayette County on this issue and now hold that, at a minimum, all schools that are the objects of consolidation whether giving or receiving schools can qualify as affected schools within the meaning of W.Va.Code, 18-5-13a. [36]